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!

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!

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.—Washingtonpost.com

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?

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!

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:// prorev.com/legacy.htm

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!

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…

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!

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!

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!

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?

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.

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 TheHill.com 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.

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...

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!

The Clintons Poll-larizing America again!

[President] Clinton's legacy is in many ways a story about polls. It is not true, as some critics say, that Clinton always did what pollster Mark J. Penn's numbers told him to do. It is true that no previous president read public opinion surveys with the same hypnotic intensity. And no predecessor has integrated his pollster so thoroughly into the policymaking operation of his White House.—John F. Harris, Washinton Post.com

Public opinion, or mobtocracy, float a few trial balloons, see which direction the herd is stampeding and get behind them. That was the way former President Bill Clinton governed and his homies loved him for it because he'd always said what was hip and cool and just what they wanted to hear.

It was the first, “And survey says…” Family Feud Presidency in American history. It was truly a, don’t be mad at me, I just want you to love me, style of governance that would make really bad parents but super primo cool best friends of any parent and child’s relationship.

Yes Polling is what the Clinton’s did best or was it Polarizing? Not everyone agreed that America should be governed like one great big popularity contest. Things like Slavery and White superiority were hugely popular in their day but it took men and women with conviction and faith to stand against popular opinion to change America for the good. If President Clinton instead of President Lincoln would have been deciding, we’d still be owning slaves today. Now that’s a thought!

Clinton a man without convictions or moral turpitude didn’t make decisions based on what was good for the country his decisions where based purely on what was good for his political career. President Clinton believed that as President if you talked about popular things you would be popular.

It was with the critical assistance of polls -- literally hundreds of them, taken daily during campaigns and other critical moments, and at least once a week all through the second term -- that Clinton refined the centrist "new Democrat" language and policies that are one of his distinctive political contributions…

Two once-close Clinton aides, former senior adviser George Stephanopoulos and former labor secretary Robert Reich, wrote memoirs after leaving the administration that recalled bitterly Clinton's reliance on consultants and polling. This contempt for Clinton's data-driven brand of politics is widely, though privately, shared even by many people who still work for him.

"He institutionalized the notion that the presidency is about policy and polls, and this very mechanical notion that if you talk about something that is popular than you will be popular and that's all that matters," a former senior White House aide said. "It drained the majesty out of the presidency. In some ways that was what saved Clinton, but it came at some cost."

Well, speaking of polling here’s some interesting numbers. In a recent poll by a Harris Interactive poll, half of voting-age Americans say that they would not vote for Senator Hillary Clinton if she became the Democratic nominee for president in 2008.

Half of voting-age Americans say they would not vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) if she became the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, according to a Harris Interactive poll released Tuesday.

What’s more 1 in 5 Democrats say that they would not vote for Senator Clinton. And 48 percent of Independent voters say they would vote for someone other then Hillary.

If Democrats offer Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the Presidency polling indicates that she is not popular with Americans and they will not support her. I would say that is quite a dilemma for a popularity driven campaign, wouldn’t you?

The question is will the Clintons leave their long established tendency of going with the polls for an unveiled narcissistic attempt to make Hillary head cheerleader. Or will they do what is best for the Democratic Party and let someone else who can win it, in it?

Survey says…She won’t step aside and she’ll lose the election. But who listens to polls anyways?

Deporting Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney

Start the bus because the Politicalchickens in the Whitehouse are going to throw AG Alberto Gonzales under.

Oh he won't be sent across the border to Mexico, after all he isn't illegal, but Democrats will definitely find that he did something illegal and deport him right out of Washington D.C. Even if he's innocent of breaking the law.

The Feckless Democrats and some of their lap dog Republicans allies are working public opinion with hearings designed to come to one conclusion remove another of the President’s political aides.

At this rate I’d be surprised if Democrats will allow Laura Bush to remain in the White house for the President's remaining 2 years, Lord knows if Democrats come after her there’s not a Republican who would or could fight for her. Heck there isn't a Republican willing to fight for anything right now. (Troops you're coming home!)

