Fuller's Corner (a conservative speaks out)

More Monday Musings

2009-02-02T15:52:00.002-05:00

Given the recent spate of high-level cabinet appointees that seem to have difficulty in properly paying their "fair share" of the national tax burden, I think this would be a prime opportunity to institute some more ethics reform in Washington.

My first proposal is that every member of the House and Senate, the President, and his entire cabinet, undergo yearly audits by the IRS. I don't think it is too much to ask that those responsible for writing, implementing, and enforcing tax law on the rest of us be held to the highest standard, and they should be able to prove that they are, in fact, leading by example in this area. I think, also, that in any year that they fail to meet at least 90% compliance, the rest of the taxpayers be given a full income tax refund for that year.

I think that, if we are to take Timothy Geithner at his word, that his failure to pay taxes on time was an honest mistake, that a serious conversation should be undertaken with him regarding reforming and simplifying the U.S. tax code. After all, if the head of the IRS cannot properly pay his taxes, why are all the rest of us lesser mortals expected to?

I think it is high time we stop honoring elected officials for "service to their country," as if they are making some huge sacrifice. Members of the military serve their country. National Guardsmen serve their country. Senators and Congressmen who receive compensation for their time in office, who often then go on to lucrative lobbying jobs afterwards, who draw cushy retirement packages even when they are ejected in shame, who use their positions to gain more power for themselves, are not serving anybody but themselves. Not since the early days of this country, when serving in the federal government actually was a hardship that was not worth the little money they were paid and the vast distances they had to travel has this been a sacrifice. Not since the days of the Continental Congress have these individuals had to risk anything for this service. People like Tom Daschle are not owed anything for their "service" to this country. If anything, we, the taxpayers, seem to be the ones sacrificing every time we elect these people to office.

Much was made of how hateful Republicans were not so long ago regarding false allegations that we liked to call Democrats unpatriotic. Well, hypocrisy seems to be the coin of the realm for liberals. One of the most recent emerging Hollywood actors-turned political expert, Tom Hanks, has leveled the charge of being "Un-American" at the entire Mormon church (the actual name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). Mr. Hanks is a fine actor, and I have enjoyed most of his movies. As of late, he has been behind the HBO series "Big Love" (Hanks is the executive producer), which has as its subject matter a polygamist family that is part of a sect that splintered off of the Mormon church. Recently, in promoting the series, Mr. Hanks made the allegation that members of the Mormon church gave the church money to pass Proposition 8 in California - the widely popular proposition that banned gay marriage, and passed with a majority of the vote. Note that Mormons do not comprise a majority of the population at large, or the voting populace, in the state of California - nevertheless, the church has received the majority of the vitriolic slander by people such as Mr. Hanks. Mr. Hanks is also incorrect in his statement - members of the church did not give money to the church to pass this, rather they were encouraged by the church leadership to do what they could to help it pass. Mr. Hanks then went on to say that, "There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American, and I am one of them." He later, through his publicist, issued an apology. How typical of liberal thought - speaking out and voting your conscience is apparently only American when it advances the agenda of the liberal pseudo-intellectual class of this country. All the rest of us are Un-American. I once thought that, in an occupation that has lately seemed to have lost all sense of decency, Mr. Hanks stood above the Sean Penns and Tim Robbins and had some class. Clearly I was premature in that judgment.

It just keeps getting better

2009-02-02T14:36:00.002-05:00

So it now becomes clear why Democrats can be so cavalier about raising taxes - as pointed out by a Republican Congressman this last week, it doesn't seem like any of them pay them in the first place. I'm not just talking about the poor that seem to overwhelmingly vote Democrat. I'm talking about the limousine liberals - the ones making upwards of 6 figures. You know, the "rich." Maybe Obama should reconsider his great plans to finance his massive spending proposals by increasing taxes on the "rich." If the actions of people like Timothy Geithner and Tom Daschle are any indication, he might not be bringing in that much more revenue - at least not unless they start nominating every rich person for a cabinet position, in which case they all seem to come to the realization that they made a few "innocent mistakes" on their taxes.

Daschle is the latest, and he makes Geithner look like a choir boy. Multiply the amount that Geithner shorted the IRS by 3, and you have the amount of money that Daschle "forgot" to pay in a 3-year period. Over $100K. How many people out there make over $100K in a year? And of course, Daschle only thinks to pay the money once he has already accepted the nomination to Secretary of HHS. Geithner was forgiven his "innocent mistake" of ~$40K because, supposedly, this genius of financial wisdom was for some reason essential to righting the economy, and nobody else could do the job - scary that, with as brilliant as he was supposed to be, he couldn't do his own taxes. So how do you make a similar argument for Daschle? His only experience is being a Senator and a lobbyist. I find it hard to believe that makes him indispensable for the position at HHS - especially since he showed no particular skills in this area while serving in the Senate.

Which brings me to my next question. Obama was going to run a more ethical ship than Bush. One of his first actions was to proclaim some of the strongest prohibitions against lobbyists in his administration that we have ever seen. But Daschle has been a lobbyist ever since he left the Senate. He has been lobbying for groups that stand to benefit hugely were he to head HHS. His wife is a long-time lobbyist.

I'm sorry - where is all this evidence regarding how brilliant our new president is? If his selections for his cabinet considered, the evidence is pretty thin - Daschle, Richardson, Holder, Geithner.

Finally, it is nice to see Republicans regaining their feet. They have absolutely no power right now in the House, and their ability to filibuster in the Senate is hanging on by the thinnest of threads. And yet they are winning the PR war over the "stimulus" bill. I shouldn't get too excited, because House Democrats made it a pretty easy target. I'm not sure how payouts to Filipino veterans of WWII - in the Philippines - is going to stimulate our economy. Or how money to prevent STDs is going to stimulate anything - at least financially speaking. The master stroke was to come up with their own plan, and then evaluate it based on criteria espoused by one of Obama's own chief economic advisors - and having their plan cost less and stimulate more job production than the House bill that Obama supports. The result? Republicans continue to talk tough, and Democrats - especially Senate Democrats - are already on the defensive, talking about how, obviously, certain things will need to be cut. Whatever happened to the wonderful stimulus bill that Obama promised us, that would be free of any earmarks? Is this the kind of Hope and Change we were promised?

Right now, I could use a little more global warming!

2009-01-15T11:14:00.002-05:00

I'm very seriously contemplating a letter to Al Gore at this moment, asking for his advice on what products available to consumers are the worst emitters of greenhouse gases . . . so I can go buy them. Seriously, we are seeing places in the U.S. hitting lows not seen since the 1930's (maybe the weather is also getting nostalgic for FDR and the New Deal!). Seriously, I think we can kill two birds with one stone here - why don't we provide vouchers to people to go buy more SUV's to pump more carbon into the atmosphere. In doing that, we will get global warming back on track from its decade vacation, thus restoring some credibility to the climate change lobby and validating Al Gore's Nobel "Peace" prize, and we can also make our beloved American automakers solvent again. Win-win.

Seems like the only area in the nation currently experiencing warming is Washington, D.C., where the extensive hot air emanating from committee chambers - where supposed "confirmation hearings" - are being held, should warm the cold hearts of our elected betters - I mean leaders. It is amusing to watch Democrats pretend to be giving tough hearings to these nominees. Today it is Eric Holder. He wants to be the Attorney General. There is much talk about how this office should be an independent body, not subject to political machinations. Keep in mind that this is the same Eric Holder who, while the number 2 at the Justice Department during the closing days of the Clinton administration - helped to push through the pardons of Marc Rich and the FALN terrorists. The FALN terrorist pardon, as is widely believed, helped to secure Puerto Rican votes in New York for Hillary Clinton's Senate election. The Marc Rich pardon followed closely on the heels of a very sizable donation from Rich's wife to President Clinton. Both pardons were a huge shock to pretty much everybody - completely sidestepping the usual practice of conferring with other justice department officials over pardons. This guy practically has "political hack" tattooed across his forehead.

Soon we will also have hearings regarding Geithner for Treasury Secretary. I discussed him in my last post. Surprisingly little is made of his delinquency in paying taxes for 4 years of income. Many explain it away as an honest mistake. Excuse me? Nearly $40,000 over 4 years? An honest mistake? No, an honest mistake is not knowing whether a particular purchase is qualified as an exemption. An honest mistake is forgetting to attach your W2 to your 1040. Forgetting that the U.S. government taxes the income of its citizens making over a certain amount of money each year? That is hardly a mistake. This guy has a large enough income to hire illegals to clean his house - I doubt there was any confusion as to whether he made enough money to have to pay taxes. I also seriously doubt that 2001 was the first year he made enough to pay taxes, so it would not have been a new thing for him. Surely his accountant brought it to his attention that he needed to write a big check in April. Give me a break. And this guy should be put in charge of the Treasury and the IRS? Isn't this what they nabbed Capone for? Where is Elliot Ness when you need him? Oh yeah, this guy would be his boss!

One more bit of hypocrisy for the day. Think back to 2005, and the second Bush inauguration. The price tag for that event was in the $40-50 million range - lower than that of his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Yet, at the time, reporters, particularly from Reuters and the AP, were heavy with their criticism of the high price tag. How much armor for Humvees could that money buy? How many homeless could be housed? How many uninsured could receive healthcare? On and on. How could the president spend that much money at a time of war? Fast forward to today - the current price tag for the Obama coronation is estimate at around $150 million, or 3 times that of the 2005 event. Obama has increased the maximum donation by almost double that which was allowed by Bush (up to $500,000). A state of emergency is being declared for the D.C. area for this thing - the city is being shut down. Fighting is still going on in the Middle East - I can only assume Humvees can still use some more armor. Obama continue to talk about the dire situation that our economy faces - the worst since the Great Depression! What do the media say? We need to have a world class celebration! It is a time for rejoicing! Let them eat cake!

Seriously, how quickly would Obama be sainted were he to come out and say that, in light of the financial crisis facing our nation, and the huge burden he is seeking to add to our national debt, he will forego the spectacle of the inauguration and instead use the $150 million for something actually useful - buying healthcare for uninsured children, paying for infrastructure he wants to update, bail out imperiled homeowners from mortgages they can't pay off, shore up failing financial institutions! Seriously, $150 million would provide almost 5 times the amount of the last chunk of money Citigroup got in this bailout - which has resulted in them on the verge of collapsing with shares trading at $4, down from $54 not too long ago. Were he to do that, the combined Democratic party would trudge through the hell-freezing-over temperatures to the Dakotas and collectively remake Mt. Rushmore with only one likeness - the Chosen One, His Holiness, Saint Barack Obama, the healer of planets and savior of nations.

On the Transition

2009-01-14T12:07:00.002-05:00

Recently, while working out at my local YMCA, I was reading the captions on the TV in front of me, which was tuned to CNN. Not my usual choice for news, but my options were non-existent. The commentators were discussing the recent meeting between President Bush, Senator Obama (I've chosen to follow the lead of my Democratic counterparts in 2001, and not call him President-elect), and a few other living presidents. What they found so refreshing was what they referred to as the era of "nice." It was so nice, how gentlemanly Pres. Bush was treating Obama, graciously hosting, even acting as Obama's chief-of-staff in getting the next $350 billion in TARP money to put in Obama's petty cash box. Imagine that, Bush acting nice. I realize that is a novel concept for those on the left who have spent most (if not all) of the last 8 years portraying Bush as anything from an incompetent spoiled rich kid, to a bloodthirsty tyrant in the mold of Adolf Hitler. It must also be novel to them, given the picture we had during the last transition in 2001. At that time, President Clinton was too busy signing a slew of last minute pardons for unrepentant terrorists, convicted profiteers who did business with Iran, and whoever else Hugh Rodham lined up, to notice his staff prying all of the W's off of computer keyboards like a bunch of high school pranksters. Perhaps he couldn't trouble himself with such details while trying to determine which items in the White House he would abscond with.

At any rate, now the liberal media seems quite shocked that Bush is, well, nice. Of course, one individual felt the need to suggest that Obama should not be too nice, as now it is time for him to start the investigations, and that he should be downright mean in punishing anybody from the outgoing Bush administration that they can possibly subpoena. Good to know civility is not dead. Ignore the fact that Bush chose to overlook a myriad of issues with the Clinton administration in their final days. Democrats don't need to be nice.

More entertainment with Obama appointments. His pick for Treasury Secretary (you know, the person who oversees the IRS), Timothy Geithner, seems to have problems with filing taxes. That's right - the potential new taxmaster for all of us can't seem to pay his taxes on time. In 2006, he was audited for tax years 2003 and 2004, and ended up having to pay over $16,000 in back taxes and penalties. Then, AFTER Obama picked him as his Treasury Secretary, he "amended" his 2001 and 2002 returns, paying nearly $26,000 more. The man who will make sure you and I are paying our taxes can't seem to do it properly himself. That's comforting. Will we be given similar grace periods, should we be 7 years delinquent? Nevermind the fact that he also had a housekeeper working for him who had an expired work visa - why is it Democrats have the hardest time with that? And I thought it was the GOP that was the party of the rich elite - why is it that we are always hearing about these housekeepers for Democrats? Honestly, how many does he have on staff, that he can't keep track of things? I'm sure he is in touch with the middle class.

Poor John Kerry - he just can't catch a break. In opening statements for Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing as Secretary of State, he had to make a point about how dire a situation global warming is. He has about as good of timing on this issue as does Al Gore. The nation was being rocked with frigid temperatures, actual global warming is entering the 10th year of its hiatus, and arctic sea ice has swelled to levels not seen in 3 decades. Does he even pretend to know what he is talking about? He'd better watch out - any more of this global warming, and he might not be able to do any windsurfing out there at Martha's Vineyard.

