Barack Hussein Obama does well when working from a prepared script, but off script he looks to be rather stupid,
In an exchange of indirect quips, just a few days ago he made error after error. He started the exchange by stating that he would began withdrawing the troops from Iraq just as soon as he took office. (That is to say that, he will surrender). A reporter asked him what he would do if Al Qaeda activity threatened the stability in Iraq.
Obama answered that, “If Al Qaeda move into Iraq, he reserves the right to protect America from any threat.” And then he indicated that he might consider a reinvasion of Iraq.
Reserved the right? Does he not understand that a President takes an oath to defend the nation and its citizen’s? That makes it his duty. You can’t reserve the right to do your duty!
Furthermore, it shows that he has no concept of fighting a war. A reinvasion will cost many lives and it cost a huge amount of money just moving resources back into the Middle East.
John McCain pointed out that Al Qaeda was already in Iraq.
Obama retorted that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq until McCain and Bush invaded. (What about Hillary and all the other Democrats that voted to go to war?). That statement is first and foremost false. However, it does indicate that Obama knows that Al Qaeda is in Iraq, yet he plans to withdraw, knowing that we will have to go back.
On the other hand, if it were a true statement, it would indicate that George W. Bush is one of the greatest military minds of all times. He managed to draw all the Al Qaeda forces into a fight of our choosing, at a location of our liking, and kept them bogged down there. As a result, they have been unable to attack us here at home. Even the several attacks that Al Qaeda has managed to mount against European nations have been relatively feeble.
For some reason, Obama would prefer that Al Qaeda resumes attacking Americans at home.
And that is the stupidest idea of all!.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
That Explains It!
I heard someone call a talk show and ask, “How do idiots like Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, and Murtha keep getting elected?”
Then I read two reports that said that the average Democrat voter had an IQ of 100 or less!
Do you have any more question?
Then I read two reports that said that the average Democrat voter had an IQ of 100 or less!
Do you have any more question?
The Air Force Is Using The Fuel Of Tomorrow
The fuel of tomorrow is here. It has been tested. It is GREEN and it is relatively cheap. This wonder fuel will work in our current automobiles, trucks, trains, aircraft, and power generation plants.
The U.S. Air Force consumes about 2.6 Billion gallons of petroleum based fuels each year. They realized that if they are to do their job, a reliable, domestic fuel was needed.
Clearly, the Congress, being blessed with infinite stupidity, was not going to allow the use of our vast domestic petroleum reserves, so other sources were needed. The Air Force decided to evaluate synthetic fuels (synfuels) that could be produced from natural gas and/or coal. The U.S. has enough coal to meet our energy needs for more than 200 years. So it could solve the energy needs well into the future. According to the Air Force, the test results have been great.
The first large scale testing was preformed using a B-52 bomber. The B-52 was an excellent test vehicle because it has eight engines. A B-52 was modified so that some engine would run on Synfuel while the bulk of the engines remained on regular jet fuel (JP8).
On that first take-off observers noted that the Synfuel powered engine produced no smoke while the JP8 power engines belched out the black trail of smoke common to jet engines during take-off. Not only had the Air Force found a new fuel but it had the added benefit of greatly reducing pollution.
Air Force tests have shown that they rely on Synfuel from coal to safely fuel all their engines, but the Synfuel can also do it better. Tests have proven that the Synfuel burns far cleaner, has more energy per gallon, and is cheaper than petroleum fuels. In fact, it will save billions in taxpayer dollars. There are no negatives to the changeover. The Air Force plans to be 100% Synfuel powered by 2011.
A thinking legislative body would see the wisdom of converting the airline industry from petroleum to Synfuel. That action alone would reduce oil imports by more than the disastrous Ethanol program will ever accomplish. And it offers the added advantage of reducing the pollution created by the commercial airlines by more than 70%. Biofuels like Ethanol actually increase pollutants.
The Synfuel substitutes for gasoline and diesel fuel offer the same benefits for the rest of our transportation needs. Again, a thinking…..Well we can forget that!
A thinking Congress is an Oxymoron!
The U.S. Air Force consumes about 2.6 Billion gallons of petroleum based fuels each year. They realized that if they are to do their job, a reliable, domestic fuel was needed.
Clearly, the Congress, being blessed with infinite stupidity, was not going to allow the use of our vast domestic petroleum reserves, so other sources were needed. The Air Force decided to evaluate synthetic fuels (synfuels) that could be produced from natural gas and/or coal. The U.S. has enough coal to meet our energy needs for more than 200 years. So it could solve the energy needs well into the future. According to the Air Force, the test results have been great.