It all over, this U.S. Attorney firings is a non-issue a so-what but Republicans are running for the hills like they are Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)and they've lined their own pockets with billions of dollars of tax payers money in a self enrichment scam, not competent politicians who made a decision and are standing by it.

Why would I say that this is a non-issue? The underlining claim is that the Bush White house is persecuting prosecutors in a knee jerk political reaction to prevent them from prosecuting Republicans. However that couldn't be true because there were those in the White house considering these firings as long as two years ago!
And all the evidence points that the considerations were based on performance not politics!

But more than two years ago, Rove had sought input from the Justice Department on how many U.S. attorneys should be retained in the second term.

That is exactly what Senator Hillary Clinton said should be done!

Yes, even Hillary is speaking up and she's admitted to the fact that her husband's administration fired 93 U.S. Attorneys for purely political reasons and she's cocky enough to say that she'd do it again!

[Senator Clinton] conceded that should she win the presidency in 2008, she likely would replace all of the U.S. attorneys appointed by President Bush. She said that's merely following traditions in which presidents appoint prosecutors of their own party.

So what's the big deal? It's political! Democrats have made everything political, they've made the 2000 and 2004 elections political, the war in Iraq political, confirming U.S. Supreme Court Justices political, Valerie Plame political, John Ashcraft political, Karl Rove political, and now AG Alberto Gonzales is victim of the politicizing of everything that the Republicans do.

It's a game, a con, like everything that the Democrats do! Just put and keep up the political pressure on the White house and before you know it 2008 rolls around and we'll all be singing hail to the Cheifette before anyone realizes the con job that was just played on the American people.

There were no laws broken, nobody's going to jail but with Senate hearings crippling the White house for the remaining 2 years of his Presidency, President Bush is going to look like an embattled, weak ineffective incompetent instead of the leader of the free world! Yeah even the terrorist are liking this!

That's two birds with one stone, diminish the out going President and besmirch any incoming Republican with the memory of two years of a scandal ridden Republican White house. Works every time!

Like the Democratic front runner said, She's in it to win it. There's another old saw, All's fair in love and war. And Republicans thought that the war was only over in Iraq?

Both are lessons that Republicans will probably take another 49 years of Democratic total control of government to learn!

So turn on each other Republicans, jump ship, point fingers because Republicans are going down. Heck you stand a better chance of being an illegal alien and staying in America than Alberto Gonzales has of remaining in the White house for the next two years with weak kneed Republicans bowing and scraping before every Senate hearing that the Democrats feel like they want to call.

To bad Alberto can't get a million or so illegal's to march it the streets for him. No one has more clout in D.C. these days than illegal aliens backed anything.

Maybe after the President accepts Mr. Gonzales' resignation Alberto can go work the fields in Mexico for his next job. President Bush seemed to like it, yeah he liked it alot!

Democrat Culture of Corruption the Re-Mix

Senator Dianne Feinstein

In November 1992, a slow economy and public dissatisfaction with the status quo gave the Democrats the White House for the first time in 12 years. Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton ran as a politically moderate "New Democrat" who was pro-business and pro-death penalty, focusing on the nation's economy ("It's the economy, stupid").

Clinton won 32 states, holding then-President Bush to 37.5 percent of the vote. While the Democrats regained the Oval Office and held Congress, the GOP picked up 10 seats in the House.

In 1994, Republicans, galvanized by Clinton administration missteps (including its ill-fated national health care proposal), [49 years if Democrat Congressional Corruption] ran on the "Contract With America," and took complete control of Congress for the first time since 1955.

Further, the GOP claimed 30 of the nation's 50 governorships, including eight of the 10 biggest electoral states, and drew even with the Democrats in many state legislatures.—Democratic Convention 2000, www.cnn.com

Dianne Feinstein is a Democrat and she is corrupt. She is as corrupt as Liberals believe Halliburton is.

As chairperson and ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 through the end of 2005, Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee. Blum was a majority owner of both URS Corp. and Perini Corp.