It looks like the Keynesiacs that are in charge of running our country are drooling at the mouth to drive us further into debt. How many companies have we now bailed out, and how much money has been shoveled in to the economy? What do we have to show for it? And the only answer seems to be, "Well, let's toss in the other $350 billion, then add close to $1 trillion more." It amazes me how many people hear the same tune from Democrats (and, sadly, so many misguided Republicans), and think it is the new hit tune. More money, more money, more money. Democrats have no other answer to solving problems. Kids are failing in schools? Give schools/teachers more money. Not enough people have health insurance? Pour more money in. Social Security is failing? More money. Not enough people have houses? More money. That is their only answer. That and more talks. Talking and shoveling money onto something - that is the sum total of their playbook. Sometimes the two go hand in hand. Consider how the Clinton administration handled North Korea - more talks, and more money, in the form of grain shipments and nuclear reactors. What was the result? Nuclear weapons being tested in North Korea.

The next great new idea for Democrats, as represented by Obama, is to use a failed idea from over 70 years ago to solve our current financial problems. Obama wants a new New Deal. If its all the same, I'd rather not. Remember, the New Deal didn't actually get us out of the Great Depression. In fact, increased spending on infrastructure, as well as isolationism in the form of increased tariffs (similar to Obama's rhetoric) almost certainly drove the depression to be bigger than it needed to be. The New Deal programs, then, served to prolong it. Although it isn't discussed much, there was actually a further recession within the Great Depression, several years into the FDR administration. His New Deal programs were actually discouraging economic recovery by funneling money into government projects that were inefficient and punitive to private companies. It took over a decade to recover - how exactly were those programs effective? One needs only look at the TVA. The areas immediately around TVA controlled areas actually saw a greater increase in prosperity than those supposedly benefited by the TVA. To this day, the TVA is still a money-losing venture. Were it not for the fact that they enjoy greater liberties than any private utilities company is afforded, they would have been driven out of existence long ago.

Wonderful things on the horizon. I just can't wait to see how the next year will unfold.

Life in the Opposition

2009-01-06T11:26:00.004-05:00

Well, I can't say that I am happy to once again be in the minority, but as was learned back in '92, it definitely has its advantages. For one, playing offense is so much more enjoyable than playing defense. However, it seems the Democrats are trying to steal all of our thunder. What do I mean? Let's consider the following:

Illinois. Illinois politics is kind of like the Sopranos. Lots of corruption. Lots of foul language. Lots of shady dealings. But one heck of an entertaining show. And that is just referring to the Blago scandal. You have to empathize with the guy - but just a little bit. I mean, honestly, trying to sell Obama's senate seat could not be an original invention of this guy. Consider the on-his-way-out individual appointed by the Massachusetts governor to fill the vacated seat of then recently-elected JFK, thus making it extremely easy for brother Ted to run in the next election for that seat. Coincidence? Only a political Pollyanna believes in coincidences when it comes to politics (and Kennedys). Blago also gives us high entertainment in, once again, forcing Democrats to play defense on the race issue. These guys really don't know what to do with themselves. Usually it is the GOP that has these issues leveled at them. Dems don't know what to do when the gun is turned on them. Cases in point - Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Geraldine Ferraro having the race card played against them.

Obama. Not even coronated . . . I mean inaugurated yet, and already a cloud over his head. Most presidents don't have to perform internal investigations of their staffers until after they hang the new drapes in the Oval Office. Already Obama has had to conduct one regarding whether anything untoward occurred, from his end, regarding the Blago scandal (and wasn't it amazing how his own people found that they had done nothing improper?). Rahm Emmanuel was up to his neck in it. Now Bill Richardson is having to withdraw his name for consideration for Commerce Secretary, because, come to find out, he might be under investigation for corruption in some shady pay-to-play deals in New Mexico. Never mind that the investigation was under way before he was named for the position. Turns out that a contract was awarded to a company that did not offer the best bid, and, coincidentally, the deal went through not too long after that company had made a sizable contribution to Richardson's election coffers. Concerning coincidences in politics, please see the preceding paragraph.

Now Obama has picked Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Didn't even run that one by Dianne Feinstein, the incoming Senate Intelligence Committee Chair. Surely you all are aware of his extensive credentials for running the top intelligence position in the country at a time when we are engaged in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, when Gaza and Israel are locked in combat, when Iran threatens to develop nuclear weapons, when Russia haphazardly runs roughshod over former Soviet republics and threatens budding democracies in Eastern Europe. Oh, wait, he has none. Well, that certainly shows Obama's intellect and wisdom. While he is at it, maybe he can quickly, after he is inaugurated, pardon ponzi schemer-extraordinaire, and former Democrat and liberal fundraiser, Berny Madoff so he can name him to be the next Treasury Secretary. That is, of course, unless he chooses to pardon first his erstwhile real estate sugar daddy, Tony Rezko, and give him that position. Perhaps he could, at the same time, appoint Bill Ayers to some worthy position - say Homeland Security?

You see, he really could do all of the above. Honestly, nobody in the dinosaur media is going to call him on it. Sure, the Code Pinkers are going to be upset that he has not yet condemned Israel for retaliating against Hamas, which has been firing rockets into Israel, and still hold Gilad Shalit, without even access to Internation Red Cross observers. Where is the outrage over those violations of Geneva Conventions?

Apparently, though, Obama's powers are already showing effect, and he hasn't even taken possession of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As I type, the rise of global temperatures, spurred on by our excessive and willful pumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, is in the 10th year of its hiatus. Arctic sea ice has rebounded to levels not seen in nearly 3 decades. For crying out loud, they had to pull out the snow shovels recently in Las Vegas, as hell, literally, froze over. Its amazing. And Obama did all of that just while playing in Hawaii! Imagine the paradisiacal glory this planet will achieve once he actually enters his kingdom - scratch that, I mean, takes the oath of office!

Where Is My Bailout?

2008-11-11T17:09:00.000-05:00

So it seems now that the government is going to prop up every failed business that comes hat in hand. Apparently you can make an inferior, crappy product, but still get my tax dollars to prop you up, so long as you are "too big to fail." I love this line of reasoning. Because a company is big enough, we need to ensure that it stays afloat peddling garbage. Squandered money loaning it to people that couldn't afford it? No problem, we'll keep you going. Building crappy cars that chug gas faster than frat boys chugging beer at a kegger, all when gas prices are skyrocketing? Hey, you are an American institution! And besides, those are good union jobs we need to protect!

So many people are heralding the collapse of free-market capitalism in all of this. But how can it be, when this isn't really a free market we are seeing collapse? The American auto industry has been bogged down by so many things for so long - the strangulation of unions, the incessant regulation of standards by the government, their inability to stick a finger in the wind and discern that now is the time for fuel efficiency. So the government's answer is to bail them out. Why is it that we think it is a good thing to prop up a failed enterprise? I know, people will lose jobs. But that is not the job of the government to control. You lose one job, you go look for another. There is no right guaranteed by any of our founding documents to the job of your choosing for the rest of your natural life, including retirement and healthcare benefits. We are guaranteed the right of the pursuit of happiness, not a guaranteed happiness.

I suppose it is to be expected, though. Consider that this is the modus operandi of the modern liberal mindset - especially since FDR and the New Deal, and LBJ and the Great Society. So ingrained is it now in society, that even supposed "conservative" Republicans support massive government bailouts. The mindset is this idea that the way to solve any problem is to throw more money, preferably government money (after all, it just grows on trees, or flows freely from the pockets of the greedy rich) at it. Call it Keynes on steroids. Public education failing? Well, give it some more money. Companies failing because they gave mortgages to people with no income? Bail them out. We couldn't think of holding anybody responsible! American car companies making crap that doesn't sell and strangled by unions? Quick! Somebody write them a check! Can't get enough people to vote Democratic to win the presidency? Promise "tax cuts" to the 45% of Americans who don't pay taxes in the first place!

It is not bad for bad companies to fail. The world doesn't end. Ever wonder why you don't see many stagecoach manufacturers anymore? They made a product that nobody wanted to buy anymore, so they ceased to exist. Notice the railroad sleeper car industry is also not what it used to be? Or how ocean liner-as mode of transpotation is practically non-existent? When people no longer want your product, or you just aren't doing a good job anymore, you probably need to say your fairwells. Why should my tax dollars pay for something we don't want anymore?

It is telling that so many people think that government should step in and meet every need out there. Can't get a job? Government will take care of that. Can't pay for medical insurance? No problem, we'll get right to work on that. Bought more house than you can afford? Don't worry, we'll get those greedy rich people to pay your mortgage. Besides, you were probably deceived when you got the mortgage in the first place. They should have known that you wouldn't necessarily understand that you needed to have an income to afford a mortgage.

All the while, numerous people go about their lives they way they should. When the bills come, they pay them. When they want a house, they save for it. When their job doesn't pay enough to support their family, they look for another job. If their company is going under, they start looking to relocate. What happens to these people under these circumstances? They get screwed. They pay double. Not only are they caring for themselves, but their tax dollars are also going to prop up those who don't want to actually have to work for what they want. These are the people who, when they realize they need medical insurance, they get a job that provides it, rather than complain that nobody is giving it to them.

The bottom 50% of earners in this country pay less than 10% of the total tax revenues. And yet they believe they are being screwed over when wealthy people see tax cuts. Basic mathematics seem to fail them. They can't see that if you cut taxes by, say, 10%, then in terms of absolute dollars, of course the guy paying $10,000 is going to keep more money than the guy paying $10. Along come politicians that tell them that they deserved that $1,000 in tax cuts - even though they were only paying $10 in the first place, and the rich person, still paying $9,000, is screwing them over.

But in doing this, crafty politicians, like our newest president-elect, ensure their future victories. When they promise handouts to more than 50% of the people, they guarantee their establishment in power. The only hope for their downfall, then, is the economic disaster that inevitably follows such policies. Confiscatory taxation that punishes the productive members of the society to prop up the unproductive is self-limiting. Eventually the goose stops laying golden eggs - either it dies, or it moves to another country that is cheaper to work in.

So congratulations! It looks like we, the taxpayers, now own investment banks, AIG, and pretty soon, we will also own the "big" 3 automakers. Who wouldn't be excited? We just bought some pretty massive failing companies! While we're at it, is it too late to buy the American Motors Corporation and bring back the Pacer and the Gremlin? And hey, is DeLorean for sale? For that matter, I don't think it is too late to pay top dollar for the rights to keep producing the Betamax player, or the Laser Disc, or 8-track players? I think I've got some K.C. and The Sunshine Band 8-tracks!

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

2008-11-05T12:36:00.001-05:00

In spite of my earlier griping, I actually did go and vote for McCain. Never say never, I guess. It didn't matter. McCain, to my mind, was almost as weak a candidate as Dole in '96. We knew this would be a hard election. It is always hard for the incumbent party to win a third term. Bush had low ratings. Iraq is unpopular. We needed someone strong. McCain wasn't it. Never was. All the talk of him being a good closer was always BS. Where was that good closing in 2000? Has he had some nailbiters in recent elections in Arizona that I'm unaware of that he came from behind to win? He didn't close well on his immigration bill (thank goodness). The guy pulled less punches fighting his own party than he did with Obama.

Obama won. He is to be congratulated. He won with the largest margin of any Democrat since Johnson. He outperformed Clinton (both times) and Carter (not necessarily a high bar to overcome, but, still). Now let us see if it really all was jut hot air regarding how an Obama presidency would finally transcend race in this country. Can we now do away with quotas and affirmative action and race-based admissions? Do we really need them when a black man can win the presidency with a commanding majority, and not just a plurality?

I sincerely pray that my fears of an Obama presidency won't come true, but I worry that is too much to hope for. He has the White House, and Dems have even stronger majorities in both houses of Congress - better than the Republicans had. Not filibuster-proof, but on the right issues, it just might, given that there are still some very fickle GOP senators in there, who I place as much faith in regarding their stalwart GOP-loyalty as I do in my 3-year old obeying me - I am happy when it happens, but nor surprised when it doesn't.

Dems now have what they wished for - the legislative and executive branches. If predictions are true, they should also be able to solidify a Roe-worshipping panel in the judiciary to ensure that this travesty of a decision is never given any serious threat. Obama campaigned in the primaries as very liberal. In the general, he tacked more to the center. It is hard to say exactly which was more accurate - because we know so little about him. What little we do know makes his centrist statements ring hollow. We know that in his very limited career as a U.S. Senator, he voted more liberal than anybody else in the Senate. We know he amassed a liberal voting record, when not voting present, in the Illinois senate. We know he has made some very liberal statements in interviews in the past. We know he has associated with some extremely radical people in his life - Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger, Khalidi. We know he has also associated with some criminal figures - Rezko. Do I think he espouses their most vicious beliefs? No. Do I think he has some common ground with them? Yes. And that is what scares me. I don't think he wants to bomb government buildings, like Ayers did. But does he agree with Ayers' radical views on education? And will that be reflected in his appointments in education positions? I don't think he supports the terrorist actions of the PLO. But will he share an antipathy towards Israel, our only staunch and reliable ally in the Middle East? And if I don't believe that he has the same hateful feelings towards American and its government that Wright has, I also believe he won't stand up to those who do, so long as having their support is politically advantageous.

