Wednesday, October 31, 2007


The U.S. Capitol

Patrick O'Connor’s piece on the Politico, “New Congress at War on Everything,” is cutely partisan and typifies the Liberal perspective. Liberals never ever take responsibility for the messes that they create. It‘s always, “Bush’s fault,” with a Liberal. Nonetheless this is a Congress deeply engaged in a partisan war and the political bloodletting is about to begin. Let it be known America that you voted for this fight when you voted for Democrats.

Remember Democrats promised their constituents that if they were voted into the majority in Congress that they would fight President Bush, they would end the war in Iraq and they would change the direction of America. You can’t expect to do any of that without a fight and Democrats called this fight. If you are a Democrat I guess one out of three ain’t bad, because the only thing that this Congress has accomplished is fighting with the President!

And that‘s exactly what they set out to do. The new Democrat majority declared war on the White house and attempted to get Republicans, (mostly RINOS) to side with them as they attempted to storm the White house walls regarding the war in Iraq and lay siege to the White house’s keep.

John Ashcroft gone, Donald Rumsfield gone, Scooter Libby gone, Albert Gonzales gone, and Karl Rove gone, if Democrats hated al Qaeda as much as they hate Republicans al Qaeda would be gone too!

Interestingly enough, in the midst of the battle with the White house Democrats noticed that their polling numbers were being affected. They noticed a marked disapproval of the Congress as a whole and specifically their Congressional leaders. Why? Because Congress began a war of personal destruction waged on Americans rather than fighting on the behalf of Americans and America.

Yet to Patrick O’Conner both Democrats and Republicans are equally at fault. So how is it Republican’s fault too Patrick? You seem to be attempting to place equal blame. Oh I know, perhaps the Republicans aren’t abandoning their principles fast enough and perhaps they aren’t acquiescing to the Democrat agenda in the way Democrats wish. Is that it Patrick?

And Republicans are supposed to be multi-faceted enough to work bipartisanly with Democrats while Democrats run attack ads in Republican districts. Ads meant to unseat the very Republicans that are discussing bipartisan deals with Democrats. I see what you mean Patrick if those pesky Republicans weren’t around Democrats wouldn’t have to resort to backstabbing to get rid of them, now would they?

Even the most challenged (dumbest RINO) Republican has figured out that throwing in their lots with Democrats makes for a short political life.
GOP lawmakers, all of whom had expressed interest in a bipartisan deal on the SCHIP legislation, were furious that the Democratic leader from Maryland had not reached out to them in a more serious way early on.

They also criticized him and Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois for failing to stop his allies outside Congress from running attack ads in their districts, while they were discussing a bipartisan deal.

Democrats are under tremendous pressure from liberal activists to take a hard-line approach against everything Bush.
–Patrick O’Conner
Democrat actions such as these have created a bitterly divided Congress, Patrick. Only in the Liberal mind can you advance on your political enemies, make political kills, attack their ideas, attack their leaders, attack their beliefs and their principles and then expect them to join you as you plot their own demise.

Democrats have attempted to advance such a radical agenda on the subjects of Iraq, health care and spending that according to Mr. O’Conner, the Rank-and-file Democrats have turned on their leaders this fall in a series of minor upheavals, forcing them to suspend consideration of bills to update warrantless wiretapping laws, reclassify the killing of ethnic Armenians almost a century ago, expand workplace protections for gays and lesbians and require all electronic voting machines to produce paper records.

In other words, Democrat leaders planned to gut Homeland Security surveillance laws, insult the Government of Turkey with a meaningless congressional resolution (a la Nancy Pelosi), advance the homosexual agenda and further exacerbate the Debolt voting machine fiasco (which Democrats created in the first place) had their colleagues, the Democratic Congressional party members not stopped them and rebelled against the clueless Democrat leadership.
Democrats are reviewing poll after poll showing sagging popularity not only of Congress but also of their congressional leaders. So, some lawmakers have begun to argue, it just might be in everyone’s interest to show that Washington can actually tackle a serious issue without all of the theatrics and games.

The energy bill might be the turning point. With both sides desperate for a legislative achievement, Bush and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have displayed rare, if quiet, cooperation on the issue.
At this point anything that this Congress does should be held up as suspect, a rouse, and a ploy. Any bipartisan show behind an energy bill or any bill will not fool the American people. We have seen enough to know just what Democrats in power will do. And it ain’t nothing good!

For those of us that do not hold to Democrat or Liberal ideology we have been put on notice that Democrats intend to force their ideology on America.

Interestingly enough, the last two elections that I checked I noticed that half of the citizens in this country voted for President Bush!

Nevertheless, it has become all too apparent that Liberal Democrats will fight to accomplish their goal of Europeanizing America. Hell Europe doesn’t even what to be Europe anymore!

The only things that are not clear at this point, are there Republicans with sufficient values and backbone that are willing to fight for America and are they smart enough not be be deceived by Democrats and bright enough to win back the hearts and minds of America!

This is indeed an “us against them” Congress and the fighting is about what America is becoming or whether or not there should even be an America. I have seen enough to conclude that Democrats don’t think so.

Choose your side carefully because your children undoubtedly will live in conditions determined by the outcome of the struggle to control Congress, the White house and ultimately America. Will they live in treachery or tyranny or freedom.

In the end this “us against them” mentality will further divide an already divided America the question is, will we live in tyranny or freedom.

The challenge, your challenge is to decide which side is offering which!


Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Bushwhacking Hillary

Sen. Hillary Clinton

Edwards has been making a more vigorous case recently against Clinton's ability to win a general election. He's also led criticisms of her that have been picked up by other candidates — that she's too connected to lobbyists and that her vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization could be a repeat of her mistake in voting for the Iraq war.—AP Washington
Democrats who are worried that Hillary will win the Democrat nomination only to lose the Presidency in the general elections because of possible Republican, “Anybody but Hillary” sentiments do have something to fear.

Conservative ire is bound to rise because of Clinton’s years of polarizing ultra-partisan politics against the people she named the vast right-wing conspiracy when in fact it was the vast sexual compulsion of William Jefferson Clinton(According to President Gerald Ford) that was the cause of her and her unfaithful husband’s problems. Now that she knows the truth (that Bill lied) you’d think that she’d apologize for her mischaracterization of the people that she opposes. (Don’t hold your breath!)
Memo to the Democratic presidential candidates: You can still beat Hillary Rodham Clinton, but you better act fast.AP Washington

Nonetheless Democrats don’t have to feel helpless they already have a way to rid themselves of the possibility of Hillary sucking all of the air out of the room in this presidential campaign yet they act as if they are presently unaware of it.
It’s true, Democrats already have the means to stop Hillary if they chose to use it. They could Bushwhack her.

Bushwhacking is a Democrat devise created to attack President Bush 7/24, 365 days a year. I’ll explain how it works.

Every time that you as a Democrat say anything publicly, anything at all, you always tie it negatively to President Bush. For example you might be asked a question about new hospital being built in your congressional district you say.

Yes while it is nice that this hospital was built, you do know that President Bush denied adequate funding for federal stem cell research and he is generally opposed to science. (Listen to Reid, Pelosi or Clinton they work this tactic to perfection)

That’s how it works you’ve been so accustomed to hearing it over the last eight years that you probably though that every sentence that a Democrat spoke had to be punctuated with some negative aspersion against President Bush. No that’s just Bushwhacking at work!

You can turn on any Sunday morning news show Face the Nation, Meet the Press, Chris Matthews and a wide range of topics might be discussed but every Democrat to a person will tie whatever remarks they make into something negative against the President.

For going on eight years; 7/24, 365 days a year that is what the American people have been exposed to. In every Liberal remark another whack at the President.

Effective? Take a look at the President’s poll numbers. I’d say almost eight years of Bushwhacking has been a very effective tool which Democrats have used against President Bush. So effective that foreign enemies of America will often use Democrat talking points to Bushwhack the President.
"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the country would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone . . . because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important,"Osama bin Laden
That’s bin Laden referring mockingly to the President’s visit at a school when the 9/11 attack occurred, mocking derision that he obviously learned from listening to Americans demeaning their own President.

