A Case for McCain

I took a second and third look at John McCain. If I had to vote in the NY Primary today, I would vote for him.

McCain is not without his detriments. My most serious concerns are with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act and with his seemed antagonism of every republican offensive initiative (He calls it being a maverick). In 2006 and 2007, he has taken some questionable positions regarding immigration - though he has backed off of them some as he takes to the campaign trail. These are serious and important concerns.

As serious as they are, McCain has been a loyal Republican and conservative as long as I can remember. A good friend to Ronald Reagan and to the movement that Reagan launched. He has been pro-life and a strong supporter of the judicial nominees of Reagan, Bush and Bush. He believes firmly in the conservative principle that lower taxes and smaller government is the best way to job growth and prosperity.

In addition, he has been a staunch defender of and an excellent communicator on the war on terror. He was an early advocate for the troop surge in Iraq (when the media was carping so aggressively against it) and one of two candidates that truly understands the nature of this battle. Let us not forget his outstanding speech nominating President Bush at the 2004 Republican Convention.

McCain is the most experienced of all the front-runners in both parties. He has been a U.S. Senator since 1983.

He is a veteran and a retired naval aviator...to say the least. He was shot down during his twenty-third bombing mission over Vietnam. He spent five and a half years as a Prisoner of War in the Hanoi Hilton, even being subjected to periods of isolation and torture. McCain even refused special treatment, as his father was an Admiral, and stayed with 'his men' until all were freed. He was released under the Paris Peace Accord in 1973 and retired from the U.S. Navy in 1981.

Most recently, John has been given the endorsement of U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman (Independent, Democrat) and The Boston Globe (sic).

All of this should compel the Republican primary and caucus goers one more look at John McCain and one more listen to the 'Straight Talk Express.'

As always, I maintain that every Republican running is 'head and shoulders' more qualified and more committed to the security and prosperity of America than any of the Democratic front-runners.

In the mean-time...if McCain wins N.H. - and it is starting to look like he might - we will have a horse race. And McCain will win it !!


Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Huck's Mucked

Bob Novak, Ann Coulter, Mike Gallagher and Lorie Byrd have all chosen to dedicate their weekly column to Huckabee and his inexplicable rise in popularity (and it is inexplicable to me because I don't know a single Republican that likes him).

The gist of the columns:

1. Conservatives don't like him, the liberal media likes him. His willingness to compromise key conservative planks with the smallest prodding from Larry King or the NY Times has the liberals loving this former Baptist preacher.

2. He is not a conservative. His record in Arkansas was one of high taxes and big government. His only durable conservative principle appears to Pro-life, but his need to be liked by the N.Y. Times will surely cause this pillar to fall as well.

3. The liberal media likes him because he will be so easy to beat in the general election. His past positions on AIDS, AIDS treatment and homosexuality will be the lead stories in a general election, not his recent Larry King interview positions of 'tolerance.' (Plus, his name is Huckabee).

He appears to have some star appeal. Warm smile, soft spoken, self-deprecating...but he would be fish food in the general election.

My assessment: A vote for Huck is a vote for Hillary.


Submitted by D. B. Jackson

It's all in the O

http://www.wmur.com/politics/14826607/detail.html

Hillary is in a dead heat in NH...and losing Iowa. It is not even Dec 25th and all my hopes and dreams are coming true. Can Hillary really lose both? Can she bounce back? Sure, but not without a heavy dose of SPENDING and NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING. Bring it !!

I would also expect to see more shake up and back stabbing in the Clinton campaign. My ultimate dream is a Hillary tirade...complete with F-bombs...while some young staffer has his iPod on Record. These tirades are colorful, crass and legendary.

Go Oprah !!!

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Sunday Iowa Poll: Hillary #2 (but she still wins nom.)

Hillary is tanking...according to everything I hear and read.

It seems Obama has latched on to a new message, let me paraphrase..."No one likes her, she can't win a general election and even if she wins, she is too polarizing to get anything done."

Her missteps haven't helped: Audience Plants, Fundraising Ethics, More victimhood stuff, Bill's whining, Obama's Kindergartern papers. Oh, The Clintons; not an ethical thread between the two of the them.

Historically, Iowa is important for Democrats (meaningless for Republicans). Democrats really like this electability thing (not your classic principled voters) and if they sense she can lose Iowa, well, she can lose it all.

She will still be hard to beat. She has big bucks and a big 50 state organization in place. She will pick up governors endorsements along the way...in the end, Hillary will prevail. Her money and her org...but mostly because of the Marx Brothers running against her. John 'Two Americas' Edwards and Barack 'Oprah likes me' Obama are just plain hard to vote for.

The good news...Hillary will have to expend that warchest.

If I can use a monopoly example....she has landed on Baltic Ave In Iowa...with a hotel. It will cost her, but in the end, she has two hotels on Boardwalk and Park Place. Jon and Barack can't go around the board too many more times.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DonaldLambro/2007/12/06/hillary_is_losing_it

Submitted by D. B. Jackson

HillaryCare 2008 Redux

Here we go again!

