Monday, November 20, 2006


November 1, 2005 Majority Leader Bill Frist discovered that the Democrats had declared war on the Republicans.

Accusing Republicans of ignoring questions about pre-war intelligence, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session today, igniting anger from GOP leaders.

Speaking to reporters in the hall outside the Senate chamber, Majority Leader Bill Frist shot back, charging the Senate "has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership."

Frist said the Democratic Party leadership did not warn him in advance of the move, which Republicans called a "political stunt."
"It means from now on, for the next year and half, I can't trust Senator Reid," the Tennessee lawmaker said.

That was merely a warning shoot that proved to be the down fall of Republican leadership in Congress. And not only for the next year and a half Mr. Frist but since the Democrats successfully took official control of both houses of Congress you and America will not be able to trust Democrats for years to come only now Democrats have the power to enforce their wishes on America.

Mr. Frist your inept leadership and Republican political ineffectiveness is the cause that Democrats were able to control Congress and the House for the last 6 years by which they now officially have taken control of the legislative bodies which they have only owned by deviant political machinations up until now.

How did the Democrats do it? The Democrats promised a new direction for America and with that promise and their plan to wrest power away from Republicans by creating a culture of dissatisfaction they now control both houses of Congress.

As a child I remember riding along in the back seat of our automobile as we traveled cross country. I could see all kinds of things, various cows either standing or laying down, all kinds of different car license plates representing the different states from which each car started its journey from and trees and plenty of scenic countryside.

I had no control of where we were going but as I remember it the trips always felt like they lasted for years and the only thing that I wanted to know is if we had arrived at our designation.

So now that Republicans are in the minority and Democrats are leading the country in a new direction I for one will be looking at the various bills and proposals that Democrats will put forth. I for one will be checking each and every liberal social cause that has now been embolden because Democrats control both houses of Congress and I will take note of the social engineering that will be attempted by Liberals because of Democrats new found power.

Democrats failed to describe were they planned to take America in clear concise language they used only the broadest of terms. I for one will have to consistently call out from the back seat and ask, “Are we there yet?” “Are we there yet?” Why? Because the left has not proven that they have the slightest idea of what they are doing and where they are going to lead America.

The only thing that the Left has proven is that they have learned how to play politics with the American Moderates and the American Libertarians with the politics of hate and complaint.

However in order to lead, America Democrats will need much more than the politics of hate and complaint. They will need love for this Country and a vision of good for the American people.

What Liberals have shown in the last 6 years of politics in America is not the ability to show love for this Country what Liberals have shown is not a vision of good for the American people.

What Liberals have shown is the willingness to do and say anything to undermine American so that Leftist views can be forced on the American people.

The same lesson that was learned by Senator Bill Frist will be the same lesson that all of America will soon learn that is Democrats can’t be trusted and as for Nancy Pelosi’s promise in which she said,
“The American people voted to restore integrity and honest in Washington, D.C. And the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”
My only question is…

Are we there yet?

Thursday, November 09, 2006

What happened?

Republican got their hats handed to them and it’s like Republicans don’t even know what hit them.

So let’s lay this out on the table and examine this defeat.

First Democrats were impassionedly set against Conservatives. There is a lot to be said about passion. Democrats made no bones about their hate for Conservatives and it worked for them.

Second organization, Democrats were organized under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid they kept their caucus together and they had a goal, defeat the Republicans. And it worked for them.

Speaking of the Democrats plan, Howard Dean should be credited for his 50 state plan to organize the “get out to vote effort” because of it Democrats were victorious.

Fourth Democrats were smarter than Republicans, Democrats successfully prevented President Bush and a Republican control Senate and Congress from passing any meaningful legislation while they were planning their take over of the legislative branch of government. This also worked for them.

The fifth thing that worked for Democrats where the Republicans themselves. Democrats had so decimated the Republican leadership with a campaign of smear that the rudderless Republicans were sitting ducks who could be picked off one by one. Ashcroft, Delay, Foley, Cunningham, Rumsfeld, etc…

Sixth because the Republicans were cluelessly rudderless Democrats controlled the public discourse and defined the Republicans at will. Republican became corrupt homosexual pedophiles that were brilliant political election manipulators that where as incompetent as they were dumb.

Seventh Bill Frist!
Eighth Denny Hastert !
Ninth John McCain !!
Tenth Democrats proved to be real politicians were Republicans only were posers.
Eleventh Democrats were at a consist state of war with the Republicans but Republicans weren’t at war with the Democrats. It is the same scenario that will be played out between al Qaeda and the United States if Democrats fail to realize the seriousness of the terrorist threat.

Last by not least the reason that Republicans were defeated is President Bush.

Republicans worked hard for this defeat and by George we’re going to regret every last minute of it!

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Democrats 9,000 Lawyers this ain’t your Mother’s Election

Democrats are going to put more Versace suits on the ground than the U.S. has boots on the ground in Iraq. Gone are the days when local mom and pop pollsters tally votes and turn in the result to the local authorizes.

Since 2000 Democrats have moved the American election process into the courts where the peoples control over their election process is lessened.

On Saturday and Sunday, hundreds of the 7,000 lawyers who are working on the election for the Democratic National Committee will board planes for Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio and 13 other states.

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the N.A.A.C.P. and the People for the American Way Foundation will jointly have 2,000 lawyers fanning out across 20 states.

The Republican National Committee is shipping out 150 lawyers on Monday to help hundreds of local lawyers in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee and other states answering phones and working at polling stations policing against voter fraud.

This new face of American elections can only get uglier and we have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing the democratic process to be co-opted by insurgents in suits with briefcases.

What are we doing? This is not progress for Democracy this is reversion, this is devolution, and this is a downward move on the ladder of political descendancy.

If we don’t trust the process or each other it won’t be long until we are at each others throats. This is truly a signal that the beginning of the end is near.

We are fast becoming the Disunited States of America a country that’s political parties have been politically divorced in a hateful political disputed separation.

When voting today take your lawyer, who knows whether or not you’ll have to sue to vote.

Hey Ma I don’t think that America is a country for the people by the people any more and we’re definitely not in Kansas any more either!

This is supposed to be a nation of laws not lawyers.~Jeez!

Monday, November 06, 2006

The Politics of Hate

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for,"--Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee Chairman told Democrats gathered at a Manhattan hotel, in quotes picked up by the New York Daily News.

I’m going to make this as crystal clear as I know how; all of Democrat politics is driven by hate.

It is so stated by their leadership and it is evident in the vitriol filled attacks generated by the radical netroots movement which has in turn been adapted by the political establishment of the Democrat party. Also it is apparent in everything that Democrats say regarding their political opponents.

Democrats, their main stream media supporters and all of their affiliates hate Conservatives and everything that Conservatives stand for.

Well just what is it that Conservatives stand for? Conservatives stand for tradition family values, protecting the innocent’s right to life, low taxes, restrained government power and spending, Judges who adjudicate according to the U.S. Constitution not redefine the Constitution by person opinion and political correctness, the rule of law equally applied, Freedom of religion, fairness, true equity and truth telling.

Each of these ideas have been attacked by Liberal Democrats as well Liberal Democrats have attack Conservatives that espouse these ideas. But in spite of Democrats hateful political Conservatives are gaining momentum and will prevail on Tuesday.

The failed vision of the Democrat party is to Europeanize America by infusing America with European values only when one takes a look at Europe one finds Europe in serious trouble.

Economically, politically, nationally and culturally Europe is not a model that any country should be attempting to aspire to. Nevertheless Liberal holds up Europe while at the same time denigrating their American society.

When asked what is their plan for America and war in Iraq. Democrats have been hard pressed to give any significant answers only promises of a future plan and a lot of finger pointing at Republicans. Democrat's voting record show weakness in issues of national security and protecting American interest.

Eight years of Democrat in the White house saw American secrets going to China, al Qaeda growing in strength and daring and a President who was distracted by his own White house philandering. Apparently these are all values that Democrats stand for!

Since Republicans won the White house in 2000 there as not been one day that Democrats have not attempted to subvert the power of the Presidency, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Democrats’ actions have gone beyond partisanship to actual destructive politics which meant to or not have put this country at grave risk in a time of war and simultaneously the greatest natural disaster in American history by attempting to politicize every aspect of our government’s response to 9/11, the war against terror, and hurricanes Rita and Katrina.