Yes one of the few American exports we have left, bin Laden Bushwhacking Bush like he picked up from the Democrats, oh and he’s not the only one who could forget Hugo Chavez, dictator of Venezuela to the applause of U.N. delegates mockingly Bushwhacking an American President with allusions to fire, brimstone and the smell of sulfur.

So how does this help Democrats rid themselves of the specter of the blue stained dress that is hovering over the White house once again?

Well the very first test if a Democrat is worthy of the White house is whether they can beat Hillary. If the Democrat “also rans” can’t beat Hillary there’s really no reason for Democrats to even talk about the White house. If Hillary can’t be beaten in the Democrat primaries she will certainly be stopped in the general election wasting yet another Democrat opportunity to get to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Right now the Democrat campaign is political Survivors Island and as a Democrat “also ran” if you can’t beat Hillary you might as well get off of the island!

So Bushwhack her, treat her like she is wearing a George W. Bush Halloween mask. Use the Bushwhack technique against what stands between Democrats and the occupying of the Whitehouse. The Clintons !

Every statement every question answered has to be punctuated with a negative about Hillary. If you are asked about ending the war you say.

Yes I would make it my first priority to end the war but you do know that Senator Clinton will not guarantee bring the troops home as I would.

You know the drill a continual steady drumbeat of unadulterated negativity against Hillary Clinton, 7/24 365 days a year. (The bonus is you don’t even have to make Hillary’s negatives up!)

Bushwhack her, you did it to a sitting President you certainly can do it to save the Democrat party from the second worst mistake it could possibly make.

What was the worst mistake you ask, the worst mistake of the Democrat party is that Democrats have allowed the elite of the party to sell the party’s soul to the radical fringe element of the George Soros persuasion.

A hard left Democrat party is not the party of America so after you’ve Bushwhacked Hillary you’ve still got some work to do!

Monday, October 29, 2007

Why Mitt Romney won’t win the Republican Nomination

Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney

It is because he’s Mormon? Nope, even though Romney’s Mormonism is a negative in many minds that is not the reason that he won’t win the Republican Nomination. It is because his current fourth among the front runners Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Fred Thompson? No Romney’s money and political charisma could overcome the political dead wood of those campaigns.

The reason Romney won’t win is because he didn’t do his homework and he thinks that he can work with Democrats as a Republican President.

Really! At a town hall meeting at Fort Myers, Florida Romney touted his bipartisan work with a Democratic legislature while he was governor of Massachusetts. Responding to an audience member who expressed frustration with Congress members who strictly vote along party lines, Romney pledged to work with opposition leaders.

What? Has Mitt been in a deep dark coma for the last eight years? Or does Mormonism prevent one from seeing the real world?

How can anyone forget President Bush’s promise to unite and change the political climate in Washington D.C eight years ago? Has Romney forgotten, or is it blind hubris that makes him think that he can do what President Bush couldn’t do? For all of President Bush’s “good will” Democrats declared war on him and then ridiculed his efforts of attempting to change the hate in Washington.

Listen, the message that I laid out is the same message I'm going to talk about in New Hampshire. Is that I've got the capacity to lead. I'm a uniter not a divider. I see an incredibly optimistic view of our future. –George W. Bush

Al Gore, the Oscar and Nobel Prize winning principal Democrat Hater introduced into the American political mainstream the rank partisan hatred that divided this nation in 2000 and consequently 2004 by falsely accusing George Bush of stealing the 2000 election. Gore and his advisors orchestrated the events that have come to be known as Chad-gate thus pushing this nation into the abyss of political rancor that has no modern precedence.

Global warming many not be attributable to man but the overly heated politics of hate politics in America can be attributed to man, one man that man is Nobel Peace Prize Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.

Al Gore is the father of the hate politics which Democrats have grown so fond of, of late. Consequently Mitt Romney nor any other Republican will be able to work civilly with Democrats because of Democrats allegiance to their radical base.

Democrats don’t want to work with Republicans, Democrats want to destroy Republicans and everything that Republicans and Conservatives stand for. The only way Romney or any Republican can work with Democrats is to totally betray Conservatism and Conservative ideas.

That is why the President and a few questionable Conservatives were able to work with Democrats on Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Reform that true Conservatives in the Senate stopped). Betraying Conservatism is the only way that Mitt Romney would be able to work with opposition leaders this is a fact that should be plain to all by now.

The fact that Romney doesn’t acknowledge or know this indicates that he is not fit to be the Republican nominee.

The last thing that Conservatives or Republicans need at this time is someone to portray themselves as a Conservative but once in office fail to fight for Conservative ideas as fervently as Democrats fight for their Liberal ideas like the girly Republican Governor of California Arnold Schwarznegger who recently sold out California to the homosexual lobby.

When the question was asked of Governor Romney about the partisanship in Congress, Romney should have reminded the questioner that the American people were misled into voting for that very partisanship in Congress by partisan Democrat operatives who took advantage of and created negative situations against their political rivals, Republicans.

Romney's vow to work with Democrats who have their knives out in this political knife fight is just political ignorance.

Just as Dorothy reminded herself and Toto too, that she wasn’t in Kansas anymore President Bush found out that he wasn’t in Texas any more as Governor Romney if he were elected President would find that he won’t be in Massachusetts bipartisan politics anymore.

He’d soon discover that he’s in Washington, D.C. in a Washington knife fight fighting for his political life without a knife. He would be fighting with Democrats who hate Republicans, Democrats who he promised that he would work with.

Such ignorance should not be awarded the Presidency! Such ignorance will not be awarded the Presidency!

Friday, October 26, 2007

Democrats Get the Message Out

Nancy Pelosi: Easier Promised than Delievered

    Special Note:

I’d like to thank all of you that click in to share our views and commentaries. You are apart of a nation wide, no, a world wide group of political thinkers who stop by to share with us. My team tells me that we have readers in the following states and countries: In the United States: Wisconsin, District Of Columbia, Texas, Maryland, California, Illinois, Colorado, Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Arizona, Virginia, Minnesota, New York, Utah, Oregon, Georgia, Ohio, Oklahoma, Idaho, Michigan, and Delaware
In Countries: Sri Lanka, Spain, Portugal, Canada, Italy, London England United Kingdom, Brazil, Slovakia, Australia, Saudi Arabia, India, Nicaragua, France, Sweden, and Finland.

I‘m also told I have a very special reader in Texas! I hope that you’re enjoying!

It is our desire to offer you well documented opinion from which you make up your own mind on the issues that we cover. If there is ever something you’d like to add please feel free to leave a comment on the site in the section provided or if you’d like to give us a led on a story please email it to

These are exciting times. We are beginning to reach many, many people with our message, warning of political manipulations of all kinds. It is very important that we not faint in this up coming election cycle. Your vigilance and willingness to fight for Conservative ideas are the only things that will prevent the radicals from achieving and implementing their Orwellian World-view through Machiavellianism in 2008 and the future!
Your friend,

Patrick O’Connor of the Politico reports that Democrats are ducking the Main Stream Media for an unprecedented political push to get their message out.

What is so interesting about that is MSM almost always provides cover for Democrats. For Democrats to now feel that they must hide even from their allies in the media speaks to the deep political psychosis that has set into the Democrat camp.

Polls were all the rage when they were used to batter President Bush about the head but now that the polls for a long sustained period have showed that Democrats are less popular than their nemesis-in-Chief Democrats and the media alike have resorted to prefacing any of their negative polling by first bringing up the Presidents negative numbers but apparently even that is not good enough.

Ironically Nancy Pelosi seeing the need to bolster the image of the Democrat Party plans to launch a public relations (campaign) offensive Monday to polish the image of the new Democrat majority after a series of legislative setbacks which only reinforces the fact that Democrats in leadership have not produced what they’ve promised.

Pelosi plans to do this by by-passing allies in the left leaning media, afraid that even they will not report Democrat propaganda as she intends it to be packaged.
The campaign, ranging from traditional events to conference calls with groups outside of Washington, is designed to circumvent the national news media. -- Patrick O’Conner
What this means is that Pelosi plans to use the coalitions which she and Sen. Harry Reid have built with groups on the radical left netroots like to get the unadulterated propaganda of the Democrat Party out.