According to the Associated Press, "(i)nsurance companies should face the same kind of federal regulation as firms that sell stocks and bonds" -- attributed to Hillary Rodham Clinton

Probable Clinton solutions:
Health insurance problems? We should raise taxes and regulate it through the Federal Government!
Medicare funding problems? We should raise taxes and regulate it through the Federal Government!
Social security funding problems? We should raise taxes and regulate it through the Federal Government!
Your favorite sports team didn't win the championship this year? We should raise taxes and regulate it through the Federal Government!

Is there a pattern here?
Government regulation and higher taxes... Just Being A HillBilly
Capitalism, competitive marketplace, and reduced taxes... Reagan must have been wrong!!

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

A Lott to be Thankful For

It's widely expected that Senator Trent Lott (MS) will announce his impending retirement today, effective at the end of the year. Lott has been through many challenges during his time in the Senate, and few (if any) Senators today have earned the level of respect that Lott has gained during this time. He will be missed.

As if we didn't remember, 2008 is an election year. While the 2008 Presidential election is garnering most of the attention, let's not forget that there are numerous Senate and House seats up for election as well. Today, we'll focus on the Senate. As we know, the Democrats hold a majority (51-49) today. Tomorrow...this majority could grow. How? Let's look at the numbers.

Facts about 2008 Senate Elections:
35 seats up for election (including the remaining 4 years of Lott's term)
-- 23 seats currently held by Republicans
-- 12 seats currently held by Democrats

According to a state-by-state review done by some experts, the Democrats could gain 3 seats (Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado) to strenghten their hold on the Senate.

If the House, as expected, also maintains a Democrat plurality, the importance of the 2008 Presidential race is amplified. "Remember the Maine!" rallying cry will more likely be transformed into a slogan to remember the last two times that the Democrats controlled the Senate, the House, and the Presidency concurrently: "Remember Bill & Jimmy!"

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Who Are You?

A couple of quizzes for some amusement today.

The first link is to the 2005 Political Typology website. A good summary of what "type" you are, in case you have any questions about where you may stand with regards to your hot button issues.
http://typology.people-press.org/typology/

The second website link is provided by Kamber & O'Leary. It's a bit dated (1995), but it's at least amusing. I especially like the "standards" listed with their scores. I wonder where all of today's candidates would fall...

http://madrabbit.net/webrabbit/quizshow.html

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

A Case for Giuliani

Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani on Wednesday came as a surprise to many. Although Robertson does not have the clout that he once had with evangelicals, his endorsement of a candidate, whose main shortcoming appears to be his credentials as a social conservative, is very curious. Certainly, Brownback and Huckabee would make a better choice for an evangelical preacher.

Robertson's selection of Giuliani makes sense in several ways. First, Robertson is being pragmatic. Giuliani has a much better chance of getting the nomination and beating the democratic nominee than any of the also-ran social conservatives. Second, Giuliani, despite his socially leftward leanings, has promised constructionist judges of the Alito, Thomas and Roberts ilk. Third, Robertson would have some influence with the man 'who would be king' if he participates in his victory.

On the issue of judges, which is really what it is all about, conservatives must be realistic. It is futile to speculate about a pro-life president establishing anti-abortion laws in fifty states. It is not going to happen. The biggest influence that the president can have over social issues such as abortion and gay marriage is through the courts. This does not mean appointing judges who are going to ban gay marriage and abortion - this isn't happening either - but by appointing judges who allow the electoral process to work. By allowing the states to vote on parental notification and partial-birth abortion, it returns the discussion to where it belongs.

In addition, Giuliani is not afraid of the heat. If he wants to put Ted Olsen (his good friend, political advisor and best conservative lawyer in America) on the bench, he will do it and make it stick. In fact, it would be hard to accuse Giuliani of selecting 'extremists,' given his own moderate positions.

Of course, it is not all candy and roses. The President is the leader of America and his opinions have influence. If the president for four or eight years has a staunch pro-choice position, it will impact the future of the pro-life movement and the Republican party. But of course, how much more damage would Hillary Clinton do with three or four more Ruth Bader Ginsbergs on the bench?

I can live with Giuliani and be happy, if he fulfills his promises on the supreme court nominees. He brings much to the table in terms of leadership and national security. He is an upbeat guy with the thickest skin of any politician that I have observed...try being a tough-on-crime, fiscally-conservative Republican in NYC.

Now, if we can just keep him out of a dress for eight years :-)


Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Dennis Kucinich: A True Democrat

Dateline: Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Background:
- Emergency rule in Pakistan, one of the few countries supporting US causes in Afghanistan
- Budget proposals have not yet been passed by either House (we're already in the "emergency extension" period)
- China's decision to take investment out of the US Dollar (USD) is contributing to the NYSE falling 112 points in the first hour of trading today
- The Euro was trading above 1.47 USD per Euro, a new low for the USD
- Oil is now selling at $98 per barrel

So, what was our Congress doing yesterday (Tuesday, November 6, 2007)?
Voting on whether to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney.

