Saturday, July 21, 2007

US Rep gets in argument with Capital Police

Hey guys I just read the Rep Christopher Shays (R) CT got into a shouting match and apparently grabbed a Capital Police officer while trying to bring visitors in through a restricted entrance.

Of course Rep Shays lost his temper and acted like an idiot and embarassed himself.

Predictably, the Dems and Libs have popped up comparing this to Cynthia McKinney. Is the right wing going to demand that Shays resign? And so on.

Here's the thing, on the surface these two incidents are very similar. One thing is that McKinney actually struck the officer and Shays did not; I don't need to tell you that in the left wing mind Republicans should be rounded up for any infraction. But the real difference is in how the situation was handled.

Did Shays blame the officer afterward? Did Shays cite some kind of prejudice? No, he said I'm sorry, I was wrong and I am to blame. These are things we never heard from Cynthia McKinney, that is the biggest difference.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Iranian missles aimed at US base in Iraq.

The United States military has found 50 Iranian "penetrator" missile launchers aimed at a US base in Iraq. The began after two of the same type of missiles were used in an attack the killed two American soldiers.

They have been sending people and weapons into Iraq to be used against our soldiers. What is it going to take for our government to strike back against Iran? Fearing just that Mahmoud has denied the evidence and at the same time threatened Israel.

I have to ask, what the hell are Iranian missiles doing in Iraq. It doesn't take General Patton to tell you close off the border between Iraq and Iran (of course Patton would what level Iran for its interference). But this should not come as a surprise since the government isn't even willing secure our own border.

I guess we can always offer the Iranians a "guest combatant permit".

Thursday, July 12, 2007

U.S. House approves surrender to Muslim terrorists.

The House of Representatives approved a measure today to begin the withdrawal of US military forces from Iraq. The plan specifies that the withdrawal begin within 120 days and be completed by April 1, 2008. April Fool's Day, wow is that fitting.

This measure also dictates that some US military personnel be left in Iraq to "train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight al-Qaida and other terrorists."

So let me get this straight, the Democrats say that we are losing the war so their solution is to pull most everyone out and leave a skeleton crew? Now that is strategy. The Dems said we are losing the war, I guess now they want to prove it. Maybe al Qaeda in Iraq won't let us surrender unless we let them win a few battles for their propaganda videos.

Here's what really pisses me off. If the Dems want us out, why don't they just vote to pull us out? Why do they have to chip away at every resource our military men and women have? Why do the Dems feel this need to demoralize and disarm the military in a time of war?

The Dems just don't have the guts to stand up for ending the war and they sure as hell don't have the guts to win it. We all know that the Dems are cowards when it comes to fighting islamofacists, but they are even too cowardly to say they just want to give up? The other reason they don't just vote to pull out, each flag draped coffin has the potential for propaganda, the more the better.

Either way the Dems are surrendering to an enemy that will follow our soldiers home.
Looks like Nancy has already been practicing for her role as "Speaker of the Dhimmis".

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Battle of the Moonbats

Ladies and gentlemen, Cindy Sheehan has once again taken her self-importance to a new level. Only weeks after vowing that she was leaving the game Cindy Sheehan is headed to Washington D.C. and if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has not impeached George W. Bush Cindy is going to challenge Pelosi for her House seat!

Cindy Sheehan has made quite a career for herself exploiting her heroic son's death and now she hopes to parlay that into a political career.

It will be the battle of battles. Mother Moonbat vs. Nancy PeLousy.

Here the possible outcomes all of which I find to be pleasing in various degrees:

1. Sheehan and Pelosi effectively split the kook vote enough to where a Republican wins. Pelosi is out, new Speaker is named, Sheehan loses too.

2. Sheehan wins, Pelosi is out, new speaker, Sheehan becomes an embarrassment on center stage.

3. Pelosi wins (least desireable), Sheehan is tossed out.

Of course the only way the scenario 1. happens is if someone spike the San Francisco drinking water with anti-psychotic medication.

Monday, July 02, 2007

Libs lash out with talk of "Fairness Doctrine"

Since the public spoke up, refused to be bullied and shut down the Senate's attempt to give illegal immigrants superior rights and protections the liberal have been been looking for a scapegoat. Talk radio is set to take the blame for the downfall of the bill.

