Monday, April 30, 2007

Why aren’t Democrats taking any blame for Iraq?

Senator “The War is Lost” Harry Reid

It occurred to me as I watched the Democrats debate, for the nomination for their party to be President of the United States of America, that these candidates think that they can get away with not taking responsibility for the war in Iraq.

I give you that some of them did not vote for the war because they were not in the Senate at the time by the fact is their party did in remarkable numbers and Democrats can not just abdicate their responsibility in this chapter of American history.

Think about it, if all of the Democrats who blame the Bush administration for the war in Iraq would not have voted to give the President authority to invade Iraq we would not be in Iraq today. However Democrats did vote for the war and subsequently they have voted to fund the war so why is this in Democrat’s mind, “Bush’s war”

Simple answer is Democrats say this is Bush’s war because Democrats seized on the growing dissatisfaction with the war (part of which they manufactured for political purposes) they did this to engineer a winning political strategy against the Bush administration and Conservatives, which makes for good anti-Bush politics. As you know for eight years Democrats have obsessed on defeating George Bush and Conservatives.

The Red state Blue state divide that became so prominent in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections marked the beginning of the Civil war that is presently raging in this country, liberals against conservatives, Democrats against Republicans.

But what is unconscionable, I think, is that Democrat Presidential candidate hopefuls are allowed by the media and their constituents to disassociate themselves from their own personal choices to invade Iraq. Have we forgotten the –Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq— and the House and the Senate votes that authorized the war?

Yet Democrats continue to disingenuously claim that his or her vote for invading Iraq was Bush’s fault for whatever reason that Democrats make that claim, intelligent voters should rebuke it’s Bush’s fault arguments, why? Because not all Democrats voted for the war only those who chose too, so such claims should count as one more politician that does not take responsibility for his or her decisions. If some Democrats were not fooled by Bush then why were some?

Rather, any honest Politician would say, I voted for the war based on what we all thought was evidence to support such a vote. We now know that everyone based his or her decision to go to war on faulty intelligence information. Base on that we are all equally at fault.

The fact is there were plenty of Democrats who voted against the war. Out of nine Democrats who sat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence deciding whether to recommend to the full body to go to war 5 voted for war and 4 did not.

For instance Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat is now making the claim that he he knew that the American public was being misled into the Iraq war but remained silent because he was sworn to secrecy as a member of the intelligence committee. Durbin was not the only Democrat on that committee.

However, what Senator Durbin statement does is unwillingly support the Bush administration’s assertion that the Senate had the same information regarding the war as the administration did with which to base their decisions.

Mr. Durbin, said he and half the Democrats on the intelligence committee voted against the war over concerns of the White House's case for war. But what Mr. Durbin doesn’t tell you is that there were nine Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and five of them voted for the measure as did all eight Republicans to send recommendation to the entire body to vote for use of armed force against Iraq.

If as Senator Durbin contends, the White House’s case for war was not good then why did five Democrats vote to recommend to the Senate for war?

Think about it, if nine Democrats vote as Durbin did they out number eight Republicans and the authority for war in Iraq never gets out of committee. The fact is Democrats had the power to prevent this war all along. This is just as much the Democrats war as it is anyone elses.

Any Democrat that claim that he or she was deceived by the President about the war and that is why he or she voted for the war is merely a political opportunist and not worthy of voter support.

Congress authorized the 2003 use of armed force against Iraq by votes of 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate in a Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. This is every bit the Congress’s war, the Democrats war and the people’s war.

So why aren’t the Democrats sharing in the blame?

Friday, April 27, 2007

Democratic Debate Made No Sense

From left: Mike Gravel, former U.S. senator from Alaska, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Ct., former Sen. John Edwards of South Carolina., Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson., and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio made the observation of the night when he said that it made no sense to oppose the war and then turn around and vote for more money to fund it.

Out of the eight presidential hopefuls that spent the initial moments of their first Democratic presidential primary debate blaming President Bush for the war in Iraq four candidates; Sen. Christopher Dodd, Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John Edwards all voted to give President Bush authority to invade Iraq four years ago.

And all Democrats House and Senate apparently except for Rep. Kucinich voted yesterday on a war funding bill that will be sent to the President early next week. Kucinich’s point strikes at the heart of Democratic hypocrisy. Yes indeed, what sense does it make to fund the war and at the same time say that you are against it?

Such is the case with Democrats who live in the nuanced world of conflicting positions and politics. Sens. Obama, Clinton, Biden and Dodd all cast votes yesterday in favor of funding the war in Iraq yet they all blame the President for the war.

Remember four of the candidates voted initially to invade Iraq and four of them voted to fund the continuation of the war yesterday yet Democrats feel perfectly comfortable criticizing the President while disassociating themselves from any responsibility for their decision to give authority to invade Iraq or their votes yesterday to continue to fund the war.

Inconsistent, makes no sense? Well of course this kind of “I voted for the war before I voted against it,” is a Democrat political essential. This is a formula that Democrats have invented, John Kerry clumsily attempt to invoke it in his Presidential bid of four year ago. When pressed on the fact that he voted against funding equipment for the troops. In Kerry’s famous nuanced way of putting things he said, “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

One has to wonder, why such blatant inconsistencies are so acceptable to Democrat partisans when any Republican who’d had made similar statements before the press would be dragged before a Senate Judiciary hearing.

But alas if you are a Democrat you may always change your mind, change your position and you may always repent.

For instance, you need a $400 dollar hair cut? And you want to pay for it from campaign donations?