Hateful Democratic speech and politics has worked to divide this nation from Al Gore’s Chadgate and accusations that the Bush Presidency was illegitimate to John Kerry’s unwarranted and brutal attack on the Bush Presidency’s war effort in Kerry and the Democrat’s failed effort to wrestle power away from Republicans.

Democrats from Nancy Pelosi to Ted Kennedy have absolutely poisoned the political discourse with highly charged hateful political epithets leveled against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, Karl Rove or any one so identified as Republican.

It is no secret that Democrats hate Republicans and everything that they stand for because we have witnessed 6 years of pure unadulterated hate coming from the Democrat’s side of the aisle very little policy, plan or vision for America but big hate of Republican ideas, Republican policy and Republican values.

Democrats are hoping that 6 years of talking down the Republicans will result in victories across America and control of either or both of the Senate and House of Representatives. Democrats are counting on the growing discontent with the war that they have helped to ferment will sweep them into control of power in America.

Democrats are depending on the politics of hate to be a winner for them on Tuesday.

Air America went Bankrupted espousing hate for Republicans, Dan Rather gone because of his hate for Republicans; Newspapers across America losing readership because of hate filled editorials and partisan reporting.

Democrats are coming apart at the seams because of hate filled politics their hate is infecting the whole country making America less safe and more Balkanized.

Americans should do what they always do this Tuesday, they should reject the politics of hate and they should reject the party which espouses it!

God will bless America only when she stops the hate. Six years of political hate speech against Republicans has driven the Democrat Party and America to the brink of political disaster. God bless America used to be an American sentiment Democrats it still can be. No it still should be! Please America stop the hate now!

Friday, November 03, 2006

Conspicuous by their Absences

Where are they and why are they hiding? Nancy Pelosi where are you, Harry Reid we can’t find you. John Kerry after insulting the U.S. Troops, the U.S. President and then the American people by calling us all stupid was finally pulled off behind the woodshed. All of them gone, all of them have disappeared until after November 7.

Harry Reid probably as corrupt as any Republican is still luring around somewhere in the Senate when Republican who were accused of like acts as he had the honor to step down when accused of wrong doing, but not Harry. No he’s lurking somewhere hiding and hoping the American people will forget his Jack Abramhoff connections and his cool 1.1 million dollar wind fall land deal where sold land became his again when the land's worth mysteriously increased, all unreported to the Senate ethics committee.

Or we can talk about the super obstructionist and minority house leader San Francisco’s Nancy Pelosi who with fascist like Neo-Nazi control has brought the whole government to a halt. Stridently Pelosi has created the most partisan divisive atmosphere in recent memory to Washington D. C. and she did it all hoping the American people wouldn’t notice that it is she who has been Ortho’s Iago to President Bush and the Republicans.

But after herstunning performance on "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi just vanished but not before she proved again why she cannot be trusted to keep America safe from the threat of global terrorism and Islamic extremists.

Finally where’s John Kerry who just one handedly swiftboated the Democrat party by saying out loud what all Democrats really believe, but are smart enough not to reveal in public, that is they think the rest of us are all stupid. What’s so interesting about Kerry’s “botched joke” is that he’s told it before, yes during a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes."

Kerry also wrote in a questionnaire filled out before his first run for Congress. "I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.' (Boy that Kerry’s is so funny!) I guess the Army is lying when they say they are an Army of One!

Kerry’s 2006 version of that joke goes like this;

“"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."--John Kerry 2006

Oh Johnny your soooo funny! Who would have guessed that the pride of Massachusetts was a virtual laugh riot? Kerry must be the life of the Senate complete with rubber chickens and whoopee cushions. What a jokester!

Where are they? Does anyone know? Do you think that Pelosi, Reid and now Kerry believe that by remaining out of sight they could sneak into leadership positions and the American people wouldn’t notice the Ultra Liberal fanatics who would be taking America in the wrong direction?

Howling Howard Dean not hiding, Nope like Alexander Haig after President Reagan was shot, Dean thinks that he’s in control! And he’s dissing President Bush like he’s auditioning for the show Yo’ Mamma. Here’s some of Dean’s most recent:

"I think we want to focus on the president's intemperate rhetoric in saying to vote for a Democrat is a vote to help the terrorists win," Dean said. "That's clearly untrue and that's exactly the reason why President Bush is a failed president."

Oh yeah Mr. Yaahooo? That’s not what the terrorist think Mr. Dean, senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WorldNetDaily said they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq.

Sounds like that different direct that Pelosi is always talking about doesn’t it? I wonder if Pelosi will get fitted for a burka when the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq invites terrorism to America. A burka would look pretty snazzy on Pelosi while she presides over the House.

I guess we’ll just have to get used to Pelosi, Reid and Kerry’s low profile because when the Republican retain both the Senate and the House there will be a lot of scarce Liberals in D.C. and throughout the country.

Maybe some Liberals will make good on those threats to move to Europe. I could get used to no Pelosi, Reid and Kerry. I bet they’re hunkered down somewhere holding their knees to chest just hoping John Kerry doesn’t wiggle freed from the Viet Nam bamboo rope tie that they have him bound in.

Thanks Mr. Kerry for igniting a firestorm! Happy voting America!

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Kerry's mouth moves but it's Bush's Fault!

President Bush making Senator Kerry's mouth move

The words came out of Senator Kerry's mouth but somehow he's blaming President Bush.
That seems to be the favorite Liberal past time. Can't pay your rent --blame Bush. Dropped your ice cream cone -- blame Bush. Can't win an elect (or two) -- blame Karl Rove, Say something so utterly dumbfounding and stupid-- yep you got it blame Bush.

Well what have I been saying? I've been telling you dear readers that the hate that the Democrats have spawned against the Republicans would come back and haunt them!

And lo and behold Mr. Purple Heart himself, the man who threw some medals over the fence or at least placed some ribbons over the fence and they could have been his or someone may have given the ribbons to him, (That's what Kerry said, you can't make this kind of stuff up!) has swiftboated himself and is taking the Democrat Party down with him! It's over the Democrats will lose everything in November! All because of hatred of Bush!

Kerry, who as been liken to Benedict Arnold the infamous traitor of the revolutionary war, was speaking to students at Pasadena City College campaign stumping for the losing effort of California's Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides, Senator Kerry implied that only dumb people go to defend our country and wind up ultimately in Iraq. Senator Kerry said;

“"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."--John Kerry 2006

When President Bush rightly defended the honor of our servicemen Senator Kerry lashed back by saying that his remarks were a botched joke meant to ridicule not the U.S. Troops but the President of the United States! Oh that's better Mr. Kerry, we understand, you only meant to denigrate the President. ~Jeez!

Senator Kerry continued to blame the Republicans for his own words saying that calling attention to his outlandish statement was a Republican tactic which he wasn't going to stand around and let happen. And, further more, President Bush is the one who owes an apology. Kerry then defiantly stated that he wasn't going to apologize for demeaning the U.S. troops!

Sen. John McCain, a decorated Vietnam veteran and a potential 2008 Presidential Candidate, said while campaigning for candidates in Indiana that "the suggestion that only the least educated Americans would agree to serve in the military and fight in Iraq is an insult to every soldier serving in combat today."

Senator McCain understood what you meant Mr. Kerry but Kerry still insists that he botched a joke about President Bush. (Yeah right!)
Mr. Kerry denigrating the troops is bad enough but really Mr. Kerry do you want to play Mahmoud Ahmandinejad or Hugh Chavez now? Contact the U.N. They haven't laughed so hard over there since Chavez was there talking down Mr. Bush, calling him the devil. I'm sure they'll be happy to schedule you a date!

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said "Our soldiers risk their lives in the face of grave dangers on the battlefield, and no one who chooses to courageously and selflessly defend our country can be considered 'uneducated.''

Don't insult our intelligence like you insulted the U.S. Troop's intelligence Senator Kerry. No way can anyone, who heard what you said, support your lie that you were speaking about President Bush. You are a liar and you always have been Senator. You were insulting the U.S. Troops like you always do. You did it to Troops as they fought in Viet Nam and you are doing it again this time to the troops fighting in Iraq.

You Mr. Kerry have a long history in denigrating U.S. Troops, a long history, so don't blame President Bush for your inadequacies American's won't stand around and let THAT happen!

A botched joke Mr. Kerry? Oh you must mean like the botched 2004 Presidential campaign you ran. Yeah that was a joke and now the way you just botched up any hope of Democrats winning the House or the Senate is really a knee slapper Mr. Kerry.