The first large scale testing was preformed using a B-52 bomber. The B-52 was an excellent test vehicle because it has eight engines. A B-52 was modified so that some engine would run on Synfuel while the bulk of the engines remained on regular jet fuel (JP8).
On that first take-off observers noted that the Synfuel powered engine produced no smoke while the JP8 power engines belched out the black trail of smoke common to jet engines during take-off. Not only had the Air Force found a new fuel but it had the added benefit of greatly reducing pollution.
Air Force tests have shown that they rely on Synfuel from coal to safely fuel all their engines, but the Synfuel can also do it better. Tests have proven that the Synfuel burns far cleaner, has more energy per gallon, and is cheaper than petroleum fuels. In fact, it will save billions in taxpayer dollars. There are no negatives to the changeover. The Air Force plans to be 100% Synfuel powered by 2011.
A thinking legislative body would see the wisdom of converting the airline industry from petroleum to Synfuel. That action alone would reduce oil imports by more than the disastrous Ethanol program will ever accomplish. And it offers the added advantage of reducing the pollution created by the commercial airlines by more than 70%. Biofuels like Ethanol actually increase pollutants.
The Synfuel substitutes for gasoline and diesel fuel offer the same benefits for the rest of our transportation needs. Again, a thinking…..Well we can forget that!
A thinking Congress is an Oxymoron!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Democrats Are Wrecking The Economy
This article first printed in NewsMax magizine.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:48 AM
By: Lowell Ponte
Stock markets around the world plummeted Monday while the New York Stock Exchange was closed for Martin Luther King Jr., Day.
This plunge, likely to reverberate in American markets on Tuesday, is according to The New York Times caused by “Fears of a U.S. Recession.”
Such left-liberal newspapers never explain why American and foreign traders expect recession.
Behind investor fears is the likelihood that 2008 will bring more Democrats to power in the U.S. Congress and elect a far-left Democrat — probably Hillary Clinton — president.
Democrats have already done everything in their power to bring down the U.S. economy, undermining American oil production and efforts to bring stability in the Persian Gulf.
Even worse, Democratic front-runners Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois have vowed to let President George W. Bush’s tax cuts disappear in 2010.
This, as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform warns, is a Democratic pledge to raise taxes on American workers and business by $2 trillion!
Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi already includes this vast expropriation in her long-term socialist spending plans.
This proposed Democrat tax hijacking of America is already causing immense harm.
Business people today are making thousands of decisions whether to invest and create new jobs in the United States, move offshore, or halt all investment.
The coming $2 trillion Democratic tax increase is making that decision for them in a United States that already has among the highest business taxes on the planet.
American voters need to open their eyes to what is happening.
Democrats, as they did in their 1992 “It’s the Economy, Stupid” campaign that elected the Clintons, expect to profit politically by devastating America’s economy.
The more that Americans fear losing their jobs and facing economic bad times, the more they can be bamboozled into voting for Democrats — who, in fact, are the biggest cause of the economic problems people fear.
The mere existence of this socialist political party puts a drag on our economy because investors must always hedge defensively against a Democratic takeover of the government.
Do working people understand that every time they vote for any Democratic candidate, they weaken the economy, raise the price they must pay for food and other goods, and undermine future opportunities for their own children?
But, ignoramuses will ask, Was not the economy relatively good during the Clinton regime?
The Clinton co-presidency used the Cold War “Peace Dividend” from President Ronald Reagan’s victory over the Soviet Union to fund Democratic vote-buying via social programs.
The Clintons wantonly squandered this gigantic one-time historic windfall on a splurge that fattened government.
They diverted huge cuts in America’s national defense budget to bankroll more government spending . . . wasting money that should instead have been returned to American families in the form of massive permanent tax cuts.
And in their rush to neuter our intelligence agencies and American military — remember Bill Clinton’s note declaring, “I loathe the military” — they as radical leftists hated so much during the Vietnam War, the Clintons left America nearly blind and defenseless against new threats such as Islamist terrorism.
The Clintons also had the good luck of losing Congress to the Republicans in 1994, which meant that for three-quarters of the Clinton administration Republican lawmakers were giving confidence to world markets by blocking the Clintons’ socialist schemes.
Bill and Hillary hated this at the time, of course, but today they dishonestly claim credit for the years of prosperity that this Republican Congress created.