Well I won’t advise it if you are a Republican but if you happen to be a Democrat and if your name happens to be John Edwards why go ahead and get that trim, no problem. If you are ever asked about it just say, "That was a mistake, which we remedied," and all is forgiven. See how easily Democrat sycophants look pass partisan wrong doing?

Or did you ever notice how Democrats are so impressed with the labyrinthine phrasing of a clintonesque statement, one that starts in one directing but is so convoluted with legalese that when completed it is in absolute contradiction of its original intent? Slippery answers, words, phases and clauses refined and redefined to the point of surreal absurdity an example would be some of the candidates’ answers to a question about the Supreme Court.

The candidates were asked about the Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on partial birth abortions, many of them claimed that they would not impose a litmus test on their own nominees to the high court. But contradictorily, some of them stressed their support for abortion rights, and said their appointees to the bench would reflect that. So much for not imposing a litmus test and very clintonesque I must say.

In another example Dennis Kucinich challenged Barack Obama at one point for once having said all options were on the table with respect to Iran. "You're setting the stage for another war," the Ohio lawmaker said.

In Obama’s best clintonesque he shot back, "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to initiate a war with Iran," Obama replied. "But have no doubt, Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region."

Thus Obama was able to leave all options on the table with only the impression that he had addressed Kucinich’s concern.

If this debate portends to be what’s in store for the American people, if the Democrats win, we will not have learned anything in the last eight years of partisan attempts to make George Bush into a liar. We could be headed back to being governed by a Democrat party that made lying depend on what the meaning of is, is!

And that friend just doesn’t make any sense!

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Bar the Constitution and Democrats will Speak

DNC Chair Howard Dean

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;--United States Constitution

The head of the Democratic Party said Wednesday that the best way to get presidential candidates to talk frankly about issues is to lock out the media. —Reported by AP Press

You have to wonder how anyone above a fourth grade education can be a Democrat or a Liberal that supports Democrat politics. Don’t these guys know anything about the Constitution?

As reported by the AP press DNC Chairman Howard Dean speaking before the Mortgage Bankers Association asserted that a media lock out would be the answer to get Democrats to speak candidly about the issues. So does that mean everything that we hear in the media spoken by a Democrat is…less than forthright?

Bar the press says Dean and hold closed meetings and Democrats will say all of the things that they’ve been holding back. Yeah things like, “The war is lost” a la Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid? I wonder what Senator Reid was really thinking?

"The media has been reduced to info-tainment," Dean said. "Info-tainment sells, the problem is they reach the lowest common denominator instead of forcing a little education down our throats, which we are probably in need of from time to time."

Of course, You probably get your information from ABC, CBS or NBC or maybe you’re a hard-core information junkie and plug in to cable news, CNN, or MSNBC. Like many Americans you probably subscribe to the Times newspaper in your area but according the DNC chair you’re not as smart as you think!

As a matter of fact you are being info-tained and you are the “lowest common denominator” who has an aversion to education.

Just remember that the next time you attempt to debate the issues with an opponent and you cite your mainstream media sources. Democrat National Chairman Howard Dean says that your sources are stupid and so are you!

Hey which mainstream media network is carrying tonights Democrat Presidential Debates?

Just thought I’d ask … You know there’s always Fox News!

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

A Tale of Two American Presidents

President Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Harry Reid of the Blue States of America

Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. …Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.—

Are Democrats acting as if the 2006 mid-term elections which put both houses of Congress in their hands is a political coup? It sure appears like it. Especially when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announces that there’s a new Congress in town. She only stopped just short of taking on a Texas twang and declaring that this town ain’t big enough for the both of us President Bush. Guess Pelosi is leaving all the southern twanging to Hillary.

Then Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid up and declares that the war in Iraq is lost. Which was news to our troops in the middle of fire fights in Iraq. I can see the men now; between M-16 rounds, Hey John did you hear Senator Reid just announced that the war is lost. John answers back, Yeah I just show him on Al Jazzera TV in that last house we just checked.

To top it off Senator Reid had the audacity to call the sitting President delusional about the war in Iraq. Wait a minute you call a war lost which was handily won and you do this with fighting men in the field and you’re calling the President delusional? …Yeah right!

Speaking of delusion the Democrats challenge to President Bush’s legitimate constitutional war authority makes them a government unto themselves.
The last I looked this was a Democratic Constitutional Republic. One which the people elect a President and she or he leads the nation with support from a cabinet of congressional approved administrators meant to conducts the affairs of state.

However there as been phenomena developing in this country as late as the 2000 presidential elections which is made more distinct by a closely divided House of Representatives and a closely divided Congress, that phenomena has been Democrats acting as if their political defeats entitled them to half of the political power in America.

Democrat behavior has been unprecedented in the way that they have demand equal time with the President of the United States so much so that they have created a dual leadership situation that has only been seen in America once before.

This situation is even more apparent now that Democrats control both the Congress and the House of Representatives. Democrats more than ever are acting as if they share a co- Presidency with President George Bush.

The Speaker of the House who is third in succession to the Presidency has demanded a larger Government Jet to jet her to and from her home in San Francisco and Washington D.C., a kind of Air Force plus 1.

If you haven’t noticed we are now functioning as two governments one controlled by President Nancy Pelosi the first woman President of the United States and her Vice President Senator Harry Reid. And the second legitimate government of President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Not since President Jefferson Davis of the Confederate States of America challenged President Abraham Lincoln has the United States had two Presidents simultaneously.

Democrats have effectively split the Government of the United States of America and now acting as Democrat President Nancy Pelosi along with her Vice President Harry Reid are governing a shadow government as an anti-Bush government alternative.