You'll never be President Mr. Kerry, you belittled our U.S. Troops and are lying about it and as for jokes Senator like politics you should leave them to the professionals. Yeah you botched it Mr. Kerry and you and your Democrat Party ARE the jokes!

Oh by the way Senator this ain't Bush's fault either. IT'S ALL YOURS SENATOR!

Monday, October 30, 2006

The Hatin’ on Bush Vote

Who do you hate George Bush or do you hate Nancy Pelosi, The war on terror or terrorist who declared war on America? That’s what the Democrats say this election is about. (That's so 2004!) Liberals need to get over it! But this is how Democrats framed this election so if they lose they have no one to fault but themselves.

Liberals are calling this election a referendum on the President and the war. And it is if you hate Bush! For all of you that are counting that’s a third bite of the apple. Democrats have had two prior attempts at hating on George W. Bush once in 2000 and again in 2004 and they have been hatin’ on him from the very first time they heard his name.

Now they want the whole country to join with them in one great big hate feast November 7th. Maybe they see this as a going away present of sorts. You know, a kind of, we couldn’t beat you President Bush so we’ll use these elections to demonize you one last time.

"This election is becoming more and more a referendum on George Bush, his failed policies both overseas and at home with a rubber stamp Congress," said Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, head of the Senate Democratic campaign committee.

The Democrats hate Republicans and everything that Republicans stand for, at least that’s what they’ve said, and they are using their hatred to fuel what they believe will be an ouster of their political rivals in this November midterm election.

So Democrats feel that running against Bush and the war in this election is useful to them. And they’ve got a lot invested in hatred of the President; Democrats have spent the last 6 years talking down the President of the United States and talking down the United States’ effort in protect its self against Islamic terrorism.

The thing is President Bush isn’t running! His term in office is ending and he is going away in a couple of years and the war like it or not is not going away.

Also if this is a referendum of hate then let’s talk about what putting Nancy Pelosi in as the Speaker of the (Hate) House will do to America.

Pelosi has established herself as the second most polarizing person in Washington D.C., Hillary Clinton being the first, she and Senator Harry Reid have orcastrated perhaps the most hateful plan ever.

A plan to obstruct the Senate and the Congress in such a way that their fingerprints are not immediately evident but when you control the Democratic voting block and you order all Democrats not to vote on any Republican measure your hateful influence is certainly felt. And when it is felt you simply point to the Republicans and call the Congress a "do nothing" Congress. Yeah it’s do nothing because you made it that way!

Pelosi's lifetime rating by the Americans for Democratic Action, the liberal benchmark for members of Congress, is 96 percent. Her lifetime rating by the counterpart American Conservative Union is 2 percent.

Less than a year after 9/11, Pelosi said publicly that she didn't consider the United States at war. This year, she said that national security should not be a campaign issue in the 2006 midterm elections. Naturally she meant not at war with terrorist but of course Pelosi believes that she is at war with Republicans.

Pelosi voted repeatedly against the counterterrorism Patriot Act, opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security and voted against a resolution condemning the leak of the National Security Agency's highly classified program for monitoring terrorist communications. Clearly the only enemies worthy of fighting to Ms. Pelosi are Republicans.

In Fact House Democrats have voted, often by overwhelming margins, against nearly all the fundamental counterterrorism policies and programs. A majority of House Democrats voted repeatedly against the Patriot Act, against authorizing military tribunals for captured terrorists, against modernizing electronic surveillance legislation to permit monitoring of terrorists by the National Security Agency and against creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

Twice in the 1990s and twice more since the terrorist attacks in 2001, half or more of House Democrats voted to cut finding for U.S. intelligence agencies. This year, 93 House Democrats voted against the 2007 Defense Authorization bill, which included appropriations for the major U.S. intelligence agencies.

On securing the U.S.-Mexico border – arguably a tangential national security issue – Democrats have an equally weak record. More than half the House Democratic caucus voted against legislation authorizing construction of 700 miles of fencing along the southern border. More than half of all House Democrats also voted against legislation last month to increase immigration law enforcement.

So you go right ahead and fall for the "hatin’ on Conservatives" that Democrats have got going on, but judging by Democrats and Nancy Pelosi’s voting record hatin’ Republicans is the only thing that Democrats hate.

Judging by Democrat’s voting record it’s apparent that Democrats not only hate Republicans they hate America too! I’m just going their the record…

So have a Happy Hatin’ on Bush Voting day!

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Being a Democrat means never having to vote your conscious

Some Democrats voted for President Bush’s Terror bill isn’t that usual? Yes when according to Nancy Pelosi Democrats were not under any circumstance vote for any Republican measure which is a clear effort to obstruct the 109th Congress with hopes to make political hay for the 2006 mid-term elections by haranguing this Congress as the “do nothing Congress.”

But being a Democrat is complicated these days and sometimes you vote for the right thing even though it’s not the thing that you would normally vote for because it goes against your political philosophy. Just what I’m I talking about? Let me explain.

Democrats who voted with the Republicans now can make the argument that they view national security as a priority and, thus, try to fend off GOP's frequent charge that electing Democrats would be dangerous.
"They're trying to play it safe," said Robert Erikson, a Columbia University political scientist.
In the Senate, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., voted with Republicans and avoided opening himself up to criticism from Republican challenger Tom Kean Jr. in a state where terrorism is a dominate issue. Only a river separates New Jersey from the New York City site where terrorists struck in 2001. Polls show the race very tight.

Democratic Rep. Sherrod Brown, an ultra-liberal, is trying to unseat Republican Sen. Mike DeWine in Ohio, and may be trying to project a more moderate position. That also could be the case in GOP-leaning Tennessee, where Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr., also a liberal, is challenging Republican Bob Corker.
Democratic Reps. Melissa Bean in Illinois, Jim Marshall in Georgia, John Barrow in Georgia, Leonard Boswell in Iowa, John Spratt in South Carolina, and Edwards in Texas.

"They are voting in line with what they perceive to be the views of a majority of their constituencies on this issue," said Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist.
He suggested that these Democrats cast their votes not because of this election year but because of the next few, saying: "They're just trying to avoid trouble in the future."

Convictions are such limiting things one should always be able to negotiate or completely vote against your conscience for political expediency. After all that is the essence of being a Democrat everything is negotiable. One wouldn’t want to be inflexible or unyielding like the conservatives would one?

Thursday, October 26, 2006

Jersey Courts can’t find gay right. Orders legislature to!

"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution,"
-- Justice Barry T. Albin

Homosexuals and their advocates were confused by the ruling of the New Jersey State Supreme Court. Aching for a victory, some sign of legal validation, instead they stood around asking one another just what did the court's ruling mean.

What it means is, the Court understands that they are being used to promote social change and although they want to do this and in the past they would have, too many people now are aware that a court ruling for homosexual rights is a misuse of the Courts power. So they’ve decided to do the next best thing that is to order the legislature to do it!

In essence what the court has ruled is -- there is no legal validity in your arguments but we're going to make it happen for you anyway because we wish to be politically correct.

Homosexual advocates have been pushing for full homosexual marriage and are on a two-year losing streak in state courts including New York, Washington, and in both Nebraska and Georgia, where voter-approved bans on homosexual marriage were reinstated.

They also have suffered at the ballot boxes in 15 states where constitutions have been amended to ban homosexual unions.

They have shopped this homosexual thing around America looking, hoping, searching for a homosexual sympathetic Court what would invent out of whole cloth a civil right to be homosexual, hoping that that court would so order that, such a right emanates from the United States Constitution, and therefore rule that by the authority vested in the court a new right is here by created.

But even the New Jersey Court, one of the most liberal courts in the land (the Massachusetts Supreme Court being the most liberal) couldn’t find in their state Constitution an inalienable right to be homosexual.

Ironically this is the state where the now infamous former Governor James McGreevey came to his own personal truth; you know the one, that he is a Homosexual American! McGreevey created scandal by putting his homosexual lover on the government dole in the ultimate act of adulterous nepotism and corruption.

But as splendid as that epiphanous revelation was to McGreevey homosexuality is not a constitutionally guaranteed right not even the New Jersey Supreme Court would decide thusly.

Instead they like the Massachusetts Court have forced their legislature to write into law that which is completely and fundamentally contrary to the survival of humankind. The very idea that homosexuality and heterosexuality is equal is like saying that the Sun and the moon are equal or the earth and the planet mercury are equal.