I fear that Obama and Reid and Pelosi will take this opportunity to pass a myriad of leftist legislative pieces that they have been dying to pass for some time now. Card check. Freedom of Choice. Fairness Doctrine. "Tax cuts" to the 45% of Americans who don't even pay taxes in the first place. He said that he will cut the taxes on 95% of Americans, that he will only raise taxes on the top 5%, those making $250,000/year and above. But the IRS numbers don't match. According to the IRS, the threshold for the top 5% of earners is $153,542. Maybe that is why the number that Joe Biden was saying was $150,000, not $250,000. Or why Bill Richardson put the line at $120,000. The top 5%, people earning $153,542 and above, already pay 60% of income taxes. The bottom 50% pay 2.99%. The threshold for the bottom 50% is <$32,000. So half the people pay only 3% of taxes. How are they being punished by "tax cuts to the rich?" Democrats would do well to remember the lesson the DNC learned in 1994, and the one learned by the GOP in 2006. Overreaching is a temptation, and it is often very costly in midterm elections. I believe, though, that the temptation will be too great, and the hunger too strong, and we will see some very aggressive, very liberal action quickly, while a whipped GOP mistakenly views yesterday as a message to get out of the way.

This was not a historic election based on voter turnout. 3 million fewer votes were cast in this election than in 2004. There was a 9 million vote swing between 2004 and 2008, because Obama pulled in 3 million more votes than Kerry did, and did it brilliantly in some key states, while McCain pulled in 6 million fewer votes than Bush did. McCain was not the man to win this election.

And for the GOP? Make no mistake, the GOP is in trouble. But conservatism is not. Why? No conservative has lost. McCain was no conservative. His proudest achievements have been those where he crossed the aisle and put together some horrible legislation with some pretty liberal Democrats (Feingold?). His biggest ally is a center-left Scoop Jackson-style quasi-Democrat, Joe Lieberman. The GOP in the House and Senate haven't been conservative for quite some time - maybe back when they were opposing Clinton, but not since Bush got in. We all wanted Bush to be conservative, and he was on social issues, but he never was on spending - "compassionate conservatism" is code for moderate. No, this was not a defeat of a conservative GOP - this was 1976 and Gerald Ford, or 1996 and Bob Dole.

My fear now is that we are going to turn the reigns over to CINOs - conservatives in name only. I love Giuliani, but he is no conservative. I love Romney, but he is, at best, a recent convert to conservatism, and not convincingly so yet. Huckabee? I can't stand him. Still can't. Not only is it a hoax to claim him as any kind of conservative standard bearer, but on a personal note, after his belittling my religious beliefs to boost him ahead of Romney, I now find the man repugnant, and wouldn't support him for local dogcatcher.

Palin shows promise, but she came out too early. I liked her, but it was not a wise move by McCain. I think she will make a great candidate someday, but by adding her to the ticket, McCain effectively negated his "experience" argument against Obama. She was a first term governor. She has done some good things there, and I think she is a rising star. I hope this hasn't soured her chances in the future. Jindal also has the potential to come out as a star for the GOP. In my mind, he was a much stronger choice than Palin, which is why I am glad he wasn't picked. I never thought McCain would win, and worried that any running mate would have been tarnished from it. To my mind, McCain would have done well to pick Fred Thompson. I think Fred would have been a formidable opponent, and I think he would have talked rings around Biden.

So there it is. Democrats, you now have your dreams realized. A black Democrat in the White House, Bush out, and commanding majorities in Congress, the likes of which Democrats haven't seen for 3 decades. But you know what they say. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Beginning inauguration day, 2009, all of this becomes yours. You own it. Bad economic numbers? Your fault. Troops still in Iraq? Your fault. Death toll rising in Afghanistan? Your fault. Jobless numbers rising? Your fault. No more blaming others. No more blaming Bush. You want the troops out? Take them out, like you pledged to. Nobody left to stop you. "Rich" not paying their "fair share" in taxes? Raise them, and watch revenues fall, jobs fall, jobs shipped overseas to more business-friendly tax environments, and the economy plunging further into recession.

I now get to be the happy warrior, playing the loyal opposition. Don't worry, I am not going to mimic my colleagues on the left, and spend the next 4 years (Oh, dear Lord, let it be only 4) drawing depictions of Obama as a Nazi. But don't tell me to support him either, any more than acknowledging that he is my president. That I will do. But turnabout is fair play.

Super Tuesday Follow-up

2008-02-06T10:55:00.001-05:00

I'll admit it, my prospects look bleak. I know that I am being labeled as one of those angry conservatives who is willing to cut off his nose to spite his face. But I still won't vote for McCain or Huckabee, and I certainly won't vote for a McCain/Huckabee ticket. I am not counting Romney out yet, but it is going to take a miracle right now for him to beat McCain. Especially if Huckabee stays in it and we continue to have more West Virginia scenarios play out where Huckabee runs block for McCain.
Maybe McCain can win the general election. However, I am far from convinced of that. In race after race last night, the individual totals in each state for either Obama or Clinton, regardless of who won the state, in many cases totaled more than the combined vote counts for all of the Republican candidates. Right now, it looks like McCain is cinching up the nomination to be a less likable Bob Dole.
Maybe a McCain presidency would be more conservative than I think. Let's hope so. But I won't bet on it. If Republicans do poorly in this election in the Senate and the House, and the Democrats gain a filibuster proof majority, does anybody really believe that McCain would have any objection to signing his immigration bill, unchanged, if sent to his desk? Or would a Republican minority stand up to him on the issue? Sure, they stood up to Bush when he was riding low in the polls, but a newly elected president? Or what about taxes? And we know he will sign legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research. Let's face it, a McCain presidency is just as much of a crap shoot as a Clinton presidency. McCain takes it as a point of pride that he has stood in opposition to conservative principles. Stop citing to me his conservative rating from 20 years ago. Maybe he was more conservative then. He isn't now. They have to bring Bob Dole out of retirement to tell us that back when he was in the Senate (1992), McCain was a good conservative?
I know, I know, Reagan signed the last terrible immigration bill, so McCain is just the same as Reagan. Bull crap! Maybe Reagan did sign that bill, but if he were here now, in the presidency, he would look at what a failure that one was, and realize that signing a bill that goes even further would be sheer lunacy. Reagan also would not have opposed the Bush tax cuts because they, as McCain described, would only benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. McCain is not the logical heir of Reagan. I agree that Romney isn't either, but an ascending conservative, to me, is preferable to a descending conservative who has a freakish desire to be loved by the mainstream media, and loves poking a stick in the eyes of conservatives to get that media adoration.
Sorry, if you are telling me my choices are Hillary and McCain, I may have to sit this one out.

I will not vote for McCain (or Huckabee)!

2008-02-05T13:49:00.001-05:00

There it is. I have said it. I would rather see a Democrat in the White House (not with my vote, though) than vote for either of these two. Here is why:
McCain will sign McCain/Kennedy, if it were to come to his desk. He has said he would. This immigration bill was a travesty that President Bush should have never supported. The fact that McCain spoke with such disdain, and perpetuated the myth that those of us who opposed his bill were anti-immigration and racist xenophobes only solidifies in my mind that he doesn't deserve my vote.
McCain gave us McCain/Feingold, a law that helped to rob such groups as those who are pro-life and pro-gun rights of their 1st amendment right to free speech in letting people know how their incumbent representatives in Washington stand on those issues.
McCain considered the possibility of running as John Kerry's running mate in 2004. Enough said.
McCain formed the Gang of 14 that permitted the Democrat minority to block votes on conservative justices to federal courts.
McCain voted both times against the Bush tax cuts. I don't believe his current reasoning that it was because they weren't coupled with spending cuts. At the time, he sounded just like Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, objecting to the tax cuts because they would only benefit the rich - typical class warfare rhetoric.
McCain wants to shut down the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility, presumably relocating these homicidal maniacs to United States soil, where the ACLU will have a greater ability to get them constitutional protections they are not entitled to.
McCain voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation. He feels that Justice Alito is too conservative. And now you really expect me to believe that he will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
McCain is perhaps even more liberal on environmental policies than even Clinton or Obama.
McCain opposes drilling in ANWR.
He is not the consistent conservative he paints himself as. In 2007, now that he has a shot at the nomination, he thinks that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. However, in 1999 he said we would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade. In addition, his support of embryonic stem cell research hardly makes him a stalwart pro-life champion.
Let's not forget his role in the Keating 5 scandal, because you know the Democrats won't. Back then he wasn't so opposed to taking soft money.
The only area I agree with McCain on is the war. But let's face it. If Hillary wins the election, she is going to do whatever is going to help her the most, regardless of what she has promised up until now. Not a single one of her policy positions has remained firm since she started this race. If Iraq is going well when she took office, she would no sooner withdraw troops and risk being blamed for stealing defeat from the jaws of victory than shoot herself in the head. And if things go south on her, then 2012 should be a cake walk. The country will be able to see once and for all why it is that Republicans claim that Democrats are weak on defense. I don't think breaking down at negotiations is going to impress Ahmadinejad as much as it did with those saps in New Hampshire.

And let's not forget the spoiler, Mike Huckabee. Other than his evangelical Christian credentials, it is amazing that so many people view this man as the standard bearer of the conservative cause, especially considering how much water he is now carrying for McCain. With the exception of Giuliani, I can't think of anybody that has kissed up to McCain more in the last little while. Huckabee can't win, and he knows it. Does it seem odd to anybody else that Huckabee is running a campaign against Romney, the guy who is in 2nd place, rather than against McCain, the frontrunner? It was McCain that bumped him out in South Carolina, not Romney. Huckabee has run a vicious attack against Romney, slurring his religion, and now is running a campaign to split the conservative vote so that the nomination will go to McCain, hoping that he might get a juicy position in a McCain presidency, maybe even as a running mate, that could then propel him to the top spot later on. I don't believe that McCain will kill the Republican party, I believe that Huckabee will.

Now I am not going to argue that Romney is the most conservative guy out there, or that he is the legitimate heir to the Reagan legacy. I do believe that he will be more conservative than Bush, whereas McCain will be more liberal than Bush. I do believe that Romney is the more capable in terms of economic policy. Romney was not always as conservative as he now seems. But I would rather have a candidate that once seemed more liberal, but lately has become more conservative, as opposed to a man who used to be more conservative, but lately has become more liberal. And I certainly wouldn't vote for a man who has been, and remains, liberal, but who says, "Vote for me, because I'm a Christian."

Romney is the person who needs to win the nomination. Nobody else will get my vote. It won't kill the Republican party if McCain wins. We will be back to where we were in 1976. It will be a good opportunity to purge the party of RINOs. We have finally jettisoned people like Lincoln Chafee. Maybe the silver lining in all of this is that if McCain wins the nomination, we will at least not have him in the Senate anymore.

Musings on a Wednesday afternoon

2007-12-12T15:32:00.000-05:00

"Have we stopped the war in Iraq? No. Have we gotten health care? No. Have we improved education? No. But we have been able to do what we've done. We've done a lot of things." Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Roll Call, Monday, Dec. 10, 2007

So, what exactly have they been able to do? Well, they tried to oppose the surge. And now the surge is working. Just ask John Murtha. Let's see, I think they raised the minimum wage. Anything else? Oh, right, endless investigations. How is that working for them? Seems like a pretty poor return that Democrat voters got on their efforts in the '06 elections.
So I am assuming, if you care anything about politics, you have heard the biggest bombshell regarding the use of waterboarding in interrogation of terrorists. If not, it goes something like this. Democrats have been beating the Bush administration over the head, demagoguing like crazy, implying that the Bush administration approves of torture, because it has allowed a total of 3 very high al Qaeda terrorists to undergo this technique for a combined total of 3 minutes, in exchange for which we received incredibly valuable information. Waterboarding is torture because politicians say it is, and it makes a nice stick to beat the President over the head with. Only problem is that now those intelligence people who have for so long been leaking information to the press that gives the Bush administration a black eye have now bitten the hand that feeds them and let slip that top lawmakers, including Democrats like current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, had received extensive briefing regarding the use of waterboarding, and either gave their tacit approval, or, at the very least, expressed no disapproval with the technique. In fact, some even questioned whether that was enough. So to turn one of their favorite questions on them, I would ask, "Madam Speaker, what did you know, and when did you know it?" And did she approve of waterboarding before she disapproved of it?
Finally, you have to really wonder whether the kid gloves that the media is using to treat the Democrat candidates versus the bashing they are giving the Republicans is, in fact, really beneficial to Democrats. In Democrat debates, they get softball questions from devoted Democrat voters, allowing them to discuss in detail exactly which one of them opposed the invasion of Iraq first, and who has the quickest plan to retreat. They venture into such dangerous venues as labor union debates, NPR radio debates, and CNN/YouTube debates, but won't consider Fox News debates. Repbulicans, on the other hand, go to Univision debates, CNN/YouTube debates (where they get hit with setup questions from Democrat plants - not very clever plants, either), and take all the tough questions. Okay, maybe they like that now, but when they actually have to go up against an opponent of substance in the general election, I'm thinking the guy that has already had to take some tough questions is going to be better prepared. So I actually have no problem with Republicans getting tough questions. I think there should be debates where, instead of getting questions from their own party, they should have to face questions from people of the opposite party. No softball questions at all. I would treat it like prepping a witness for questioning in a trial. Hit them with the tough questions now, so they are prepared for when the battle begins in earnest. To some extent, Republicans have already been doing this (yeah, I'm sure that guy who asked who believed in the Bible was somebody considering voting Republican). Democrats won't. They won't even go on Fox News for a debate. Now that is what I call reaching out to all voters!