Thank you, Dennis Kucinich. I'm relieved to know that you managed to direct the US House of Representatives' attention away from these other minor issues for a few hours. After all, it's much more important to spend everyone's time on your personal vendetta against VP Cheney, rather than worrying about silly things like the value of the USD, price of oil, and political instability in the area of the world where Bin-Laden resides.

-- Submitted by R. Wellesley

Heritage Foundation on the Dems and Taxes

The Heritage Foundation, in its analysis of the Rangel tax bill, notes that "In the current Congress, the Rangel proposal has no chance of enactment, neither in its current form nor in any recognizable variant. Its importance is as a policy statement of the chief Democratic tax policy writer in the House of Representatives, expressed in black and white. As such, it offers a useful glimpse of where tax policy is likely to go in the next Congress if the chairman is allowed to work his will with a more sympathetic resident occupying the White House."

It is important to remember that the biggest tax hike in history was enacted by President Bill Clinton - the year before the Republicans swept congress in the historic 1994 election. The Republican House, led by Newt Gingrich, kept Bill and Hillary from enacting their extreme social policies and high taxes. This allows Bill Clinton and his party to point to his presidency as an example of conservative Democratic leadership in areas such as taxes, spending, deficits and fiscal restraint. It may have been, but it had nothing to do with Democrats. For an idea of what a democratic President (Hillary Clinton), a democratic house (Nancy Pelosi) and a democratic Senate (Harry Reid) would do...look no further than the first two years of Bill Clinton's presidency. Then try to remember, why the Republicans won the House (after 46 years) in the first opportunity to do so.

Some will argue that higher taxes hurt government revenue (Laffer Curve) and some will argue that it makes no difference whether individuals or governments spend the money - the multiplier is in effect either way. I personally believe the former, but I also believe that it is not the Governments money. It belongs to the corporations and individuals who earned it legally.

The top 10% of earners pay over 90% of the taxes today. We should thank them often and keep our hands out of their pockets as much as we can.

Once we believe it is the publics money or the governments money - or that the government has an obligation to redistribute wealth, we have crossed line to socialism and beyond. Clinton, Obama and Edwards are all running on the tired old platform that the wealthy do not deserve their money and it is up to them to redistribute.

In the words of George Will, "when did it become 'COMPASSIONATE' to take money from one group and give it to another."

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Here we go...again with the taxes (LINK)

Give the democrats credit...they used to run as phony tax cutters (like Clinton and Gore) and just jack up taxes once they get in. This time, they are being clear: the party of big government and big spending is the Democratic party. Thank you Charlie Rangel for that clarity.

A Tax Plan as Trial Run for ’09 Law

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 — The House’s leading Democratic tax writer will propose a sweeping overhaul of the tax code on Thursday that would increase taxes on many people with incomes above $200,000 but cut them for most others.

The bill, to be introduced by Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, would also overhaul corporate taxes by eliminating many major tax breaks and lowering overall tax rates.

Mr. Rangel has acknowledged that he does not expect to enact such a bill this year, and President Bush would almost certainly veto legislation that raises taxes on the wealthy.

If you feel left out...not making 200,000 per year, not to worry...we all will be impacted when economic growth slows and business are forced to lay off workers. When tax revenues fall short because earnings and wages are down...they'll come back for round 2.

Anyone interested in 'Don't Blame Me I Voted Republican' bumper stickers?


Submitted by D.B. Jackson

The world is safer

Al Gore is not considering a run for President in 2008.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

Fred Thompson Staking Out Conservative Ground

"Some think the way to beat the Democrats in November is to be more like them. I could not disagree more," the one-time Tennessee senator says in remarks he is to deliver to the Conservative Party of New York.

"I believe that conservatives beat liberals only when we challenge their outdated positions, not embrace them. This is not a time for philosophical flexibility, it is a time to stand up for what we believe in," Thompson adds.

Thompson needs to convince conservatives that he can buck Hollywood. Can he face the fire with an Alito appointee, or does he want to read good things about himself in the N.Y.Times and stake out a twilight gig on NBC or CBS?

Two data points of concern: His vote against removing Bill Clinton from office after the House impeachment AND his vote against defining marriage as one man and one woman. Both big Hollywood issues.

What say you, Fred?

We need a conservative in this race. Right now, you are our best hope.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Environmentalism

In today's newspaper editions, there appears to be a lot of interest in environmental policy and environmentalism...and how these issues relate to the Candidates of 2008. The environment is important, but what's become evident over the past 20+ years is how the two major political parties are portrayed in The Press. A potentially skewed representation is this:
Democrats: Pro-Environment, Save the Animals, Industry is Evil, Business Kills Bambi
Republicans: Anti-Environment, Kill All Animals, Industry is Pure, Business At All Costs

Now, let's try to be fair. Neither portrayal is accurate if you're trying to represent the "typical" voter for each party. Is it possible that there are fringe extremists in both parties that could be portrayed thusly? Of course. But we don't cater to extremism - we tailor our coverage to the mainstream America. So, in an effort to represent the "typical" voter (always a goal in this blog), let's touch upon some of the environmental issues in the news today.