It’s sad that supposed learned individuals are ineptly grappling with the pitiful arguments that homosexuals are deserving of some sort of constitutional guarantees because of their sexual deviancy.

Hey people this is not Solomon splitting the baby, and this argument is no Gordian’s knot this is perversion attempting to put on a face of respectability. This is an ever not so gentle reminder of why Democrats must not be voted into power in November!

State courts including New York, Washington, Nebraska and Georgia have all decided that there are no civil rights guaranteed for sexual practice whether its done missionary style or doggy style what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is your business. But when homosexuals and their supports invade the courtrooms of America in an all out fascist blitz to legally force homosexuality on the people of America their legal actions should be recognized as the tyrannous acts that they are.

So the unrelenting drumbeat of homosexual legal action moves on to California, Connecticut, Iowa and Maryland where homosexuals are determined to find that one other court that will finally give them what only the Supreme Court of Massachusetts has given them thus far, the right to be wrong. Wrong because homosexuals are pathetically mimicking the natural lifestyle and sexuality of men and women.

They attempt to adopt children in order to mock hetero couples, they emulate the sex act that was designed for a man and a woman and now they would have the courts to say that there is no difference in the homosexual mimicry of heterosexuality and heterosexuality itself.

Yeah and it’s gotten to a point where we all judge reality by fictional accounts like the television or the movies we’ve seen. “Do you see that accident? Yeah, man it was just like in the movies!” …Duh!
Here’s a thought that will definitely go over many of your heads! “IT’S A MOVIE STUPID, IT’S NOT REAL!!!”

Such it is with homosexuality. Homosexuality is an imitation of that which is real …heterosexuality, don’t you get it?

Homosexuality is the ultimate lie! Its not constitutional, hell it ain’t even real sex!

This ruling could not have come at a worst time with three weeks to go until mid-term elections. Liberals would prefer that media attention remain focused on former Congressman Mark Foley rather then the homosexual agenda that is presently pulsing throughout the courts of America.

Reminding us again why Liberals should not be elected to the Senate or Congress.

But I guess that someone would have to explain this to the great Satan because after all lies are real to him aren’t they? America is still the great Satan aren’t we?

Though this is being reported as a legal victory for homosexual advocates it really isn't. Homosexuals were petitioning for a constitutional rights ruling and they were sent back to the legislature so that the legislature could write a new special law to make their arraignments special and unique.

So far every court that they have petitioned have ruled that there is no homosexual civil right! This court too! Only they are attempting to use the legislature as a surrogate to make law instead of ruling it into law themselves.

So now it is so ordered that the New Jersey state legislature write law to make up homosexual equality!

Again these are the reasons that Liberals are not deserving of any kind of power electoral or otherwise!

Sunday, October 22, 2006

Bush was Right!

North Korea is sorry!

That’s correct the President’s policies toward N. Korea are indeed working. All the nay sayers and all of the second guessers were wrong about N. Korea. N. Korea’s Kim Jong Il told Chinese State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan that "we have no plans for additional nuclear tests," Yonhap news agency reported, citing an unnamed diplomatic source in Beijing.

Kim also told the Chinese that "he is sorry about the nuclear test," the mass-circulation Chosun Ilbo daily reported, citing a diplomatic source in China. The North Korean leader also raised the possibility the country would return to arms talks. That is the six-party talks that the Bush administration has been saying all along were the way to deal with the N. Korea leader.

President Bush chose to work diplomatically through China which was able to broker this apology from Kim.

After N. Korea tested Nuclear weapons underground Some leading US Democratic senators joined a growing chorus of voices calling on the Bush administration to engage in bilateral talks with North Korea to persuade the communist state to abandon its nuclear weapons programmes.

Carl Levin, the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Armed Services Committee
, said President George W Bush should abandon his resistance to one-on-one talks with North Korea and appoint a special envoy to deal with Pyongyang.

"Providing our allies and partners want us to talk with the North Koreans, bilaterally, one-on-one, we should do so," he said, adding that he believed South Korea, China and Russia supported such talks.
"Our refusal to do so just plays into the hands of the North Koreans," Levin said.

Levin said Bush presented a "false choice" between multilateral talks and going it alone – as Washington did when it struck a nuclear freeze pact in 1994 which unraveled in 2002 after Pyongyang was found in violation of that deal.
The False Choice which Levin addresses as the Washington nuclear freeze pact of 1994 which was a bi-lateral agreement between the Clinton administration and N. Korea which failed or unraveled according to Levin.

So why would he think that bi-lateral talks would work between the Bush administration and N. Korea?

Former U. S. Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat
and former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also called for direct talks between the U. S. and North Korea, after the Asian nation stunned the world by conducting a nuclear test.

Nunn called the Bush administration's reluctance to meet with the North "counterproductive."

Nunn is a supposed expert on nuclear proliferation who co-founded the Washington-based Nuclear Threat Initiative after leaving office in 1996.
In spite of all of the second guessing it was the diplomatic work of Secretary of State Codelezza Rice with China that turn the N. Korean dialogue around.

Chinese banks said they have suspended financial transactions to North Korea under orders from Beijing. China is the North's main trading partner, and the step could be a serious blow to its frail economy.

"If the U.S. makes a concession to some degree, we will also make a concession to some degree,whether it be bilateral talks or six-party talks," Kim was quoted as telling a Chinese envoy, the newspaper reported.

After negotiation with Secretary Rice China put the breaks on N. Korea’s economic transactions to which Kim Jong Il said he was sorry and Pyongyang didn't plan to carry out any more nuclear tests. He also expressed regret about the country's first-ever atomic detonation.

You were right again President Bush and nay sayers were wrong!

Thursday, October 19, 2006


A conservative group filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission against Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada for using $3,300 in campaign funds to pay Christmas bonuses to employees at his condominium.

Citizens United alleges the payments violated federal election law, and the group's president, David Bossie, called Reid a "tainted" leader of Senate Democrats.

Bossie also noted Reid failed to report he had conveyed ownership of land in Southern Nevada to a limited liability corporation.
If found that Senator Reid did use campaign funds to pay for Christmas bonuses he would be guilty of converting Campaign contributions into his personal property. If he did not declare this in his Income Taxes as personal income then the Senator committed Tax Fraud.

Reid has demonstrated "a pattern of extremely questionable behavior that requires a full investigation by both the FEC and the Senate Ethics Committee," said Bossie.
Lashing back Senator Reid spokesman Jon Summers said "Mr. Bossie's agenda is to undermine Democrats, so it was no surprise he filed another disingenuous FEC complaint after the issue had already been addressed."

When Mr. Summers says that, “the issue had already been addressed” he of course is referring to the “Do over” where Senator Reid instructed his office to amend the fraudulently filed ethic committee reports and the fact that Senator Reid offered to pay back the $3,300.00.

But Democrats are not the only ones that have felt the displeasure of David Bossie. Bossie also has criticized House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and urged him to step down for his handling of the controversy surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., and congressional pages. However Bossie stopped short of saying Reid should resign as Senate minority leader.

In an apparent attempt to discredit Bossie altogether Tony Batt reports that Bossie was the target of an FEC complaint filed in 1992 by President Bush's father, who repudiated Bossie's tactics in the campaign against then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton.

I find Batt’s attempt a standard Liberal tactic. Liberals are taught to lash back by refocusing the attention away from the wrong that they have committed and focus blame on the person, persons or entity that dare to raise any charge against a Democrat Liberal.

Senator Reid is the focus of this complaint with the Federal Election Commission not David Bosse.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

According to the FBI Foley’s not a Pedophile

The Democrat’s big October surprise and political roadside bomb set for Republicans just fizzled out!

Brian Ross reports that after interviewing 40 Congressional Pages and turning over every rock on Capital Hill the FBI was unable to find that Mark Foley had any sexual contact with any under age Pages, still desperate to make a case against Foley they are now interviewing female Pages. Foley is gay.

This is another in a long line of Democratic, made for affecting the outcome of elections, scandals that have not panned out like Democrats had hoped.

DNC Chairperson Howard Dean called this a firestorm when first it was disclosed that the Republican Congressman was gay and it was thought he was enticing young Pages into sexual relationships.

Even had it been true, which it is not, that Congressman Foley had sex with an underage page it would not have been the first time that this kind of conduct has happened on Capitol Hill.