I'm back - Musings for Monday, Dec. 10, 2007

2007-12-10T11:36:00.000-05:00

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have (emphasis added). This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
--Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989.

"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln

So Al Gore has officially accepted the Nobel Peace Prize, which by now means that this would put him in the same company as Jimmy Carter, Yasser Arafat, and the fabricating Rigoberto Menchu. I guess I won't begrudge him that fellowship. And ever the modest, forward-thinking man that he is, he did not fail to mention in the beginning of his speech that he felt that he should not have lost the 2000 election, "Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken — if not premature." Still no word, though, on how much in carbon offsets he will have to purchase to compensate for the flight across the Atlantic to accept. I suspect he made a greater contribution to global warming in this trip than I will this whole month.
Mike Hucakbee has been front and center as of late for his surge in Republican polls. Now, I am sure he is a nice enough guy, but I'm afraid I don't know much more about him than that he is a "true" Christian, unlike, say, that freaky Mormon guy. Honestly, can anybody tell me anything about him other than that he has some great one-liners and, did I mention, he is a "true" Christian? Sure, he takes the moral high ground, choosing not to comment on Mitt Romney's religion, but his not so subtle commercials proclaiming him a true Christian candidate practically scream between the lines. And that is all we know of him from him. What we find out from other sources disturbs me. He was disappointed with the President's veto of the egregious expansion of SCHIP to cover middle class adults who are too lazy to pay for their own insurance. Regardless of how he likes to spin it, his playing off raising taxes as Arkansas' governor is about as easy to stomach as George H. W. Bush's breaking his "Read My Lips . . . " pledge. But vote for him, because he is a "true" Christian. Sorry, just like I despise all the lemmings who will vote for Obama because he is black, or Hillary because she has 2 X chromosomes, I need more from a candidate than their religious background. Can anybody even tell me what his foreign policy is?
Mitt Romney made a big speech last week to try to appeal to the evangelical base of the Republican party to not reject him based on his religion. Was it a good speech? Sure, why not. I think it is stupid he had to ever give it. With all of the important issues on the table this election season, some people are worried because the guy is a Mormon? Ask any of these people what exactly they dislike about his views, and they couldn't tell you, I'm sure. But they've been told that we are all freaky. So let me ask you this, which is the weirder idea, that God spoke to a 14-year old boy in upstate New York in the early part of the 19th century, or that there is an all-powerful being who created everyone and everything in the universe? What is harder to believe, that Jesus Christ visited the people on the American continent after his death, and these people also kept a record of their spiritual teachings, or that there existed a man who came to earth, payed for the sins of all mankind, died on a cross, and came back to life 3 days later? Or that God sent a flood that killed everybody on earth, except for one family, who were crowded together on a boat containing 2 of every animal on the face of the earth? Or that Moses was able to part the Red Sea so that the children of Israel could cross through on dry land? But you are right, it really is just a bit too much to think that God would talk to a 14-year old boy (by the way, how old was the prophet Samuel when God spoke to him? and how old was David when he was chosen by God?). If people are so concerned with the influence that Salt Lake City would hold on a potential Mormon president in imposing its ideas, then how do they explain that both a serious potential contender for the presidency and the Senate Majority leader both are members of that same faith, and yet are on seemingly opposite sides of the political spectrum?
Finally, in light of all of the rosy news that comes out of the Middle East and Muslim world, I thought it might be appropriate to contemplate the perceived favoritism that the nation of Israel receives from us. First of all, are they favored above all others in that region? Maybe. This may be, though, more due to their actions, than any pre-conceived favoritism. The fact of the matter is that they are more in line with our goals than anyone else over there, so of course they get preferred treatment. For the same reason that the hard worker in an office is going to get more raises and promotions than the slacker. You could argue that the hard worker gets them because of favoritism, but I think the better argument is they get them because they deserve them more. Is it any wonder that Israel gets more of our support? When was the last time you heard of someone thrown in jail for naming a teddy bear Moses, let alone had mass protests calling for their death, in Israel? You'd probably be pretty shocked if you were to hear of such a thing, wouldn't you? But were you shocked when you heard that a British teacher in the Sudan was thrown in prison for letting her class of school children name a teddy bear Mohammed, while people on the streets wanted her executed? Probably not. Let's try this one. How shocked would you be if you heard that a woman that was gang-raped in Israel was sentenced to 6 months in prison because at the time she was raped, she was with an unrelated man she was not married to? I'm sure we would see any number of denunciations at the much vaunted United Nations against Israel for that. And yet how shocked were you when you heard that a woman in Saudi Arabia received not only 6 months in prison, but also 200 lashes, after being gang raped by 7 men, all because she was in a car with a man that she was not related to - it was an old schoolmate of hers who wanted her picture - for shame! The Palestinians have a public education system that teaches them to hate Jews and teaches them a geography where Israel has been eliminated. Their version of Mickey Mouse extols the virtue of dying with a bomb strapped to your chest, killing Jews and infidels (that's you and me, in case you weren't clear on that).
But you are right, we probably side more with Israel just because we like them more.

Sue Their Pants Off

2007-08-21T14:43:00.001-04:00

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.

Your Tax Money Hard at Work . . . Buying New Democrat Voters

2007-08-17T13:05:00.001-04:00

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.

Scientists find . . . asphalt is hotter than dirt!

2007-08-16T12:42:00.001-04:00

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?

Illegal Immigration - Still Stuck on Stupid

2007-08-14T10:34:00.001-04:00

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?

Unbelievable

2007-08-08T09:39:00.000-04:00

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?

Getting Desperate

2007-08-07T15:24:00.001-04:00

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?

This Guy Wants to Run the Country?

2007-08-02T10:31:00.001-04:00

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.

How Far We Have Come

2007-08-01T13:19:00.001-04:00

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!

More Tuesday Musings

2007-07-31T14:21:00.000-04:00

In the wake of the July 23 CNN/YouTube Democrat debate, we have learned some important things.
Number 1: Edwards has actually been right on one thing - they need to thin down the ranks of candidates. He was wrong, though, to include himself in the short list of competitors. Not even the best-paid hairstylist on his staff could add volume to his dismally low numbers. Although, Gravel and Kucinich do add comedic value. And poor Biden - bless his heart - has come to realize that his numbers are so low that he can actually say what he really thinks.
Number 2: Republicans should not go near this debate format with a ten-foot pole. To paraphrase Mitt Romney, we don't need political discussions mediated by people dressed as snowmen. For that matter, why even go near any debate sponsored by CNN or MSNBC? Democrats won't do a Fox News-sponsored debate. In all fairness, though, the questions from this last debate were about on par with those asked by Chris Matthews.
Number 3: Democrats all support broadening the draft to include women. What? While I am sure that the militant feminists herald this move as breaking down one of the last bastions of the stifling patriarchy that dominates this country, is your average mother or young woman going to be gung-ho for this plan? War is all hell. Is that what we also want to subject our young women to? And what happens when both a husband and wife/father and mother are drafted? I don't claim to be any kind of a political strategist, but I don't think it would take a Harvard degree to create a homerun campaign commercial out of that tasty morsel.
Number 4: Obama really is all form and no substance. Does this guy have anything even remotely resembling a reasoned strategy regarding leading this country? What was with that comment about how he would grant face time immediately to all of the sociopathic dictators of the world? What's next, inviting Ahmadinejad to come spend a night in the Lincoln bedroom? This was such a major screw-up, even Hillary pounced. This approach to foreign policy has all the insight as Kucinich's "Department of Peace." So far, all this guy has in the way of combating worldwide islamic terrorism is to talk with the leaders of rogue nations that sponsor terrorism and make sure that our first responders have good health insurance. He literally does make Hillary Clinton look downright hawkish.

In other liberal insanity, it looks like, in the name of art, you can immerse a cross, a holy symbol for much of the Christian world, in urine, and you are hailed as avant-garde. If, however, at Pace University you toss a Koran into a toilet, you are arrested on the charges of perpetrating a hate crime. The only religion liberals seem to show any respect for is Islam, and yet, should the Islamic extremists take over the western world and topple the great Satan, who do you think stands the most to lose? Social conservative Christians, or feminists and liberals?
But just ask Rosie O'Donnell. Fundamentalist Christians are just as dangerous as these fundamentalist Muslims. That's why when Madonna made a video to her "Like a Prayer" song where she cavorted about with a Christ-figure, or when she staged her own crucifixion on stage in Rome, or when Sinead O'Conner ripped a picture of the pope on Saturday Night Live, we saw the whole Christian world erupt with violent protests as people rioted and killing was widespread, as well as death threats against musical entertainers. No wait, that was what happened when a Danish periodical published cartoons about Mohammed. With Madonna and O'Conner, I believe the response from Christians was either ignoring them and their fading careers, or by writing some very strongly worded letters, or even boycotting their music. It got downright scary at times! Contrast that to Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh who had his throat slit for working on a film critical of Islam.

Tuesday Musings

2007-07-24T09:57:00.001-04:00

I purposely avoided the Dem's debate last night, and will probably also avoid the Republican CNN/YouTube debate. While Dem's still like to think that there is no such thing as a stupid question, people with at least half a brain realize that this trite inanity was clearly devised by someone who clearly asked too many stupid questions. Now remember, there are no stupid questions, only stupid people.
For the 3 minutes I watched, I was rewarded with hearing one idiot who worked at Planned Parenthood asking whether the candidates instructed their children properly in sex education, and whether they used anatomically accurate terminology. What? I'm sorry, but this has all the relevance in a political debate as "Do you wear boxers or briefs?" You see now why I feel justified in my belief that this was a moronic idea for a debate format? There was a reason the founding fathers decided upon a representative form of government, rather than a true democracy, and why they also had the wisdom of slipping in that safeguard of an electoral college, in case some of the stupids got through. It is also why they decided on a winner take all strategy in elections, rather than apportioning the seats in government based on the percentage of the vote that each party gets, like you see in places like Germany, where periodically some fringe party gets a say in things.
What really got me to change the channel was the people sitting at their computers, making their videos, asking what they were supposed to do, being so poor, and unable to afford health care, or the woman who asked what her poor mother was supposed to do about health care. Here are a few thoughts for you. Number one, if your parents are sick, and can't make ends meet, why don't you help them out? They raised you, supported you. Is it too much to ask to lend a helping hand when you can? This is what got me about Obama's answer, where he talked about his poor mother suffering through a critical illness, without the financial means. His mother died in 1995, by which point he was a lawyer and lecturer of constitutional law. He couldn't spare a few dollars? Secondly, for you people who supposedly can't afford health insurance, how is it you can afford the computer and the high-speed internet access to record your videos and post them on YouTube? I realize that some people have legitimate reasons for not being able to afford an insurance plan, but how many are simply waiting for someone to come pick up the tab for them?
Finally, it seems that Dems in Congress are being pressured to remove a part of a piece of legislation for homeland security that would protect people from prosecution who come forward with information about suspicious activities that they believe may pose a risk to national security (e.g. the "flying imams"). It seems that we need protection for whistleblowers in the CIA and FBI who expose top secret, sensitive information that is critical to national security, especially if it besmirches the Bush administration, and we won't prosecute a lying stripper who maliciously destroys the names of white, privileged Lacrosse players, but if someone comes forward to report activities that they believe, in all good faith, might pose a risk to others, well, they are all on their own.
That guy that blew open the plot against Fort Dix had better watch out. A lawsuit might be coming his way, and he won't be able to count on the Dems looking out for him. They're too busy fumigating the cots for their next slumber party.

Joe and Val's Bogus Adventure

2007-07-20T11:16:00.001-04:00

You really have to feel for the Plame/Wilsons. What are they going to do now for publicity? I mean, I guess Conyers is beating their dead horse in Congress still, but is anybody paying attention to that? Maybe George Clooney or Michael Moore can make a movie on their sorry situation.
The judge dismissed the case as having no merit, but he left this parting shot, that when someone impugns the motives of the Executive branch, officials in the Executive branch are within their rights to challenge the voracity of such allegations. This is what happened in this case, pure and simple.
The whole case centered around lying, but not the lying of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The lying began with the Plame/Wilsons themselves. Joe Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam had sought yellowcake from that country. Wilson was sent by the CIA, but he originally claimed that it was at the behest of the Vice President's office. This was his first lie. He compounded that lie with others, including the idea that his trip was to refute a document that supposedly confirmed the claim of Saddam approaching Niger. The document did, in fact, prove to be false, but Joe Wilson had no way of knowing this prior to his trip, since the document did not surface until after his trip, as he begrudgingly had to admit before a bipartisan Senate commission.
Joe Wilson's actual report, in fact, did not refute the claims. If anything, the actual report that he turned into the CIA strengthened the claims. Only his verbal statements later sought to refute the claims.
In light of his painting the administration in such a bad light, and his claims that his trip was at the request of none other than Dick Cheney, reporters started to question why the administration would have done something so stupid as send a second-tier diplomatic hack like Wilson in the first place. Robert Novak talked with Richard Armitage in the State Department, a man who publicly opposed the actions of Bush and Cheney. Armitage cleared the muddied waters by explaining that Cheney hadn't asked for Wilson to go. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and had suggested her husband.
Valerie Plame denied this, and was caught in her lie when a memo surfaced that showed that she had, in fact, recommended her husband. Novak sought to verify this, and talked with other people, who also confirmed it. Nobody was trying to out Valerie Plame. Armitage revealed the information because he thought Plame was just a desk jockey at the CIA. She hadn't been in the field in years, and was no longer undercover.
In light of the fact that the Wilsons lied so much to support their story, it was justified for the truth to come out. Democrats, though, think that they should be protected when they lie to slander George Bush. We'll make up the lie, perpetrate it, use it as the biggest weapon in our arsenal to beat the president with over the justification for going to war, and if you dare expose our lie, we will demand blood. That is the whole situation in a nutshell. Libby was peripheral. He had some conversations with some reporters on the subject, and mixed up the order of when he talked with each person, and so Fitzgerald took him to court.
So when will we see the prosecution of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame for their perjury?