Pelosi wishes only positive to be made of her Democrat led standoff with President Bush and over the war in Iraq . She must feel that MSM is not doing an adequate job putting Democrats in the most positive light.
In a private meeting for scores of staffers, top advisers to the party’s leadership called on every Democratic lawmaker to amplify domestic accomplishments, from raising the minimum wage to expanding college aid, in a series of events back home in their districts.

Part of the Democrats’ new offensive will remind voters exactly who they voted out of office last fall, particularly with regard to the updated ethics and lobbying laws.
You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between-- Lyric by Johnny Mercer
On the message side, Democrats will accentuate the positive by focusing on government accountability in the form of new ethics and lobbying laws and pay-as-you-go budgeting principles that require Congress to offset any increased spending. They’ll also focus on legislation Congress has approved to improve national security, including the presidential veto of legislation the House approved to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq .

And finally, members of the majority will hype their three domestic accomplishments, $2.10 increase in the minimum wage, an expansion of college aid, and additional money for states along the Gulf Coast battered by hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Will this be enough to bring back the hate Republicans mood in the country of the 2006 mid-term elections where Pelosi and Reid skillfully painted Republicans bad Democrats good?
“Democrats should be very concerned about the low esteem in which the Congress they now lead is held,” according to the same Democracy Corps poll. “The longer voters perceive a lack of progress and a failure to produce the changes they demanded in the last election, the greater the danger will be for Democrats.”-- summary of a Democracy Corps poll conducted last month by James Carville and Stan Greenberg.

It all is dependent upon whether swing voters, Independents and Conservatives have seen enough of “Democrat Leadership” and vote for reality rather than the perception that Democrats have created in 2006 and are now attempting to create for 2008.
The irony is Democrats can’t trust the MSM to get their message out. Doesn’t that raise a red flag to the swing, Independent voters?
Just as Democrats are wary of MSM maybe you should be too, or better yet maybe you should be wary of the Democrat message. Any message that packaged can’t be true!

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Martin Luther King NOT!

Sen. Richard Durbin, father of baby Amnesty

The Dream Act is certainly not a bastard bill it has a father Democrat Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) and 26 Senator co-sponsors as doting mothers. As of October 2007 they are:

Sen. Evan Bayh [D-IN], Sen. Joseph Biden [D-DE], Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D-NM], Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA], Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA], Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY], Sen. Larry Craig [R-ID], Sen. Michael Crapo [R-ID], Sen. Christopher Dodd [D-CT], Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI], Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA], Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE], Sen. Thomas Harkin [D-IA], Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA], Sen. John Kerry [D-MA], Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT], Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I-CT], Sen. Richard Lugar [R-IN], Sen. John McCain [R-AZ], Sen. Robert Menéndez [D-NJ], Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA], Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL], Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL], Sen. Harry Reid [D-NV], Sen. Bernard Sanders [I-VT], and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]

This latest “assault on reason” is a baby amnesty bill broken off from the Comprehensive Immigration Reform that President Bush hawked earlier this year. The Senate voted 52-44 in favor—eight short of the 60 votes necessary to proceed with this year’s version of the Dream Act. So it will not pass this year but there is always next year.

Apparently this version of baby amnesty has been floating around the halls of Congress since 2003 and was once sponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

This bill’s intent is to give the children of illegal aliens, children who were not born in this country, legal status and U.S. citizenship and apparently it has been reintroduced yearly since 2003.

Children being used as political pawns for illegal immigration policies

This 2007 version and well as The DREAM Act of 2005 is nearly identical to the version that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in October 2003 by a 16-3 vote. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), formerly chair of that committee, was then the sponsor of the DREAM Act. He has assured constituents that the fact that he did not introduce it again this year does not mean that he is any less supportive than he has been in the past.

The twelve Republican usual suspects and "ex-senators walking" who still don’t get it and voted for this bill are:

Sam Brownback (Kan.), Norm Coleman (Minn.), Larry Craig (Idaho), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Bob Bennett (Utah), Susan Collins (Maine), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), Trent Lott (Miss.), Richard Lugar (Ind.) and Mel Martinez (Fla.)

The only way to prevent this type of bill from being reintroduced into perpetuity or until it passes into law is to rid Congress of the Senators and Congressmen who continue to vote against the wishes of the American people.

The American people said no to Comprehensive Immigration Reform and we say no to any law that would reward illegal behavior by legalizing that illegal behavior or the fruits of illegal behavior.

This “Dream Act” Senators is not the Dream of Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. nor is it the American Dream! This is a Nightmare of special interest making and “reason challenged” Senators who know very little about their constitutional responsibilities or what the American people want!

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Start Your List!

Numbers USA, has posted a list of the chicken-livered
Senators who voted FOR cloture on the Dream Act
amnesty. They also posted the list of the last-minute
switch hitters. The TRAITORS among us.

Visittheir website, and do the right thing.

I sent faxes to my Senators to show my displeasure at
their having voted in favor of the bill. I asked them
whether they are representing the American people or the
Mexican government.

The problem is that MOST Americans only know how
to complain after the fact, and these seasoned politicians
know what short memories we all have . If enough of us
remind these DC freeloaders that they are representing
us, they just might get the hint, that if they don’t shape


Enough Already!!!!!!!

The desperate Democrats have still not let up
on the Iraq war "blame". I for one, am sick of
the over-blown exagerations of "being misled
into a war", and all the other crap that they
managed to fool the voters with.

Occasionally, I have to resurrect the following,
to remind these witless wonders of exactly who
said what, and when. The only difference
between the spineless Democrats of the Clinton
administration, and the Bush administration is
that Bush had the guts and balls to actually
do something. If Clinton had been half the man,
after the first attack on the US, there never would
have been a 9/11.

The Iraqi Threat: A Retrospective:

The question was never if Saddam Hussein posed
a threat; everyone agreed he did. The question
was who was going to do something about it.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny
Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass
destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force,
our purpose is clear...We want to seriously diminish the
threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
program."- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens
there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the
leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or
biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."-Madeline Albright,
Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction
again, as he has ten times since 1983."- Sandy Berger,
Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and
consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to
take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air
and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end
its weapons of mass destruction programs."-
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development
of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a
threat to countries in the region and he has made a
mockery of the weapons inspection process."-
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on
building weapons of mass destruction and palaces
for his cronies."- Madeline Albright, Clinton
Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has
invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate
that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In adition, Saddam continues to redefine
delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover
of a licit missile program to develop longer-range
missiles that will threaten the United States and
our allies."- Letter to President Bush, Signed by
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam
Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and
stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of
the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."-
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of
biological and chemical weapons throughout his
country."- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has
proven impossible to deter and we should assume
that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein
is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October
of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains
some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons,
and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear
weapons..."- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United
States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm
Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal
of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."-
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein
is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons
and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next
five years ... We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of
the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that
has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical
and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This
he has refused to do."-
Rep.Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence
reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to
rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock,
his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear,
however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological
and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop
nuclear weapons."-
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be
compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has,
and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons
of mass destruction."-
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam
Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading
an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone
to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating
America's response to his continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ...
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of
mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Hat tip to J.R. Whipple, though some links are gone
(notably redacted from the Kerry site)

Anyone who ever believed the Democrats' claim,
that Bush got permission to invade Iraq by lying to
them, is either a total idiot, or a dyed-in-the-wool
Bush-hater. The Senate saw the exact same
intelligence that President Bush and his cabinet
saw. And oddly enough, though on opposite sides
of the aisle, there was an overwhelming consensus.

Only when it became convenient for them, did the
Democrats discover that they had "been duped".

I think that the Americans who voted for a Democratic
majority in the House and Senate, are the ones who
have been duped! I hope that we all don't have to
pay the price for their stupidity.


Another Slap to Reid's "Two-Faces"!

Numbers USA, a group that I am proud to belong
to, issued this online statement earlier................

"October 24) The Senate failed to obtain cloture
on the DREAM Act amnesty (S. 2205) earlier
this afternoon by a 52-44 vote, for which 60
YES votes were needed to prevent a filibuster.

At this time, leadership from both parties are
meeting to discuss further proceedings.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and
Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
were attempting to bring this nightmarish
amnesty bill to the floor under Senate Rule
XIV without it ever having been debated in
committee. Earlier this morning, the Bush
Administration issued a statement opposing
the DREAM Act ..."

For a supposedly intelligent body, the
Democratic-controlled Congress just can't
seem to get it through it's collective head,
that the American people have had enough
of immigration....... illegal or otherwise.