GLOBAL WARMING
1. Last week, Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing more attention to Global Warming.
Comment: In two years, we'll hear about how Al invented Global Warming. Thank the heavens that Al took up this cause and finally (FINALLY!) shed some light on a novel concept that no one had ever heard of. Never mind the years of international meetings, scientific papers, newspaper articles , and television reports - after all, the Kyoto Protocol only came out in 1997!!

And let's totally discount the scientific community that believes that we may merely be entering a natural warming phase caused by (gasp!) the earth. But we can discount these so-called experts - Al has spoken.

2. Last week, Obama released a plan to combat global warming that calls for an 80 percent reduction in U.S. carbon emissions by 2050.
Comment: Details to follow in 2049.

Endorsements
1. Friends of the Earth Action has endorsed Senator John Edwards for the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary.
Comment: No surprise. Edwards led the Democrats' 80% carbon reduction effort, and is rewarded by the liberal environmental advocacy group. No comment yet on whether carbon reduction includes humans (remember, 18% of a human is carbon).

2. Republicans for Environmental Protection has endorsed Senator John McCain for the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary.
Comment: Huh? Republicans want to protect the environment? I must have missed that segment on CNN.

Other News
In non-environmental news, "Law & Order" Thompson says that he's the real Conservative. Details to follow in 2009.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

The Week That Was (10/8 - 10/12)

It's Friday...a perfect time to look back at the "week that was".

In New York State, it's not only acceptable to be an illegal alien in NY...you can get yourself an official NY State driver's license! (Is this Governor Spitzer's attempt to undercut the black market fees for illegal licenses? Maybe it's his attempt to pay for all of those new socialist programs he's promoting!) Kudos to the County Clerks who both voted against this policy and proclaimed that they would not follow it. Even more disturbing: there are already ten (10) states that allow "undocumented" (er, "illegal"?) immigrants to obtain a valid state driver's license. Can you name them?

Ann C undercuts Mr. Law & Order. Calm down, Ann. Don't be like a Democrat and use the power of the press to taint the election process. The voters will make the right call here when (or is it "if"?) The Tennessean comes through with details on his policies. Give him a chance to tell the public what he represents in 2007 before you rip him to shreds.

Al Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar in 2007, based on a theory that man is causing global warming. This just in folks... the Earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling without humankind's influence. Is it possible that the human species is contributing to global warming? Yes, it's possible, based on what some scientists are saying. Is it also possible that we're seeing another "natural cycle" of warming? Again, yes, based on what some other scientists are saying. What I say is...let's not hit the panic button just yet. Let's be aware, let's make some adjustments to the way we live...but let's not tell everyone that the end is near unless we all adopt solar and wind power today. Anyone remember the Global Cooling scare from the 70s?

The Ten States are... Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

And finally...
Billionaire Paul Allen has funded a telescope that has been specifically designed to "sweep the skies" to find alien life. Paul, we could have saved you millions - all you have to do is look at this year's list of Nobel Peace Prize winners. If you find any others, make sure you send them to New York or any of the other ten states to obtain their driver's license!

-- Submitted by R. Wellesley

Is Hillary a Socialist ?

She calls herself progressive. She, clearly favors government solutions to private industry and favors government mandates to personal responsibility. Some of her more high profile socialist...er, progressive..ideas:

1. Give every child born $5000. They can use this for college. How to fund? Raise Taxes. A savvy politician, she said that she would fund by raising cigarette taxes. Once it is clear that this will not be enough, she will rely on allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse and then eventually, an upper and middle class tax hike. Bottom line, taking money from one income class and giving it, free and clear, to another class is an time-tested socialist idea.

Socialist Rating (1-10): 9 (Redistribution of Wealth, Creating addiction to an additional government check that will become another political 'third rail' for generations to come)

2. Give every citizen $1000 for their 401K. Would she keep this in the Social Security Trust Fund? The Trust fund that has had a negative balance for forty years - as the social security taxes have been used for general funds expenditures. Or does she plan on keeping this $1000 (and interest growth) into a private account (hmm, didn't President Bush want to allow people to do this with their own social security tax money?). How to fund? See above.

Socialist Rating (1-10): 8 (Redistribution of Wealth, Creating addiction to an additional government check that will become another political 'third rail' for generations to come)


3. Government Health Care. Create a government health care bureaucracy, mandate insurance and provider requirements. While there may be millions of Americans uninsured, the American health care system is the best in the world. The thought of government doing to health care what it did to Medicare (expenses are three times projections from twenty years ago) is frightening. There are no plans to control cost or 'John Edwards' styled phony lawsuits that will drive doctors out of the business. Her plans to control - limit access, drive down doctors pay (fewer people will enter medicine) and drive down pharma revenue (translate reduce their ROI on investments). All of these will have the reverse affect of her intention and damage health care quality and accessibility and will make it dramatically more expensive.

Socialist Rating (1-10): 10 (Nationalizing a private enterprise and 1/5 of the U.S. Economy, Adding a government bureaucracy between patients and providers)


4. Garnish profits from the oil companies. In one of her more dramatic grandstanding performances - and probably an accidental glimpse into her true beliefs - Hillary proposed taking the oil company profits and using them to fund research on alternative energy sources. No politician, including Bernie Sanders, has ever so transparently stated the they would steal profits from a private company. These companies paid taxes at the proper US Tax schedule, used their profits for their own research and exploration and, perhaps, will pass some of the profits to the people, retirement funds, mutual funds that own the company. What right would the government have to take additional monies beyond the current rate of taxes?