Any Wonder Their Approval Rating is 14%?

2007-07-19T14:10:00.000-04:00

What Democrats think:
"It is time for someone to manage the war, and we're ready to do it." Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) in debate on the Senate floor during the all-night filibuster from July 17-18, 2007.

What the Constitution of the United States of America says:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States . . ." U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2

I don't know if Democrats don't know the Constitution, or just figure that enough people out there are too stupid to catch them when they try to so flagrantly violate it. My guess is a little bit of both. But what else is new from the party holding hearings on how shamelessly President Bush uses his ability to appoint and fire political appointees for political reasons, or his constitutionally guaranteed power to pardon.
So now that this latest bout of theatrics has accomplished exactly nothing, what is next in their little bag of tricks? For the party that was going to turn things around in Washington, riding this great "mandate" of the American people, they haven't been able to pull so much as a dust bunny from their magic hat. Earmarks and corruption continue. The only legislation anybody can list that has passed both houses was the minimum wage increase. The powers this Democrat-majority in both the House and the Senate wields against a "lame duck" president is, to say the most, wholly unimpressive. Nobody cares about their hearings. They idiotically choose Bill and Hillary Clinton, of all people, to lead the charge against the Libby sentence commutation. Maybe they can sign up Saddam Hussein to lobby against the death penalty. And who do they get to testify in the hearings about the Libby sentence commutation? Joe Wilson. Can somebody pass this guy a note to let him know that his 15 minutes are up? I love how he had no answer when a Republican member of the committee asked him to comment on the fact that no underlying crime was ever found to have been committed.
It appears that John Edwards much touted Poverty tour is not doing a single thing for him. Poor people seem to think Obama can do more for them. Maybe this has to do with the fact that Obama has probably never spent over $1000 for a haircut. Please, John Edwards is as much a populist man-of-the-people as Louis XVI. Honestly, if he cares so much for the poor, why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is? Instead of demanding that the rest of us working people do our part, why doesn't he take some of that money of his that he uses to build entertainment barns attached to his house and go help people. How many families in these rural areas he is visiting could he cover the medical costs for with what he paid in construction costs for his personal squash court alone? William Jennings Bryan he is not.
As for Obama, yes, he is bringing in donation money in record amounts from record numbers of donors. And yet he still lags behind Hillary. Maybe Oprah can change that, but I'm doubting it. Of course, Hillary can't even carry her own water. When it is time for the heavy lifting, she has to bring Bill back into it. So, should she be elected, who is really going to be running things? If things get tough, will she have to get Bill to take over, just as he is with her campaign?

Stop the Insanity!

2007-07-17T10:23:00.000-04:00

This latest idea of the Democrats, pulling an all-nighter in Congress, to get Republicans to agree to a retreat from Iraq has all the makings for being as effective a tool as John Lennon's and Yoko Ono's sleep in. I guess the one major difference, though, would be that, based on their approval ratings, more people cared about John and Yoko than Reid and Schumer.
So let me understand this. Back when the surge was still in the planning and approval phases, Democrats were fine with waiting for a progress report in September before their knee-jerk denunciations, but now that we are seeing progress, we can't possibly wait another day? The second the final troops for the surge landed and barely were able to change into their desert fatigues, Democrats declared the war over. This would be comparable Democrats calling for a retreat from the Normandy invasion just as the Allied forces had established a beachhead.
The Anbar and Diyala provinces were once written off as being beyond help, and firmly in the hands of the insurgents and terrorists. Al Qaeda had a free hand in these provinces. Now, with the surge barely under way, American forces have already begun to reclaim these areas, and Sunni tribal leaders are defecting from the ranks of al Qaeda supporters. But clearly the surge is accomplishing nothing, because we don't have profit-sharing legislation in place yet for oil revenues. Imagine how idiotic it would have sounded if we had said during World War II that the invasion of Europe was doomed to failure because Germany was having difficulties balancing their budget. Yes, the governmental benchmarks will be necessary for solidifying the situation in Iraq, but we first have to make sure that the people can feel safe enough to walk out on the streets to spend all this new-found wealth once profit sharing is enacted.
Democrats foam at the mouth when Republicans accuse them of being soft on national defense. They denounce Republicans as questioning their patriotism when their motives behind putting union interests over national security are brought into the national debate. They become uncontrollably self-righteous and sanctimonious when Ann Coulter's columns and comments are taken so out of context and edited beyond all comprehension to make it sound like she wants them dead. But when Congressman Ellyson, the new Democrat member of the House who is the first Muslim elected to Congress, compares George Bush to Adolf Hitler and Republicans to the Nazi party, they don't even bat an eye. In addition, Ellyson's comments suggest that he believes that George Bush, and not Osama bin Laden, was behind the 9/11 attacks. This is what he did when he compared the 9/11 attacks to the burning of the Reichstag in Germany in the 1930's. He claimed that both events were used to inflame the public against an enemy, in the case of the Germans, the communists, and with Bush, islamic terrorists. Many historians also believe that Hitler staged the fire to solidify the power that he and his party held over the country. So in Ellyson's eyes, Bush equals Hitler, and 9/11 was orchestrated by Bush to drum up false support to falsely take the war to terrorists. Oh, if only we didn't have pesky evidence, like Osama himself taking credit for 9/11. Or does Ellyson believe, perhaps, that this was all fabricated by the Bush administration on the same sound stage that they filmed the lunar landing? Democrats really have no shame.

Clearing Up Some Misconceptions

2007-07-12T10:06:00.000-04:00

For starters, I'd like to clear up this myth that Joe Biden has built up that, if only the Iraqi government could pass this profit-sharing of oil revenues legislation, then the "insurgent" problem would clear itself up. While terrorism and Islamic fanaticism certainly burns the brighter in poverty, the most recent attempts in London prove that this is not a prerequisite, as several of the perpetrators were doctors - not exactly at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum.
At the same time, though, it also brings into question some of Michael Moore's assertions regarding nationalized health care systems, such as they have in England. If it is such a great system, why are doctors over there so gung-ho about major career changes - say, to suicide bomber? And now that their overtaxed health care system is short even more doctors, don't expect the wait to get any shorter for that MRI.
If we were to use the same measurement that the Democrats are using to judge the success of the Iraqi government against the Democrat Congress, I think we would be all clamoring for a phased withdrawal from their control of Congress. While the progress of the Iraqis has been modest at best, so far, in over 7 months in office, Democrats have managed only a modest increase in the federal minimum wage, a move that was primarily symbolic, since most states already have in place minimum wages higher than the new federal level. The Shias in control can't work together with the Sunnis to get critical measures passed? The Democrats in control can't work together with the Republicans to get critical measures passed. And the Democrats don't even have the added pressure of armed militants around them (unless you count Jim Webb's aides smuggling guns onto capitol hill).
I apologize in advance for my next comments about John Murtha, who, as a war veteran, is perfect in every conceivable way, and is completely immune to any criticism on matters even remotely related to the military. That said, it now looks like John Murtha is up for the Mike Nifong travesty of justice award. You remember how resolutely Murtha condemned the Marines in the Haditha shootings? He had weighed all the evidence (even though he did not have all the evidence) and determined that a war crime had been committed by the Marines. Now it turns out that a Marines officer charged with looking at the evidence (this person actually saw all of it, unlike the infallible Murtha) and providing a recommendation whether charges should be filed, has determined that at least one of the marines in question acted in a way completely in accord with military conduct and the rules of engagement. It turns out that the officer found that the witness statements were contradictory and not trustworthy. In his opinion, while the death of innocents in war is always a travesty, it should not be unexpected when battling an enemy that regularly hides among civilians and stages attacks while using civilians as human shields. In the heat of battle, a soldier has to make his best judgement. But Murtha knows better:
"It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell."
My final note of the day. I have some praise and some objections to recent comments by Pope Benedict XVI. Recently the Pope issued high praise for the Boy Scouts organization. Its good to see that some people in this world still recognize a good and honorable organization and give it the praise it deserves. As an Eagle Scout, I continue to support the organization and its integrity in staying true to its founding principles. My objections to the pope are his recent denouncing of other Christian churches as not being "churches" (with the exception of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches). I don't begrudge the Pope or the Catholic Church their right to assert that theirs is the one true and complete Christian Church. I don't share this view, as I believe that my own religion is the only true and living church. But to dismiss other Christian faiths as merely "ecclesial organizations" is going a bit too far. I will grant the pope the right to profess his belief in the supremacy of his beliefs, but I will not allow the monopolizing of a word. Just as I object to the many misinformed people out there who deny the characterization of Mormons as Christians, I also object to the pope denying the characterization of other Christian faiths as churches.

On the War and Other Casual Topics

2007-07-11T11:19:00.001-04:00

So before, the reason we shouldn't be in Iraq was because it was primarily a civil war. Now the complaint is that it was drawing more terrorists. So which is it? In addition, as I heard today on the Bill Press show (a liberal talk radio show of the Sirius satellite radio liberal talk station), most of the people now being targeted by the "insurgents" are American soldiers. Does that sound like a civil war to you? When the primary target is not your fellow countrymen, are you really engaged in a Civil War? My memory may be faulty, but the one shining example of a Civil War that comes to my mind was our own. In that conflict, it was American fighting American. Should the South have fired first on, say, Mexico City, rather than Fort Sumter, would it have been a Civil War?
So in the wake of the surge beginning in earnest, this liberal talker was also quite distraught that the majority of those being attacked now are American soldiers. And this is news to him? Hey, big news to you libs out there who are wholly ignorant of what happens in a war. When you have two sides attacking one another, most of your casualties are going to come from those two sides. Thus, during the Battle of the Bulge, during World War II, the majority of casualties inflicted by the Germans were Americans and British, and not Argentinians. During the Battle of Gettysburg, lo and behold, the Northern Armies primarily targeted the Confederate Armies, and not the Canadians. Stop me if I'm going too fast for you. Obviously the number of American casualties will increase when our offensives increase. Thus it was that we also saw a significant increase in American casualties during World War II after we got into the fight. Funny how that works. You cannot have a bloodless war. Only completely intellectually dishonest people think that you can stage such actions without loss of life. Don't bother sending me your tired old chickenhawk accusations.
War is not the answer? Well, now, that really depends on what the question is, doesn't it? It certainly seemed to be the right answer for solving the question of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Your much beloved diplomacy worked wonders there. Diplomacy got us the enabling of Hitler and his "Final Solution" for the Jews, the takeover of Czechoslovakia and Austria, and the launching of World War II. The actions of the Allied forces did more to restore peace to Europe than all the diplomacy. Diplomacy has given us a nuclear North Korea. Diplomacy is very close to giving us a nuclear Iran. Diplomacy is giving us genocide in Darfur. Diplomacy turned Iran from an ally of the United States to one of its greatest enemies. Diplomacy gave Gaza back to the Palestinians. That has been a smashing success. Actually, when weighed in the balance of history, it appears that, in fact, diplomacy is not the answer. More people have been killed in this world when the United States military has not intervened than when they have.
In other news, at least the top 3 Democrat presidential candidates have signed on to a gay issues debate to be moderated, at least partly, by Melissa Etheridge. It will be fun to see them squirming as they try to nuance their way around their views. Maybe Hillary can rehash her erroneous accusation as to why HIV/AIDS has not yet been cured. Before it was because we Americans don't care about blacks. Now she can tailor it to the gay community. It will also be fun to see what new false promises they will offer up to seal the loyalty of a group that they really aren't in any danger of losing. It will be fun to see if Hillary actually gets behind gay marriage. I have no doubt Edwards will. The man has the backbone of a jellyfish, and will pander to any interest group he can to get ahead.
And finally, a word on Senator Vitter, the first name identified from the D.C. madam's phone records. The Republican Senator stole some of the thunder by coming out first and admitting that his was probably one of the numbers on the list. This is an issue that he and his wife will have to work out, and apparently has already been brought to light between them. In my own opinion, though, I would like to see the Senator step down. My reasons are twofold. First, I have an inherent lack of trust in a man who cannot honor the vows he takes at the marriage altar. If he cannot be true to his wife, how can I really trust that he can be true in his public service? Second, if he wants to save his marriage, it will be a serious matter, and I cannot believe that such an undertaking will not impact his ability to serve his constituents appropriately. I know that the idea of marital infidelity is not quite as sacrosanct as it once was, as we now live in an age where celebrities change spouses more frequently than they change agents. And I know that, especially in light of some of the more public actions of a certain former President during his term in office, there is this idea that matters of sex are harmless and do nobody any harm. I don't believe it. If you can't be true to your husband/wife, I don't trust you to be true to me. And I don't want you in a position of power.

Beware Global Cooling . . . or Warming!