It's bad enough that they want the approximate
12 million illegals who are already here, to stay,
they are tacking on provisions that will allow
them to send for their extended families, making
the true total more like 21 million. Add this
amount to the proposed increases in legal
immigration that the Dems have planned, and we
will soon be a country as populous as India and
China. Something that we do not need. But
bear in mind, the more "sheep" that qualify for
the voting booth, the better the Democrats do
in elections. Speaks reams!

The Democrats have attained their present
good fortune, mostly on the "exorbatant cost of
the Iraq war". Do they have ANY idea of what
the cost of their proposals would be? I doubt it,
because they will follow the old tried-&-true
method of "tax the American worker to death".

Well.............. the voters can't say that we didn't
try to warn them, can they? I hope that come
November, '08, they have gotten enough education
to make the right choice.


Will Democrats be Held Accountable for Their Lies?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (John Shinkle)

I once heard the late comedian Redd Fox quip, “A Lie is as good as the truth if you can get some fool to believe it!” Yeah pretty funny stuff.

Little did Fox know that he wasn’t the only one who held that philosophical view. As a matter of fact, of late, that Foxtonian pronouncement seems to be employed quite a bit by politicians who have apparently come to believe that they have little accountability for what they say and do.

Take for instance California Democrat Congressman Pete Stark who was just using the same old Democrat hyperbole that has become a Democrat tactic against the war and President Bush for the last 6 years when he said:
"You don't have money to fund the war or children," Stark said on the House floor. "But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."
(See video below)

Truth is Democrats have been saying this kind of nasty stuff about the President for a long, long time (that’s why Stark did it) why all the fuss about it now? 89% disapproval ratings in the polls and a new Democrat publicity campaign to boost Congress’ image that’s why all the fuss. A Democrat lead Congress has nothing to show for their promises to end the war in Iraq, the reason why the American people elected them the majority in Congress, but broken promises and lies.

Democrats would now have you believe that they didn’t know how the Senate and the House worked. They didn’t know that they couldn’t just ride into Washington with guns a blazin’ and demand that “ol’ Black Bart” George W. Bush end the war with their bright shiny new “Majority in Congress” badges. Democrats didn’t end the war as promised; no instead they funded the war several times a war which they voted the President authority for ! (Which makes it a legal war because Congress give authority for this war Rep. Stark)

Listening to Democrats now they didn’t know that the Senate was controlled by the minority and they didn’t know that without building bipartisanship nothing could get done even though Democrats spent the last 12 years in the minority blocking everything the Republicans attempted to do.

Nancy Pelosi didn’t know that a slim majority in the House wouldn’t allow her to push forward all the promised Democratic agenda items.
She didn’t know? (Sounds a lot like Iraq intelligence) Does she honest expect you to believe that? Do you honestly believe that Pelosi didn’t know after 12 years of being in the minority how the House worked? And then all of those insulting promises made to the America people just to get Democrats elected:
Pelosi vowed that five-day workweeks would be a hallmark of a harder-working Democratic majority. So far, the House has logged only one. Lawmakers plan to clock three days this week.

The speaker has denied Republicans a vote on their proposals during congressional debates -- a tactic she previously declared oppressive and promised to end. Pelosi has opened the floor to a Republican alternative just once.

Pelosi set a high standard for herself when she pledged to make this "the most ethical Congress in history" [instead] [s]he put Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), who had $90,000 in alleged bribe money in his freezer, on the Homeland Security Committee. And The Washington Post reported during the weekend that she is helping chairmen raise money from donors with business before their committees.
As for the Americans who think that Democrat’s promises to end the war should be kept Congresswoman Pelosi says:
Activists who want to target congressional Democrats for lack of action on the war are misguided, the speaker argued. "I think it is a waste of time for them to go after Democratic members.

They ought to just persuade Republican members who are representing areas that are opposed to the war," she said. "We said we would change the debate; we would fight to end the war. We never said we had the veto pen or the signature pen."
What? No you didn’t Ms. Speaker, Democrats promised unequivocally that if they were elected the majority in Congress they would end the war according to anti-war activist Tina Richards.
I attended the rally on Tuesday night where Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid discussed how they were going to "end the war" and "bring our troops home" with the Levin-Reed Amendment.

When I asked if they meant all the troops, I was quickly told to, "shut up" and muscled aside by security. A fellow Marine Mom was treated in much the same manner and we couldn't get over how much like the Republicans the "Anti-Escalation" folks were acting.
Then when Senator Reid was asked directly about ending the war he danced around like he was a contestant on "Dancing with the Stars": (See below)

Ms. Pelosi to now say that the American people are fools and didn’t understand what you promised is absolutely outrageous.

You knew full well how the Congress operated when you made those promises Senator Reid and Congresswomen Pelosi the fact that you now can’t deliver on your promises is indicative of a lying and incompetence Democrat controlled Congress that said what it needed to say just to get elected. And don’t farther insult the people who elected you by telling them to go and persuade GOP lawmakers to end the war, that’s your job! That is why you were elected to the majority in Congress.

This is one insular isolated place where I agree with Cindy Sheehan, if Americans want change in our government the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid must be extricated from the hallowed halls of Congress and replaced by good Americans who place the well-being of this nation over games of political gotcha and pandering to radical hate groups like

Rep. Stark is only the first Democrat from which we should hear the apology, “I’m sorry for what I said.” In the pass eight years Democrats have said a lot about the war and the President some true but mostly political hyperbole meant to hurt and harm the presidency, the war effort and to get Democrats elected to office.

If you didn’t know now you know. Democrats will not have the same impunity that they enjoyed in 2006 where they skillful made all Republicans liars and corrupt and Democrats agents of change even though they were apart of the same culture of corruption in the House and the Senate.

We now know that both Parties live with in that same culture Ms. Pelosi!

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Corporate Democrats

Presidential Hopeful former Senator John Edwards

Who’s responsible for the hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs lost to America? Who is responsible for the out-sourcing of American jobs to foreign countries, and who’s responsible for the in-sourcing of illegal alien workers and just who’s responsible for the downsizing (termination) of thousands of jobs in America and the subsequent hardships that the American workers face, President Bush? Is he responsible for the aforementioned?

No, Bush is just the custodian of policies that were put in place before he became President in 2000 if you want to know who the culprit is; who screwed the American worker all you have to do is listen to the warnings of Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential elections.

Perot said that giant sucking sound that you hear is all of the jobs being sucked out of America if NAFTA is signed into law.
The "giant sucking sound" was United States Presidential candidate Ross Perot's colorful phrase for what he believed would be the negative effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which he opposed. The phrase, coined during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign, referred to the sound of U.S. jobs heading south for Mexico should the proposed free-trade agreement go into effect.
Perot ultimately lost the election, and the winner, Bill Clinton, supported NAFTA, which went into effect on January 1, 1994.
-- Wikipedia
Perot warned us we didn’t listen, we elected William Jefferson Clinton who in turn signed NAFTA and thereby unleashed a corporate windfall that has devastated the economic heartland of America. Bill Clinton is a Corporate Democrat.

Any ways, that’s what President hopeful John Edwards is saying these days. Edwards is speaking out against Corporate Democrats, politicians who put corporate interest before the interest of citizens and workers. He is speaking out against Democrats who already have the endorsement of big money corporations who will continue the work and legacy of Bill Clinton and George Bush. And Edwards also says that Senator Hillary Clinton is a Corporate Democrat too.

Is Edwards right? Are corporate Democrats to be feared as much as Republicans? Yes I think that he is absolutely correct.

Unfortunately the former Senator’s warnings will fall on the same hears that Ross Perot’s warnings fell on, the ears of an electorate that is confused about what is really important in America’s politics.

This is a America that is more concerned with dynasties and the possibly of electing the first U.S. female President than the more substantive issue of whether the candidates whom we are considering will continue to sell out this country to big money international corporations at the expense of the voters who voted them into office.

We are playing a game of Jeopardy, watching the economic, social, political, and military deconstruction of America. It’s like we are being asked whether we prefer death by: Islamic nuclear bomb, the gutting of our economic infrastructure by corporations or the complete devaluation of our constitution with made up and phony rights.