President Pelosi has made her first official diplomatic trip to Syria signaling that there is a new foreign policy in the United States and is planning her next trip to Iran.

Her Vice President Harry Reid has declared that he represents the people of the United States and the elected President, President Bush doesn’t. And to prove his point Democrats have decided to send President Bush legislation that will micro manage the war and then set a date to cut and run, establishing a dual Commander-in-Chief situation,between President Bush and the Democratic controlled Congress. Yeah that’s what the people want!

So how does a Democrat governed government fight a war? First declare that the war is lost and when the President of the United States ask for war funding you send him a bill that includes domestic spending, $6.9 billion for recovery along the Gulf Coast and allocates $650 million for children's health care, among other tertiary spending measures, why focus on winning the war?

And then be sure to set dates that your enemy can measure your limits. How long will Americans fight for freedom? Oh about four years and then please no more! Then maybe we can negotiate how much freedom we’re willing to give up to keep the peace. Cindy Sheehan could do that job; Sheehan would make one good ambassador for negotiating away our freedoms for peace.

As additional acts of Democrats inappropriate power grabbing become more and more apparent it should become clear to all Americans that Democrats are acting unconstitutionally.

The last time a shadow government was set up it the United States of America we fought a war over it and President Jefferson Davis was arrested.

That’s something to think about isn’t it President Pelosi?

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Gonzales to Stay Over Democrat’s Best Laid Plans to Weaken Bush

Question, what can a Republican do to show that he or she is credible, competent, effective, or demonstrate worthiness for their job. According to Democrats and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., answer; step down from office.

I think the President is finally getting it. He announced Monday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales did not break any law or committed any wrongdoing, which is absolutely correct! Separately, a White House spokeswoman said, Gonzales is staying. Another good thing.

The President now understands how the fairy tale that is Democrat controlled politics operates.

Its open season on Republicans and Democrat “Big Bad Wolves” have been playing the game of three little pigs with the White house all along, huffing and puffing, and threatening to blow the Whitehouse down with scandal for almost eight years.

Yet the, “He lied us into Iraq,” huff was made of straw, the “He outed Valerie Plame” puff was made from sticks and now the Alberto Gonzales hearings before a Democratic controlled Senate Judiciary Committee is blowing and blowing but still can’t knock the White house down because its now out of wind.

Charles Schumer chief Democrat Big bad wolf is hoping that the President and his Attorney General will just cave in to his bolstering demands outside of the White house door and just throw AG Gonzales out to the partisan wolves. But recent hopeful statements from the President show that he is tiring of capitulating to false Democrat outcries of “wolf, wolf” and Republican wrong doings.

Democrats seem to think that they can compel Republicans out of office by demanding they step down from office. This is because Democrats are not approving of American’s political choices in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT and Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. apparently seem to think that they can bad mouth Republicans, all Republicans and like the theory of “human caused Global warming” there is no more argument. Everyone agrees!

That is, to the Democrat way of thinking everyone agrees that Republicans including the President should all just quit for the good of the country.

Ah, wait just one minute Senators not everyone agrees that man is the cause of Global warming and you might be surprised to hear that not everyone agrees that the President should be impeached, or for that matter neither should Vice President Cheney. Not everyone agrees that Karl Rove stole the 2000 and 2004 elections and outed Valerie Plame these are all Democrat fairly tales. Fairly tales told to keep the radical “net root” left-wing partisans juiced up with enough hate to win the 2006 mid-term elections, take control of Congress and sever all connections with the values that once made America great

Let us not forget that underneath all of the Valerie Plame blame there was no crime Mr. Libby was not indicted for outing Ms. Plame no one was because even though Democrats held Congressional hearings no one in the White house outed Valerie Plame and likewise in these Gonzales hearings as the President said, “As the hearings went forward, it was clear the attorney general broke no law, there’s no wrongdoing.”

These hearing have lost their wind; the White house is not going to roll over on AG Gonzales just because Democrats wish it to be so. No body’s going to quit to satisfy Democrats false sense of morality and false concern for the country.

For almost eight years Democrats have attempted to destroy the creditability of the Bush White house now to feign that they have some grave concern with Alberto Gonzales’ creditability being damaged or that he is damaging the White house’s creditability is simply laughable.

Democrats are solely responsible for polarizing Washington politics not Alberto Gonzales and not anything that Alberto Gonzales did. Gonzales’ remaining as Attorney General is a message that the Bush administration finally realizes where the real war is.

And it’s not in Iraq its right here in the Capital of the United States of America.

For the President’s remain two years it will serve him well to remember that!

Monday, April 23, 2007

Liberals Create Cloud over White house

President Bush standing in front of members of his Cabinet

Predictable!You had to see this one coming. Democrats and their supporters are attempting to label the Bush administration clouded and awashed with scandal using Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ Democratic created troubles to launch what Democrats believe is a litany of Bush related Republican crimes and malfeasants.

True, President Bush did promise to "restore honor and integrity" to the White House. He also pledged to usher in a new era of bipartisanship. But for nearing eight years Democrats have successfully sabotaged the President’s every attempt to keep his promises.

However it is Democrats who have refused White house overtures for bipartisanship relations as they have disrespected the office of the Presidency and disrespected the President personally.

But in spite of Democratic attempts pay back for the Clinton impeachment President Bush has restored honor to the White house.

Nevertheless, how quickly they forget the Clinton legacy of corruption and scandal; I don’t think that anyone really wants to go there by attempting to equate the Bush administration with scandal, but in case you do here’s a reminder about the most scandal ridden corrupt Presidency in U.S. history.