Recently deceased former Congressman Gerry Studds actually did have sex with a teen aged Page. But he never apologized. He defended the relationship as consensual and condemned the investigation, saying it had invaded his privacy.

Studds was censored by Congress but won reelection to his seat and continued to serve. In contrast Republican Foley, who was only guilty of emailing Pages, resigned his seat.

Foley is not a Pedophile, he did not commit pedophilia yet because of the Democratic created firestorm he was put out of Congress. Something that Democrats didn’t do to one of their own who was an actual pedophile!

So goes the politics of firestorms in October…

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

It is Love or it is Pedophilia?

Tired of the Foley Flap? Want something comparable by a little different?
Well, speaking of Pedophilia and corruption of minors remember Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, you remember him, Newsom wanted to go down in history as the Martin Luther King Jr. of the homosexual rights movement by freeing homosexuals to marry in California which was also in violation of Californian state law and all conventional wisdom.

Newsom also ordered employees of the city of San Francisco to break state law by issuing marriage license to homosexuals and further ordered them to perform civil weddings. All lawless acts but hey this is America you should be able to do whatever you want right?

Well enough, so now about Newsom's latest disregard of the law, he's recently in the news for something that Liberals are accusing former Senator Mike Foley of, pedophilia.

Yes the 39 year-old sexually uninhibited politician is knockin' boots with a just turned 20 year old. The Mayor's new date is Brittanie Mountz who the San Francisco gate reported just turned 20 last month. However Brittanie's MySpace page said that she was 19 years old has been recently updated to state that she is 26.

But according to the Sonoma County registrar of voters, the Rohnert Park resident turned 20 on Sept. 17.

Apparently there are Photos of Mountz holding a wine glass during the opening of the new Westfield San Francisco Shopping Center, where Newsom also made an appearance. But according to the Mayor's office the couple did not arrive there together and the Mayor was not with her.

Whether Mountz was actually drinking alcohol at the shopping center opening remains a mystery. Attempts to reach her were unsuccessful.

But Newsom spokesman Peter Ragone distanced his boss from the event, saying the mayor and Mountz had arrived separately and had not been there together.

You know the old Clinton line -- (Clinton voice) I tried, but I didn't inhale-- when he was asked whether he ever tried Marijuana. Something like that huh!

No big deal only that drinking age in California is 21 years old.

So with the political atmosphere in Washington D. C. so highly charged with the investigation of a former Congressman's emails to young Congressional Pages it's interesting that out in sunny California whether it's homosexuality or pedophilia it all good!

Mayor Newsom you GO boy!

Monday, October 16, 2006

Should North Korea be made to pay for Hawaii's damages?

No man is an island no man stands alone, Each man is my brother. Each man is my friend.

I learned that lyric as a child and though I can't be certain that it is completely correct that is how I remember it.

However in the larger context we are related as people who share a common home the earth. That is why North Korea's recent underground Nuclear testings are so detrimental to the world community.

Is it just a coincidence that days after two North Korean underground nuclear test that the islands of Hawaii are facing earth tremblers, power outages and possible tsunamis. Are these events really unrelated?

Were there any predications of earthquakes in or around Hawaii predicated for this time? And is there any way of determining whether huge underground blasts are or are not able to cause chain reaction of events world wide?

Who would even pose these questions and to whom would these questions be asked of?

If North Korea's two underground Nuclear test can be linked to the recent Hawaii earthquake joltings on Sunday will the world community demand that North Korea pay for damages?

Finally if discovered that the recent event's in Hawaii where the result of North Korea's willful breaking of international laws the world community should not only require sanctions against North Korea but they should require payment for the negligent actions of a country that disregarded the safety of the world community by setting of nuclear bombs in the heart of mother earth with complete disregard for the earth or the other inhabitant on the planet!

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Bush-bashing goes Bust!

Arrogance, condescension and hate broadcasting known as Air America radio has filed for and sought Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.

Months ago Air America spokespersons disavowed rumors that Air America was on the verge of bankruptcy they now claim that bankruptcy just recently became necessary.(Yeah right!)

Is this a harbinger of the fate of Liberals in the upcoming mid-term elections who have pinned all their hopes on the same hate politics as normally typified by the Liberal broadcasting station, Air America?

Air America started up about two years ago as the Liberal answer to Conservative radio. Many believe that it was started just to affect the outcome of elections.

Much like the Democratic political party, Air America has had very few new ideas and formatted itself after the Conservative radio media. For example Air America’s flagship talk show featuring comedian Al Franken was named "The O'Franken Factor" parroting Franken’s arch foe Bill O’Reilly’s, “The O’Reilly Factor.”

In other news Former vice-President Al Gore forayed into the multi-media business with ventures in TV and the internet. Mr. Gore’s Current TV is going international by launching a UK version with this business partner Rupert Murdock. Murdock started Fox News.

Mr. Gore said that the aim for his television and web service was “the democratisation of the television medium.” (Democratisation? sounds like the internet isn't the only thing Mr. Gore has invented!)

Air America has struggled financially since its inception. Documents filed with the bankruptcy court show that the company lost $9.1 million in 2004, $19.6 million in 2005 and $13.1 million so far in 2006.

This of course is no reflection on Liberal ideas nor does it suggest that Liberal ideas are bankrupt.

What? No money to be made in Bush-bashing… but it feels sooooo good!

…sorry Mr. Franken this card has been declined, you care to try another?

Thursday, October 12, 2006

It is Intifada or Just French Islamic Crime?

In which country has there been nearly 2,500 police officers wounded this year, at an average of 14 officers a day, in this Countries unofficial Civil War. By comparison the Iraqi War, an official war, to date American casualties has been confirmed by the Department of Defense at 2730 Deaths.
What country is at civil war? France of course.

"We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more; it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police; you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

Not everyone agrees that France is in the midst of a civil war against Islamist extremist Gerard Demarcq, of the largest police unions, Alliance, dismissed talk of an "intifada" as representing the views of only a minority.

Mr. Demarcq said that the increased attacks on officers were proof that the policy of "retaking territory" from criminal gangs was working. Mr. Demarcq obviously sees France’s problem as a law and order problem.

However, Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the hardline Action Police trade union, has written to interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy warning of an "intifada” and demanding that officers be given armoured cars in the most dangerous areas.
He said: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists.

This is not a question of urban violence any more; it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police; you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

He added: "We need armoured vehicles and water cannon. They are the only things that can disperse crowds of hundreds of people who are trying to kill police and burn their vehicles."

Might I remind you that this is happening in the streets of France. Democrats who have called for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq let me ask you, how long would you suppose America has before we begin to look like Europe if we lose in Iraq?

Let’s all think about it!

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Dem Polls, Dem Polls

Are Democrats polling their way to victory, it could happen! Though it hasn’t yet.

It seemed to have happened in 2000 and again in 2004 Democrats took their polls, and just as they thought America loved them!

Oh but just like the movie -The Day after Tomorrow-, the day after the 2000 and 2004 elections “dem” polls froze over for Democrats and it was like political Global Warming had hit the self proclaimed victorious Liberals. They went into total political meltdown. Alas their beloved exit polls didn’t reflect the actual vote count. Their polls had failed them. Send 6,000 lawyers to Ohio immediately!

But No! The elections were stolen, the Chads, the Chads, Florida and Ohio. It’s been like one political toxic Geo-thermo greenhouse effect and according to the Democrats their opponents the Republicans are Carbon Dioxide and they’re destroying the Earth’s ozone (among other things!).

So here we are in 2006 and guess what? The polls show the Democrats with a huge lead! Surprised? I didn’t think you would be. After all Democrats have done a lot to turn public sentiment against those nasty Republican destroyers of the ozone.

Democrats have all but made the name Bush a four letter curse word! Not to mention Nancy Pelosi’s strategy of obstruct, prevent and blame. Say it with me: obstruct, prevent and blame! Good! (I knew you could.) It seems to be working too. This Congress goes by the moniker of “the do nothing Congress.” Can’t do much when one half of an almost 50-50 split decides that they’re going to sit down on you.

I wonder if these same tactics can be employed by the Republicans if the Democrats just happen to get their polling numbers correct this time and win control of either the House or Senate or both?

I guess Democrats feel that the American people are tired of winning the war in Iraq (we are winning you know!) so their policy of snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory will work really well with the new direction they are talking about taking America in. They can entitle this new direction; Erasing all of America’s victories because we hate Bush! How does that sound? Pretty catchy huh?