I’ll choose the Islamic nuclear bomb, Alex. That way it’s not as slow and painful as watching the economic life being drained from our country before our very eyes. The people of this country are slowly going into a fog and are losing all consciousness of what it was like to be America.

Before you slip to far into the ethers here’s the big money alliances that your front runners and Corporate Democrats are making:

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Through persistence and patience, Clinton has assembled what is probably the broadest CEO support among the candidates, ranging from Wall Street to Hollywood.

John Mack CEO, Morgan Stanley Winning over the longtime Republican sent a signal about Clinton's clout on Wall Street.

Sheryl Sandberg VP, global online sales, Google "I was always hoping she'd run for President. She's uniquely qualified."

Steve Rattner Managing principal, Quadrangle Group "I've been a longtime supporter of the Clintons. I knew I'd end up in her camp."

Steven Spielberg Co-founder, DreamWorks The mogul co-hosted a fundraiser at the home of News Corp. president Peter Chernin.

Haim Saban CEO, Saban Capital Group "I endorsed Hillary before Hillary decided to endorse herself. I'm on a mission."

James D. Robinson III General partner, RRE Ventures The former AmEx CEO likes her "breadth of experience, especially on the international level."

Barack Obama

The Illinois Senator has a solid base of business support in Chicago but has also fared well with Hollywood media moguls and has aggressively moved into Clinton's turf among East Coast financiers.

Oprah Winfrey Founder, Harpo Productions Her endorsement of Obama was the first ever forthe billionaire media powerhouse.

Penny Pritzker Chairman, Classic Residence by Hyatt "I've watched him dialogue with CEOs. Heads are nodding, people are excited."

David Geffen Co-founder, DreamWorks He endorsed Obama - but first took a public swipe at his old friends, the Clintons [whom he supported in the past].

Jeffrey Katzenberg Co-founder, DreamWorks "His sense of right and wrong, what's just and fair, is what's needed for these times."

James S. Crown President, Henry Crown & Co. The investor says his family, one of Chicago's wealthiest, "is solidly behind" the candidate.

Orin Kramer General partner, Boston Provident "We're tapping into people in business who haven't been involved in the process."

Why, there’s no difference between a Corporate Democrat and a Corporate Republican. And I thought that Democrats were the party of change!

Monday, October 22, 2007

Senator Harry Reid Takes Credit for Rush Limbaugh’s Idea

Senators Harry Reid and Charles Schumer: Who’s stealing ideas, not us.

In the most pathetic and buffoonish example of Democrat stupidity Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid stood in the well of the Senate and attempted to take credit for good that came out of something that he and his friends mean for evil.

A letter written and signed by 41 Democrat U.S. Senators to Mark Mays, CEO of Clear Channel Communications and Rush Limbaugh’s boss, was meant to censor Mr. Limbaugh.

It is the first time in the history of America that we have evidence in plain sight that elected officials attempted to use the power of the government to deprave a private citizen of his first amendment constitutional rights of free speech.

However Senator Reid wasn’t taking responsibility for that unconstitutional act, oh no, he was instead attempting to steal credit for a private citizen’s (who he and 40 of his ultra-partisan friends attempted to destroy) idea to turn what was meant for evil into something good.

Rush Limbaugh turned the unconscionable unconstitutional evil act of Harry Reid into a 2million dollar act of charity which Limbaugh then personally matched dollar for dollar making it a total gift of 4million dollars!

Really Senator Reid you don’t have to steal another man’s act of charity you and your accomplices are free to donation as much or even more than Rush did to charity. That would be 2million dollars each times 41 Democrat Senators. Just think that would be 82 million dollars to your favorite charity,, Senator!

Oh by the way the 40 other Democrats who signed this letter of Democrat disgrace are:

Senators; Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Patty Murray Daniel Akaka, Max Baucus, Joseph Biden, Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Robert Byrd, Benjamin Cardin, Tom Carper, Bob Casey, Kent Conrad, Christopher Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Dianne Feinstein, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, Edward M. Kennedy, John Kerry, Amy Klobuchar, Mary Landrieu, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Blanche Lincoln, Bob Menendez, Barbara Mikulski, Bill Nelson, Jack Reed jay Rockefeller, Ken Salazar, Bernie Sanders, Debbie Stabenow, Jon Tester Jim Webb Sheldon Whitehouse and Ron Wyden.

We’ll be waiting for an announcement of Limbaugh-like acts of charity from the Senators listed above. After all we all know that Democrats are more generous than Rush Limbaugh and the Conservatives. (See Reid Below)

Friday, October 19, 2007

Mainstream Media “Sandy Bergers” Hillary Clinton’s Corruption

Senator Hillary Clinton: Not fully revealed? (REUTERS/Jim Young)

“Sandy Berger” Media Protects Hillary Clinton

You know that if Hillary Rodham Clinton was a Republican the MSM would have called Dan Rather back to do the reporting on what is unfolding to be the biggest political campaign corruption story in American politics. But this is Hillary, the Democrats front runner, and what the media did instead of reporting this story was stuff this story down its collective trousers to take it out, make it disappear, to destroy it. “Sandy Berger” Media to the rescue once again!

First Hillary Clinton’s Senate Campaign scandal her former Campaign fundraiser director is indicted. Just how do you became a former Campaign fundraiser director? Why you get tossed under the bus by Hillary Clinton that’s how!

Present day even the left-wing Huffingtonpost reported on it just in case and to ensure that no one could say that they weren’t fair and balanced in their reporting of the news.

Even though, this is a story that you haven’t heard! And that’s largely because Hillary “Darth Vadar” Clinton did not what you to hear it so she used the “force” of her corrupt political network to hide it from the weak and feeble minded.

Incredibly what you didn’t know is right now as you read there is a complaint charging Hillary and the soon lovely first laddy Billy with campaign corruption. (See the 50 page complaint here)

Remember how just recently MSM reported that Hillary eclipsed Barak Obama in political fundraising? Everyone who follows the Clintons knows that having more fundraising dollars than Obama wasn’t the real story. Any reporter worth the Pulitzer would have asked how did Hillary get this money, in her usual way Illegally?

You should ask your network news and any other sources from which you inform yourself why you had to hear about the biggest story of these elections right here from a lowly internet blogger! Hat Tip to RC2 for bringing this one to my attention! (See the damning video below)

Thursday, October 18, 2007

We Don’t Need No Triangulation

Senator Barack Obama

"We've had enough of ... triangulation and poll-driven politics, that's not what we need right now."--Senator Barack Obama

According to Barack Obama Hillary Clinton is another brick in the wall when it comes to American politics.

And America is tired of politicians who use under-handed politics to win.

Voting for Hillary would not bring the change that the country wants another Clinton Presidency would be just the same old brick after brick.

Apparently Obama would like Americans to make a distinction, if they truly desire political change and a new direction in America, you don’t put back into office someone who is partly responsible for the last 16 years of Clinton Bush policies.

Clinton has already reassembled retreads from her husband’s administration to advise her campaign, Madeline Albright and Sandy Berger being the most controversial.

Dynasties are spoken of by Monarchs and Kings not American Politicians and certainly not American Presidents yet strangely enough the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media has been floating the idea that putting Hillary into the White house would continue the Clinton Dynasty.

Dynasties are bad for America as a matter of fact the reason why the Founders crafted the separation of powers and a president instead of a king was to guard against dynasties.

That being said, Senator Obama’s reference to triangulation refers to Bill Clinton’s eight years as president in which Clinton made policy decisions by stealing the ideas of the opposing party to suck the air out of their opposition to him. The practice became known as ‘‘triangulation.’’

Presenting your opponents ideas as your own knocks the wind out of their adversarial intentions plus often times the act leaves opponents politically disorientated. Bill Clinton was very good at this tactic.

Obama seems to be calling for less deception,less Machiavellian tactics and less political manipulation which are the hall marks of the Clintonian methodology of politicking.

The Clinton campaign lashed back at Obama in typical “Politics of Personal Destruction” fashion by claiming that Obama’s comments abandoned the politics of hope and where little more then a attack against Hillary and the former President.

As for the Clinton Bush Dynasty Senator Obama stated,
‘‘George Bush may have perfected divisive special interest politics but he didn’t invent it,’’ Obama said. ‘‘It was there before he got into office and will be there after he leaves office, unless we decide we’re going to take our government back.’’
Senator Obama clearly wishes to be known as a leader for a new generation and a new kind of politics. Obama said he would stand up to special interests and take unpopular stands when necessary.