Clinton legacy

47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned.

If we want to talk White house scandal that term is synonymous with Clinton not Bush, let’s be clear Clinton is only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance, Under his administration was the most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates, most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation, most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify, most number of witnesses to die suddenly, first president sued for sexual harassment, first president accused of rape, Hillary was the first, first lady to come under criminal investigation, largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case, first president to establish a legal defense fund, first president to be held in contempt of court, the Clinton presidential campaign had the greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions, greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad, and President Clinton holds the dubious honor of being the first president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court.

In spite of all of this not a peep from Democrats who now want you to think that they are concerned with corruption!

According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House. –The Progressive Review, http://

I don’t hate to say I told you so but I’ve been saying that this Senate hearing regarding Attorney General Gonzales was only to discredit the Bush White house and nothing more.

The real scandal is how a partisan media and a rival political party conspired to invent scandal and attempt to discredit a sitting President by politicizing everything from the war to President Bush’s attempts to keep the American people safe from terrorist attack.

The cloud, if you will, is really over U.S. media and the Democrat party. Americans are seeing more evidence of partisanship over patriotism everyday and Democrats and the media are awashed in it!

Topically the media in reporting about one side of the political spectrum will reference something about the other side to balance out and give some perspective to what they are reporting.

It is not surprising to me that in the two links that I’ve provided the writers attempt to make their point about scandal regarding the Bush White house but failed to mention the Clinton White house why do you suppose that is?

I’ll tell you why, it’s the cloud of scandal that is over this general media and its partisan supporters of the Democratic Party!

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Adiós Alberto No Deja la Puerta Golpearle…

Senate Judiciary Committee in the 109th Congress, including incoming chairman Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont). (photo credit — Newsday)

“I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out!”—Rodney Dangerfield

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales went up to Capitol Hill to save his job but much to his surprise he found out that he was front and center at an impeach Bush by proxy hearing and he was the surrogate of the moment.

Liberals and Democrats riled that they could not defeat George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 by lying on him and attempting to steal both elections have reverted to a more subtle strategic of kicking the legs from under the Bush administration by bush whacking the President’s lieutenants and thereby isolating him for the remaining less than two years of his term.

AG Gonzales totally unprepared for this ambush, thought that if he when before the Democrats and recognize his faults and apologize (a Democrat formula) that he would receive mercy and be thrown back for bigger fish. But as fate would have it Gonzales is the biggest fish that Democrats have netted thus far.

Oh not for lack of trying, Democrats attempted to net President Bush with, “He lied us into war” for the 2004 elections but failed. And then they used the “Who outed Valerie Plame” scenario to badger the President, Vice President and White house adviser Karl Rove for two whole years but alas that didn’t work either.

Dems have been more successful with relatively political big fish like John Ashcroft, Tom Delay, Mark Foley and of course the Jack Abramoff incident has helped net relatively political small fries Rep. John Doolittle (R., Calif.) and Sen. Conrad Burns (R., Mont.), Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-CA) and Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH).

However Gonzales is the closest strike at the heart of the Bush administration a hit here would mean that the President is at the Democrats mercy to confirm another Attorney General now that the Democrats control Congress, and we all know that Democrats are not feeling very merciful toward Republicans these days.

Republicans on the other hand are showing all the political savvy of a first time elected city council member who run on a bet made with friends and as chance would have it won.

Since the 2004 Presidential elections Republicans have been out politicized by their rivals. They make rank amateurs look like consummate professionals which brings me back to AG Gonzales who apparently thought that if he when up to Capital Hill acknowledged his wrong-doing that Democrats would treat him as a fellow politician spank his hand and let him go, what he didn’t realize was that Democrats are not interested in supporting the Bush administration they are only interested in the contrary its deconstruction.

What in the eight years of President Bush’s administration would make anyone believe that any Republican before a Democrat controlled hearing wouldn’t come out with his ears pinned back?

Come on does anyone really believe that Democrats care whether AG Gonzales hurt the Bush administration’s credibility? Hell Democrats have been trying to do that for going on eight years! In fact that is what these hearings are designed to do, hurt the Bush administration. That’s the real reason Democrats are holding them nothing else.

Are you listening Karl Rove? Señor Gonzales this was not a hearing to allow you to justify your actions whatever motivated them. This hearing was only to show you the door. The door to your exit and vicariously the whole Bush administration.

To which Democrats will say…”Vaya con el dios”

But actually they don’t really care how you go just as long as you are gone. And I’m sure that they wouldn’t mind if you take the President with you!

Gonzales should not resign nor should be fired but Republicans are not like Democrats whose money freezer storing,Abramoff moneyed,conflict of interest dealings and lying are business as usual for Democrats. Unfortunately Gonzales will leave office.

To which democrats will say…”Vaya con el dios”

But actually they don’t really care how you go just as long as you are gone. And I’m sure that they wouldn’t mind if you take the President with you!

Adiós Alberto no deja la puerta golpearle…

Friday, April 20, 2007

The Jerry Seinfeld Democratic Senate Hearings

That’s right they’re hearings about nothing! Oh I take that back, they’re actually hearings about striping the Bush administration of all support making the President a weak isolated powerless lame duck because Democrats couldn’t defeat him in two Presidential elections so now the sweetest revenge is to hold asinine hearings on totally peripheral matters in order to lash out at the Bush administration for his remaining two years in office.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee is being grilled for statements he make in a press conference last month, during which Gonzales said he was not involved in discussions over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

Gonzales has subsequently recanted his remarks but here is the bottom line.