And then there’s that new and better way of fighting the war you remember John Kerry had one. I guess we’ll get to see it now. I can’t wait. We’ll be reunited with all of our old friends, France, Germany, Russia and China and we’ll solve all of the world’s problems, Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Cindy Sheehan! Or will Kerry’s much vaunted diplomatic prowess turn our enemies into friends? I think America should make a truce with Ms. Sheehan.

If Kerry’s able to do that I’ve got some water that sure would make some good wine! Maybe he’ll be able to fit my request into his going to be business schedule.

Anyway, dem polls, dem polls it’s all about the Democrat’s polls and if these polls are correct hold on to your seats because it’s going to be a bumpy ride in America until 2008 and beyond. But I’m not putting any stock in main stream media's polls call me silly but we've been here before and I think that they’ve been out of the main stream for a long, long time. I don’t think they have the slightest idea of what Americans want. And according to polling results things are about to get worst!

And believe me things can definitely get worst than they are right now. Because like a Muslim a Democrat can only harm himself without money or power. But give him either of the two and Israel you’d better watch your back! And that warning Israel is about either Muslim or Democrat! And America you’d better watch yours too!

Anybody taking an exit poll…are the Democrats leading?

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Like a Chicken with its Head Chopped Off

When I was young I saw a chicken being slaughtered for dinner. One quick blow to its neck and it was all over except the chicken began to run and run and run without its head.

Which is a lot like the former Congressman Mark Foley scandal, Congressman Foley resigned what, some five days ago. He’s gone, finished, and disgraced yet the scandal keeps running and running and running. Why?

Because it’s politically expedient! What did Hastert know and when did he know it? Should Hastert step down? Should the Republicans be run out of town? These questions ladies and gentlemen are all the machinations of the politicizing of a very tragic life. And those who seek to use this tragedy for political gain are villains too.

Also with the chicken it’s a neurological response. The running is a response because the body of the chicken hardly realizes that the small brain is gone until much later.

I guess the media’s brain is a lot like that. They’ve hardly realized that Congressman Foley is gone. One would think that with all of the Foley questions, investigations, hearings and reporting that he was still a sitting Congressman. Foley’s not here he’s gone!

I realize now that this, so called, scandal is like a funeral. A funeral is not intended for the departed, not really. A funeral is for all of us who wish to emote about, rationalize and justify the way we who remain live.

That’s what's really happening with these congressional hearings and media reports concerning the Foley scandal. Since 2000 some of us in this country have been emotionally disturbed. This scandal, this October surprise is our funeral. It’s just a cathartic way of expressing the way we really feel about President Bush and Republicans.

A time in which like DNC Chairman, Howard Dean you all can say, I hate Republicans and everything that they stand for. Plus what a wonderful opportunity to finally deal a fatal blow to the neck of your political rivals and pick up a few seats and control of the Senate and the Congress at the same time.

Why this is a firestorm! Yeah that’s the ticket, a firestorm… Gee and I thought this was about protecting children.

Oh well, things are never what they seem in an election year and scandals can be like funerals and dead chickens can ran.

Friday, October 06, 2006

Conservatives ARE Guilty

Yes this whole sorted Congressman Foley affair finds Republicans guilty of a grave and gross sin… which sin? They are guilty of the sin of TOLERANCE of course.

Republicans knew that Rep. Foley a Conservative Congressman is homosexual yet they were tolerant of him, Republicans knew about some of the emails too. Speaker Dennis Hastert told Foley to knock it off once Hastert heard of it, while remaining tolerant of the Congressman.

But because Republicans were politically correct and tolerant they left themselves open for the criticisms which they are now receiving, criticisms that they knowingly allowed a Homosexual Congressman to pursue young boy-Congressional pages on Capitol Hill and did nothing about it.

Don’t you get it? The real problem is with tolerance! Tolerance is the slippery slope from which Republicans have fallen and once one begins to allow behavior normally considered taboo to become normalized and once one allows that which is traditionally wrong to become legally right, what happens is the lines of acceptability becomes blurred. That is why Conservatives failed to act in this case; they are morally confused by tolerance.

Liberals want tolerance of homosexuality however there are many complexities surrounding those who are confused about their sexual identity, so it is with Congressman Foley. So it is with the myriad of sexual identity groups; cross dressers, lesbians, bi-sexuals, transsexuals, men who love boys, etc, etc, etc. This indeed has become a very complex social discussion. Who knew that a homosexual man would be attracted to children of the same sex? Liberals point out all the time that there is no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia.

In light of this new social conversation Conservatives who normal represent family and values have allowed themselves to become open to the left’s calls for tolerance. That is why there is a homosexual Republican Congressman in the first place. Homosexuality is socially accepted so who are the Republicans to deny a homosexual from being a Republican Congressman? They didn’t deny him! In fact they were tolerant and supportive of Congressman Foley.

However, when one relaxes values in order to be politically correct, as the Conservatives have done, the unconscionable can happen and in this case it did! The other thing to consider is Liberals are now attempting to use the fact that Conservatives did not uphold Conservative values even though Conservatives were attempting to show tolerance for Foley in this email situation.

But here is the irony, Liberals claim that it doesn’t matter that Foley was homosexual what matters is that he attempted to molest an under age child. However, as it is now known the page, at the center of all this controversy, was eighteen-years-old at the time that he received the Foley email.

There was no child involved! There was no sex involved; we are talking about an email to a consenting 18 year old adult. The only thing that is untoward about this whole scenario is that a Republican homosexual was involved even though he immediately stepped down from his Congressional seat. Unlike the Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds' who continued service in the House for 13 years after he admitted to having had actual sex with a teen page. Studds’ teen page WAS actually 16 years old!

So the truth and the bottom line is a Republican homosexual Congressman emailed an eighteen year old page, Jordan Edmund, who was not under age at the time of Foley’s email. So what are Democrats and Liberals of all stripes incensed about? In two words, power and control, Democrat’s see this made up scandal as an opportunity to win the House of Representatives.

So as I originally stated Conservatives are guilty; if they are guilty of anything they are guilty of being tolerant and politically correct. With real Conservatives in Congress we wouldn't be discussing the fact that Conservatives are supposed to be the party of morals and family values.

And no one would be able to say as they are now saying, Look Conservatives have a homosexual Republican Congressman who attempted to have sex with an underage child, Conservatives are hypocrites! They’re not a party of family values!

This is why, instead of electing Democrats or more of the same Conservatives, what we really need in the halls of Congress are “real” Conservatives, Conservatives that uphold family values and morals.

That’s what Liberals are asking for by this firestorm of outrage against Foley and Hastert and I say let’s give the Liberals what they want!

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

The Republican Gay American

Rep Mark Foley is a Gay American. Everyone knew it. He was openly gay. So from the Democratic perspective what is the scandal?

Is it that Representative Foley is gay? Is it that Rep. Foley attempted to have relations with a Congressional page? Is it that Republicans should have known because Rep. Foley is gay he needed to be closely monitored and they did not hold him with suspicion when they discovered that he had been emailing Congressional pages?

Well let’s look at each of these questions we’ll start with the last first. It appears that it came to Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert attention about a year ago that Rep. Foley was emailing pages the Speaker told him to knock it off. Hastert thinking that, that would be enough to end it did nothing else because the emails involved showed no evidence of sexually inappropriateness.

But I get it because Rep Foley is gay the Speaker should have immediately asked for Rep. Foley’s resignation right?

Second Rep. Foley is responsible for the Congressional page program on Capitol Hill so I suppose that he has many, many contacts with the pages that come and go on Capitol Hill. But Rep. Foley is gay so Speaker Hastert and the Republicans should have made sure that Foley was never around or alone with young boy pages. At the very least everyone should have been suspicious of a gay man who wanted to be in charge of the Congressional pages right?

Third Rep. Foley is gay therefore Republicans should have known that Foley could not be trusted with any sensitive position in Congress right?

Okay I see what the scandal is now… the Republicans allowed a gay man to head a committee or program that had young boys in it and they did not suspect that the gay man might try something sexually inappropriate.

It’s going to be interesting to see what precedence main stream media and Democrats set for persecuting gay Congresspersons and those who support them. And if those gay Congresspersons act out in inappropriate gay sexual behavior it will be interest to see the standards which Liberals set for requiring that gays and their supports be stripped of power.

Well I get it now!!! Democrats believe that every one in Congress that supports a gay colleague who has committed a sexual inappropriate act should step down immediately!
Okay, let’s look around and …

Let them without sin cast the first stone!