That kind of idealism is certainly not politics as usual nor is it another brick in the wall politics but hasn’t Senator Obama noticed that Hillary has already stolen his thunder.

News has it that she has raised more money than he, reversing the positive imaging that he was receiving from that news and now she is pandering to the women’s and minority’s votes.

I’d say welcome to the world of triangulation Barack. A world where Hillary Clinton’s campaign is in charge and has at least a 20% lead over you and if you have any dreams Clintonesta will triangulate them too!

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

SCHWARZENEGGER: Girlee Republican makes California Girlee State

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, before becoming Girlee Republican

You’re probably as tired of hyphenated Republicans as I am, i.e. Compassionate-Conservative or any of the sissy Democrat-wannabe Republicans in the House and Senate. I’m I right?

You’d probably give your eye-tooth for just a plain old Conservative one that will fight for Conservative values. You know like protect the borders, protect us from terrorism, protect the institution of marriage and keep down government spending.

What you don’t want is to choose someone who claims that they are a Republican but at the first time of testing he or she bulks at Conservative ideas.

That brings me to California’s Girlee Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who signed legislation late Friday October 12, 2007 that makes California a Girlee State.

Apparently not willing to raise the ire of the strong homosexual lobby in "CHaLeefornya", Girlee Republican Governor Schwarzenegger signed legislation into law that will criminalize anyone who believes that homosexuality is wrong and expresses that view.

Liberals, always attempting to self authenticate their views often resort to Machiavellian tactics in order to force their left-wing authoritarian views into law or they give their views some undeserved and unmerited distinction (Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, for Global warming?), have crafted AB 394 and SB 777 to force homosexuality on the unsuspecting majority of Californians who have already voted in 2000 that marriage remain as it always has been.

California’s Proposition 22 states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California" (approved on March 7, 2000 by a margin of 61 to 39).

What the Girlee Republican Governor and the radical California legislature did purposely by-passes the expressed vote of the people of California. It is an egregious act which damages democracy for the sake of the ideological gain of a small but powerful homosexual special interest group under the guise of “protecting the children who might be homosexuals.”

This site has been dedicated to showing Orwellian attempts employed by political operatives, attempts to change the American society through legal coercion and political fascism. But absolutely nothing that I’ve come across shows how this is being accomplish more clearly than what Governor Schwarzenegger and the California legislature has done to the people of California for the sake of California’s homosexual lobby.

This Oligarchy of homosexual fascist infiltrated the California state government by the election process and slowly and methodically began to infringe on the rights of the majority of Californians. What the homosexual lobby has done through the California state legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger is political tyranny.

If a group any group can declare by law that their ideology is right by using the political system to by-pass the peoples’ will in spite of and against the expression democratic vote of the people that is legal coercion, that is political fascism, that is tyranny and that is exactly what the homosexual lobby in California did through their state elected agents.

Agents of the homosexual lobby were able to control an already ultra liberal California legislature and move their agenda using a so-called Republican Governor to sign their political handy-work for the coup de grâce.

Astonishingly these provocateurs used the processes of democracy to thwart the very democracy that they pretended to represent through several bills designed to legalize homosexuality. The aforementioned bills AB 394 and SB 777 will take affect January 1 2008 in California and will virtually make it illegal for anyone in the state of California to believe that homosexuality is wrong.

Under these Orwellian laws the words, "Mom and Dad" as well as "husband and wife" have been banned from California schools that was signed by Schwarzenegger!

Under these same bizarre laws Schwarzenegger ordered public schools to allow boys to use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms, and vice versa, if they choose. That was signed by Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger signed SB 777 (transsexual, bisexual, homosexual indoctrination of schoolchildren by requiring changes to all instruction and activities) and AB 394 (transsexual, bisexual, homosexual indoctrination of students, parents, and teachers via “anti-harassment” training). Signing the bills was a switch for Schwarzenegger, who vetoed nearly the same bills last year, in the midst of his reelection campaign.

SB 777 prohibits any “instruction” or school-sponsored “activity” that “promotes a discriminatory bias” against “gender” (the bill’s definition includes cross-dressing and sex changes) and “sexual orientation” (the bill’s definition includes bisexuality). Because no textbook or instruction in California public schools currently disparages transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality, the practical effect of SB 777 will be to require positive portrayals of these sexual lifestyles at every government-operated school. Otherwise, “discriminatory” schools will be subject to intimidation and lawsuits by the State Department of Education.

Under SB 777, which will go into effect on January 1, 2008, the following could be eliminated from California public schools because they are deemed to have a “discriminatory bias”:

• Textbooks and other instruction that portray marriage as only between a man and a woman

• Textbooks and other instruction that say people are born male or female (and not in between)

• Textbooks and other instruction that leave out transsexual, bisexual, and homosexual historical figures

• Sex education and school assemblies that omit the option of hormone injections or sex changes

• Homecoming king and queen contests that allow only boys to run for king and only girls to run for queen

• Boys’ and girls’ bathrooms that separate biological boys from biological girls
The second sexual indoctrination bill that Schwarzenegger signed, AB 394, will promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality to students, parents, and teachers through school training programs against “harassment” and “discrimination.”

While SB 777 is about “instruction” and “activities” promoting various sexual lifestyles, AB 394 promotes these same lifestyles -- “gender” (transsexuality and sex changes) and “sexual orientation” (bisexuality and homosexuality) -- through publications, postings, curricula, and handouts to students, parents, and teachers.

AB 394 would promote these lifestyles all under the guise of “safety.” Yet current safety and nondiscrimination laws are sufficient, making this bill unnecessary.

AB 394 infringes on free speech. For example, because AB 394 fails to define “harassment,” a parent who says marriage is only for a man and a woman in the presence of a lesbian teacher could be found guilty of “harassment.” Similarly, a student who says you’re born either male or female could be reported as a “harasser” by a male teacher who wears women’s clothes.

In addition to signing the two school sexual indoctrination bills, Gov. Schwarzenegger signed AB 102, which awards married names to unmarried couples. AB 102 allows homosexual couples to hold themselves out as married by permitting them to choose the same surname upon registration of their “domestic partnership.” The bill awards unmarried couples married last names, such as “Mr. and Mr. Smith” and “Mrs. and Mrs. Jones.”

“Schwarzenegger and the Democrat politicians have created the public image of homosexual ‘marriages’ in California,”

In addition, Schwarzenegger signed AB 14, which requires more California businesses, as well as some churches and nonprofit organizations, to support and promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality.

AB 14 prohibits state funding for any program that does not support transsexuality, bisexuality, or homosexuality. This means state-funded social services operated by churches and other houses of faith, which provide essential services to children and adults, could dry up.

Negatively impacted will be religious-based day care, pre-school and after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, job programs, and more. Throughout California, there are faith-based services that receive government funding that simply do not and will not accept transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality.

Infringing on matters of personal and religious conscience, AB 14 also forces every hospital in California -- even private, religious hospitals -- to adopt policies in support of transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality. Under AB 14, private country clubs, tennis clubs and racquet clubs will be forced to support these sexual lifestyles on their premises.

AB 14 also opens up nonprofit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members that engage in homosexual, bisexual, or transsexual conduct. This certainly threatens the Boy Scouts, which is a membership organization as well as a nonreligious nonprofit. (Source:

These laws are but the first installment of a new world order where George Orwell’s 1984 was actually a prophetic projection into the year 1994 where actually the brainwashing of the American people began. Orwell was just off by a decade. (Follow this link to the brainwashing centers)

If there is a moral it is, chose carefully your next Republican candidate for President. Make sure that, that person is a Conservative not a girlee or compassionate but someone who will fight for Conservative ideology!

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

The Nobel Peace Prize and Mocking Derision

Stewart Dimmock, David that stood up to the Global warming Goliath

I like Jonathan Martins’ opening sentence, “Conservatives reacted to the long-awaited news this morning that Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize with mocking derision.”

Martin blogs for the Politico about Conservatives (obviously from a Liberal prospective!) his remarks sound as foreign as Osama bin Laden calling the West to Islam. I don’t think he gets the subject that he’s reporting on.