Even if Gonzales fired all eight attorneys he did nothing wrong! Hillary Clinton has so much as said that she would do the same thing if she were elected president. Second Gonzales made his statement in a press conference not as sworn testimony.

Was Gonzales’ original statement wrong? Yes Gonzales like all jelly kneed Republicans got scared when Democrats started ranting about the “injustice of it all” even though Democratic President Bill Clinton set the precedence by firing all 93 of the U.S. Attorneys, instead of Gonzales standing up like a man and saying yes I fired them and there may be more following, he attempt to hide his involvement thereby producing the inquisitionist senate hearings that Democrats are holding today.

To be clear there was no violation of law committed by anyone Alberto Gonzales included but because Democrats now have the power to make legal acts appear illegal by the use of senate hearings no Republican is safe in Washington D.C. No doubt these are sham hearings and travesties of justice.

For Republicans who have joined with Democrats to persecute Gonzales let me remind you of the mid-term elections of 2006 when many of your more Liberal colleagues was defeat by Democrats. Does Lincoln Chafee ring a bell? In other words your consorting with the Democrats will not save you.

Gonzales is been persecuted for public statements that he made any Democrat would be run out of Washington if Republicans could hold hearings on Democratic public statements.

These hearings are not so much about Alberto Gonzales; these hearings are about the abuse of senatorial power and the deconstruction of the Bush administration other than that these hearings are about NOTHING!

Thursday, April 19, 2007

It’s Not Gun Control Stupid!

"Clearly, mental health professionals have a legal and moral responsibility," when a student presents a possible risk we have a duty to warn."—Christoper Flynn, Head of Virginia Tech Counseling Center

We are a litigious society that loves to place blame. As Liberals root around to find the latest fall guy to blame for the 4/16 massacre at Virginia Tech the number one culprit that will be blamed is guns and the lack of gun control. Liberals if they had their way would make it virtual impossible for a citizen of the United State to get a gun.

One small problem with this thinking, every citizen of the United States has a Constitutional right to have a gun. So if liberals are going to blatantly disregard the Constitution, as they always do, they must have a compelling argument for violating the second amendment. So what is it?

Liberals will undoubtedly say, if Seung-Hui Cho, the deranged and mentally ill gunman of Virginia Tech was not able to purchase a gun 33 people would not have died on 4/16. It is much to simplistic a view.

So according to Liberals the Second amendment, a Constitutional guaranteed right, is at fault for the 4/16 massacre.

Also anyone who supports this Constitutional right to own a gun namely Conservatives are indirectly at fault because they are the ones standing in the way of anti-gun advocates’ ability to take away the Constitutional second amendment right to own a gun.

Courts let him Go

Still there is another way of seeing this. If we must have someone to blame then why not blame the court that found Virginia Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was "mentally ill" and potentially dangerous. Then it let him go. We blamed President Bush for the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita when the State and City were the actual first responders.

President Bush’s administration has been accused of incompetently handling Katrina so by that same logic who are the incompetents that allowed Cho Seung-Hui to kill 33 people?

In December 2005 -- more than a year before Monday's mass shootings -- Justice Elinor Williams, a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented "an imminent danger to self or others." That was the necessary criterion for a detention order, so that Cho, who had been accused of stalking by two female schoolmates, could be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care.

Psychologist Roy Crouse found Cho's "affect is flat and mood is depressed.”

After Dr. Crouse's psychological evaluation of Cho, Special Justice Paul M. Barnett certified the finding, ordering follow-up treatment on an outpatient basis.

What’s so tragically laughable about this situation is the so-called experts in psychology offering their assessments of the pathology, which would allow someone to perform such a grotesque attack against innocents after the fact. So where were these “experts” when the courts where attempting to determine what to do with Seung-Hui Cho?

And contrary to what pundits and so-called experts are saying now the courts did have the power to hold Seung-Hui.

Dentention Order

According to the court documents: The judge may rely solely upon the evaluations and reports of the appointed examiner and of the Community Services Board, to order your involuntary commitment, if these reports are not contested by you.

But regardless of whether Seung-Hui contested the reports there was enough evidence to demonstrate that Seung-Hui was a danger to himself and to others.

Justice Elinor Williams, Psychologist Roy Crouse, Special Justice Paul Barnett, the Police Department, Virginia Tech Counseling Center and Virginia Tech Administrators all acted incompetently and negligently by allowing Seung-Hui Cho to remain at Virginia Tech thereby remaining a threat to himself and his fellow students.

Had one of the professionals that came in contact with Seung-Hui Cho had done his or her jobs correctly Cho would not have been able to purchase a gun because he would have received the help that he needed. But instead the worst massacre in the history of the United States was allowed even though at any time someone could have prevented it.

It’s not gun control that we need to waste our time discussing. We need to know why people who we entrust to protect us did not do their jobs.

Their egregious negligence is the best argument for second amendment rights making the point ever so cleary that we can not expect anything but post massacre investigations and media coverage of tradegies however if you want protection, as always, you’ll have to do it yourself!

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

White men can’t Joke

Don Imus

Fired and disgraced radio host Don Imus has taken his sophomoric brand of comedy over the fringe of social acceptability. Imus told producer Bernard Mc Guirk in reference to the women’s Basketball team from Rutgers, "That's some rough girls from Rutgers," he continued “Man, they got tattoos…” However the phase that cost Imus his job was the exclamation, “…That’s some nappy-headed hos there I’m going to tell you that”

In the film White men can’t Jump Wesley Snipes’ character Sydney Dean and Woody Harrelson’s character Billy Hoyle use the racial stereotype that blacks are superior to whites in basketball to play a big money con on the unsuspecting. Billy Hoyle, Harrelson’s character was an extraordinary basketball talent who first feinted basketball ineptness and then for the final set up couldn’t miss with his killer shot!