Why don’t Democrats now fear that voters will see that Democrats are causing economic chaos, especially when those most harmed will be Democrat-voting Hispanics and African-Americans?
Democrats know that the ruling mainstream media such as The New York Times, heavily infiltrated over decades by leftists, will continue to slant the news in their favor and blame Republicans for all economic problems.
Democrats also have the advantage that their voters are, by and large, too stupid to understand Democratic wrongdoing.
Half the people in this country have, by definition, an IQ of 100 or less. If those with IQs below 100 were magically prohibited from voting, Democrats would never win another election.
The relatively few bright people who vote Democratic almost always do so selfishly. Big government provides them a job, a grant, some kind of favoritism or privilege or monopoly, or some other path to money, status or power.
But how would Democrats benefit from a global recession or depression?
First, as David Horowitz cogently argued in his book "Unholy Alliance," leftists were once driven by two motives — love of communism and hate for the capitalist United States. Communism has failed and gone down the garbage disposal of history. So all that the left has left is its hatred of the United States, its burning desire that our country be brought down.
Second, the Democratic Party sees collapse as its best opportunity to win. Who will be left to pick up the pieces if capitalism is shattered? Big government.
As libertarians have long said about the Democratic Party strategy, “They break your legs and then offer you a crutch.” Big government taxes away so much of what you earn that you cannot save for your old age, then offers to make you dependent on socialist security.
Big government requires hospitals to give free care to illegal aliens and welfare cheats, thereby pricing private insurance beyond millions of us because hospitals are forced to charge you and your insurance company $10 per aspirin to pay for these parasitic freeloaders.
Liberal politicians strong-armed banks into lending to credit-unworthy Democratic constituents. Now, with these borrowers defaulting on billions in mortgages, these politicians call banks “predatory” for loans they forced banks to make.
For left-liberal Democrats like Clinton, Obama, and Sen. John Edwards, their hypocritical game is entirely win-win. Either capitalism will survive, but in a weakened, more regulated condition, or economic collapse will justify imposing socialism, a new New Deal.
The bird that symbolizes today’s Democratic Party is not the American Eagle. It is the vulture.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:48 AM
By: Lowell Ponte
Stock markets around the world plummeted Monday while the New York Stock Exchange was closed for Martin Luther King Jr., Day.
This plunge, likely to reverberate in American markets on Tuesday, is according to The New York Times caused by “Fears of a U.S. Recession.”
Such left-liberal newspapers never explain why American and foreign traders expect recession.
Behind investor fears is the likelihood that 2008 will bring more Democrats to power in the U.S. Congress and elect a far-left Democrat — probably Hillary Clinton — president.
Democrats have already done everything in their power to bring down the U.S. economy, undermining American oil production and efforts to bring stability in the Persian Gulf.
Even worse, Democratic front-runners Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois have vowed to let President George W. Bush’s tax cuts disappear in 2010.
This, as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform warns, is a Democratic pledge to raise taxes on American workers and business by $2 trillion!
Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi already includes this vast expropriation in her long-term socialist spending plans.
This proposed Democrat tax hijacking of America is already causing immense harm.
Business people today are making thousands of decisions whether to invest and create new jobs in the United States, move offshore, or halt all investment.
The coming $2 trillion Democratic tax increase is making that decision for them in a United States that already has among the highest business taxes on the planet.
American voters need to open their eyes to what is happening.
Democrats, as they did in their 1992 “It’s the Economy, Stupid” campaign that elected the Clintons, expect to profit politically by devastating America’s economy.
The more that Americans fear losing their jobs and facing economic bad times, the more they can be bamboozled into voting for Democrats — who, in fact, are the biggest cause of the economic problems people fear.
The mere existence of this socialist political party puts a drag on our economy because investors must always hedge defensively against a Democratic takeover of the government.
Do working people understand that every time they vote for any Democratic candidate, they weaken the economy, raise the price they must pay for food and other goods, and undermine future opportunities for their own children?
But, ignoramuses will ask, Was not the economy relatively good during the Clinton regime?
The Clinton co-presidency used the Cold War “Peace Dividend” from President Ronald Reagan’s victory over the Soviet Union to fund Democratic vote-buying via social programs.
The Clintons wantonly squandered this gigantic one-time historic windfall on a splurge that fattened government.
They diverted huge cuts in America’s national defense budget to bankroll more government spending . . . wasting money that should instead have been returned to American families in the form of massive permanent tax cuts.