Monday, October 02, 2006

Liars, Thieves and Partisans

President William Jefferson Clinton an admitted liar, Sandy Berger a convicted thief and Richard Clarke an admitted government bureaucratic failure and an obvious partisan shill all wish to shape the discussion about 9/11. Interestingly this correction is happening months before a midterm election and on the heels of an ABC made for TV Docu-Drama the path to 9/11 which shows the failure of both the Clinton and the Bush administrations in dealing with terrorism prior to 9/11.

However, the Clinton administration had eight years in which to shape the discussion about terrorism when they held the presidency, so why must we suffer their pitiful excuses and their political polarizing accusations regarding the sitting President now?
According to Michael Scheuer, who ran the CIA unit that hunted Usama bin Laden under President Clinton interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox news Sunday things were not as President Clinton remembered:

WALLACE: Mr. Scheuer, as the man in charge of what was called "Alec Station," the CIA unit in charge of hunting down Usama bin Laden, you say the Clinton administration missed at least 10 chances to get him. I don't want to go into all 10, but what was the problem?
FORMER CIA UNIT CHIEF MICHAEL SCHEUER: Well, the president is correct, in that he got - President Clinton is correct that he got closer than anyone, but, of course, he always refused to pull the trigger. And in addition, we were never authorized, while I was the chief of operations, to kill Usama bin Laden. In fact, Mr. Richard Clarke definitely told us we had no authorization to kill bin Laden.
Why they didn't shoot, of course, is, at least from Mr. Tenet's viewpoint it was because one time they were afraid to have shrapnel hit a mosque when they killed bin Laden. And two other times I think they were afraid they actually would have to do something, so they warned the emirates on one occasion, the princes from the United Arab Emirates, to move so we couldn't attack bin Laden.
WALLACE: They were on a hunting trip with bin Laden.
SCHEUER: Yes, sir. And Richard Clarke called the emirates and warned them that they should get out of that area, which cost us the chance to kill him…
WALLACE: But, Mr. Scheuer, I can see you beginning to shake your head. I mean, whether or not they had certifiable proof about the Cole, they certainly knew that Al Qaeda had been involved in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassies in Africa.
In your opinion, as somebody who was up close and personal, why didn't the Clinton administration go after Al Qaeda after the USS Cole?
SCHEUER: Mr. Wallace, my opinion is not all that important. I went to a little Jesuit school in Buffalo called Canicius, and the priests taught us never to lie, but if you had to lie, never lie about facts. Mr. Richard Clarke, Mr. Sandy Berger, President Clinton are lying about the opportunities they had to kill Usama bin Laden. That's the plain truth, the exact truth.
Men and women at the CIA risked their lives to provide occasions to kill a man we knew had declared war and had attacked America four or five times before 1998. We had plans that had been approved by the Joint Operations Command at Fort Bragg. We had opportunities, many opportunities to kill him.
But that's the president's decision. That's absolutely the case. It's not a simple, dumb bureaucrat like me; that's not my decision. It's his. But for him to get on the television and say to the American people he did all he could is a flat lie, sir…
SCHEUER: ... saying this that what Mr. Benjamin, who I have a great deal of respect for, but what I say doesn't matter. What matters is the documents that back up what I have to say or what Mr. Benjamin has to say.
The 9/11 commission ignored those documents, didn't publish them to the American people, let no one involved with the effort to get bin Laden testify to the American people.
This is not a question of interpretation or judgment. This is a question of fact. And the documents will show the president had the opportunity.
WALLACE: Mr. Scheuer, you're very critical of President Clinton, as we've seen today, but you also are on the record as saying that President Bush was, quote, "absolutely negligent in his failure to do more in the first eight months."
SCHEUER: Oh, I think that's absolutely the case. And I think that this administration has led us into a tremendously difficult long-term problem, which will be very bloody and costly for Americans.
I think fair is fair, though. Mr. Clarke, Mr. Berger, Mr. Clinton did have opportunities that were delivered by the men and women of the CIA to kill Usama bin Laden. In the first eight months of the Bush administration, there were no such opportunities. Could Bush have done more?
BENJAMIN: He didn't create any either.
SCHEUER: There were no such opportunities.
BENJAMIN: There were no votes (ph)?
SCHEUER: Well, the agency was still in the field. We were still trying to collect information. We didn't know where he was. I'm not saying that what they did or not was right, but the fact is Bush didn't have eyes on target.

According to FORMER CIA UNIT CHIEF MICHAEL SCHEUER in the eight years of the Clinton presidency Clinton had 10 times which to kill bin Laden and did not. In the first eight months of the Bush administration the opportunity to kill bin Laden didn’t present itself even once.

So the former President’s “At least I tried” performance on the Fox News Sunday show was something that we have grown to expect from Bill Clinton and his waging finger… a lie!

Friday, September 29, 2006

Why Democrats will not win 2006, 2008

Leading Democrats are playing politics with the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq. By undermining U.S. policy there, they are emboldening the very terrorist movement they say they hope to defeat.

How stupid are Democrats? They have been decimated and they don’t even know it! And the sad but true fact is that they’ve done it to themselves again! And because of their hatred for Conservatives and their propensity for lies and deceit they will lose the 2006 and 2008 national elections.

Democrat Senators leaked the NIE report to their allies in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and the New York Post and told the papers that the report was proof that the war in Iraq is causing an increase in terrorist.

• Leaked intelligence report says Iraq war is increasing Islamic radicalism
• Democrats say report proves that U.S. war strategies must change
• White House says media reports mischaracterized full report
• Leak comes as terrorism, war in Iraq are top election issues

This was meant of course to show that the war in Iraq is wrong on every level.

Leaking classified information is a crime punishable with prison time. The statutes are on the books, folks. Those who leak classified information and those who publicize it should go to jail but this is an election year and if the leakers are Democrats they are considered Whistleblowers but if Republicans are accused of leaking they are called traitors al a Valerie Plame. (By the way President Bush, V.P. Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove have been completely absolved of these spurious charges which were advanced by Democrats!)

The latest example: the selective leak from a National Intelligence Estimate – on the war on Iraq. According to the media's version of what was leaked, Americans are less secure now than before Iraq was invaded. It is not inconsequential that this report was leaked just over a month before national elections: In order to challenge these allegations, President Bush as forced to declassify a very sensitive NIE document.

It has been alleged that Democrat Rep. Nancy Pelosi is responsible for this leak; nevertheless, the intent for this leak was purely political and shows a long sustained pattern of disregard for national security, (at a time of war no less!) for the sake of political gain for those in the Democrat party.

As previously stated, this dangerous act of Democrats playing politics with American secrets forced the President to release a de-classified version of the intelligence report on terrorism and the Iraq campaign. But ironically the report refutes the original claims of the Democrats who point to it! The very report exposes those Democrats, and the liberal favoring MSM Papers, as Dan Rather liars who are again attempting to affect the outcome of an American political election by broadcasting unfounded lies about the Bush administration and the war in Iraq.

* The leakers cherry-picked the report, intending to undermine the administration's war policies, and the reporters bit - hook, line and sinker.

* Or the reporters - and editors - themselves collaborated in disseminating deliberately deceptive "news."

Either way, the original newspaper stories amounted to distribution of propaganda - witting or otherwise - that materially aided the cause of the enemy in time of war.

This is not the first time Democrats and main stream media have collaborated to hurt the U.S. Iraqi war effort. There was the Abu Ghraib leaked report, a leaked report from the US army’s internal investigations.

There was the Leaked CIA secret prisons information leaked by CIA agency employee Mary McCarthy which bears directly on the way we conduct investigations into terrorism and how we gather terrorist information.

Finally there is the NSA warrantless domestic surveillance program leaked to The New York Times and, first reported by The New York Times on December 16, 2005, which impacts the way in which America protects itself from terrorists plots.

It is not only these Democrat’s leaks that put America’s security at risk, but also out right false Democrat generated committee reports meant to put the Bush administration’s war on terrorism in the most negative light possible.

Jack Kelly reports such an instance in which a report when read is totally opposite of the reported conclusions drawn by Democrats who claimed that the report advises against the war. Kelly reports that after reading the whole 205 pages, he was stunned by the degree to which the "findings" in the body of the report did not support the "conclusions" made by Democrats at the end of it.