In 2006 now Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi read the Republican play book and re-coined the phase a Culture of Corruption and used it back on the Republican majority which had only been in power for 12 years opposed to the previous 49 year Democrat corrupted monopoly in the Congress. Pelosi used the short memory of voters and incompetent Republican politicians to orchestrate a sweep of Congress transferring power and control of the Congress to the Democrat Party. A Party that promised a new and ethical direction.

This is not the first time a Democrat sitting on a powerful appropriations committee has used their sacred trust to enrich themselves. Congressman John Murtha was the ranking Democratic member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and for three years he was the House's top recipient of defense industry cash. Few in Washington are surprised that his lobbyist brother, Robert "Kit" Murtha, was until his retirement this summer an enormously successful "earmark specialist" for the Beltway firm KSA Consulting. In recent years, Kit Murtha brought in a mother lode of earmarks for at least 16 defense manufacturers with business before the Appropriations Committee.

As a member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Feinstein voted for appropriations worth billions to her husband's firms. From 2001 to 2005, URS earned $792 million from military construction and environmental cleanup projects approved by MILCON; Perini earned $759 million from such MILCON projects.
In her annual Public Financial Disclosure Reports, Feinstein records a sizeable family income from large investments in Perini, which is based in Framingham, Mass., and in URS, headquartered in San Francisco. But she has not publicly acknowledged the conflict of interest between her job as a congressional appropriator and her husband's longtime control of Perini and URS--and that omission has called her ethical standards into question.

Since Senator Feinstein’s unethical behavior has been reported by Metro Active she has stepped down from MILCON.

Senator Feinstein has profited at the expense of U.S. soldiers in Iraq at a time when medical care for Iraq war veterans is inadequate. While leading MILCON, Feinstein had ample warning of the medical-care meltdown. But she was not proactive on veteran's affairs.

Feinstein abandoned MILCON as her ethical problems were surfacing in the media, and as it was becoming clear that her subcommittee left grievously wounded veterans to rot while her family was profiting from the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised voters a new direction if Democrats were elected to Congress. From Halliburton to Senator Feinstein’s URS Corp. and Perini Corp now that’s a new direction!
Yeah back to Democrat Corruption!

PUT UP or SHUT UP

Chemical forms of uranium during conversion: yellowcake and uranyl nitrate solution [UO2(NO3)2].

Recently I was challenged to prove that President Bush did not lying when he said that British Intelligence reported that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Niger and that the The Senate Intel Commitee report stated "that Iraq indeed did attempt to buy yellowcake",well I’m putting up!

As you recall this statement was a part the President’s 2003 State of the Union speech where he stated,“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”

This statement was called a lie by Joseph Wilson IV who subsequently accused the White house of outing the identity of his CIA agent wife Valeria Plame in a vendictive attempt to discredit him.

Without going into all of the pretext and subtext surrounding this issue it has been determined, after the fact, that we do not know if Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium. However without a doubt at the time that the President spoke those words the President had all of the authority behind him that former Vice President Al Gore presently enjoys on the topic of Global warming. All of the experts in the intelligence gathering community believed that Iraq attempted to get uranium and based on the experts findings the President made his remarks.

Further, Democrats on the US Senate Select Intelligence Committee also reluctantly concluded that the intelligence received by the Bush people suggested that Iraq was attempting to secure enriched uranium in order to produce nuclear weapons. That same intelligence suggested that Iraq already possessed a stockpile of both chemical and biological weapons.

This is part of the official conclusion of the US Senate Select Intelligence Committee and statement from the Chair of the Committee Pat Roberts:

Conclusion: The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee.

The former ambassador’s wife suggested her husband for the trip to Niger in February 2002. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on behalf of the CIA, also at the suggestion of his wife, to look into another matter not related to Iraq. On February 12, 2002, the former ambassador’s wife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations which said, “[m]y husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possible shed light on this sort of actiity.” This was just one day before the same Directorate of Operations division sent a cable to one of its overseas stations requesting concurrence with the division’s idea to send the former ambassador to Niger.