Don Imus of Imus in the Morning radio fame used racial stereotyping for years to point at the often outlandish but true to life self-stereotyping that we have all come to accept from the media. So why is he out of a job?

Bad taste? Yes! Racist, misogynist or sexism? No! According to title 11 Intercollegiate athletics policy of equality and fairness in athletics women are to be funded equally to men in college sports. Meaning that men and women are to be treated the same.

And in addition to codes that demand equally treatment of the sexes in sports it seems that women have taken on the persona of men from crossovers moves on the basketball court to their tattooed bodies women emulate men in their play of the sport.

Imus was wrong in emulating rap culture which by the way is misogynist and sexist in the way it demeaning portrays females as gyrating booty shaking scantily clad eye candy. Not to mention that Rappers all too frequently referred to women as bitches and hos.

Women themselves commonly refer to one another as bitch and ho but that’s another story.

What Imus did was two fold, he took a verbal picture a snap shot, if you will, of the American culture. A culture that encourages women to be tattooed Manish sportspersons and at the same time he showed us a culture that has become boorishly crude in the way we speak about and to one another.

The fact of the matter is, we didn’t like what we heard when Imus shot back a picture of ourselves through his white wanna-be hip-hop lens of a broadcast mic, and instead of dialoguing about where we’ve gone wrong by encouraging females to be thuggish Alan Iverson wanna-bes and instead of speaking about why we allow our culture to pimp eager young voluptuous “pump it hotties” and “girls gone wild” we got mad and did the easy thing we blame a white man for calling this all to our attention and then we collectively got him fired so we could go back to business as usual and forget about it.

However, millions of consumers can’t be wrong. We buy the videos we purchased the rap music, we go to the movies and we support the tattoo wearing hard playing sweaty gym rats that just happen to be girls by buying tickets to their basketball games.

But what we absolutely can not allow is some wrinklely old white guy, even if he is a liberal, to say what he sees in our culture no that is too shocking to revolting, to repulsing!

We won’t do the hard work and examine whether what Imus said had any validity no we simply shot the messenger.
Understand this is not an apology for the loathsome kind of social characterization that Imus trafficked in however let’s be clear, what Imus said was a picture of what is out there. It’s real as Snoop Dog’s next joint! (CD)

The question is what are we going to do to fire the purveyors of social denegation?

Are we at least willing to talk about it? Or are we happy with the reality that there are nappy-headed hos in the world and people who are willing to exploit and call them that, but we just prefer not talk about it.

Where Imus when wrong is that he didn’t call President Bush a nappy-headed ho, he would still have his job and probably Al Sharpten’s and Jesse Jackson’s blessing.

At any rate you’ all would have nodded your collective heads and agreed, “Yeah President Bush is a nappy-headed ho who lied us into war and caused the devastation of Katrina and Rita. Right on Imus!

What a sick culture!

Monday, April 09, 2007

How can 60.6 Million Brits be so Stupid?

Some of ex-Captive Royal Navy

The British have been played like chumps. It’s called propaganda and British people act as if they’ve never seen anything like it. Iran committed an international crime against 15 Sailors and Marines of the Royal Navy by capturing and illegally holding them for 14 days under threats of imprisonment, torture, death or all three.

Then after forcing humiliating confessions and violating the Geneva Convention by using the 15 captives in humiliating and compromising videos, dressing them up and parading them in a dog and pony show before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran finally after using the captives like utterly useless fodder then releases them back to their disgraced Country.

In this whole despicable affront to British national dignity not one peep of outrage from the British people against Iran.

No Brits just seem to be resigned to the fact that it was Blair’s and Bush’s fault that Iran violated Iraqi waters captured Royal military personnel and held them under threat and in violation of Geneva when the U.S.A. or the U.K. are not in conflict with Iran.

Now that the 15 captives have been released they tell a much different story of their captivity; blindfolds, bonds, isolation, clicking of cocked guns, psychological torture and foaming mouth bullying captors.

But to offset anything that the captives might say when they got home Iran took plenty of pictures that showed the “good treatment” of their most esteemed and honored guest.

Pictures that showed the captives playing, laughing, smoking and in good humor and then finally President Ahmadinejad’s sarcastically asked question to his about to be released prisoners, “Have you enjoyed your mandatory vacation?”

This was an international outrage! So why are the Brits so complacent when an act of war was committed against them?

Maybe the Brits believe Iran’s propaganda, maybe Brits believe that their apparent passive Royal Navy is incompetent too and did stray into Iranian waters.

Maybe the Brits believe that their armed forces deserved to be captured and threatened and subjected to humiliation.

Maybe the Brits believe the Iranian government over their own government that they were in the wrong and Iran was in the right. And so the question goes begging, HOW COULD 60.6 MILLION BRITS BE SO STUPID?

Friday, April 06, 2007

Pelosi’s Syrian Visit is a Felony, So What? She’s a Democrat

Nancy Pelosi

The U.S. is in the midst of two wars authorized by Congress. For Ms. Pelosi to flaunt the Constitution in these circumstances is not only shortsighted; it may well be a felony, as the Logan Act has been part of our criminal law for more than two centuries. Perhaps it is time to enforce the law.—ROBERT F. TURNER

We are a Nation of laws… not so much. We are a Nation that selectively chooses to enforce laws given the politics behind them.