Socialist Rating (1-10): 10 (Speaks for itself. And why will she stop at Oil Companies)


5. Control Media Content. Despite the complete dominance of American liberalism in every media and the largest institutions in the United States, Hillary is leading the charge for 'fairness' in AM Talk radio. If Hillary and her team has their way, private radio stations, funded today through advertisers and listeners, will be forced to include content mandated by the federal government. Although the hypocrisy of this situation is shocking, given the vast control the left wing has on the media, the biggest concern here is with the first amendment. Where is the ACLU? When someone immerses a crucifix in urine, they are the first guys on the scene. When the government wants to control content of private radio stations, dead silence.

Socialist Rating (1-10): 10 (Trampling on the Bill of the Rights)


It is not a question of whether Hillary is a socialist. Francois Mitterand would find no problem with any of these policies. In fact, he may be concerned about the impacts these socialist policies might have on the economy, the government deficit, the current account balance and the strength of the currency.

It is no secret that the only major economy that is growing and adding jobs year after year is the U.S. economy. The socialist experiments in France, Sweden and Germany have been disasters in terms of job growth, GDP and quality of life. Hillary will surely put the U.S. on par with these disasters in a fraction of the time.

It is not a question of whether she is a socialist. By any measure, she is. The question is...does anyone care?


Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Marco Martinez - 5 Things I Saw That Make Me Support The War

Good column from a Marine Hero.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarcoMartinez/2007/10/01/marine_hero_the_5_things_i_saw_that_make_me_support_the_war

A 'real' soldier and what he saw and how he feels.

Someone call CBS !!!

The 5 Things I Saw That Make Me Support The War

1. Mass Graves

"Saddam’s henchmen would tie two people together, some with babies in their arms, stand them at the crater’s edge, and then shoot one of the people in the head, relying on the weight of the dead body to drag them both into the hole."

2. Tongue-less Man

"Through the translator we learned that the tongue-less man had spoken against the regime and that Saddam’s henchmen had severed his tongue."

3. Adrenaline-fueled Fedayeen Saddaam

"That’s when we realized that our zombie-like attackers were zealots who came to fight and die."

4. Human experiment Pictures

"We discovered them inside a strange laboratory we found inside a Special Republican Guard barracks that had been plunked down inside an amusement park."

5. Bomb Making Materials in a Mosque

"As we made our way through the mosque compound, we were told there were certain "praying houses" we weren’t allowed to enter. But when a Marine walked through a side hallway and passed by a door that had been left ajar, he spotted a huge bottle of nitroglycerin and assorted bomb-making materials."




Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Old Man Can't Died, I Helped Bury Him

Clarence Thomas is on the circuit, promoting his new book, "My Grandfather's Son"

His Grandfather beat into him, "Old Man Can't Died, I Helped Bury Him!"

Looks like a good one.





"I grew up fearing the lynch mobs of the Klan and I realized that I was fearing the wrong people all along."


Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Dem Candidates clear up position on Troop Withdrawal (Finally)

As the Democrats try to keep their Sugar Daddy, moveon.org happy, they desperately try to sound 'not insane' to the other 99% of America. All four of them make George Bush look like Winston Churchill. The loft (link above) selected key quotes from the gibberish in last nights debate.

Sen. Barack Obama, who was soundly criticized by fellow Democrats earlier this summer regarding comments about Pakistan, commented on Iraq by saying:

I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there. What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office ... then I will drastically reduce our presence there..."

On one hand, Obama says it would be irresponsible to predict the situation in Iraq, but on the other, he tells America exactly what he'd do with the troop levels. Isn't it irresponsible to offer a solution when you don't know what the problem is?

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson offered his insights on Iraq by saying:

And my position is this: that you cannot start the reconciliation of Iraq, a political settlement, an all-Muslim peacekeeping force to deal with security and boundaries and possibly this issue of a separation, which is a plan that I do believe makes sense, until we get all our troops out, because they have become targets.

According to the governor, we can't have a peaceful solution until our troops are gone. Yet, in order to have peace, we need to wipe out al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgents. How does he expect to do that without troops?

Rep. Dennis Kucinich said regarding Iraq, "If we divide Iraq, essentially we're going to be setting the stage for more war, and I stand for strength through peace, a whole new approach." What in the world is he talking about?

Edwards sought to draw a distinction between his position and Clinton's, saying she had said recently she wants to continue combat missions in Iraq.

"I do not want to continue combat missions in Iraq," he said.

Clinton responded quickly, saying Edwards had misstated her position. She said she favors the continued deployment of counterterrorism troops, not forces to engage in the type of combat now under way.

If you are using troops to go after insurgents and other terrorists in order for there to be peace and a chance for the political system to work, what part of the troop surge doesn't she understand?

I miss W already. Sigh !!!

Submitted by D.B Jackson

Gee, Ya Think?