And in their rush to neuter our intelligence agencies and American military — remember Bill Clinton’s note declaring, “I loathe the military” — they as radical leftists hated so much during the Vietnam War, the Clintons left America nearly blind and defenseless against new threats such as Islamist terrorism.
The Clintons also had the good luck of losing Congress to the Republicans in 1994, which meant that for three-quarters of the Clinton administration Republican lawmakers were giving confidence to world markets by blocking the Clintons’ socialist schemes.
Bill and Hillary hated this at the time, of course, but today they dishonestly claim credit for the years of prosperity that this Republican Congress created.
Why don’t Democrats now fear that voters will see that Democrats are causing economic chaos, especially when those most harmed will be Democrat-voting Hispanics and African-Americans?
Democrats know that the ruling mainstream media such as The New York Times, heavily infiltrated over decades by leftists, will continue to slant the news in their favor and blame Republicans for all economic problems.
Democrats also have the advantage that their voters are, by and large, too stupid to understand Democratic wrongdoing.
Half the people in this country have, by definition, an IQ of 100 or less. If those with IQs below 100 were magically prohibited from voting, Democrats would never win another election.
The relatively few bright people who vote Democratic almost always do so selfishly. Big government provides them a job, a grant, some kind of favoritism or privilege or monopoly, or some other path to money, status or power.
But how would Democrats benefit from a global recession or depression?
First, as David Horowitz cogently argued in his book "Unholy Alliance," leftists were once driven by two motives — love of communism and hate for the capitalist United States. Communism has failed and gone down the garbage disposal of history. So all that the left has left is its hatred of the United States, its burning desire that our country be brought down.
Second, the Democratic Party sees collapse as its best opportunity to win. Who will be left to pick up the pieces if capitalism is shattered? Big government.
As libertarians have long said about the Democratic Party strategy, “They break your legs and then offer you a crutch.” Big government taxes away so much of what you earn that you cannot save for your old age, then offers to make you dependent on socialist security.
Big government requires hospitals to give free care to illegal aliens and welfare cheats, thereby pricing private insurance beyond millions of us because hospitals are forced to charge you and your insurance company $10 per aspirin to pay for these parasitic freeloaders.
Liberal politicians strong-armed banks into lending to credit-unworthy Democratic constituents. Now, with these borrowers defaulting on billions in mortgages, these politicians call banks “predatory” for loans they forced banks to make.
For left-liberal Democrats like Clinton, Obama, and Sen. John Edwards, their hypocritical game is entirely win-win. Either capitalism will survive, but in a weakened, more regulated condition, or economic collapse will justify imposing socialism, a new New Deal.
The bird that symbolizes today’s Democratic Party is not the American Eagle. It is the vulture.
19,000 Scientists Say, “An Inconvenient Truth Is A Lie!"
There is not a consensus that mankind is contributing to Global Warming!.
There is not even a consensus that Global Warming is occurring!
More than 19,000 Scientists have signed the Petition as follows:
There is not even a consensus that Global Warming is occurring!
More than 19,000 Scientists have signed the Petition as follows:
Global Warming Petition
We urge the United State government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
To see a list of signers CLICK HERE
To view video which counters “An Inconvenient Truth” CLICK HERE
Contact your Senators and Representative and demand that they pass a new a Energy Policy Bill that is reflective of REAL science, that uses our own resources, kills the asinine Ethanol program and repeals the murderous CAFÉ Standards.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Real Science Declares, "Global Warming Is Dead!"
There is one part of Al Gore’s Global Warming argument that is factual –
The time for discussion is over!
The facts are that
Man made global warming is at best a hoax.
It is a false concept that has been disproved, discredited, and denied by every creditable scientist in every creditable organization in the world.
In Great Britain even the courts have ruled that the Gore ‘pseudo-documentary’, “An Inconvenient Truth” is full of factual errors and distortions.
The BBC has produced a real documentary, “Global Warming Swindle”, which discredits the entire Gore film (and theory) with testimony from real scientists.
John Stossel also produced a fine documentary that countered “An Inconvenient Truth” http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3751219&page=1
Thousands of climatologists and meteorologist have come forward with statements, studies, and reports that completely refute the sham of ‘Global Warming’.
So how does the Gore crowd refute these arguments? Do they offer debate, countering arguments, or proven facts? No! That is because there are none!
In stead, the say, “The time for discussion is over” and “Many of those scientist were paid by Exxon!”
Well, we challenge them to name just one scientist of the many thousand that counter the global warming theory that paid by Exxon. They can’t.
Two new reports, one by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and a second that appeared in The London Daily Express further discredit global warming theory.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report states that Ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.