Need some examples? For instance enforcing the laws that govern illegal entry into this country these laws are just now being reluctantly enforced because U.S. citizens have made it plain that no one will be elected to govern if they do not protect American borders.

Republicans lost their twelve years control of both houses of Congress because Democrats and their allies in the media were able to convince the American people that Republican governed in a “Culture of Corruption.” Democrats made this case all the while attempting to suggest that any corruption was separate and apart from anything that Democrats were doing.

Tom Delay, Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Mark Foley, Dennis Hastert, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Presidential advisor Karl Rove, I. Scooter Libby all have been persecuted some have been tried and convicted by Democrat lead efforts.

But Democrats not so much, it doesn’t matter that Now Senate Leader Harry Reid received $30,500 dollars of Jack Abramoff related money. Nor is it important that John Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirer caught on video saying that he would consider taking bribes in the FBI Abscam sting from his earlier days in Congress.

Or Rep. Alcee Hastings is only one of six federal judges ever to have been impeached and removed from the judiciary, for taking bribes in a racketeering case. Or the $90,000 in cash bribes found in the home of Democratic Rep. William Jefferson's home in a freezer. Or Sen. Dianne Feinstein steered Halliburton like moneys from a senate committee which she sat on, Billions of dollars to her husbands two company in a blatant unethical conflict of interest.

What’s the difference between so-called Republican corruption and Democrats corruption? Republicans are persecuted, prosecuted and or put out of office, Democrats all to a man and woman stay in office and even tend to get promoted to higher office.

That brings us to the latest Felony that a Democrat politician has committed. Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is apparently in violation of the Logan Act an act that prevents interference of individual citizen(s) in the conduct of foreign policy by our Government with foreign governments."

Speaker Pelosi, over the strenuous objections of White house, took it upon herself to conduct foreign negotiations with a government that supports terrorism when she visited Syria.

Pelosi’s hubris and disregard for the advice which recommended that she not interfere in foreign governmental relations was quite apparent when she related a peace message to Syria from Israel that Israel says was egregiously mis-communicated.

But alas will Pelosi face Congressional censor for her actions? Will there be a special prosecutor appointed to investigate this felonious violation of the Logan Act. Will the media call for Pelosi to step down from the Speaker position? Will any Republican Representative do what Democrats did the twelve years that Democrats were in the minority?

What is that? Fight for what Republicans say that they believe in. If Republicans claim that this is a nation of laws then as sure as we know that if this situation were reversed and had a Republican violated the Logan Act he or she would be inundated with a fire storm of criticism Republicans should demand that Ms. Pelosi answer for undermining the Constitutional separations of powers. She has already undermined the troops with a war funding bill that the President can not sign.

Democrats have leaked government secrets regarding the war; stole government documents from the National Archives, and committed various criminal acts and have remained virtually unscathed. Why is that?

That is because we are not a nation of laws; we are a nation that selectively chooses which laws to enforce at any given time according to the politics behind them!

And right now the politics are eight years of get Bush so all Democrats, any Democrat that does anything short of denouncing Global warming will get a free pass even if their crime is a felony.

When Rep. Pelosi resumes her position with not so much as a slap on the hand we will know that we live in a divided America one which John Edwards spoke of. Two Americas separate and unequal one Red and one Blue.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Desperate Clintonian attempt to manipulate Media Backfires

Senator Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's campaign today announced it will report $36 million in total receipts for the first fundraising quarter, which ended March 31, 2007. The staggering number reflects the strength of support for Clinton from every walk of life and every part of America.-- Drudge Report

It's a record! Everybody loves Hillary. Clinton campaign raises more money that any other Democrat during a single primary quarter. This type of media manipulation portents to be what awaits America if Hillary Clinton should become President.

Attempting to counter negative reporting that a recent poll reported by of a Harris Interactive poll which suggest that huge numbers of Americans would not and will not vote for Hillary Clinton the Clinton campaign leaked a story to the Drudge Report so that an unsuspecting Drudge would become complicit in propagandizing for the Clinton campaign.

So now the truth is out, Clinton Raised $26 million dollars and transferred 10 to 11 Million dollars from her Senate campaign to boast of a 36 million dollar campaign war chest. This move was intended to discourage Clinton's Democrat rivals for the party's nomination for President of the United States. Also the leak was intended to knock any news of an unpopular Hillary Clinton out of the news cycle.

Only one little problem recent news reports that political new comer and Presidential hopeful Barak Obama has raised just as much money as the political savvy and political establishment favored Clinton.

Senator Obama campaign has announced that they have raised $25 million dollars in his presidential campaign bid.

While Clinton has honed a vast national fundraising network through two Senate campaigns and her husband’s eight years as president, Obama launched his bid for the White House with a relatively small donor base concentrated largely in Illinois, his home state.

Given Senator Clinton's attempt to use media to give the impression that her campaign alone is the only viable Democrat campaign was false, Senator Clinton signals that if she were elected President her Presidency would be a continuation of Clintonian deception and political manipulation that was the hallmark of Senator Clinton's husband's White house.

Monday, April 02, 2007

Britian, Iran and the Geneva Convention

British captive being used as a pawn

Where are all of the Geneva Convention experts when you need them? When Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were in the news every message board pundit, every Internet hack and talking head were instant Geneva Convention analysts.

The outrage, the insult, the inhumanity that imprisoned Iraqis were subjected to was all against the Geneva Convention and someone should be brought on charges and tried before the International Court at the Hague ! Oh the righteous indiction throughout the United States hating world was palpable. America and Americans were in violation of the Geneva Convention!