First of all who was long-awaiting the Nobel Committee to bestow the Peace prize on Al Gore for Global warming? Does it make any sense to anyone who is not a Liberal that the “PEACE” prize would be hijacked to make a political statement about an unproven theory? (According to Britain’s High Court Anthropogenic Global warming is unproved and not held in scientific consensus.)

Liberal are always attempting to self authenticate their views by making their views law or by giving their views some undeserved and unmerited distinction.

And as for mocking derision that is not what Conservatives did. No, mocking derision is what the Nobel Committee did when they turned their collective noses up on the real peace efforts throughout the world for a poke-in-the-eye at everyone who doesn’t follow blindly the Piped Piper of CO2 emissions himself Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.

Through twisted logic the Oslo Committee attempted to justify their choice of Gore and the United Nations, International Panel on Climate Change, but their explain rung hollow in light of the many people who actually risked life and limb for the cause of peace in the world.

As the Opinion Journal points out what about the: Burmese monks whose defiance against, and brutalization at the hands of, the country's military junta in recent weeks captured the attention of the Free World.

Or Morgan Tsvangirai, Arthur Mutambara and other Zimbabwe opposition leaders who were arrested and in some cases beaten by police earlier this year while protesting peacefully against dictator Robert Mugabe.

Or Father Nguyen Van Ly, a Catholic priest in Vietnam arrested this year and sentenced to eight years in prison for helping the pro-democracy group Block 8406.
Or Wajeha al-Huwaider and Fawzia al-Uyyouni, co-founders of the League of Demanders of Women's Right to Drive Cars in Saudi Arabia, who are waging a modest struggle with grand ambitions to secure basic rights for women in that Muslim country.

Or Colombian President Àlvaro Uribe, who has fought tirelessly to end the violence wrought by left-wing terrorists and drug lords in his country.

Or Garry Kasparov and the several hundred Russians who were arrested in April, and are continually harassed, for resisting President Vladimir Putin's slide toward authoritarian rule.

Or the people of Iraq, who bravely work to rebuild and reunite their country amid constant threats to themselves and their families from terrorists who deliberately target civilians.

Or Presidents Viktor Yushchenko and Mikheil Saakashvili who, despite the efforts of the Kremlin to undermine their young states, stayed true to the spirit of the peaceful "color" revolutions they led in Ukraine and Georgia and showed that democracy can put down deep roots in Russia's backyard.

Or Britain's Tony Blair, Ireland's Bertie Ahern and the voters of Northern Ireland, who in March were able to set aside decades of hatred to establish joint Catholic-Protestant rule in Northern Ireland.

Or thousands of Chinese bloggers who run the risk of arrest by trying to bring uncensored information to their countrymen.

Or scholar and activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, jailed presidential candidate Ayman Nour and other democracy campaigners in Egypt.

Or, posthumously, lawmakers Walid Eido, Pierre Gemayel, Antoine Ghanem, Rafik Hariri, George Hawi and Gibran Tueni; journalist Samir Kassir; and other Lebanese citizens who've been assassinated since 2005 for their efforts to free their country from Syrian control.

Or the Reverend Phillip Buck; Pastor Chun Ki Won and his organization, Durihana; Tim Peters and his Helping Hands Korea; and Liberty in North Korea, who help North Korean refugees escape to safety in free nations.(Source The Opinion Journal)

Or what about Cindy Sheehan, Cindy is more about peace in her little toe than Al Gore ever was! You may not agree with Ms. Sheehan but her decision to run against Nancy Pelosi alone is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize!

No Jonathan, the only mocking derision concerning the Nobel Peace Prize is the derision the committee made by disregarding the real peacemakers when the committee overlooked peacemakers’ often dangerous, bitter and noble struggles for peace in order to hand the award to a movement that was not even in the peace category.

If the Nobel Prize Committee wishes to award environmental concerns they should open up a category for that purpose that would be appropriate.

But to take recognition from those who were rightly deserving of that recognition just to heap it upon those who are not, is the ultimate act of derisive mockery.

And Jonathan to report it as you did is devoid of all rational prospective my friend an act which itself is worthy of Conservatives’ mocking derision.

Monday, October 15, 2007

The Clinton’s Wrote The Book!

Hillary and Bill Clinton

"For 15 years, I've stood up against the right-wing machine," she said, as many in the crowd cheered.

"If you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your girl."
—Senator Hillary Clinton
You can learn a lot from those bright yellow books, Etiquette For Dummies, Suse Linux 9.3 for Dummies, Business Plans Kit For Dummies, Home Decorating for Dummies, DOS For Dummies Quick Reference, MCSE SQL Server 2000 Administration for Dummies or Guitar For Dummies.

However the book that we are all reading from collectively right now is Politics for Dummies by Bill and Hillary Clinton. It’s a political playbook on how to lie, laugh, deceive and equivocate yourself right into the White house while using the Media, Liberals and the Democrat party to get what you want.

It’s a work of diabolical brilliance. A must read for every Liberal politician that values winning above all else. If you don’t read the Clinton’s playbook then you are truly a dummy!

I can’t recall seeing such a cold, calculating unrelenting work of political campaigning that is so patently fake.

The L.A. Times wrote, “She runs a textbook front-runner's presidential campaign: methodical and focused.” They continue, “Clinton campaigning is a study in focus and Swiss-watch precision.” What they are trying to say is Clinton’s campaign is a slick well oiled con game.

Hillary’s campaign is so obviously staged that’s its hard to believe that anyone is taking her seriously yet she leads her closet Liberal Democrat competitor by 25.6%. I guess Liberals don’t mind lying politicians just as long as they are Democrat lying politicians. The whole Clinton campaign is based on deception and Democrats accept it. And I must say that speaks volumes about the Democratic Party.

But it’s all in the book! It’s everything you need to know about deceptive politicking in the 21st century. It’s Politics for Dummies. Its chapters include:

o The Politics of personal destruction (how to destroy all Republicans starting with Bush)

o Controlling the conversation (announce it and media will cover it, if you are Hillary)

o How to make appearances on Fox news when all other Liberals are afraid to.

o Never answer a question, say a lot, redefine and respond to your own created redefined questions (The media never says, “But you didn’t answer my question!”)

o If you can’t avoid answering a question say, “I’ll have to leave that others to decide or “I’m not going to talk about that right now”

o Every week release a proposal for things like health care, minimum wage increase, subsidizing retirement , or a $5,000 bond for every baby. That will steer the national conversation in areas that you want people talking about.

o Always cover both sides say something like, “If George Bush doesn’t end the war in Iraq , I will.” then later say, “We can’t guarantee what we’ll do (pull out troops) because we don’t know what we’ll find when we get there.”

In Politics for dummies by Bill and Hillary Clinton, Hillary rolls out political sound bites like the energizer bunny beats his drum, “Hillary’s Health Care Plan,” “Hillary will stop the genocide in Darfur,” “Hillary will give every Child $5,000 bond,” “Hillary will Stop the War, but maybe not because Hillary doesn’t know what she’ll find after Bush is gone” “Hillary will subsidized retirement accounts” “Hillary your girl to fight the nasty Republicans” “Hillary’s your girl to unite with the nasty Republicans”
"The time to begin bringing the troops home is now. If George W. Bush doesn't end this war before he leaves office, I will," Senator Hillary Clinton
In Politicals for Dummies, everyday it’s a new headline touting the Junior Senator’s plans for the country virtually projecting what she would do if she were to assume the role of first female President of the United States of America. (Is anyone else doing this?)

Remember when Senator Clinton announced her candidacy she said, “Let the conversation begin.”

What you didn’t know was that she intended to control all asspects of that conversation through her political manipulations and quite frankly its working brillantly.

Truly a woman for all seasons Hillary Clinton has emerged as the ultimate Bionic woman of politics, super strong, super slick and super impervious to criticisms. To learn how she did it you’ve got to read the book!

What the America people are witnessing is a remarkable politic machine at work in overdrive the Clintons may very well be the best politicians that the world has ever seen. (And I don’t mean that in a good way.)

Politics for dummies by Bill and Hillary Clinton buy yours today Liberal putzes already have! Hillary is looking for more Independents and Conservatives to buy her stuff! Are you buying any of it?