2007-07-10T11:35:00.000-04:00

I was a little annoyed yesterday, having lugged my raincoat into work, in anticipation of the thunderstorms that the Weather Channel told me to expect. As I looked out my window, I saw blue skies with a few cotton candy-looking clouds. Not a thunderbolt in sight. This is my first point. How many of us are really surprised anymore when the meteorologists are off on their weather predictions? Sometimes I think it might be nice to have a job where you can be wrong so often and yet not be out of a job.
Then I think about the predictions for last year's hurricane season. Going into the season, Professor William Gray of Colorado State University, who was acknowledged for his expertise in such predictions, called for 17 named tropical storms, 9 hurricanes, 5 of which would be major. Instead, we saw only 9 named tropical storms and a total of 5 hurricanes, none of which were major (category 4 or 5). That is my second point.
In 1975, Peter Gwynne wrote an article for Newsweek magazine where he talked of the famines that were then being predicted by scientists due to global climate change. And the culprit? Global cooling. Seems that temperatures had dropped by .6 degrees from the early 1940s to the 1970s. Within as little as 10 years, the entire earth could have been in the middle of a global inability to feed itself due to the impact that this drastic change in temperature would have on farming practices. What was one of their proposed solutions? Melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot! But this time they've got it right. And, besides, Al Gore tells us it is so. His bachelor's degree in government makes him an expert on the subject. This is my third point.
What am I trying to say with all of this? That all of these people lecturing us on global warming and the hazards we face if we don't revert to pre-industrial revolution living standards within the next five years might - just might- be wrong. They can't accurately predict the weather one week in advance, or the expected storms one year in advance. But we all believe, without question, that they can predict the entire climate of this planet more than 10 years from now? Based on half of a degree change over the course of a decade? And we should accept it all, of course, because it is published in peer-reviewed journals and presented in Academy-Award winning documentaries? Let's not forget the recent debacle with the Korean scientist who claimed to have successfully cloned, but who later had to retract his study. That was published in one of the most highly regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journals on the planet.
So forgive me if I don't sign on to the hype. Do I want to see the planet polluted? No. I try to do my part. I buy cars that will get me the best gas mileage that I can afford. I calculate the mileage that I get out of my car regularly, and try to keep it well maintained so that I can get the fuel efficiency even higher. So you'll forgive me if I change the channel when Madonna lectures me from a stage in London about what I'm not doing, as she drives her multiple cars and SUVs. I switch off lights in my house when they aren't in use, and keep my house just a little bit warmer than I would absolutely like, in order to save energy. So I hope you don't mind that I ignore Al Gore, who consumes more energy in his house in one month than most people do in over a year. I flush my toilet and send my waste to the city sewers, where man-made technology does what it can to limit the impact on the environment of that waste. So I'll thank you very much to not lecture me on how I should listen to the rantings of Dave Matthews, who dumps the waste from his tour bus whenever he gets over a river in Chicago. In my own selfish, fiscally minded way, I do more to combat global warming and limit my carbon footprint on this planet than any jet-setting, carbon offset-buying, tree-hugging, platitude-spewing, environmentalist Hollywood actor/musician/pseudo-scientist or has-been politician out there. And I don't subject them to any junk science powerpoint presentations. Why don't they afford me the same consideration?

Private Jets for Climate Change

2007-07-09T11:55:00.000-04:00

It's amazing that Al Gore could, with a straight face, claim that his Live Earth concerts would promote a change in global warming. Let's just ignore the fact that it generated less than stellar enthusiasm world-wide. They were giving away tickets to the German event with travel packets. South Africa had a difficult time filling their venue. And what was with those scientists playing that horrible sound down there in Antarctica?
First off, as was noted in another article, I think they probably had to lock up Tipper Gore when they were picking the lineup. What would her PMRC group have said about T-Pain performing his hit "I'm in love (Wit a Stripper)" or the headlining Foo Fighters whose most recent hit was a cover of Prince's "Darling Nikki," ironically one of the songs that set Tipper off in the first place in her crusade against vulgarity in music?
But let's consider the irony that an event to highlight man's impact on the environment generated 31,500 tons of carbon emissions. The group that came up with this figure notes that the average British household, in contrast, generates only 10 tons of carbon emissions in an entire year. Additionally, while supposedly all of the waste generated was to be recycled, at least one venue has already admitted that their recycling abilities would only be able to handle, at most, one third of all garbage generated, and that the rest would go into landfills. Way to champion the environment. Finally, consider the fuel expended by all of the acts for these shows as they traveled in private jets to and from the events. Consider that a Gulfstream jet expends more fuel in one hour of flight than your average privately owned automobile consumes in a year. But us normal people are the real problem. How many trees are we supposed to plant to offset the carbon emissions from this concert? And then Al Gore has the nerve to tell us that we need to get active and encourage our governments to sign on to a treaty to cut greenhouse gas pollution by 90 percent? How about we start by banning blowhard musicians from jetting around the world for pointless concerts to highlight the big acts of yesteryear?
I don't think Al Gore really realizes what it would take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent. By one liberal estimate, if we were to ban all automobiles and gas stations in the United States, we could only cut these gases by ~30%. To achieve 70%, we would have to eliminate all energy sources except for nuclear reactors, dams, windmills, and solar panels. This means that Madonna, one of the headline acts at Live Earth, would have to give up her Mercedes, 2 Land Rovers, Audi, and her Mini Cooper. That's right, you wouldn't even be able to drive your Prius. So by reducing ourselves to third world status, we could only cut these emissions by 70%. And don't look for the eco-freaks to allow more nuclear reactors, even though the much-venerated French generate a large proportion of their energy from these reactors, and have miraculously avoided a Chernobyl-like catastrophe.
This is what happens when you get your policies from musicians and celebrities, any ten of which most likely don't even have a high school diploma to split amongst themselves. With all of the jeers from the left of how stupid Bush is, lets not forget that he did better in college than Gore, the man that is now the planetary expert on climate change. This despite the fact that he claims that the ice caps on Kilimanjaro are receding from global warming, even though temperatures atop the mount remain below freezing, and scientists have pretty much definitively proven that the receding glaciers atop the mountain are the result of fluxuations in solar radiation, and not rising temperatures.
One more note. It appears that Cindy Sheehan couldn't stay out of the spotlight too long, and is now threatening to challenge Nancy Pelosi for her house seat in '08 if she does not move on impeachment proceedings for Bush within the next 2 weeks. Pelosi, of course, won't do this, because she knows that it will be political suicide. So I am looking forward to Sheehan challenging her. I might actually donate to that campaign. In fact, if Sheehan throws her hat into the ring, I think Bush should go on the attack and actively campaign for Pelosi (would it really be that much different than his shilling for Lincoln Chafee?). What would be more of a guarantee for a Democrat to lose an election than to have President Bush campaigning for you?
And, finally, the Democrats are once more taking up the issue of funding for Iraq, after every other legislative attempt of theirs since coming into power has flopped. So if they gave in before, what makes them think they can out bluff Bush this time? Your odds of winning in the game of chicken decrease significantly with every time you flinch. My prediction is that the Democrats will not pass one significant piece of legislation by the '08 elections. They are already on track for proving me right.

Sometimes Truth is Stranger than Fiction

2007-07-06T14:31:00.000-04:00

So now we know how Democrats get such good press coverage - they sleep with the reporters. At least that seems to be the strategy of LA's Democrat mayor, sleeping with a news reporter for Telemundo who also happened to cover stories on him. I think John Conyers should open an investigation into that. He seems to have plenty of time for pointless investigations lately. The Democrats obviously haven't been as busy enacting their policies in Washington as they claimed they would be. I mean, honestly, the entire Congress could probably take the whole year off and get better approval ratings than what they are now polling at.
I will not make any comments about Al Gore's son being picked up speeding and smoking pot and possessing a virtual pharmacy of drugs, except to ask how many carbon offsets he will need to purchase to make up for all the carbon dioxide he released into the atmosphere while puffing the magic dragon? Maybe this should be something the EPA should look into. Or does the fact that he was speeding in a Prius offset that? I think the bigger question on everybody's minds is this: Did his Prius have the necessary "Impeach Bush" and "Endless/This War" bumper stickers? Honestly, I like his sister more. At least she helped make the incredibly funny "Futurama."
In light of the recent attack attempts in London and Glasgow, the most important thing that has been driven home to all of us is this: let's not be hasty in linking these attacks to Islam. That's right. The fact that the perpetrators of these attempted attacks are devout followers of the "Religion of Peace" has no bearing on the situation whatsoever. So why is it that Muslims and Hollywood can blast Christianity in general over the crusades, but we must be super careful to point out that Islamic terrorists are a minority fringe of their religion? I fully understand that the vast majority of followers of this religion have no desire whatsoever to strap bombs to themselves. But they also have no huge desire to be overly critical to those who do. And when almost a third of the followers of this religion residing in England wish to live under sharia law (which permits the slaughtering of women should they bring upon themselves the shame of being raped) rather than British law, you've really got to worry. Over the centuries, Christianity has been a force for progress. True, during the middle ages, the Catholic church repressed the society that it presided over. But it learned from mistakes and now produces Mother Theresas, not Osama bin Ladens. In contrast, any country that has fallen under the rule of an Islamic society has regressed. Whereas Islamic countries once were incredibly liberal, in contrast to their European counterparts, now there is not a single country under Islamic rule that anyone would willingly resettle in. Other than terrorists, there aren't a lot of people beating down the doors at Iranian embassies to become citizens of that country.
I applaud those believers in Muhammed who lead peaceful lives and who are trying to raise their children and earn a living. But I am increasingly having to ask myself whether they truly are the rule, or the exception.

Summer Reading List

2007-07-05T17:03:00.000-04:00

For this summer, I would recommend the following:
Right now, I am rediscovering the classics . . . once again. Currently, I am enjoying reading David Copperfield, by Charles Dickens. It is the third of his works that I have picked up, and am thoroughly enjoying it. So far, I would put A Tale of Two Cities first, followed by Copperfield, and lastly Great Expectations. This is all I have read thus far, but am planning on reading more.

Recently I finished the biography of Adolf Hitler by John Toland, and would recommed it to anybody who enjoys history. Additionally, I have also recently finished The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchmann, about the beginnings of World War I. That, combined with a very good comprehensive study of the Great War in one volume, The First World War by S. L. A. Marshall, is also a good selection for history buffs.

My third selection is one that I have not yet read, but already have pre-ordered. This is the final of the Harry Potter series. Being a relatively late-comer to this series, I have nonetheless enjoyed them, and am on the edge of my seat to find out how J. K. Rowling will resolve this adventure. Additionally, I also plan on seeing the Order of the Phoenix next week on the IMAX screen.

The Tolkien lover in me enjoyed The Children of Hurin, the latest of the writings of the late J. R. R. Tolkien to be made available by his family. While anybody who has read the Silmarillion will not find a whole lot new here, it was still fun to have this interesting tale set off on its own with more detail than we were treated to in the Silmarillion.

Finally, if you have a taste for science fiction, I also plan on picking up the latest in the Dune empire by Brian Herbert and Kevin Anderson. While not as cerebral, and perhaps catering a bit more towards entertainment than intellect, these additions have been entertaining and fast moving readings. Whether they are true to the original intent of Frank Herbert I will leave for others to debate. But if you want a good story, I have not been disappointed by these two authors.

Morons in Power

2007-07-05T17:02:00.001-04:00

"The President . . . shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 2.

In their recent outrage over the actions of President Bush, Democrats prove once again how ignorant they are of the Constitution. Rep. John Conyers has now decided, with Congressional approval ratings below 20%, to hold hearings on the President using his absolute power to pardon. In an amazing feat, Democrats have managed to hold hearings on a subject even more idiotic that their hearings into whether or not political appointees in the Justice Department were removed from office for political reasons. That is about as stupid as holding hearings to determine whether a democratically elected official was elected democratically (actually, that is what they continue to contest since the 2000 election).
Of all people to speak out on this, President Clinton, friend to drug smugglers/dealers and non-repentant fugitive financiers the world over, had the gall to criticize Bush on his commuting the sentence of Libby. Note that he didn't actually pardon Libby. Libby will still have to pay $250,000, will likely lose his license to practice law, and will have a felony conviction on his record. In the history of Washington criminal occurrences, Libby's actions, based on his current punishment, rank right up there with a President of the United States lying under oath, and rank higher than a former national security advisor stealing classified documents by stuffing them down his pants, then destroying those documents. The fact that Clinton could talk on this subject with a straight face was truly amazing. We haven't seen this kind of chutzpah from a Democrat since Jimmy Carter ranked Bush's administration as the worst in history.
Lets put this in context once again, shall we? From the beginning of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew that the leak of the information of Valerie Plame working for the CIA came from Richard Armitage who was one of Colin Powell's deputies, and was no fan of the President of the V.P. Despite this, Fitzgerald focused on Cheney and Karl Rove, even though he knew they were not the leaks. In the course of his questioning of Libby, Libby slipped up in his testimony. So Fitzgerald went after him for perjury and obstruction of justice, despite the fact that neither Libby, nor Rove, nor Cheney were the ones to leak the information, and the leaking of the information has turned out to not even be a crime in the first place. So they got Libby for lying about a non-crime. And for this they threw more than the book at him. At trial, Fitzgerald emphasized that there was no connection between Libby and the leaked information, so that he would not have to provide Libby's defense team with relevant information for them to mount a successful defense. However, during the sentencing portion, Fitzgerald reversed himself and argued that the crime was so heinous because it had everything to do with the leak, just so he could get a harsher sentence. Once again, for lying about a non-crime. If the real issue was prosecuting the person who leaked the information, why have no charges been filed against Armitage?
But in Democrats' minds, this represents a more egregious violation of the law than Sandy Berger stealing classified documents from the national archives, in his pants, and then destroying them, so that his former boss would not look bad in the investigation of 9/11. The fact that Berger will not spend a day in jail for this offense doesn't bother Dems in the least. You see, the law only applies to Republicans.

