According to CNN, the decision of whether or not to continue funding American troops fighting a war is a divisive issue (watch the video linked in the report).
What, exactly, is divisive about deciding to fund the soldiers who are fighting a war that is in America's national interests?
The simple fact that the Senate Democrats want to move forward with yet another non-binding resolution just goes to show that they're nothing but a bunch of spineless cowards not worthy to lead this great nation. They talk like they have strong beliefs, but when they vote, their true nature shines through. They're not willing to take decisive action to end the war because they know that would end their political careers; almost no one would vote for them. Instead, they decide to posture and play political games with America's national security.
The thought that a political party full of such cowards as Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer has come into power in America makes me want to vomit.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Now it really is turning into Vietnam
The House has passed their "nonbinding resolution" condemning the troop surge. Now, while this "symbolic" measure may not represent a full rejection of our troops by the Democrat-controlled House, as a rejection of the war, it is invariably a rejection of the troops, whether the Democrats like it or not.
The next step in the process is that the bill will be sent to the Senate. The party divide in the Senate is much more narrow than that in the House, and the Dems very likely do not have enough votes to carry the measure. We can only hope, anyway.
The thing that truly rankles about this issue is that the only logical next step is that they vote on a real measure to cut off funding for the war. I highly doubt this will happen, because it would be political suicide for the Dems...which only goes further to show that they're all about politics, and not about substance.
Truly, this measure looks patently absurd when you consider that just a short time ago, the Congress voted to allow General David Patraeus to be the new commander of the multi-national forces in Iraq. The troop surge was his recommendation.
The Democrats say that President Bush should listen to the generals on the ground...but the truth is, the only people they want President Bush to listen to are the ones who toe the anti-war line.
For years now, the Democrats have alleged that the Iraq War was a second Vietnam. Now they are moving to make that analogy complete, as a significant portion of the American government turns its back on the troops, putting the interests of the anti-war movement over those of American national security.
The next step in the process is that the bill will be sent to the Senate. The party divide in the Senate is much more narrow than that in the House, and the Dems very likely do not have enough votes to carry the measure. We can only hope, anyway.
The thing that truly rankles about this issue is that the only logical next step is that they vote on a real measure to cut off funding for the war. I highly doubt this will happen, because it would be political suicide for the Dems...which only goes further to show that they're all about politics, and not about substance.
Truly, this measure looks patently absurd when you consider that just a short time ago, the Congress voted to allow General David Patraeus to be the new commander of the multi-national forces in Iraq. The troop surge was his recommendation.
The Democrats say that President Bush should listen to the generals on the ground...but the truth is, the only people they want President Bush to listen to are the ones who toe the anti-war line.
For years now, the Democrats have alleged that the Iraq War was a second Vietnam. Now they are moving to make that analogy complete, as a significant portion of the American government turns its back on the troops, putting the interests of the anti-war movement over those of American national security.
Friday, February 09, 2007
What happened to the environment???
For the past couple of days, Nanci Pelosi has taken heat over a request made on her behalf for a larger plane for her to use to travel from Washington, DC to her home town of San Francisco. Now, since 9/11, the Speaker of the House (being second in line to the presidency) has been granted the use of a military plane for just such a use. This request, however, is absurd. The pretext for the request is supposedly "security concerns" related to the need for a refueling stop required by a smaller plane. The plane Pelosi requested - the military version of the Boeing 757, can fly coast-to-coast without refueling. The request, however, raises a couple of questions:
Pelosi says that she just wants what Hastert had. John Murtha even went so far as to imply that denying Pelosi the larger jet would be sexist. The truth is, Hastert's use of a G-V to travel from DC to Illinois and back was itself selfish and wasteful. But for Pelosi to defend the request of a military 757 (aka a C-32) is absurd, at best. What does she have to fear from making a refueling stop? Is she that afraid of red-state America? Or does she just have an intrinsic fear of the military (whom the city of San Francisco is notoriously hostile toward)? Either way, Pelosi's excuses for this request just do not hold water, and there is no reason that the American people should put up with it.
- Pelosi states that she wants what the previous speaker, Dennis Hastert, had. That being the case, why is she unwilling to travel in the same plane that he traveled in?