From the Associated Press

NY Times says discounting MoveOn ad was 'mistake'
September 24, 2007
NEW YORK (AP) -- The New York Times' ombudsman says the newspaper violated its standards when it gave the liberal activist group MoveOn.org a $77,508 price break on a full-page advertisement targeting Gen. David H. Petraeus.

The organization paid $64,575, instead of the standard $142,083, for the ad questioning the war in Iraq, public editor Clark Hoyt wrote in a column published Sunday.

You want to criticize a man who enlisted in the US Armed Forces to protect his country for his lifetime? Sure, sounds good, we'll throw in a 55% discount. You want home delivery with that?

-- Submitted by R. Wellesley

Workers of the World

"workers of the world, let's have a conversation"


Submitted by D.B. Jackson

HillaryCare 2008

Let us today bask in the glow of affordable universal health care, as proposed by the esteemed Senator from "New York"... (for a copy of the plan, feel free to visit the "Fables and Bedtime Stories" section of your local library)

“Today as we strive for a new beginning to the 21st century, I believe that everyone — every man, woman and child — should have quality, affordable health care in America,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We can no longer tolerate the injustice of a system that shuts out nearly one in six Americans.”
Well, I do agree that the health care system in this country is broken. Too much paperwork, high costs, too much power out of the hands of the people who seek healthcare... so let's start out by saying "We're with you so far, Hillary! Don't let us down!"

In a speech at a hospital here, as she campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton said she would pay for the ($101 billion!!) plan partially by ending Republican-backed tax cuts for people earning $250,000 or more,...
You're starting to lose me, Hillary. While I don't favor granting special privileges to citizens based on their income levels, I don't really believe that the solution to any national problem is "eliminate tax cuts". And just how much of the $101 billion would you gain through higher taxes on people making the arbitrarily-chosen $250k per year or more?

...as well as by netting billions of dollars in savings by reorganizing the health care system. ..
OK, I'm hanging by a thread, dear Senator from "New York". Reorganizing the health care system? Aside from a nebulous reference to a reorganization (What the heck does that mean? Doctors answer the phone, while lower-paid receptionists dole out medical advice?), let's look at what happens when corporations reorganize. They usually invoke additional charges (i.e., Higher Costs) when they reorganize. And "reorganization" is usually done through a series of maneuvers - when exactly will we start to see these so-called reorganization savings? In my lifetime, or my not-yet-born grandchild's lifetime?

She also said she would press insurance companies and drug companies to focus on providing lower cost care — while at the same time, she said, she would ban insurance companies from turning down people for insurance because of health status or pre-existing health conditions.
OK, you've totally lost me now, Hillary. While I'm not a healthcare expert, my understanding is that people with health issues will increase overall costs to be borne by insurance companies (akin to car insurance companies that insure accident-prone drivers). So, the challenge for the health insurance companies becomes... (1) more government intervention, most likely leading to more paperwork, additional regulation, and more administrative people to handle these requirements; (2) increased healthcare pool coverage (more people to insure, including people with existing conditions), likely to increase the costs of providing health care in total and on average; and (3) reduce your costs for providing health care.

How do the companies lower costs? I think they could either only provide coverage to people without pre-existing coverage (NOT ALLOWED -- Hillary), reduce administrative staff and costs (NOT LIKELY -- government control/intervention), or reduce doctor salaries and/or staffing.

Hmm...maybe Hillary's plan really is to replace the doctors with lower-paid receptionists...
(Source of article: The New York Times)

-- Submitted by R. Wellesley

Presidents calls on Democrats to support the Troops

The president has more faith in the democrats than I do (God Bless his trust and innocence). The last thing Pelosi, Clinton, Reed, Kerri and Schumer want is for the military to be successful in Iraq. THE LAST THING !! Great Speech though.

"Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat Al Qaeda, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.

"So tonight I want to speak to Members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the troop levels he has asked for." G.W. Bush addresses the nation on Iraq 9/13/07.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Surrender Now!

A quick review of the proposed Iraq policies of the two leading Democrats:

Obama: Immediately start decreasing our field force by "1 or 2 brigades" a month, with total surrender by the end of 2008. No mention about securing peace in Iraq or the Middle East, containment of Al Qaeda and/or the terrorist movements in Iraq... I guess the Iraqis will stop fighting themselves as soon as the USA leaves, right?

The Other Clinton: Immediately withdraw troops, secure stability in Iraq, and initiate a "new intensive diplomatic initiative in the region" - which would include Iraq's helpful neighbors Iran and Syria. There's a winning proposal... we'll take out our armed forces, invite Syria and Iran to the "Peace Party" meetings, and stability will break out in Iraq. While we're at it, why don't we offer to pay for Universal Health Care for the Middle East too? I'm wondering if Hillary inhaled what Bill didn't.

-- Submitted by R. Wellesley

Obama's Plan to Exit War by end of 2008 (LINK)

Obama to end war by 2008?? I was hoping for more detail. A cynic might say that this is an irresponsible campaign promise designed to appeal to the loony 'war is never the answer' lefties.