Two moderate Republicans -- Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine -- joined with Democrats to adopt "conclusions" designed more to abuse Mr. Bush than to convey what committee investigators actually found.

The committee voted, 8-7, to strip from the report this statement by Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks describing an American raid on Salman Pak, an Iraqi base about 21 miles southeast of Baghdad:

"This raid occurred in response to information that had been gained by coalition forces from some foreign fighters we encountered from other countries, not Iraq. It reinforces the likelihood of links between (Saddam's) regime and external terrorist organizations, clear links with common interests."

The reference to what was found at Salman Pak had to go because it clashed with the committee's "conclusion" that Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaida. Saddam "was resistant to cooperating with al-Qaida or other Islamist groups," the committee majority concluded.

To come to that conclusion, the Democrats not only had to drop Gen. Brooks' statement down the memory hole, they had to ignore a mountain of other evidence of Iraq's links to terror groups

Democrats have undermined America’s war effort in all instances to attempt to show that the Bush administration is not effectively waging productive war against terrorism.

They have leaked information, often classified secret documents, in their attempt to win the hearts and minds of the American people concerning the war in Iraq.

The truth is it is Democrats who have made us less safe from terrorism and terrorists threats not Republicans as they are charging.

The last sad and finally point is that Democrats have proven that they are willing to lose the war in Iraq in order to win the hearts and minds of the American people by turning Americans against the war on terror.

That is the reason why Democrats will lose in 2006 and 2008, because a Democrat win would mean that America would lose. Not only a loss in Iraq but a loss of the hearts and minds that the Democrats are so desperately vying for which would be a lost of the very soul of America, alas the very soul of America would be lost too!

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Backhanded Regards to Karl Rove

More on the Chris Wallace Fox news interview where former President Bill Clinton continued to give insight into the political machinations of his mind. In the interview with Chris Wallace, Clinton took time to complement (though tongue in cheek) Karl Rove.

Clinton said that he honors Karl Rove because he is good! Yes good according to the former President. It was like Socrates paying Plato a complement. In that subtle bit of admiration the former President tells a lot about himself. Mr. Clinton shows that he believes it is good to dis-inform the American people to win elections, that’s what he means with that complement to Rove. What else could he mean?

This writer doesn’t think that Mr. Rove is purposely deceiving the American people but apparently Democrats and President Clinton do. Clinton said, “That’s their job their job’s to beat us, I like that about Rove but our job is not to let them get away with it and if they don’t then we’ll do fine.”

What Clinton was referring to is getting away with making the Democrats appear to look like they don’t care about terror or make it seem that Democrats are weak on terror. Clinton seems to think that the Republicans have the power to make Democrats look as if they are not serious about terror and the security of this country. Not John Murtha, John Kerry or any of the Cindy Sheehan Democrats.

The White house and the Republicans want to make the America people afraid according to President Clinton. Not Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda or the defeatist Democrats who constantly cry that we can’t win in Iraq.

However here is a key mistake that the former President made in this interview, Clinton tipped the Democrat’s hand by suggesting that the Democrats stacked their political deck with military candidates this time around. Clinton said that Democrats have nine candidates that are Iraq war veterans who are running for house seats. Humm? I wonder if any of them or all are like Rep. John Murtha?

He also bragged that, “We've got President Reagan's secretary of the navy as the Democratic candidate for the Senate in Virginia. A three-star admiral, who was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror, by the way, is running for the seat of Kurt Weldon in Pennsylvania.”

All of this is to give the appearance that Democrats have a huge military appearance in the 2006 elections. What this means is that the Democrats know that they are weak on defending America and they are adjusting cosmetically to appear strong.

This of course is Democrat transparent election strategy to off-set any Republican advantage on the war on terror as was Democrat’s recent effort to connect with Christians by having Senator Barack Obama invoke his religious beliefs in the media and on the campaign trail.

Clinton then began to outline political the machinations of issues and counter issues which he seems to believe is all a big game of “us against them” a game where it’s who is more successful in framing the political argument before the American people, you know, the Clinton game of spin and triangulation that he “is is” so famous for.

According to Clinton his only worry is that the Republicans may come up with a rhetorical devise that would put the Democrats in a box that they can’t get out of.

See to Clinton politics is all about the spin it’s all one big political game whoever’s deal works just keep on working it. It’s the spin stupid!

Spin, triangulate and frame the argument the way you wish it to be perceived by the America people. That’s the reason the former President was on Fox news Sunday.

This was an attempt to go right into the heart of Conservativism, that’s what Democrats perceive Fox to be, and do damage control on the questions that the movie “A path to 9/11” raised on the way the Democrats handled terrorism for eight years of the Clinton administration and if the other side can do it better than Clinton on framing the argument, then caudles to them from President Clinton.

Even if your name is Karl Rove!

Monday, September 25, 2006

The Orwellian Truth According to Bill Clinton

According to former President Clinton the vast right-wing conspiracy got it all wrong and he’s going to set the record right! President Clinton believes that Chris Wallace was attempting to move his bones in yesterday’s Fox news interview, he also believes that ABC and Fox are a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to defame him regarding what his administration did to prevent terrorism in the eight years of his presidency. And finally Mr. Clinton believes that Richard Clark is the sole authority on terrorism in the world. You got all that? But wait there’s more.

Also President Clinton says that it was the FBI and the CIA’s fault that he didn’t kill Osama bin Laden and Chris Wallace’s interview was a conservative hit job set up to deflect criticism from Rupert Murdock’s support of Clinton’s work on climate change. You believe that? Well if you’re a Democrat you might.

What is so incredible about this exchange is that in the span of four questions Clinton transformed from a cool in control former President into a radical partisan hack, all on the posing of one fatal question, why didn’t you do more to put bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business?

Using partisan hack language like neo-Cons and right wingers, language that one would find on any Liberal anti-Conservative internet chat board the former President became argumentative and combative while leaning forward into Wallace as he attempted to defend his administrations failure to deal with terrorism.

Clinton said, “I worked hard to try to kill him (Osama bin Laden), I authorized the finding the CIA to try to kill him we contracted with people to try to kill him I got closer to killing him than any one’s gotten since.”

The former President then went on the attack by impugning Chris Wallace and the Fox networks integrity he said, “You set this meeting up because you’re going to get a lot of criticizisms from your viewers because Rupert Murdock supported my work on the climate change and you came here under false pretenses and said that you would spend half of the time talking about you said you spend half the time talking about what we did out there to raise 7 billion dollars plus in three days from 215 different commitments and you don’t care.”

Whew! Then I realized. To President Clinton fighting terrorism is a little like playing football for the Detroit Lions. You know, after one day after Detroit lost 9-6 to Seattle and failing to score a touchdown Detroit wide receiver Roy Williams thought that it was, “ … stupid how close we were to putting 40 points on the board." President Clinton probably thinks that it was stupid just how close his administration came to killing Osama bin Laden!

I’m betting that President Clinton, like Williams, would do well in a game of horse shoes!

It wasn’t the former President’s fault, he authorized the CIA to kill bin laden and the CIA failed.

President Clinton said that he didn’t do anything about the bombing of U.S.S. Cole because the FBI and the CIA did not certify that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with the bombing while he was President. Boy those FBI and CIA guys just aren’t doing the job are they?

And though the 9/11 commission report shows that his administration was at fault in many failed attempts to get bin Laden according to Clinton the 9/11 commission report is just a political document. A political document?

The former President said, “ After the Cole I had battle plans drawn to go into Afghanistan over throw the Taliban and launch and full scale attack and search for bin laden but we needed basing rights in Uzbekistan which we got after 9/11 the CIA and the FBI refused to certify that bin laden was responsible while I was there they refused to certify so that meant that I would have had to send a few hundred special forces in in helicopters to refuel at night and even the 9/11 commission didn’t do that, now the 9/11 commission is a political document too.”

So let’s count the excuses. There was the, At least I tried excuse, the vast right-wing Neo-Cons is out to get me excuse, the I got closer than anybody else excuse, the FBI and CIA don’t certify bin Laden did it excuse, the CIA don’t kill him excuse, and the 9/11 commission is a political document excuse. Did I get them all?

So I’m thinking that Clinton like ex-New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey has a truth that is solely his and for him. Mr. Clinton can say in the same fashion of McGreevey, My own personal truth is that I am a President that has done more to try to kill bin Laden then any other President and failed. Now all he needs is for anyone who is not a Democrat to buy his spin.

Hey Oprah you gonna do that interview?

see related story