Conclusion: Other than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.

At the time the former ambassador traveled to Niger, the intelligence Community did not have in its possession any actual documents on the alleged Niger-Iraq unranium deal, only second hand reporting of the deal. The former ambassador’s comments to reporters that the Niger-Iraq uranium documents “may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’”could not have been based on the former ambassador’s actual experiences because the intelligence Community did not have the documents at the time of the ambassador’s trip. In addition, nothing in the reprot from the former ambassador’s trip said anything about documents having been forged or the names or dates in the reports having been incorrect. The former ambassador told Committee staff that he, infact,did not have access to any of the names and dates in the CIA’s reports and said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct. Of note, the names and dates in the documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates included in the CIA reports.

Following the Vice President’s review of an intelligence report regardig a possible uranium deal, he asked his briefer for the CIA’s analysis of the issue. It was this request which generated Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger. The former ambassador’s public comments suggesting that the Vice President had been briefed on the information gathered during his trip is not correct, however. While the CIA responded to the Vice President’s request for the Agency’s analysis, they never provided the information gathered by the former Ambassador. The former ambassador, in an NBC Meet the Press interview on July 6, 2003 said, “The office of the Vice President, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there.” The former ambassador was speaking on the basis of what he believed should have happened based on his former government experience, but he had no knowledge that this did happen.
These and other public comments from the former ambassador, such as comments that his report “debunked” the Niger-Iraq uranium story, were incorrect and have led to a distortion in the press and in the public’s understanding of the facts surrounding the Niger-Iraq uranium story. The Committee found that, for most analysts, the former ambassador’s report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal.

During Mr. Wilson’s media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and he had “debunked” the claim that Iraq was seeking uranimum for Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT “debunk” the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements maded by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect but, had no basis in fact.

The website FactCheck.org summaries the Joseph Wilson allegations as such.

Summary
The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.
Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
· A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
· A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
· Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
· Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.
But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying

Finally in the Senate

Congressional Reports: Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq; "II. Niger Section K." is the reluctant admission by the committee that that Iraq indeed did attempt to buy yellowcake it states:

K. Niger Conclusions
(U)Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forge foreign language documents on the Iraq-Niger unranium deal, it was reasonable or analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.

(U)Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

Meaning that the original assessment of the NIE report stating that Irag had attempted to gain uranium from Africa, according to this Senate Community, was deemed creditable even in light of Joe Wilson’s attempts to discredit the war and the President.

To conclude; to my friend who has challenged me to put up or shut up, as I said the President did not lie America into War, The White house did not out Valerie Plame and the Senate Intel Commitee report stated "that Iraq indeed did attempt to buy yellowcake"as reported by NIE. Face it friend you, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are liars just like the rest of your Liberal Democratic cohorts.

The Plame Game

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald

For a year, for two years, for however long Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has known that Dick Armitage was the leaker, and however long he has kept that information secret, concealing it from the Grand Jury and from Congress, both of which had a right to know, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been willfully, knowingly, and deliberately obstructing justice, by concealing evidence of the innocence of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and their aides, in violation of 18 USC Sec. 1500 etc., which prohibits the obstruction of justice. By concealing his knowledge of the true source of Novak's information, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has made himself the obstructer of justice.

And by instructing Dick Armitage to conceal his own identity as the source of Novak's information, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has impaled himself, and Armitage, too, on the spear of conspiracy to obstruct justice, two or more people acting in concert, the independent crime of a conspiracy to commit a crime. A conspiracy of his own making. -- Raymond S. Kraft, The New Media Journal

Anna, Anna bo banna… is the Name Game! The Plame Game is something like it. It goes: Karl, Karl let’s get him or any one in the White house, my friend! (Sing to the tune of the name game)

This whole injustice has been the lowest point ever in American politics; it’s the Democrat’s Blame Game. President George Bush, VP Dick Cheney and White house advisor, Karl Rove have all been falsely accused by Joseph Wilson IV (a proven liar) and Bush hating Liberals (also proven liars) of outing his wife’s(Valerie Plame) identity as a covert CIA agent and lying about the evidence that lead to the decision to go to war in Iraq.