- The reason given for the requested plane was security...but this is a military transport. Pelosi would be taking off from Andrews AFB. The refueling stop would be made at an Air Force base in the Mid-West...and there are several such bases in suitable places for just such a refueling stop. Why are they so worried about security when they'll be landing at secure military facilities?
- Before being sworn in, Pelosi promised openness and ethics under her leadership. Just the fuel for a coast-to-coast flight in the requested plane runs in the neighborhood of $300,000...that's around $1.2 million just for the fuel round-trip...and Pelosi has talked about the possibility of needing to fly to San Francisco 1-2 times per week. That's around two and a half million taxpayer dollars just spent on flying Pelosi around, and that's just for fuel - it doesn't include other expenses. How about saving a little money for us taxpayers?
Pelosi says that she just wants what Hastert had. John Murtha even went so far as to imply that denying Pelosi the larger jet would be sexist. The truth is, Hastert's use of a G-V to travel from DC to Illinois and back was itself selfish and wasteful. But for Pelosi to defend the request of a military 757 (aka a C-32) is absurd, at best. What does she have to fear from making a refueling stop? Is she that afraid of red-state America? Or does she just have an intrinsic fear of the military (whom the city of San Francisco is notoriously hostile toward)? Either way, Pelosi's excuses for this request just do not hold water, and there is no reason that the American people should put up with it.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Happy Birthday to the Gipper
A very happy birthday to former President Ronald Reagan - by far one of the greatest presidents America has ever seen. Born on this day in 1911.
I wish the Gipper were still around, cause I'd definitely vote for him in '08.
I wish the Gipper were still around, cause I'd definitely vote for him in '08.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
All the crap that...wait, this isn't even fit to print!
From the New York Times: apparently, we're supposed to believe that violence depicted in this year's Super Bowl ads reflect the toll of the Iraq war. Somehow, in what can only amount to rampant over-analyzation and blatant agenda-pushing, Stuart Elliott of the New York Times has deduced that all of this violence in the advertising is a result of the war.
How is this news? How is this fit to print?
How does it make any sense?
The truth is, it doesn't. It makes about as much sense as a non-binding resolution to stop the troop surge...which makes Stuart Elliott (and the NYT editorial board, big surprise) as big liberal wackos as the Democrats in Congress.
How is this news? How is this fit to print?
How does it make any sense?
The truth is, it doesn't. It makes about as much sense as a non-binding resolution to stop the troop surge...which makes Stuart Elliott (and the NYT editorial board, big surprise) as big liberal wackos as the Democrats in Congress.
Al Gore & Rush Limbaugh
This week, Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh were both nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize - Al Gore for his global warming propaganda film "An Inconvenient Truth," and Rush for "fighting for conservative principles in America," and because of his "tireless efforts to promote liberty, equality and opportunity for all humankind, regardless of race, creed, economic stratum or national origin."
Since the inception of his program, Rush has been decried as a Nazi, homophobe, and many other divisive names. As one responder to "The Lede" blog on the New York Times website put it, Rush is "a crack-addicted neo-nazi bigot who rants at every opportunity against Jews, Blacks, homosexuals, Muslims and non-European visitors to the United States." Personally, I don't know how so many people got it into their heads that Rush is evil; I listen to his radio program almost every day, and the most evil thing he tends to do is to use logic to defend conservatism and argue against liberalism. Of course, to too many liberals and members of the Democrat party, logical argument is the very definition of evil, so I guess that works. The "crack-addicted" remark makes me laugh, though - Rush Limbaugh was addicted to prescription painkillers after he received back surgery - something that could happen to anyone, and has, in fact, happened to many people. Rush was not using crack, heroine, meth, or any other illegal drug; he became addicted to medicine that had been prescribed to him by a doctor. The sad truth of it is that many liberals are willing to give more compassion to real crack addicts whose own choices lead them into their addiction than they are willing to give to someone who becomes addicted because he is trying to deal with unbearable pain.
There apparently are some questions surrounding the validity of Rush's nomination, but regardless of the hair-splitting when it comes to the nomination rules, I believe (obviously) that Rush's nomination is the more valid of the two. Here's why:
Al Gore was nominated because, as one of his nominators stated,
The only "inconvenient truth" when it comes to global warming is that the science behind the theory, at this point, is inconclusive. According to liberals, failure to accept each and every tenet of man-made global warming is tantamount to heresy, and as time goes on, liberals come closer and closer to stoning those they deem heretics. The best defense that liberals have come up with for man-made global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus," and as I addressed in my last post, scientific consensus is itself a farce. Science does not operate by consensus, it operates by process; this process is known as the scientific method (note that "form a consensus" does not appear as part of that method). As Rush Limbaugh and others have pointed out, if consensus dictated science, we would still believe that the world was flat!
Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, has spent the last 20+ years enhancing the democratic process in America by defending conservatism and advocating for conservative values. He has created a media empire in a nation whose media has, for decades, been overwhelmingly liberal. He is rightly the father of talk radio, one of the most popular and profitable forms of media in the 21st Century. He has approached issues with logic, humor, and sarcasm, but rarely, if ever, with divisiveness. He is hated by many liberals, but this is only because he proves, again and again, to be right on almost every issue.
The simple truth of the matter is that, when it comes to Rush Limbaugh, liberals hate him because he presents the conservative side of the debate clearly, articulately, and with humor, and for all of the liberals' lip-service to debate, they would much rather shut the conservative side down. But Rush is here to stay, and I pray that he wins the Nobel Peace Prize, because if he does win, it is not just a victory for Rush Limbaugh, it is a victory for conservatism in America.
Since the inception of his program, Rush has been decried as a Nazi, homophobe, and many other divisive names. As one responder to "The Lede" blog on the New York Times website put it, Rush is "a crack-addicted neo-nazi bigot who rants at every opportunity against Jews, Blacks, homosexuals, Muslims and non-European visitors to the United States." Personally, I don't know how so many people got it into their heads that Rush is evil; I listen to his radio program almost every day, and the most evil thing he tends to do is to use logic to defend conservatism and argue against liberalism. Of course, to too many liberals and members of the Democrat party, logical argument is the very definition of evil, so I guess that works. The "crack-addicted" remark makes me laugh, though - Rush Limbaugh was addicted to prescription painkillers after he received back surgery - something that could happen to anyone, and has, in fact, happened to many people. Rush was not using crack, heroine, meth, or any other illegal drug; he became addicted to medicine that had been prescribed to him by a doctor. The sad truth of it is that many liberals are willing to give more compassion to real crack addicts whose own choices lead them into their addiction than they are willing to give to someone who becomes addicted because he is trying to deal with unbearable pain.
There apparently are some questions surrounding the validity of Rush's nomination, but regardless of the hair-splitting when it comes to the nomination rules, I believe (obviously) that Rush's nomination is the more valid of the two. Here's why:
Al Gore was nominated because, as one of his nominators stated,
(Note: "Sheila" refers to Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian Inuit activist.)A prerequisite for winning the Nobel Peace Prize is making a difference, and Al Gore has made a difference. …
Al Gore, like no other, has put climate change on the agenda. Gore uses his position to get politicians to understand, while Sheila works from the ground up.
The only "inconvenient truth" when it comes to global warming is that the science behind the theory, at this point, is inconclusive. According to liberals, failure to accept each and every tenet of man-made global warming is tantamount to heresy, and as time goes on, liberals come closer and closer to stoning those they deem heretics. The best defense that liberals have come up with for man-made global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus," and as I addressed in my last post, scientific consensus is itself a farce. Science does not operate by consensus, it operates by process; this process is known as the scientific method (note that "form a consensus" does not appear as part of that method). As Rush Limbaugh and others have pointed out, if consensus dictated science, we would still believe that the world was flat!
Rush Limbaugh, on the other hand, has spent the last 20+ years enhancing the democratic process in America by defending conservatism and advocating for conservative values. He has created a media empire in a nation whose media has, for decades, been overwhelmingly liberal. He is rightly the father of talk radio, one of the most popular and profitable forms of media in the 21st Century. He has approached issues with logic, humor, and sarcasm, but rarely, if ever, with divisiveness. He is hated by many liberals, but this is only because he proves, again and again, to be right on almost every issue.
The simple truth of the matter is that, when it comes to Rush Limbaugh, liberals hate him because he presents the conservative side of the debate clearly, articulately, and with humor, and for all of the liberals' lip-service to debate, they would much rather shut the conservative side down. But Rush is here to stay, and I pray that he wins the Nobel Peace Prize, because if he does win, it is not just a victory for Rush Limbaugh, it is a victory for conservatism in America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)