The London Daily Express (Feb. 18, 2008) reported that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming argument and supporting those who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
The Daily express further recalls “a photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.
Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.
As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.”
The Express added that,
“scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception — Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather. “
It is fact that. All over the globe, vast areas have experienced some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. China, the United States, and Canada had very heavy snows. In China, over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.
China reported the worst winter weather in 50 years.
The Middle-East had record cold and snow falls. They also experience their highest number of death do to winter weather.
We could go on with listing the hundreds of reported winter problems and cold related deaths, but the point has been made—we have said and we will say it again, “Global Warming is a Hoax”
The time has come to stop talking about it! The time has come to stop lying about it and get on with real solutions to real problems.
The time has come to build new power plants and solve the energy problems with solutions that do the best we can to lower pollution, but without restrictions that result from the false religion of global warming.
It is time that the Congress, the Presidential candidates, and all of the other followers of the ‘false profit, Al Gore’ accept that it is time to pull the plug on the false god, ‘global warning’.
Real science has declared it dead!
The time for discussion is over!
The facts are that
Man made global warming is at best a hoax.
It is a false concept that has been disproved, discredited, and denied by every creditable scientist in every creditable organization in the world.
In Great Britain even the courts have ruled that the Gore ‘pseudo-documentary’, “An Inconvenient Truth” is full of factual errors and distortions.
The BBC has produced a real documentary, “Global Warming Swindle”, which discredits the entire Gore film (and theory) with testimony from real scientists.
John Stossel also produced a fine documentary that countered “An Inconvenient Truth” http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3751219&page=1
Thousands of climatologists and meteorologist have come forward with statements, studies, and reports that completely refute the sham of ‘Global Warming’.
So how does the Gore crowd refute these arguments? Do they offer debate, countering arguments, or proven facts? No! That is because there are none!
In stead, the say, “The time for discussion is over” and “Many of those scientist were paid by Exxon!”
Well, we challenge them to name just one scientist of the many thousand that counter the global warming theory that paid by Exxon. They can’t.
Two new reports, one by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and a second that appeared in The London Daily Express further discredit global warming theory.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report states that Ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.
The London Daily Express (Feb. 18, 2008) reported that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming argument and supporting those who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
The Daily express further recalls “a photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.
Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.
As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.”
The Express added that,
“scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception — Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather. “
It is fact that. All over the globe, vast areas have experienced some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. China, the United States, and Canada had very heavy snows. In China, over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.
China reported the worst winter weather in 50 years.
The Middle-East had record cold and snow falls. They also experience their highest number of death do to winter weather.
We could go on with listing the hundreds of reported winter problems and cold related deaths, but the point has been made—we have said and we will say it again, “Global Warming is a Hoax”
The time has come to stop talking about it! The time has come to stop lying about it and get on with real solutions to real problems.
The time has come to build new power plants and solve the energy problems with solutions that do the best we can to lower pollution, but without restrictions that result from the false religion of global warming.
It is time that the Congress, the Presidential candidates, and all of the other followers of the ‘false profit, Al Gore’ accept that it is time to pull the plug on the false god, ‘global warning’.
Real science has declared it dead!
Thursday, February 21, 2008
When You Lay Down With Pigs
"Rumor has it that the National Enquirer was planning to make a bid to purchase the failing New York Times.
However, after reviewing the Times' recent record of printing fake stories, they decided against the purchase on the grounds that it might damage the Enquirers reputation."
However, after reviewing the Times' recent record of printing fake stories, they decided against the purchase on the grounds that it might damage the Enquirers reputation."
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
John McCain And Gaining Support Of Conservative Voters
Our emails and conversations have been almost exclusively about John McCain and what he can do to gain support from Conservatives.
Most agree that if McCain could erase the past seven years, they would gladly support him for election to the Presidency. But as most see it, John McCain was bitter over his defeat in 2000 and decided to punish George W. Bush or the Republican Party or both. Either way he is seen as a traitor to conservative and Republican values. They are not going to forgive him for that.
McCain did not extend a hand of cooperation across the isle. He jumped ship and spit in our eye!
Fortunately, for McCain both Hillary Clinton and Barak Hussein Obama are seen as undesirable. Most Conservatives realize that at a minimum, either of these Socialist Democrat’s will pretty much leave the nation in economic shambles after their term in office. Likely, also smoldering from terrorist attacks.
A substantial number of the real Conservatives understand that no matter what, they have to be pragmatic and support John McCain over the Democrat alternative.