In recent news Iran has captured 15 British Marines in disputed waters. The British say that they were in Iraqi waters and the Iranians claim that Britian military personal was in Iranian waters.

Leaving that issue just for a moment it is an undisputed fact that Iran is holding British military captives no one is disputing that.

It is also a fact that these hostages were forced to give various video and written confessions, denouncing their own government, and the women were force to dress in customary ways that were not their own.

I'm asking all of the Geneva Convention experts that condemned the American Government's treatment of imprisoned Iraqi terrorists, what does the Geneva Convention say about the treatment of captured military personnel, is Iran in violation of any Geneva Convention regulation concerning the handling of prisoners and why is my question the first in this regard?

Article 2 of the Geneva Convention says:

Prisoners of war are in the power of the hostile Power, but not of the individuals or corps who have captured them.

They must at all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, insults and public curiosity.

Measures of reprisal against them are prohibited.

Does video confessions and using prisoners as pawns to point out locations on a map to show that they were in Iranian waters, in complete contradict of their Government, in violation of Article 2?

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention says:

Prisoners of war have the right to have their person and their honor respected. Women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex.

Prisoners retain their full civil status.

Is forcing a British female Marine to wear customary Islamic head covering for women in violation of Article 3?

In America and Britian women are treated the same as men so why is the forced putting on of a veil, a sign of women's inferiority to men, not in violation of the Geneva Convention?

Here's a thought maybe there really aren't any experts regarding the Geneva Convention maybe all of the hate and heat directed toward Amerian concerning Abu Ghraid had little to do with violations of the Geneva Convention maybe all of that was just plain bias against America.

It had to be because if one is concerned about the Geneva Convention being violated wouldn't one be just as concerned now that Iran has apparently violated at least two articles and perhaps even more?

So where are the experts that were pointing out America's failings in this regard why aren't they demanding the just and immediate release of the Brits?

I wonder...

Sunday, April 01, 2007

Code Pink Congressional Democrats Move to End War in Iraq

Speaker Pelosi and Code Pink Democrats

"We are starting to turn things around" in the Iraq war" and that a timeline for withdrawal would embolden the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.—John McCain (R-Ariz.)

Stategy for winning in Iraq? Democrats don’t have one. Stategy for cut and run, got one!

Cindy Sheehan would be proud. Code Pink Liberals have taken a page out of Sheehan’s Camp Casey playbook and come up with Camp Pelosi.

With upwards of thirteen days of camping out in front of the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco residence this left-wing group has made in roads into the party that now controls the agenda on Capital Hill in Washington D.C.

The radical anti-war movement is finally making decisions for America as their influence is felt by the New Code Pink Democrats who have set a withdrawal date of September 1, 2008 for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Iraq.

Fearing that she could not get her colleagues to go along and back such radical legislation Speaker Pelosi crafted a total shopping spree of a Supermarket bill chuck full of 20 billion dollars of bribes (or pork spending) earmarked for reluctant moderate and conservative Democrat Senators that where recently elected on promises that they supported the troops just as much as the Conservatives that they defeated.

Rep. Pelosi’s bill so egregious that Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) took personal umbrage and took time to put it on record.

The California Congressional Representatives have demanded help for citrus, avocado and other Central Valley farmers facing $1.2 billion in losses from a devastating January freeze in exchange for their vote, that’s in the Pelosi bill, Gulf Coast Congressional lawmakers want $1.3 billion above the $3.4 billion requested by Bush for hurricane relief, that’s in the Pelosi bill. Northwest Congressional lawmakers are desperate for about $400 million to extend payments to rural counties hurt by cutbacks in federal logging that is in the Pelosi bill. As well, Wisconsin dairy farmer subsidies are in the Pelosi bill and aid for New Orleans, storage fees for peanut growers are in the Pelosi bill.

Let see that’s peanuts, milk, citrus, avocados and logging moneys to bribe Congressmen for their votes which would put a capricious and arbitrary deadline of September 1, 2008 attached to the President’s request for providing funds for the troops.

And all of this is in exchange for a virtual cornucopia of Democratic favors thereby Code Pink Democrats sabotages the war effort in Iraq by forcing the President to veto a bill meant to fund the troops, umm, umm good!

But that’s not all that Code Pink Democrats are up to. You recall the war protests that were coordinated throughout the country in hopes to garner support for immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq?

Well Code Pink Democrats are not even carrying on the Democrat façade of, “we’re against the war but we support the troops. Nope these radicals are emboldened now that they own both houses of congress and they want to let you know how they really feel about the war.

On March 18th, in Portland Oregon, USA to show their growing dissatisfaction with the United States government and growing discontent with people who say they are for peace and do nothing. Anarchists burn an effigy of a United States Soldier and American flag.

That’s right a U.S. soldier has been burned in effigy right here in the good old U.S.A.

With Code Pink Democrats in Congress sabotaging the war effort by calling for immediate troop withdrawal in spite of indications that the President’s planned surge of troops is working and with Liberals, Democrats and anarchist in U.S. streets burning U.S. soldiers in effigy it may no longer be a question of fighting the war in Iraq.

Code Pink Democrats have declared war, war on the government of the United States of America and war on the people of the United States of America who do not think as they think. Is there any clearer sign than the outrageous burning of an upside down American flag along side of the effigy of an American soldier?

Yeah one…Code Pink Democrats in Congress playing games and food fighting with money meant to fund the men and women fighting for America. That’s the clearest sign of all!