The stage is now set for the government to impose the so called "fairness doctrine" on us. The premise is simple and it goes like this:

Radio companies are part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to indoctrinate the masses of this country by forcing "Svengalis" like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram down our throats and we are essentially a captive audience. No one really *wants* to listen to these shows but we have no alternative, we can't even turn off the radio to avoid indoctrination. It's not that there is a demand for Limbaugh and others, there just isn't enough liberal programming out there to equally "put the whammy" on the American public. The radio companies are perfectly willing to piss off their listeners by playing programming the public doesn't want and the collective American public has enough doodoo butter substituting for there brains that we just can't help but take it all in and just mindlessly accept it. Obviously, the government needs to step in and make it "fair".

This so-called fairness is not about fairness, it is about control.

Let's start with the liberal definition of fair. Liberals define fair by the outcome or results. In order for anything to be fair the results have to be the same. If liberals ran the Olympics everyone would get a gold medal (except for the American athletes). In the liberal mind the results should all be the same and they will change and govern the proverbial playing field until they get the results they want. The liberals think that it is not fair that Air America doesn't get the same ratings as Rush Limbaugh.

This fairness doctrine, like much of liberalism, assumes that the people are too stupid to decide what they want to listen to and even what their opinion is about the issues. Every American is a blank sheet of paper waiting for either Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken to fill in the blanks. In a nutshell, we are all morons.

The fairness doctrine also attempts to go against one of the very tenants of the Constitution. The congress is attempting to pass a law to control free speech.

Now let's get to the heart of this issue. What is this really about? The government wants to punish the talk radio folks. In their minds talk radio soured us against this great and wonderful immigration bill.

All talk radio did was tell us what was in it when our government representatives would not. Without Paul Revere the British Army would have surprised American revolutionaries, likewise without talk radio the Senate would have slid this bill under our noses.

Talk radio is accused of "whipping the public into a frenzy" but ask yourself do you need Rush Limbaugh to tell you to get mad about any of the following?:

-All illegal immigrants would benefit and get legal status, including known felons
-All back, unpaid income taxes would be forgiven
-No provisions for border enforcement

I didn't think so. Call your congressman and kill the fairness doctrine.

Friday, June 29, 2007

Bomb Plot Stopped in London.

British police defused a car bomb loaded with gasoline cans and nails this morning in London, the story from Yahoo can be read here.

This again proves that we have to keep on out toes despite liberal insistence that there is no terror threat.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Today your voice was heard.

Today your voice was heard. The United States Senate, the United States government, our government tried to circumvent us. As Abraham Lincoln stated the government is to be of the people, by the people, for the people. This concept does not seem to be very appetizing to members of the Senate who would shove amnesty for illegal immigrants down our throats.

The important thing is that they serve us, not the other way around. The Senate's desire to sneak these measures in against the will of the people has resulted in the loss of our trust.

Despite recent, insulting remarks made by members of the Senate (racist, nationalist, etc.) the real problem that the Senate had is that they faced an informed public. They faced a public that knew this bill would grant overnight amnesty, would forgive back taxes, would not secure the border and so on. Not only does this go against common sense it goes against the basic Constitutional right of equal protection under the law. Don't believe me? Ask yourself, if you skip filing taxes and do not pay for a few years will your tax bill be forgiven?

I expect that there will be measures in the future to shield the Senate from our communiation. I expect the Senate will try to sneak measures of this bill in under our noses. Be vigilant.

Next up, let's kill the "Fairness Doctrine."

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

I were President Bush's speech writer...

My fellow Americans, today, for the second time since taking the oath of office of the President of the United States of America I have exercised my right to veto legislation.  The Democrats in Congress presented to be today a bill that was said to be a "war funding bill".  The bill presented would indeed put money in the coffers of the military, but at a price.

Several months ago the military and I asked congress for funding to continue our mission in Iraq.  In return we received an offer, an offer to purchase the defeat of the United States military and the United States of America.  The men and women in uniform, serving in Iraq the offer from Congress was simple.  In return for the money to load your rifle, to fuel your humvee; you must hang your head, turn your back on the enemy you have been fighting for four years and march home in defeat.  Not because you do not desire victory, not because you cannot be victorious but because Democrats in Washington will not let you be victorious.

Over the past four years Democrats in Congress have offered criticism for our mission in Iraq but ideas for victory.  They have placed the ability of our troops to operate effectively beneath their own political careers.  They have called the operation a failure.  But while their mouths have been open, their eyes and ears have been closed.  Saddam Hussein will never again fill a mass grave, his sons will never again rape and torture at will, Abu Zarqwai will never again behead an innocent, and the Iraqi people will not fall under the boot of thugs and dictators again.  That is NOT failure.