It is now known that the White house did not out Valerie Plame but the greatest injustice in this whole sordid tale of Democrat partisan sabotage of the Bush White house is that it was Joseph Wilson who lied. He lied about yellow cake thus setting in motion the double political hurricanes Katrina and Rita that sent the Bush approval ratings underwater and that windswept the Republican control of Congress away thus giving Democrats control of Congress leaving Republican politicians strewn all over the streets of political unemployment.

In 2003, Mr. Wilson publicly debunked reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore from Niger. Mr. Wilson also said his report ruling out the attempted purchase was ignored.

However, recent reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the British government have undermined Mr. Wilson's charges. The Senate says Mr. Wilson's report, contrary to his charges, actually bolstered their view that Iraq was seeking uranium ore from Niger. –Bill Gertz, The Washington Times

Interestingly enough a U.S. Senate Committee just like the one that Democrats wish to get Karl Rove before in regards to the eight U.S. Attorney firings, said that Joseph Wilson charges that Iraq was not seeking uranium ore from Niger completely contradicted his filed report on the matter. In other words Joseph Wilson IV lied.

Wilson lied about the yellowcake, Wilson lied about who outed his wife and Democrats used those lies to beleaguer the President and his administration for two years. In fact, Democrats used Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame and Wilson’s lies about the war to incite the country against the war, the President and the Republican controlled Congress.

It’s all lies! Democrats have lied themselves into power, they have lied on the President and his advisers and they have lied to the American people. Yet they continue to point the finger.

No, this was a scandal of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame’s own making. Valerie suggested to her CIA superiors that they send her husband to Niger to investigate the claim that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium ore, which Joseph Wilson initially misrepresented by intimating that VP Dick Cheney personally sent him. Then Wilson, who was against the war and is anti-Bush, took it upon himself to contradict the President’s 2003 state of the union address in which the President stated that according to British Intelligence Iraq attempted to buy uranium from Africa.

So Robert Novak is not the villain here, Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame and all the Liberals who blamed the President for lying about the reason we went to war are the villains. All the liberals who said and continue to lie by saying Bush lied and people died are the villains. And the mainstream media attempting to point the finger at a journalist when they along with all other Liberals blamed the Bush administration for outing Valerie Plame and lying America into war are the villains.

Finally Patrick Fitzgerald is one of the villains in this blithe on American politics too. Fitzgerald knew early in his investigations that it was Richard Armitage that spoke to Robert Novak and actually outed Valerie Plame but for two years he allow the country to doubt the President, for two years he ran a fake sham investigation obstructing the very justice that he would later win a sham conviction against I. Scooter Libby for obstruction.

This event, the obstruction of justice by the Special Prosecutor, the concealment of evidence that would have instantly resolved the investigation and exonerated the White House, whether to assure his own employment, or enhance his own prominence, to feed his own ego, or for the politically partisan purpose of going deep sea fishing to see if he could discover any evidence of any wrongdoing anywhere among the President's staff, despite the absence of reasonable suspicion, or probable cause, and despite actual knowledge of the source of Novak's information, can only be described as corruption - the corruption of the office of the Special Prosecutor, the corruption of Patrick Fitzgerald who willfully concealed evidence in order to obstruct the exoneration of President Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, in order to serve the petulance of Joe Wilson, in order to obstruct justice.

Fitzgerald's obstruction of justice has given America's Democrats and other Liberals a year, two years, in which to hammer and flail away at President Bush for allegedly violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in a petty retaliatory tiff against Joe Wilson, all based on the uncorroborated allegations of Joe Wilson which are instantly disprove by the truth that Fitzgerald concealed. Fitzgerald's obstruction of justice has given America's enemies a year, two years, of encouragement and comfort, as they watch America tearing itself into partisan pieces over who allegedly "outed Valerie Plame," rather than uniting to win a global war on the puritanical Islamic Nazism that threatens the future of Liberal, Western, Euro-American, Judeo-Christian Civilization.