I am curious about what happens to Iraq when we leave, what happens to the terrorists we are fighting there, how to deal with insurgents reaction to a precise timetable. More to follow, I am sure...

"I am here to say that we have to begin to end this war now," the Illinois senator said in excerpts from a speech he was to deliver later in Iowa. The excerpts were released by his presidential campaign.

He said he would immediately begin to pull out troops engaged in combat operations at a pace of one or two brigades every month, to be completed by the end of 2008.


Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Never Forget: September 11, 2001

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Another Call for Troop Withdrawal

The Democrats have found their voice to lead troop withdrawal efforts from Iraq:

"[S]ince the democratic system permits major corporations to back candidates. . . there shouldn’t be any cause for astonishment. . . the Democrats’ failure to stop the war," bin Laden says. He also says that "despite the differing intentions," his interests overlap with corporations and others who perpetuate the war."

If Bin Laden agrees with the Democrats, that troops should be withdrawn, what does that say about whether troop withdrawal is the right answer for the USA?
Better question: what does it say about the policies of the Democrats?

-- Submitted by R. Wellesley

Mark Levin on Charles Schumer

"Charles Schumer is a bigger disgrace than Larry Craig. He could only hope that his only problem was being a men's room pervert" Mark Levin 9/6/07



Submitted by D.B. Jackson

The Hill-Bill-ies, Round 2?

The Washington Post's David Broder recently stated: "Her marriage is the central fact in her life, and this partnership of Bill and Hillary Clinton is indissoluble. She cannot function without him, and he would not have been president without her. If she becomes president, he will play as central a role in her presidency as she did in his. And that is something the country will have to ponder."

Somebody hide the interns.

-- Submitted by R. Wellesley

Hugh Hewitt: Schumer's slam on the Troops (again)

The left always shows its true colors. Like Bill Clinton, Chuck 'loathes' the military. Dirtbag !!




Senator Schumer's Slander On The Military Today on the Senate floor, New York's Senator Schumer slandered the American military when he stated: The violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda, said to these tribes: "We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves." Asserting that the sacrifice of the American troops has been futile and their efforts in vain is an astonishing and vile statement for a sitting member of the United States Senate to make.




Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Al Gore: The Gift That Keeps on Giving

It is hard to do better than Al Gore for pure entertainment.

I'd have to go back and re-read the coverage, but I believe that he did claim to invent the internet and he did claim that he (preppie) and Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story. What am I missing? ( I don't remember Love Canal - I stopped listening at that point)

“Modern politics seems to require and reward some capacities that I don’t think I have in abundance … such as a tolerance for … spin rather than an honest discussion of substance. Apparently, it comes easily for some people, but not for me,” Gore says.

Peretz reports specifically on Gore’s coverage in The New York Times and in The Washington Post, each of which reported and/or referenced Gore’s supposed claims that he invented the Internet, that the two main characters in Love Story were based on him and Tipper, and that he discovered the toxic waste at Love Canal.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm


Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Lee Marvin and Van Johnson - we need you NOW !! (LINK)

I have an idea, instead of making movies lying about American Soldiers, let's make one telling the truth about radical Islam's plans for America. You can get thousands of hours of real footage at grammar schools in Saudi Arabia, terrorists training camps, a New Jersey madrassas, an interview with the President of Iran or a documentary on the Foreign Policy of Bill Clinton.

Apparently, the left is making it their goal to lie (and do whatever) to get the U.S. to retreat in the hopes of...of...what????


http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=entertainmentNews&storyid=2007-08-31T150344Z_01_L31903844_RTRUKOC_0_US-VENICE-IRAQ.xml&src=rss&rpc=22&sp=true


Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Hillary: Progressive or Liberal?

Having spent six years in VT and being governed by 'progressives,' I learned that progressives are even worse than liberals.

For example, Bernie Sanders (US Senator from VT) is a 'Progressive' and Hubert Humphrey (former VP for Lyndon Johnson and Presidential Candidate) is a 'Liberal.'

This is worth watching, in case you wake up in the middle of the night (like I do) and wonder whether Hillary really said that she was going to take business profits away and use for government programs.

Glenn Beck Segment on YouTube:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=onnmXHsXfaU


submitted by: D.B. Jackson

Dennis Miller - The Buck Starts Here (8/26/07)

Well worth the 3 minutes to view ...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=IZDI2rS6CWc

Can't wait for September -- here comes FDT!!

... Scalito's Apprentice ...

I'M WITH FRED

I'm with Fred, check this out ...

http://www.imwithfred.com/NewsRoom/InTheNews.aspx?ID=83b6570e-e291-47ef-a0ab-9cd898a9adf6

Rove Steps Up Attacks on Clinton. Why?

1) He loves America?
2) Because it is Fun?
3) He wants the dems to rally to her side?
4) He is getting ready to run the Romney Campaign?

Rove Keeps Up Heat on Clinton
By DEB RIECHMANN
Associated Press
August 20, 2007

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- Master GOP strategist Karl Rove won't let up in his attacks on Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton, but the intriguing question is why.