Most Conservatives indicate that if McCain really understood and pledged to support the Conservative approach to illegal immigration, they would at least vote for him.
McCain has stated that he understands, “Seal the borders first!” WRONG!!
The pledge that Conservatives want from John McCain is:
1. Seal the borders
2. Enforce employment laws—punish employers that hire even one illegal.
3. NO AMNESTY! None, Zero, Zilch, not by any name!
The observation from here is that John McCain can give himself a fighting chance by taking the pledge, or he can throw it all away and screw himself for the screwing he gave GW and the Republican Party for the past seven years.
So what’s it going to be McCain, will you take the pledge or go out playing the fool?
Most agree that if McCain could erase the past seven years, they would gladly support him for election to the Presidency. But as most see it, John McCain was bitter over his defeat in 2000 and decided to punish George W. Bush or the Republican Party or both. Either way he is seen as a traitor to conservative and Republican values. They are not going to forgive him for that.
McCain did not extend a hand of cooperation across the isle. He jumped ship and spit in our eye!
Fortunately, for McCain both Hillary Clinton and Barak Hussein Obama are seen as undesirable. Most Conservatives realize that at a minimum, either of these Socialist Democrat’s will pretty much leave the nation in economic shambles after their term in office. Likely, also smoldering from terrorist attacks.
A substantial number of the real Conservatives understand that no matter what, they have to be pragmatic and support John McCain over the Democrat alternative.
Most Conservatives indicate that if McCain really understood and pledged to support the Conservative approach to illegal immigration, they would at least vote for him.
McCain has stated that he understands, “Seal the borders first!” WRONG!!
The pledge that Conservatives want from John McCain is:
1. Seal the borders
2. Enforce employment laws—punish employers that hire even one illegal.
3. NO AMNESTY! None, Zero, Zilch, not by any name!
The observation from here is that John McCain can give himself a fighting chance by taking the pledge, or he can throw it all away and screw himself for the screwing he gave GW and the Republican Party for the past seven years.
So what’s it going to be McCain, will you take the pledge or go out playing the fool?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Finally! -- Some pride in America
Michelle Obama confessed, that for the very first time she was proud of her country.
Since she and her husband belong to a church that requires an Oath of Allegiants to Africa and preaches hatred for America, we will have to assume that she means the U.S. is the country to which she was referring.
Are we to believe that this woman that grew-up in a one room apartment, yet managed to not only attend, but to graduate from both Harvard and Princeton, claims that she could find nothing to be proud of in the nation that made that possible.
Is she not proud of a Nation that is the most charitable in the world? Was she not proud of the outstanding response that America made on behalf of the Tsunami victims? Is she not proud of the millions of African's that America has saved? Is she not proud of the millions of lives saved through American pharmaceuticals? Is she not proud of the American's that have given their lives saving other here and abroad? There are hundreds of other things that real American's can take pride in, but you get the picture.
One can only speculate, but perhaps this is why her husband Barack Hussein Obama refuses to wear an American Flag lapel pin. Perhaps it is why he will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag, or place his hand over his heart while others recite the Pledge. and perhaps that is why he exhibits the same behavior with the National Anthem.
If the Obama's can not find pride in America, I don't want to see the changes that he will make so that he can be proud.
Since she and her husband belong to a church that requires an Oath of Allegiants to Africa and preaches hatred for America, we will have to assume that she means the U.S. is the country to which she was referring.
Are we to believe that this woman that grew-up in a one room apartment, yet managed to not only attend, but to graduate from both Harvard and Princeton, claims that she could find nothing to be proud of in the nation that made that possible.
Is she not proud of a Nation that is the most charitable in the world? Was she not proud of the outstanding response that America made on behalf of the Tsunami victims? Is she not proud of the millions of African's that America has saved? Is she not proud of the millions of lives saved through American pharmaceuticals? Is she not proud of the American's that have given their lives saving other here and abroad? There are hundreds of other things that real American's can take pride in, but you get the picture.
One can only speculate, but perhaps this is why her husband Barack Hussein Obama refuses to wear an American Flag lapel pin. Perhaps it is why he will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag, or place his hand over his heart while others recite the Pledge. and perhaps that is why he exhibits the same behavior with the National Anthem.
If the Obama's can not find pride in America, I don't want to see the changes that he will make so that he can be proud.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Pelosi And Friend's Place Nation In Peril!
If you had any doubt that Democrats would fail this nation in the ‘War on Terror’, doubt no more.