2007-06-25T08:58:00.000-04:00

Spare me the left's non-stop complaining about how conservatives have hijacked Christianity (most recently from Obama) and how we need a separation of church and state now more than ever, since conservatives are trying to establish a theocracy. Forgive me when I laugh about this as Obama pontificates on the issue in, of all places, a church. That's right. And not just any church, but the United Church of Christ, which counts in its membership Pastor Lynn, head of the organization, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. This is a man that has epileptic fits if a conservative even says the word "politics" within 10 feet of a church. And yet he was silent when Obama was campaigning in his church. Oddly enough, though, the webcast of the event went mysteriously dead just as Obama approached the stage.
And don't get me started on Jimmy Carter's latest analysis of United States foreign policy. That this man was ever elected to the highest office in the world is beyond me. The reason du jour for the problems in the Middle East, at least in his mind, is that we refused to recognize a terrrorist organization voted into office in Gaza and the West Bank. This same organization who refuses to recognize the existence of Israel, who refuses to back down from its policy of annihilating Israel, who promotes children's programming training its young that to die in the process of blowing up innocent Jewish women and children is the purest form of love for Allah. And why should we have recognized Hamas? Well, they are so well organized, and they did win that election, which he personally vouches for (also see his praise for Hugo Chavez' commitment to democracy). What is his evidence for their good organization? Well, didn't they knock off Fatah pretty quickly in Gaza? By Carter's logic, the Nazi party should have been recognized for its genius based on the orderly manner by which the SS and SD very efficiently took care of their "political" opposition. All things considered, Reagan's landslide defeat of Carter does not look quite as impressive any more. The real question is, how did Carter win any electoral votes at all?

Truly Pathetic

2007-06-15T16:06:00.001-04:00

If you've noticed lately, Democrats have not been hooting and hollering about how low President Bush's approval ratings are. This certainly is not due to a sudden surge in the polls by the President. Far from it. While his numbers have been consistently low, they seemed to have dipped a little lower. With the situation in Iraq not exactly going stellar (and not that the media would report it if it were otherwise), Bush decided, in his infinite wisdom, to piss off the people that have stood by him and defended him on the War on Terror, and specifically the war in Iraq, by insinuating that we are nothing but a bunch of "nativist" (i.e. racist) hicks who don't want what is best for the country because we don't believe him and the political cronies in Washington when they claim that they will do anything even remotely resembling border enforcement prior to enacting the amnesty parts of the immigration legislation. But I digress.
No, the real reason that the Democrats don't talk about Bush's approval numbers is because theirs are worse. After riding a post election high of 43% approval, Congress has now dipped to 23%. This happens to be 6% lower than the president's. No longer can they blame everything on the president. To date, the only promise they have made good on is a boost in the minimum wage (and need I remind you that Clinton and Obama voted against that). They promised to clean up Congress, and we have recently seen the indictment of William Jefferson. They promised to shine light on the earmarks process, and they have made it even more secretive, changing the process to allow earmarks to be added during the closed door, committee sessions to hammer out compromises to bills. One of their candidates for President even dodged the issue of whether he would vow to end the earmarks to his home state. They can't even pass a non-binding resolution on Iraq. Their Senate majority leader has proven to be as hapless as he is a bumbling public speaker, to the point that many of their supporters have expressed their outrage at his recent public statements. The most memorable moment for their much lauded first female speaker of the house was when she practiced some of her ill advised diplomacy, visiting Syria, taking it upon herself to be the emissary of the Israelis (without their approval and bumbling it, to boot), ridiculously claiming that the road to peace was through Damascus. About as ridiculous a statement as Chamberlain returning from Munich proclaiming "peace in our time."
All they seem to be able to do is issue subpoena after subpoena for Justice Department officials who, at the end of the day, tell them absolutely nothing. When they find no evidence of wrongdoing after grilling these people, instead of giving up their wild goose chase, they claim that a lack of evidence is, in fact, further evidence of a much greater conspiracy. For all their hot air about what an evil puppet master Karl Rove is, they have yet to charge him with anything. And as truly inept as Gonzalez is, they can't seem to touch him. Truly pathetic.

New Link

2007-06-12T13:04:00.001-04:00

I have included, in honor of the anniversary of the "Tear Down This Wall" speech, a link to a website where you can listen to some of Reagan's greatest speeches.

June 12

2007-06-12T12:23:00.000-04:00

For those of you not of the conservative persuasion, I'm sure today holds no particular significance. But for those of us who are, we might remember that on this day in 1987, Ronald Reagan delivered his famous "Tear Down This Wall" speech. I know that I am a pretty big Reagan fan, but we really haven't had a president in recent history that could speak so well and leave such important speeches behind. In addition to this great speech, many will also remember his Evil Empire speech, the D-Day memorial speech about the boys of Point du Hoc, or the space shuttle disaster speech, where he eloquently described the astronauts who lost their lives as they "slipped the surly bonds of earth, to touch the face of God." It is moving stuff. Maybe I'm a bit sentimental in this way, but it has been a while since we had a president that could move us. Bush may be remembered for his "you are either with us or against us" challenge, Clinton for his "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinski," George H. W. Bush for his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. But as the interval between the present and the last days of Reagan's administration lengthens, we learn more and more just how great a president he truly was.
On another note, I thought I might address a strategy endorsed by many on the left, including Al Gore, to beat oil dependence out of us. This is to increase the tax on gasoline. Seems like a good idea, right? Drive up the price, and we will turn to other alternatives. The problem is, we don't have those types of options. The average American may find it difficult to give up their car. This isn't Europe, and we don't consist primarily of large cities where public transportation is a valid option. Most Americans must travel to work. It is not feasible to set up a nationwide public transportation system. Even these new hybrid cars still require gasoline. And how will those on lower incomes afford these new, expensive hybrid vehicles?
When dealing with the war on drugs, many on the left think it is ridiculous to target and incarcerate the buyers of drugs. These are people with addictions who should be treated, not punished. The logical move is to target the suppliers. But they take just the opposite view with gas. They want to punish the users of gasoline. We are really the problem. This new tax would also be incredibly regressive. The lower the income, the more likely a person is to drive a less fuel-efficient car, and the harder they will be hit by any such gasoline tax hikes. It is such a nice sentiment from Al Gore, sitting in his energy-guzzling mansion, jetting around the planet (in private jets, guzzling jet fuel for his use alone), to lecture us on how we need to be more conservation-minded. We have yet to see these limousine liberals practice what they preach. The reality is that the average American is leaving less of a carbon footprint on this planet than any Al Gore or Sheryl Crow or Leonardo DiCaprio you want to trot out as they jet around the world with in private planes, or travel by limousine to awards banquets where others will praise their wisdom, or cruise around the country in gas guzzling tour buses.

Lesson Learned?

2007-06-08T14:52:00.000-04:00

With an approval rating as low as his, Bush needs to learn one very important lesson. You need every supporter you can get.
This is a lesson that he has learned twice now. In the wake of the Iraq war, which Democrats only initially supported when the political winds were blowing in that direction, Bush has only been able to get things through when he has had the strong support of his base, and, in a few instances, the majority of the American people. He finally got his funding for the troops without a timetable built in because the Democrats, constantly with their fingers wetted and held aloft to test the direction the wind is blowing, knew that cutting funding for the troops would be political suicide, just as it was after Vietnam, even though it was the other party in the White House.
But whenever he has tried to buck his stalwart supporters and go it alone, he loses. He should have know what a powerful force his conservative base could be with the Harriet Myers affair. He is never going to get the kind of support from Democrats that he gets from the conservatives, because of a major difference - conservatives genuinely want him to win, and Democrats absolutely want him to lose. Democrats knew that this immigration boondoggle was a win-win for them. If it passed, they could potentially swell their voter rolls, and it would fracture the Republican base. If it failed, then who cares, because it had already been successfully labeled as Bush's bill. So the failure is attributed to him. Don't get me wrong. Bush contributed heavily to owning this bill. So either way, they win.
Bush continues to underestimate the determination and the power wielded by his conservative base. Maybe they don't represent the majority view, but on this issue, they were definitely under a pretty large tent of people opposed to this bill.
You don't start insulting your base, especially at a time when it isn't the easiest thing to be a Bush supporter. You don't shoot your friends in the back, especially when they are so few and far between. I realize that he is past campaigning and into full legacy mode, but none of the great presidents throughout the history of this country made their name by selling out their supporters.

Put Up or Shut Up

2007-06-06T15:27:00.000-04:00

No doubt anybody interested enough in politics to be perusing this blog has heard of the 90+ page indictment of William Jefferson, the Democrat congressman from Louisiana. What you probably haven't heard is the outcry from Democrats over the corruption of this guy that is similar to their outrage when Tom Delay was indicted. That is because their is none. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but the hypocrisy is so thick, you could cut it with a knife.
After all of the outrage Democrats expressed over even the hint of charges being brought against Delay and Duke Cunningham, followed up by their pledge to drain the swamp of political corruption in Washington, they are surprisingly mute on this issue. True, Pelosi didn't appoint Jefferson to the Homeland Security committee, but his fellow Democrat congressmen, bullied by the congressional black caucus, voted overwhelmingly to put him on that committee. This after authorities had already found the $90,000 of cold hard cash in his freezer. You may also remember Jefferson as the congressman who forced rescue workers after Katrina to reroute vehicles and men specifically to take him to his house so that he could pick up a few things. This was obviously more important than rescuing people.
You might think that, to show good faith on their pledge to fight corruption, the Democrats would have been the ones to refer his actions to the House ethics committee. And you would be wrong again. John Boehner had to do that. At least they complied and voted for the resolution, unlike their facilitation of the actions of serial ethics violator Congressman Murtha.
So let me get this straight. Tom Delay was indicted on charges less serious by a blatantly partisan prosecutor, and Democrats became hysterical, demanding he resign from Congress. Jefferson gets indicted on so many charges that they could potentially put him away for over 200 years, and they call for patience to let justice prevail.

Lightning Crashes

2007-06-06T15:12:00.000-04:00

Yes, I did watch all two hours of the Republican debate last night. I'm not sure why. To be honest, it was a bit boring. The biggest question that pops up in my mind from this, and from the Democrats' debate, is why some of these guys are still in it.
For the Republicans, why is Tommy Thompson still in it? Honestly, I look for a little more charisma in a candidate, and he is definitely lacking. While I mostly agree with Tancredo on immigration, he came across last night as petty (with his vindictive attitude towards Bush and Rove) and just a little unhinged. Huckabee seems likable, and I'm sure is squarely with me on the issues, he just doesn't seem up to snuff. Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul just don't excite me in the least.
As for the frontrunners, while I am still behind Romney, I don't think he pulled off as good of a performance as Giuliani. McCain was McCain, although he was pretty weak in his defense of immigration, which may be what sinks him this time around. The best he could come up with was that this bill is better than nothing. The problem is, nothing is not the alternative. We already have immigration legislation. Nobody wants to enforce it, but we have it. His argument that not passing this bill would permit "silent amnesty" also doesn't address the fact that passing this bill would be glaring amnesty. Why is that better? But Romney didn't do a good job attacking the bill. He could have addressed more than just the Z visa. That is not the only problem with the bill.
Giuliani definitely is a crowd pleaser. The guy has charisma, and, with the exception of his stumbling over his answer to the abortion question in the first debate, is a good speaker. I agree with Brownback, however, in the belief that the pro-life position is a core position of the Republican party, and we shouldn't abandon that. Would I vote for him should he get the nomination? Yes. He would still be infinitely better than anybody the Democrats would put up.
So I was kind of disappointed with Romney's performance. He got off topic too many times with answers that should have been slam dunks.
As for the other big elephant in the room, I'm not sure yet how I feel about a Fred Thompson in the race. In general, I am optimistic about him. I don't like his support of McCain-Feingold, but at least he is acknowledging the shortfalls of it, and that it really hasn't accomplished anything it set out to do. I don't know yet if he can offer more hope than hype. But Dems seem to be a bit afraid of him entering into the mix, so he definitely deserves some further looking into.

The Breck Girl Strikes Back

2007-06-04T11:16:00.000-04:00

I didn't follow last night's debate as closely as the previous one, but I did catch a few choice morsels. I'm not sure what purpose this serves for the Democrats, other than for them to argue whether we should leave Iraq now or next week. I'm pretty sure that Kucinich is up there merely to make the others (with the exception of Gravel) look downright hawkish. I feel better knowing that, if he had the chance, Kucinich would not ram a cruise missile up bin Laden's rear end. He'd make sure we could try him in a court of law, where I'm sure he would guarantee his right to due process and all that other stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for constitutional rights for American citizens. But does anybody believe that, given the opportunity, the Allies wouldn't have dropped the big one on Adolf Hitler? And would anyone have shed a tear?
But once again, the most outlandish comment of the night was not owned by Kucinich, or even Gravel. You have to give it to John Boy Edwards (Garmire's personal favorite of the pack). When asked what he would do in his first one hundred days in office, he didn't choke quite as bad as when asked who his personal heroes were in the first debate. But what was his response? He'd leave the country. That's right. With all the things he claims are desperately in need of doing, his number one priority would be to go tour the world. In a way, though, when you think about it, it wouldn't be that bad. How nice would it have been if Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter had left the country upon taking office? But in all seriousness, his answer was the political equivalent of "I'm going to Disneyland." Of course, going to Disneyland wouldn't be necessary for him, as this "man of the people" probably already has plans for building his own amusement park on his estate.
As for the rest of the debate, it was nothing but a bunch of sellouts falling over themselves to be "the" anti-war candidate. I particularly liked how Richardson talked about how little we do for Africa (ignoring the millions of dollars pumped into that continent to fight AIDS by President Bush, no less). I found it also interesting to note that, while talking about fiscal responsibility, one candidate thought we should set up elementary education worldwide. Yeah, that should be doable. Why not just also promise to end famine, establish world peace, turn lead into gold, and do away with hate? And all of this will be funded by simply overtaxing people making over $200,000 a year in the U.S. But what will really make all of this possible is John Edwards world tour. That's what our country has been so sorely lacking.