The Democrats in Congress often question my plans and strategy for Iraq.  If the Democrats on Congress only listened to the troops they would know the plan.  The plan is the same as the first Americans had when they rebelled against British rule.  The plan is the same plan those American soldiers that fought at Gettysburg had.  The plan is the same plan the American Soldiers fighting in the trenches of Europe in 1917 had.  The plan is the same as the Americans that stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima had.  The plan is the same plan as the men and women who defeated Saddam Hussein 16 years ago had.

That plan is one that the Democrats may not be familiar with.

The plan is to Win.

Friday, April 20, 2007

Sherwood Ross - Grade A Moron.

I just read some comments from Sherwood Ross, senior headcase, at CounterPunch. Sherwood's comments can be read here. The gist of his article is that no one has a right to grieve for the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Why? Because they were Americans and Americans are the problem. He then blathers on about America's so called gun culture followed up by dribble about America's wars of the past century (he even makes us the bad guy in WWII).

I could school this jackass all week about America's involvement in war and how we have held this world together but it would be like trying to drive a paneling nail into a Abrams tank. Aside from that what I would write might just turn out a book.

But the "gun culture" I can handle.

Let's start with the premise of the gun control crowd. Make guns illegal and there will be no gun crime. Let me ask this, If a person is intent on committing a crime (robbery, murder, rape et al) do you honestly think that that person will care that gun possession is illegal? The answer to that question is a resounding NO. That person will get a gun illegally.

The next point made by the anti-gun crowd is usually something along the line of, if we get rid of the illegal guns criminals will not be able to get them. Response: is cocaine illegal? Yes. Do criminals still manage to get cocaine? Yes.

Liberals cannot see this though. They cannot bring themselves to blame criminals for crime so instead they want to blame inanimate objects. They cannot come to grips with the facts. Here are the facts:
-Murder cannot be committed by anything other than a human being.
-Firearms are nothing but paperweights without someone to pull the trigger.
-People killed each other (and in much greater rates) before the invention of gun powder.

History dictates that before guns people killed each other with arrows, before that swords, before that sharp, pointy sticks, before that rocks and before that bare hands.

I've heard comments from the gun control lobby play the "what if" game. they say if guns were illegal the Virginia Tech shootings would not have happened. BS. If guns were illegal, Cho Seung-Hui would have found a gun on the black market, perhaps he would have brought a knife or a machete, regardless of how, he would have killed.

Allow me to give you a what if: What if every professor at that college carried a gun? What if every student carried a gun? Do you honestly think that Cho Seung-Hui would have been able to kill 32 people? Me neither.

Supreme Court uploads partial birth abortion ban

Earlier this week the Supreme Court upheld the legislation banning partial birth abortion. Naturally Liberals are livid by this decision. Over the week we have heard all the usual suspects yammering on about "women's health" and "women's rights" and so.

However, nowhere have seen these people call it as it is. Not once has anyone said, "This denies a woman the right to have a doctor reach into her, grab her unborn baby by the feet, pull it out up to his/her neck, jam a needle into the base of the babies skull, inject saline into the skull to 'loosen' all that brain matter before finally, using a vacuum cleaner to simultaneously suck the brains and collapse the skull."

For those of you that support this form of atrocity do not fret, rumor has it that your favored butchers are working on another form of late term abortion. In this method the baby is dismembered in the womb. Nice.

Here's the thing, the pro-abortion folks never want to talk about the baby. Anytime you talk to a pro-abortion zealot they will always talk about "rights" and "health" and "choice" as if someone is having a mole removed. But that is not it. They are removing and killing a human life.

Before signing off I can say to all the pro-abortion folks I've talked to, "YOU are the best person to make the case for abortion."

Sunday, April 15, 2007

What have some white boys NOT go to do to get some love?

After a more than one year long Liberal feeding frenzy, the three Duke (or Dukies for you Libro-Americans) lacrosse players have been cleared of all charges. Naturally, Liberals are miffed at this and have shown their disdain in various ways. And why should they not be upset? I mean afterall in the bizarro world that IS the Liberal mindset this was the perfect fairy tale story. A poor disadvantaged, black woman, forced to strip for a living because of social injustice raped by three rich, white, lacrosse playing, frat boys from Duke University (conveniently located in the South). I mean the only thing that could have made this more a Liberal wet dream would be if one of the accused was named Bush. There is one problem with the story, it wasn't true. At all.

For a year we were treated to guilty verdicts from the Libs all over the place from would-be John Edwards blogger Amanda Marcotte with this little gem, "Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?" To Mike Nifong's hooligan remarks. The thing to remember is that Liberals found these men guilty, with no trial, no evidence and an inconsistent story from the accuser. But now that the truth has been revealed the Libs are making all the efforts to find these men guilty of something or anything.