In a despicable act, the House of Representatives, led by the less than honorable Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has let the FISA Act lapse.
The terrorist can now freely communicate via telephone without any fear of being wiretapped.
When the next attack comes, without warning, we won’t need a Congressional investigation to place the blame. It will rest squarely on the shoulders of the Democrat majority in the 110th House of Representatives.
If the voters of the U.S. want to survive the War on Terror, they had better dump the House Democrats in 2008 the same way that they dumped the House Republicans in 2006.
One of the measures that were included in the FISA Act was to protect telecommunications companies from law suits for providing information requested by the FBI. These suits serve two purposes. The first is to intimidate the telecommunications companies so that they will not assist in protecting us. The second reason is to place billions of dollars into the pockets of trial lawyers.
There is little doubt that the millions of dollars that the trial lawyers gave to Democrats in the House have paid off. Polosi received many thousands in campaign contributions from lawyers involved in suing the telecom’s.
There is reason to believe that the 110th Congress, the Madam Pelosi, and a host of other members of this Congress have sold out to the terrorists and to trial lawyers.
The Democrats have won this battle in their War on America!
In a despicable act, the House of Representatives, led by the less than honorable Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has let the FISA Act lapse.
The terrorist can now freely communicate via telephone without any fear of being wiretapped.
When the next attack comes, without warning, we won’t need a Congressional investigation to place the blame. It will rest squarely on the shoulders of the Democrat majority in the 110th House of Representatives.
If the voters of the U.S. want to survive the War on Terror, they had better dump the House Democrats in 2008 the same way that they dumped the House Republicans in 2006.
One of the measures that were included in the FISA Act was to protect telecommunications companies from law suits for providing information requested by the FBI. These suits serve two purposes. The first is to intimidate the telecommunications companies so that they will not assist in protecting us. The second reason is to place billions of dollars into the pockets of trial lawyers.
There is little doubt that the millions of dollars that the trial lawyers gave to Democrats in the House have paid off. Polosi received many thousands in campaign contributions from lawyers involved in suing the telecom’s.
There is reason to believe that the 110th Congress, the Madam Pelosi, and a host of other members of this Congress have sold out to the terrorists and to trial lawyers.
The Democrats have won this battle in their War on America!
Monday, February 11, 2008
Voting For Survival
Conservatism is about a lot more and important issues than who is the next President!
There is no argument that John McCain simply sucks as a representative of conservatism, but it looks like a choice that we are stuck with. He is however, a far better choice than either Obama or Clinton.
At this moment in time, it appears that the Democrats will have control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. If they also have the White House, the future of our nation and perhaps the entire world are in jeopardy.
Both Democrat candidates promise a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, perhaps even Afghanistan. A withdrawal from Iraq is likely to further destabilize the entire Middle- East. The oil fields will fall into terrorists hand or the terrorists will take other steps to interrupt the flow of oil to the U.S., Europe, perhaps even China. This would throw the economy of the entire western world into chaos. The Congress might at that point pull their heads out of their collective asses and enact some sensible energy policies, like use our own vast oil reserves, promoting the conversion of coal to synfuels, and dumping Ethanol, but it will take decades to recover and with a totally collapsed economy, how will we finance it? Europe probably would never recover. Controlling the oil may well be the key to world dominance for the Muslim terrorists. This is a fact that seems lost on the Democrats, but not on Osama and friends. Clearly, McCain is a winner on this very important issue.
Domestically, both Barack and Hillary promise Universal Healthcare. Their approaches are different but the end result is the same. Poor healthcare for all! Remember that socialism always brings all individuals down to the same level of misery. In the long run, it never improves anything. The cost will be so high that it will consume most of the national budget, reducing or eliminating many other programs. Taxes for some may reach 70% to 90% of income! And all this based on a phony need so that American’s become more dependant on a central government. McCain is clearly the better choice.
Clinton, McCain and Obama all support amnesty for illegal aliens! This is very bad! Democrats support amnesty because they also support voting by illegal aliens, that also being why, as a party, they support drivers licenses for illegal aliens (ever hear of motor voter registration?). Several studies suggest the illegal vote will reach or exceed 3,000,000 for the 2008 election. Imagine the advantage the Democrats will have with 20 million illegal voters? Can anyone say nation lost? So, why does John McCain support amnesty?
Then there are Constitutional issues—
Clinton and Obama support the Fairness Doctrine which is solely intended to keep conservative issues off the airways. This, of course, is another major restriction on the Constitutional guaranty of free speech.