Is it a sign that Rove, who masterminded Bush's two presidential victories, is worried about Clinton? Or a calculation that the GOP attacks will get Democrats to rally to her side because the GOP would prefer not to take on Democrats John Edwards or Barack Obama?

''The Democrats are going to choose a nominee. I believe it's going to be her,'' President Bush's departing political adviser said Sunday, noting her negative rating with the public is very high.

He appeared on three Sunday talk shows after announcing last week he was leaving the White House at the end of the month to spend more time with his family.

Asked why he was helping Clinton by saying she would headline the ticket, Rove said: ''Didn't know that I was. Don't think that I am.''

Then he harshly criticized Clinton, saying more people have an unfavorable than favorable opinion of the New York senator and former first lady.

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Because, after all, 2 years of experience is all you need

"I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can," Obama said. "I will add, by the way, that is not entirely a problem of her making. Some of those battles in the '90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be running."

Then again, it's not the toughest comparison out there...

But "Presidential Candidate" Obama goes on to say:
"Senator Clinton apparently disagrees with me on this issue of preconditions," he said. "I think she's wrong on that because if we continue to set preconditions for discussions that are hostile to us, I think that's what loses the PR battle worldwide because it implies the United States is the superior power and other states have to give in to our demands before we even deign to meet with them. And that reinforces the sense of the arrogance of U.S. power around the world, which is a source of great damage -- and makes us less safe."

Dear, dear Senator... do you not yet realize that this is the real world, and it's not governed by tracking polls, public relations ratings, or liberal classroom case studies? Real world, real people, real power. Maybe you'll understand this some day when you're able to take off the political diapers you're still wearing.

Keep America Beautiful. Keep America Strong.

-- Submitted by R Wellesley

WMD Warning (ANSWERS)

Who's Hysterical Now ??

A. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA)
B. President Bill Clinton (D)
C. President Bill Clinton (D)
D. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
E. Letter to President Clinton from Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
F. Madeleine Albright
G. Carl Levin (D-MI)
H. Vice President Al Gore (D)
I. Vice President Al Gore (D)
J. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
K. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)
L. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
M. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
N. Sen. Robert Graham (D-FL)

Submitted by D.B. Jackson

Weapons of Mass Destruction Warning (QUIZ)

The media and the Democrats would have us believe that President Bush came to Washington, hysterical, with a crazy idea about Saddam Hussein and WMD...and started making up evidence to back it up. Who said the following?


A. "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." October, 2002

B. "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." Feb. 4, 1998

C. "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." Feb, 18, 1998

D. "[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. Oct. 9, 1998

E. "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." Dec. 16, 1998

F. "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Nov. 10, 1999

G. "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 mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."-Sept. 19, 2002

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

I. "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." Sept. 23, 2002

J. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sept. 27, 2002

K. "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..." Oct. 3, 2002

L. "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." Oct 10, 2002

M. "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." Oct 10, 2002

N. "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." Dec. 8, 2002

ANSWERS TO FOLLOW

submitted by D.B.Jackson

Obama - Top Ten List

Top Ten Little-Known Facts About Barack Obama (Letterman)

10. As as child, was taunted with "Obama's so fat jokes"
9. After finishing Harvard law, served as Doug Llewelyn's understudy on "The
People's Court"
8. Follows Bush's weekly radio address DJ-ing the "Barock and Roll Power Hour"
7. Real last name: Obamawitz
6. At Senate hearings, throws on his iPod whenever John Kerry has the floor
5. Played Kenickie in the Senate production of "Grease"
4. Makes immigration speeches as hilarious, uninformed foreigner "Borat Obama"
3. Even Donald Trump can't think of anthing nasty to say about him
2. Presides over Congressional Committee to lower Al Gore's body fat
1. Only running for president to piss off Hilary

... submitted by Scalito's Apprentice ...

Harry Reid

Is this a neophyte, or a savvy leader?

ne·o·phyte (nē'ə-fīt') Pronunciation Key
n.
A recent convert to a belief; a proselyte.
A beginner or novice: a neophyte at politics.

NEOPHYTE OR SAVVY LEADER: Who is more likely to say that the USA should bomb Pakistan, regardless if the recognized government of Pakistan is in agreement with the action?

NEOPHYTE OR SAVVY LEADER: Who is more likely to say that the USA should meet with Axis of Evil countries Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Syria without conditions?

Let's be clear. Maintaining position and status as "The Leader of the Free World" is untenable unless the leader knows how to lead in a complex world.
-- Be Informed. Vote Wisely

Wake Up Call

"You know, if I were a single man, I might ask that mummy out. That's a good-looking mummy." - Bill Clinton, Our Future First Husband???


...submitted by Scalito's Apprentice...

Lincoln

"The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disentrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."
-- Abraham Lincoln, December 1, 1862

Ronald Reagan's Words of Wisdom

"My fellow Americans, we're honored by history, entrusted by destiny with the oldest dream of humanity--the dream of lasting peace and human freedom."

- Ronald Reagan, October 13, 1986, addressing the American people after his meeting with Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev in Iceland.

Paul Revere's Ride - Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.

He said to his friend, "If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light,--
One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm."

Mission Statement

American Victory in 2008