Our more "high-brow" Liberals in the media take the tact that these men may not be guilty of rape (like we've been saying for a year); but they are NOT innocent. That statement is followed by snippets about how the lacrosse players hired strippers, drank alcohol and allegedly said racial things to the strippers. The real award goes to Terry Moran who who lamented that if it were not for the fact that the players' families were able to afford good legal representation that they would have likely gone to prison. Oh great, if only their parents were a little poorer we could have sent these men to prison something didn't do, damn the luck.

For the lower brow Libs it breaks down to race and "class". You read plenty of "poor little white boys" remarks or "rich white boys will get on with their privileged lives" and so on. Bascially, it doesn't matter these men did not commit the crime but what does matter is that they have not suffered enough for being white, male, college students.

To the first I say this no one is truly innocent but we are talking about the law here. Is it illegal for men to hire strippers? The answer is no. Is it illegal to drink alcohol? No. Is it even illegal to call someone a racial slur. Morally disgusting but no. These men did not commit rape, they did not deserve to get indicted, they did not deserve the attempt at railroading that Nifong tried. But what they do deserve is for those papers that found them guilty to stand up and say, "These men are innocent."

To the second. Do these men not deserve equal protection of the law because they are white? Does due process not apply? Perhaps they are not even human and thus a year of derogatory and scathing indictments in the media do not matter? Go to any Lib blog. The Duke lacrosse players were not only guilty of "rape" but being white and "rich".

If we want a "color blind" society as so profess that color blindness has to work both ways.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

I, Democrat

Democrat Senator Carl Kruger is proposing legislation to ban people from using personal electronic devices while crossing the street. This is in response to two recent deaths in his district that involved people run over while listening to their iPods.

This is just another in a long line of proposals by Democrats to outlaw anything and everything that they deem dangerous. Sugar, fried chicken, cigarettes, SUVs, guns, coffee and the list goes on. Essentially, we need to be saved from ourselves because we are too stupid to take care of ourselves. It kind of reminds me of the Will Smith version of I, Robot. You know the robots want to take over and make us prisoners because the robots are charged with our protection. If we are imprisoned and kept basically as pets we can cause ourselves no harm.

Two things:

1. People die. All the time. All day, everyday. It's what we do on a regular basis. We do it in all kinds of unseemly ways. Part of what makes life precious is that we risk dying everyday. That's why we have to make it count. If every that could harm us were to disappear tomorrow the world would be a pretty dull place.

2. Democrats are proponents of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. So much so that they would supplant any and all religious teachings with this theory. A big part of the theory of evolution is the notion of natural selection. Briefly, natural selection dictates that animals that do not properly adapt to their environment die, and with them the genetic line that produces animals that cannot adapt. Members of the species continue to die off until one of two things happen, the species adapts as a whole or goes extinct. See Dinosaurs. The same applies to people.

So why is it that Democrats want to forsake one of the very ideals they hold dear? Is it that they have good intentions. Have they taken a play out of the book of Big Brother in 1984?

None of this matters. The question we should be asking is "Where will they stop?" Just in case, I call dibs on the handle "Bubble Boy".

Monday, February 05, 2007

Big offensive in Iraq announced...

...In plenty of time to allow the bad guys to melt away.

Believe me, I'm all happy that we are launching this big operation in Baghdad but would someone please tell me why we are announcing it? Is it me or is the military and its leaders over communicating just a little bit?

I have a problem with this for many reasons. The first being that announcing your offense, i.e. letting everyone know that it's going to happen removes one of the biggest deciding factors in battle, the element of surprise. I just read it this morning, so I'm sure the insurgency knew about it well before that.

So what can we expect? The leadership of the insurgency will hightail it out of there well before the shooting starts. They will leave behind of few of the standard issue, not so bright, fanatical shooters with the promise of martyrdom. Of course these pre-martyrs will end up on the slab, not before making sure some women and children can be placed in the line of fire for propaganda to be sure. But the fact that they know we are coming increases the risk to our soldiers.

Finally, there is this notion of feeding this to the media. Why does the US Military insist on trying to play nice with the same media that is intend on making them look as bad as possible? You can play ball only so long when the other team is constantly screwing you over.

Congratulations COLTs!

Indianapolis Colts take the Super Bowl.

I've never been much of a football fan but last night it felt different. It felt kind of like I and all other Hoosiers were a part of the win.