Two, perhaps as many as three new judges to the Supreme Court are expected to be appointed by the next President. John McCain supports judges that adhere to the Constitution. Hillary and Barack do not!
You can also be certain that if Democrats hold the Executive and Legislative Branches that the Second Amendment will be gutted. If the Supreme Courts rules this summer, that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right, they have plans to ban ammunition. One way or another they will take guns away from the citizenry. McCain has a very good record of defending the Second Amendment.
McCain has a mixed record in defense of human life but he has been an opponent of Abortion. Hillary and Obama would make it a part of Universal Healthcare.
There are many more issues, but we have touched on the major ones.
We can agree the John McCain is not a Conservative. Hell, he is not even a good Republican. But at least with him at the helm, we had some chance at a tomorrow!
There is no argument that John McCain simply sucks as a representative of conservatism, but it looks like a choice that we are stuck with. He is however, a far better choice than either Obama or Clinton.
At this moment in time, it appears that the Democrats will have control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. If they also have the White House, the future of our nation and perhaps the entire world are in jeopardy.
Both Democrat candidates promise a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, perhaps even Afghanistan. A withdrawal from Iraq is likely to further destabilize the entire Middle- East. The oil fields will fall into terrorists hand or the terrorists will take other steps to interrupt the flow of oil to the U.S., Europe, perhaps even China. This would throw the economy of the entire western world into chaos. The Congress might at that point pull their heads out of their collective asses and enact some sensible energy policies, like use our own vast oil reserves, promoting the conversion of coal to synfuels, and dumping Ethanol, but it will take decades to recover and with a totally collapsed economy, how will we finance it? Europe probably would never recover. Controlling the oil may well be the key to world dominance for the Muslim terrorists. This is a fact that seems lost on the Democrats, but not on Osama and friends. Clearly, McCain is a winner on this very important issue.
Domestically, both Barack and Hillary promise Universal Healthcare. Their approaches are different but the end result is the same. Poor healthcare for all! Remember that socialism always brings all individuals down to the same level of misery. In the long run, it never improves anything. The cost will be so high that it will consume most of the national budget, reducing or eliminating many other programs. Taxes for some may reach 70% to 90% of income! And all this based on a phony need so that American’s become more dependant on a central government. McCain is clearly the better choice.
Clinton, McCain and Obama all support amnesty for illegal aliens! This is very bad! Democrats support amnesty because they also support voting by illegal aliens, that also being why, as a party, they support drivers licenses for illegal aliens (ever hear of motor voter registration?). Several studies suggest the illegal vote will reach or exceed 3,000,000 for the 2008 election. Imagine the advantage the Democrats will have with 20 million illegal voters? Can anyone say nation lost? So, why does John McCain support amnesty?
Then there are Constitutional issues—
Clinton and Obama support the Fairness Doctrine which is solely intended to keep conservative issues off the airways. This, of course, is another major restriction on the Constitutional guaranty of free speech.
Two, perhaps as many as three new judges to the Supreme Court are expected to be appointed by the next President. John McCain supports judges that adhere to the Constitution. Hillary and Barack do not!
You can also be certain that if Democrats hold the Executive and Legislative Branches that the Second Amendment will be gutted. If the Supreme Courts rules this summer, that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute right, they have plans to ban ammunition. One way or another they will take guns away from the citizenry. McCain has a very good record of defending the Second Amendment.
McCain has a mixed record in defense of human life but he has been an opponent of Abortion. Hillary and Obama would make it a part of Universal Healthcare.
There are many more issues, but we have touched on the major ones.
We can agree the John McCain is not a Conservative. Hell, he is not even a good Republican. But at least with him at the helm, we had some chance at a tomorrow!
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Socialism
"Socialism has yet to raise a single individual out of poverty.
In stead, socialism serves only to bring everyone to a common level of misery!"
-----Adm. Juan Foto
In stead, socialism serves only to bring everyone to a common level of misery!"
-----Adm. Juan Foto
Who Are The Militia?
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia.
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.....
[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. "
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia.
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.....
[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. "
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
A Winning Platform
A group on 30 and 40 something's were discussing John McCain's claim that he will offer a platform that all Republican's can support.
One of them asked, "What could he say that you would support?"
The one answer that all agreed would work was,
"I withdraw my name from consideration as the parties nominee for President."
One of them asked, "What could he say that you would support?"
The one answer that all agreed would work was,
"I withdraw my name from consideration as the parties nominee for President."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