More on Immigration

2007-05-31T10:12:00.000-04:00

Yet another issue that I have with Democrats over this whole immigration issue is - you guessed it - their hypocrisy. On the one hand, they like to complain about how American jobs are being "outsourced" to other countries. They also like to complain about trade deals that may hurt prices for American goods. But their stance on immigration would effectively do the same thing.
What good is it if we keep jobs in America, only to import low-skill, low wage-earning workers to do them? All of these jobs that illegals are doing are supposedly jobs that Americans won't do, but what it really is is that they are jobs that Americans won't do for the wages that employers can pay illegals. Who is to say that the jobs that get outsourced are not jobs that Americans won't do? So instead of having some person in India, who at least has a fairly good grasp of the English language, performing the job for lower wages than we could manage here in the U.S., we have some illegal worker who has less than a working understanding of the English language doing the job here in the U.S. for lower wages. That's definitely improvement. What's that you say? At least the money stays here? Not really. The Mexican government counts on the huge influx of American dollars that it receives from illegals working in the U.S. Also, when the jobs are done in another country, like, say, India, we get a net gain, because we get cheaper products. Studies have shown that low-skilled immigrants in the U.S. actually cost $20,000 a year more than they contribute. Add to that the higher teenage birthrates, the higher dropout rates, and the higher single parent households, and you make the situation worse.
Additionally, allowing illegals permanent status here in the U.S. will hurt Americans in more ways than just in government handouts. Injecting a large number of low-skilled illegals will drive down the wages for low-skilled Americans - you know, the poor that Democrats seem to care so much for. These illegals coming over will do these jobs for less, so why would employers pay higher wages for American citizens? Of course, once you legalize them, you will have to pay them the actual minimum wage, which was just raised. This will cause employers to have to not hire as many (or go back to hiring all of the new illegals that will have entered the country after January), and then we will just be adding more onto the welfare rolls.
So why do Democrats support this? They want these people to become citizens, because low-skilled, low wage-earning people tend to vote Democrat. They are the party for those with their hands out. Also, they envision that once these people are assimilated, they will have to join unions, which again is a winning situation for them. So for this reason they are selling out the poor that are already here and are citizens.
By the way, I doubt this will be played up at all in the media, but it would be a good question for them in the next Democrat debate: does anybody realize that when Clinton and Obama voted against the military funding bill, they also voted against a minimum wage increase? You can say that it was on principle, but remember that it was their own party that attached the minimum wage increase to the military funding bill. They forced people to vote for funding the troops or voting against the higher minimum wage. Why would they lump them together, when every indication was that they would have easily passed the minimum wage increase all by itself?

Another Leftist Hero

2007-05-29T09:08:00.000-04:00

So how much longer do we have to hear what a great guy Hugo Chavez is from the whacko leftists in this country? Don't forget he is Cindy Sheehan's favorite despot. And we know that he is an honest champion of the voice of the people, since we have Jimmy Carter's word that his elections are fair and accurate. Who can forget what incredible aid he is giving to the poor with his handing out of oil to them. And then we can also remember what good buddies he is with the Hollywood types, like Danny Glover.
But just as with the illusions that leftists have about the socialist paradise of Cuba (think of Michael Moore's latest "documentary" which would have us model our health care system on Fidel's), the people who actually live in the country under the dictatorial rule of such crazies don't quite see things the same way. In addition to taking actions that will probably tank the economy (because that is what has happened in practically every other country where a power hungry "man of the people" has seized the private industries), he has now effectively silenced free speech and the freedom of the press. Just as leftists blindly supported Stalin back in the day, once again they have picked a winner.
Of course, Democrats are already trying to do something similar with their attempts to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" which would impose regulations on free speech over the radio. Basically, Democrats and leftists can't put someone on the radio that anybody wants to listen to (don't worry, because I think Air America is still at least playing in Vermont), they want to impose a Fairness doctrine that would require "equal time" for both sides of the spectrum. And since nobody wants to listen to liberals on the radio, they would have to cut back on conservative programming, which actually brings in revenue, as opposed to draining it. We can't help it if all of the liberal radio hosts get into trouble by hurling racial slurs at undeserving women's sports teams.
So just remember, when you go to vote for someone that kowtows to the will of such people as Cindy Sheehan, remember what, in her mind, is the ideal ruler.

Darfur

2007-05-22T13:54:00.001-04:00

So why is it that we should go into Darfur when we are told that going into Iraq was a mistake? Democrats will never explain this inconsistency.
Let's look at the undisputable facts regarding Iraq. We will completely leave WMD (or at least their presence at the time of invasion) out of this discussion. Saddam was in violation of the peace treaty that he signed to end the earlier Gulf War following his invasion of Kuwait. Not only was he not participating with the weapons inspectors, and had even kicked them out on several occasions, but he was firing on planes, in violation of that treaty. He had previously used biological weapons against the Kurds in the north. He was enacting a genocidal policy against the ethnic minority marsh Arabs. He was in violation of the Oil-for-Food program. He slaughtered thousands of Iraqis, the full measure of which we may never know as we continue to uncover mass graves. And he was subsidizing Palestinian suicide bombers in their attacks against Israel, paying the families of these nutjobs thousands of dollars for the homicidal actions of their offspring. And finally, terrorist groups were operating within Iraq and setting up training camps, if not with the full cooperation of the Iraqi government then at least with their tacit approval. Nothing could operate in that country without Saddam's permission, and you expect us to believe that these groups operated completely in the dark?
Now, lets look at Darfur. We have Janjaweed militias, almost certainly working with the backing of the government, killing ethnic minorities. So how does this merit military action when Iraq, a much larger threat to the region and the world, was involved in so much more?
For that matter, why Somalia, why Bosnia, but not Iraq? Apparently Dems don't believe in taking military action when there is even a hint of benefit to the United States. They are only interested in regional conflicts that do not impact our national interests in the least.

The Carbon Secret They Aren't Talking About

2007-05-21T13:44:00.000-04:00

The conspiracy to block any efforts to curb global warming is even more sinister than any of us can imagine. Beyond the obvious efforts of "Big Cattle" to divert our attention away from the catastrophic effects of bovine flatulism, there is something even more widespread.
The problem I speak of is human respiration. Did you know that everyday, people all over this planet are breathing and expelling the horrible greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide? But the Bush administration doesn't want you to know this. Even the scientific community is selling you out by not even addressing this issue. This is even more widespread than the evil automobile. Even primitive tribes in the deepest recesses of the Amazonian rainforest, where no SUV has yet set its sea level-raising tires, are contributing to this problem. Clearly this is being driven by "Big Timber," who think only of themselves and the short term benefits of the carbon dioxide that they require for their own respiration. When will the trees of this world start to develop alternative fuel sources?
Have no fear, though. I have a solution. We need to start cracking down on excessive oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide exhalation by humans. First of all, we need to impose exercise caps on healthy people, and maybe charge them for the extra carbon dioxide they exhale with their increased respiration during their exercise. Next, we need to start imposing population control measures to limit the number of new humans we bring into this world to breath more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We can also fund geneticists to work on developing more oxygen-efficient human lungs, and put requirements on people to lower their carbon dioxide exhalation levels to pre-1990 levels. Certain measures can be enacted to address this. We can require that people exhale into special carbon dioxide receptacles. For those with lower incomes, for whom this might be too expensive, we can require them to hold their breath more often, thus cutting back on their carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon offsets can be offered to those who want to exercise, or for fatter people who breath more. If we work together, we can help reduce our own personal carbon footprints.

Is He Serious?

2007-05-21T13:34:00.000-04:00

Our greatest national embarassment, Jimmy Carter, has taken to now calling President Bush's administration the "worst in history." He has tried to backtrack, claiming that what he meant to say was that it was worse than President Nixon's. Originally, he also claimed that it had been worse then that of George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon. Notice that he didn't include his administration, or that of Bill Clinton, in this assessment. He didn't want his lie to be too blatant.
Of course, if there were anyone who could possibly speak authoritatively concerning the worst administrations in our nation's history, Jimmy Carter would be that man. Whether you want to talk about allowing Iran plunge into a nightmarish theocratic hell that now threatens the world with its nuclear program, or coining the term stagflation, and then giving it a whole new meaning, you have to hand it to this man. And don't think his atrocious policies were limited to his single term in the White House. Who can forget the wonderful deal he helped broker with the North Koreans to give them nuclear reactors and food in exchange for them promising (cross their heart, and hope to die) to not develop nuclear weapons. Too bad he forgot to check whether they were crossing their fingers behind their backs before blindly accepting the word of a despotic dictatorial regime.
Let's face it, nobody can think of a good thing to say about the Carter administration. Democrats remember fondly the "good old days" of Clinton. They practically achieve nirvana when thinking of the Roosevelt and Kennedy administrations. They even will tout the Civil Rights legislation of the Johnson administration. When was the last time you heard anybody praise anything that came out of Carter's administration? And this man sees fit to criticize others?

Amnesty by any other name . . .

2007-05-21T09:34:00.000-04:00

This piece of immigration legislation is the biggest sellout of the Republican base since George H. W. Bush went back on his no new taxes pledge. The political doublespeak is seriously nauseating regarding it. I'm afraid I simply can't stomach the B.S. anymore about how this isn't amnesty. They toss in a $5000 fine and expect us to believe that this is "getting tough." I'm sorry, but when I call it amnesty, I call it that because these people entered the country illegally, and instead of enforcing the law, which would require immediate deportation back to their home country, they get a Z-visa and have to pay a small penalty (I won't be holding my breath on the government enforcing that $5000 fine) and they get a break by not having to pay back taxes. So yes, Bush, McCain, and even you, Tony Snow, I call that amnesty.
If this legislation passes, I think it will effectively lock Republicans out of power for several election cycles, until this old, beltway crowd of Republicans has cycled out. They will have put the final nail in the coffin of the Republican Revolution of '94. I think Jeb Bush can also bury any nascent dreams he has for a run for the White House. The Bushes have shown that, while they will be strong on national defense, they cannot be reliably counted on for conservative values.
I will also say, here and now, that I have now solidified my resolve against McCain or Giuliani for the nomination, given the first's complicity in this legislation, and the second's seeming approval of it, as well as his history of supporting illegal immigration. I've had it with "compassionate" conservatism. I'm ready for the good old days when conservative meant something other than Democrat Light. Because, honestly, with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?

Welcome

2007-05-18T11:26:00.000-04:00

This blog has been set up as a complimentary blog to the more private Fred and Fuller's corner, but with my having greater control and allowing more people access. This is a political blog, and reflects my views which are primarily conservative Christian. While my voting record is solidly Republican, I often have objections the the actions of my party, and will express them here from time to time.
My background is Republican for as long as I can remember, with all of my family also of a similar political persuasion. My politics are also influenced by my faith, which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon).

2007-05-18T11:24:00.000-04:00

As if I didn't already have plenty of reason to reject McCain as the Republican presidential nominee for 2008, he handed me a big fat one yesterday on a silver platter with a heaping side of Ted Kennedy. Yes, he is a steadfast proponent of the war in Iraq, but I've got that with Joe Lieberman, and he at least has the common decency to call himself a Democrat (actually, now he is an Independent since his party chased him off, but he at least doesn't hide who he is). Maybe McCain will get Arlen Specter's vote, but I would be ashamed of a party that votes this man to speak for them and run for president. I would also have to hang my head in shame around any other RINOs who attach their name to this bill (I'm thinking of you, Senator Kyl, and yes, even you Mr. President). As if we weren't tipping the scales in their favor already for 2008, why do we even bother? Why not just concede the race now? Do we really think we will win anything by granting amnesty to illegal aliens?
Lets face it, a win for this immigration bill, regardless of how many Republicans took part in its crafting, is only going to aid Democrats. The biggest supporters of this will always be Democrats, and you are not going to drum up huge support for Republican candidates this way. Despite all their wishful thinking, there will not be some huge shift to vote Republican because George Bush granted illegals amnesty. What it will do is drive down conservative morale. Why go and vote for any of these Republicans when all we will get is liberal measures passed? Yes, there will always be a solid base of Republicans that will overlook anything else in order to win this war in Iraq, but there are enough moderates in the party that don't feel that passionately about Iraq, and if the Republicans can't even find a moral backbone to support it beyond September, they aren't going to be ginned up come 2008 to vote for someone like Giuliani who only agrees with them on Iraq.
Don't even start with this B.S. that the bill will also include ways of enforcing immigration law. Like the way that we are working on that fence you promised us? That's going great. At this rate, the planet will have melted away from global warming before the fence even reaches Arizona. And by the way McCain, illegal immigration had everything to do with the failed attempt to attack Fort Dix. Some of those arrested had entered the country illegally, and it looks like they did so crossing the border in Texas.