Liberals everywhere should be apologizing, “We were Wrong Mr. President” or “We’re Sorry President Bush” or even “We’re sorry America” But to try to Blame anyone except Joseph Wilson IV, Valerie Plame and Liberals who propagated what is one of the worst lies ever told on an America President is simply unconscionable.

Democrats Are Hawks

Politicalchickens Now

Democrats want to fight! No not in Iraq when it comes to defending this country Democrats are Dovish.

Democrats would rather switch than physically fight, which is good for Osama bin Laden because that is exactly what he said is the only thing to end his terrorist war against the United States.

According to bin Laden America needs to switch to Islam before he stops warring against us, maybe that’s the Democrat’s plan, withdrawn U.S. troops from Iraq and surrender to Islam when we are attacked on American soil again. After all that will stop the war! And stopping the war is the only thing that matters right war protestors?

In spite of that Democrats are PoliticalHawks. They love political violence; subpoenas, Congressional hearings, filibusters, bombastic anti-Republican press conferences, going after Karl Rove (Democrats love going after Karl Rove), Dissing the Bush Administration, hijacking the U.S. electoral process by accusing their opponents, the Republicans, of cheating or disfranchising Democratic voters and causing general electoral Chad chaos.

Democrats love the smell of political chaos in the morning probably just as much as Robert Duvall’s character Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore in the movie Apocalypse Now loved the smell of napalm in the morning.

In fact a Democrat will go out of his or her way to set a political road bomb if they think that they can cause some political blowback for President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove. (Democrats love blowing up Karl Rove)

Politicalhawks soiling for a fight, setting dates for pulling out the troops from Iraq, they’re attaching pork amendments to the war budget in order to force a budget show down with the White house and holding Valerie Plame hearings even though it has been legally established that Ms. Plame was not a covert CIA agent (her cover had been blow by Russia years before) and no one in the White house leaked her name and finally they’re issuing subpoenas for White house aides to force a Constitutional show down with the White house. Democrats are Politicalhawks and litigation, politics, and Congressional hearings are their theatre of warfare. And they want to fight!

What’s so paradoxical about this whole scenario is the Republican Hawks who vote for war in Iraq and who talked about building Democracy in the Middle East have been reduced to Politicalchickens Republican don’t what to fight the Democrats they wish to be friends. The Republican theme is “Can’t we all just get along?” ala Rodney King.

Republicans didn’t fight to retain their majority control of the Senate and the House of Representatives. (Not really) Like politicalchickens many of them sided with the strong Democrat caucus. Even though Democrats unified against Republicans for the 16 years that Republicans had the majority in Congress, weak-kneed Republicans are still as fractured as they have always been. They’ve lost their majority because they were too chicken to unify and fired back when Democrats attacked the White house or their fellow Republican colleagues. Republicans are mavericks, independents and even liberals. Republicans are politicalchickens!

Republicans have been called chickenhawks for having a strong war stance though they have not actually been warriors themselves. Whether that is the case or not, the term is a political weapon used by Democrats to diminish Conservative credibility regarding the war.

The term politicalchickens hardly will be used by Democrats because it is not in their interest to do so, but as Democrats became increasingly Hawkish in their politics and as they increase their hold on the politics of this Nation it should became apparent to all that Democrats are Politicalhawks and Republicans are Politicalchickens.

The reality of it is, whether in war or politics Hawks usually carry the day. That is as it should be! My prediction is that the Hawks will win the Presidential election in 2008. It’s the survival of the fittest, who needs weak ass Leaders?

Let the chickens peck around in the farmyard. There is plenty of vermin that only a Hawk will be able to deal with. At this point it is not important to me what party affiliation the Hawk holds, my only question is can you fight… then let’s roll!