Remember if you need someone to fight the Conservatives she’s your girl, but she can also unite the country like no one else can. (Yeah, right!)

Friday, October 12, 2007


Albert Gore, Jr., Nobel Peace Prize Winner

By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control. -- The Norwegian Nobel Committee, Oslo, 12 October 2007
It’s purely political! It's High School politics, if we like you and if we like your cause we'll make you Prom King, (In this case Nobel Prize Winner) Its like that old saw, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig!” Adding the Nobel Peace Prize to his Oscar doesn’t dress up Al Gore or lend him any more credibility on the contrary what the Norwegian Nobel Committee has done is forever discredited itself as a legitimate source of authenticating good and noble pursuits.

The Controversial topic of Global warming was just days ago deal a legal blow in Britain for being little more than political propaganda forced on unsuspecting school children. So what does this tribute mean coming from a body that has of late shown itself to be more concerned with validating politically correct views rather than recognizing real accomplishment.

What it means is that the Norwegian Nobel Committee has devalued the Nobel Prize not legitimized Al Gore or the controversy of Global warming.

The committee’s own statement, “By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind.

Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control,”
why it bestowed its prize on Albert Gore, Jr. is itself an admission of its part of colluding in the propaganda war which Global warming has become.

This award is the Norwegian Nobel committee’s way of lending a hand in pushing the world economies into a global taxation scheme where billions of dollars will be made from buying and selling carbon credits which will not end any real or perceived threat of Global warming at all.

We have always known that Europe and the Union Nations are co-conspirators in the Global warming controversy now Oslo Norway has joined the ranks of the elite who wishes to push the ideological concept of man-made Global warming on the masses.

In the face of 500 reputable scientists who say that there is no consensus on the theories which Al Gore promoted to enrich himself and his fellow investors the Norwegian body has politicized itself in a way that can not be repaired.

From now on and forever more the Noble Peace Prize will be synonymous with bad science, propaganda and controversy. Maybe that’s how Alfred Nobel would have liked it.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

An Inconvenient Ruling

Britain’s High Court

British High Court judge Michael Burton ruled on Wednesday that Al Gore's Global warming documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" should only be shown in schools with guidance notes to prevent political indoctrination.

Judge Burton said the film should be accompanied by government guidance notes and to distribute it without them would breach education laws prohibiting the promotion of unbalanced political viewpoints.

Stewart Dimmock lorry truck driver and father of two brought the suit last month and wanted to block the government's pledge to send more than 3,500 secondary schools in England and Wales a DVD of the documentary to demonstrate the need to fight global warming.

Though the court did not ban the film as Mr. Dimmock originally petitioned the court to do still Mr. Dimmock see his efforts as a victory for education and science Dimmock said, "If it was not for the case brought by myself, our young people would still be being indoctrinated with this political spin."

In other news Al Gore’s theories are being disputed by scientists who wish to debate him on the issue. However Gore’s camp has issued a statement saying that the debate has shifted to how to solve the climate crisis, not if there is one. Meaning that Gore has already gotten the United Nations, Europe and now the Bush administration to sign on to a project which amounts to a Global fix which will cost citizens billions of dollars therefore the debate is over.
"The debate has shifted to how to solve the climate crisis, not if there is one," said Kalee Kreider. "It does not make sense for him to engage in a dialogue with them at this time."
In other words the propaganda of Global warming has already been accepted by world leaders no one involved in this movement is going to stop to question whether they are right about the theories of Global warming.

With the power of the U.N., the European Union and the Bush administration behind him it does indeed appear that the conversation is all but over.

Mr. Dimmock’s valet efforts saved British children from the indoctrination of Global warming only to be rewarded by the unpleasant reality that the rest of the world are not smarter than a fifth grader!

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Sovereignty Lost!

The International Court of Justice in The Hague , the new U. S. Supreme Court

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible.

So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns.

Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combination and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
– President George Washington, Farewell Address 1776
How do you feel today? Cosmopolitan? International maybe? Do you feel any different than yesterday? Well you could be different depending on how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a certain case today. The Court’s ruling could conceivably make you a citizen of the world while making itself a lower court answerable to a greater power.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case Medellin v. Texas today, Wednesday, a case which will set the precedence that there is a higher law, a Court higher than the United States Supreme Court. And if that is true that would also mean that the U.S. constitution is no longer the Supreme law of the United States of America.

When I say that there is a higher law, I’m not referring to God although many in this nation might feel that the entity which I’m referring to is akin to God. What I am speaking about is the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

The Bush administration will be siding with Mexico and Internationalist against the state of Texas today in a test of American National Sovereignty against International One World government.

The case The People vs. Jose Medellin convicted Medellian and sentenced him with the death penalty. Medellin confessed in 1993 to participating in the rape and murder of two Houston teenagers. Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena were sodomized and strangled with their shoe laces. Medellin bragged about keeping one girl's Mickey Mouse watch as a souvenir of the crime.

Medellin and four others were convicted of capital murder and sent to Texas' death row. A juvenile court sentenced Medellin's younger brother, who was 14 at the time, to 40 years in prison.

Medellian is an Illegal alien and because he was not informed that he could seek help from the Mexican Consulate at the time of his arrest and subsequent sentencing the Mexican Government through the International Court is attempting to thwart U.S. law because they do not believe in the death penalty.

They will make this attempt today in the case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Medellin v. Texas. This is a case which the Bush administration intervened in to attempt to block state law at the request of the Mexican government after Mexico made its case before the International Court of Justice at The Hague (ICJ) and the ICJ found that Medellin was not informed of his right to contact the Mexican Consulate for legal assistance.

That, according to The Hague, was a violation of a 1963 treaty known as the Vienna Convention.

Also Medellin v. Texas not only could determine the fate of Jose Medellin but 50 other Mexican killers on death rows in the United States, including more than a dozen in Texas. All of them say they were not told of their right to contact Mexico for legal help.
[I]n 2004 the Mexican government obtained a ruling from the International Court of Justice on Mr. Medellin's behalf that state police had violated his right to access to consular officials from Mexico. Mr. Medellin, who was born in Mexico, has lived in the US since he was nine years old, although he was never a legal resident.

The judgment found that the Texas authorities failed to tell Mr. Medellin and 50 other death row inmates from Mexico of their rights under the Vienna Convention to seek advice from the Mexican consulate, or to inform consular officials about their cases.
President Bush issued a memorandum two months later that the US courts would implement the ICJ ruling. The Bush administration is expected to argue that the president's executive power over treaty provisions outranks state laws.

However, Texas argues that Mr. Bush's memo on the death penalty case would set a dangerous precedent for presidential power. The state argues that President Bush's action disregards earlier verdicts by an appeals court and the Supreme Court that Mr. Medellin was not entitled to invoke his rights as a Mexican citizen because he had not raised the issue at his original trial.

One other amazing fact need to be considered here as well, Houston, Texas where Jose Medellian was arrested and convicted of the wanton and brazen acts of sodomizing, gang raping and murdering two teenaged girls is a sanctuary city. (see list of sanctuary cities yours could be one!

That means that because Mexico and Illegal alien activists and Illegal alien supporters in this country influenced local law in the city of Houston, Houston officials by law and policy are required not to ask for country or place of origin of any person.

While this makes it easier for Mexican nationals to live freely and gain access to our American society it also makes it impossible to comply with 1963 Vienna treaty or any law that requires that Illegal Mexican nationals in this country be informed of their International Rights to be represented by the Mexican Consulate when they violate American law.

As sanctuary laws are presently followed they force officials to treat everyone the same, to treat everyone as Americans. To now demand that Mexican nationals get special treatment, because they are governed not by our laws but international laws further supports the reason why the American people rejected the President’s Comprehensive Immigrant Reform earlier this year and want the 20 to 60 million illegal aliens out of the country.

Finally, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Medellin today Illegal Aliens will virtually have diplomatic impunity status in the United States of America giving another special interest group special privileges that the rest of us don’t have and at the same time it would make a mockery of our constitution, as well as itself as a court.

A ruling in favor of Medellin would hand over final authority in such matters to an international body and make that court superior to our own. I doubt that President George Washington (or any of the founding fathers) would approve!
(credit: worldnetdaily and the guardian)