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!