Local Houston Election Issues Guide

Hi folks,

I recently received this missive from a reader who is interested in the upcoming local elections:

"Hello, I am a local Houston conservative myself and enjoy reading your blog on occasion. I have a question for you: do you know of any local and/or state organizations that have a list of recommendations as to how conservatives should vote on the current and, for that matter, future elections? If so, I would appreciate that information. Also, if a site is available, I suggest you include a link to it on your site.

Thanks and regards,
John XXXXXXX"

Well John, I am slightly embarrassed to say that I am primarily a national political observer. I don't keep up with the local issues as well as perhaps I should, but I have found at least one source that has a rundown on most of the local election issues for Houston, KHOU TV's election coverage page. Not a Conservative source, but at least a source of some information.

Folks, John is correct. Local elections are where our government begins. We should all spend more time informing ourselves on local issues and candidates ( I know that I should).

As I told John in a separate e-mail, I just don't have the time to cover all things Conservative, but I am still looking for some more information. If any of you fellow Houstonians know of a Conservative sight with more local election recommendations, drop me a line as webmaster@houstonconservative.com or leave a comment to this article in the comments section and I will add a link on the right-hand column of my webpage.

Remember, voting is not just a privelege, it is a duty of all real citizens. It is what makes America function, and what will ultimately defeat those, like Hillary, who like this country so much that they want to turn it into a carbon copy of France.

Vote Local, think National and Remember, even a Liberal Republican is better than a Hillary Presidency. Don't make the mistake we made in November of 2006 when so many Conservative staid home that we gave Congress to the Democrats.

"Teaching the Party a lesson" is also known as "cutting of your nose to spite your face."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: Schools Can't Break Addiction to Higher Taxes

Last year, the Texas Legislature approved a school finance reform package that sought to buy down local property tax rates using the new business margins tax and part of the state's $14 billion budget surplus. However, a week from tomorrow, dozens of school districts will seek voter approval of tax rates that would intercept most of the intended property tax relief.

In this week's commentary, David Guenthner, Director of Media and Government Relations for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, debunks the notion that these exorbitant rate increases are necessary and illustrates how some school districts are using these elections to contrive a new school finance "crisis" and re-open the school finance litigation several years earlier than should be necessary.

This column was originally published in the Oct. 27 San Antonio Express-News.

---

Schools can’t break addiction to higher taxes

By David Guenthner

Remember the big school property tax cut you were supposed to get? Your local school district might be about to take it away.

Last year, the Legislature passed a plan that used the state’s new business tax and part of the state’s $14 billion budget surplus to buy down the property tax rates for day-to-day operations to $1.00.

But according to the San Antonio Express-News, at least 120 school districts have set elections that seek voter approval of much higher tax rates. Most of them, including five in the San Antonio area, seek authority to tax at $1.17, the maximum allowed under the new law. A Texas Education Agency spokesman predicted earlier this fall that “a large number” of school districts would tax at $1.17 within two years.

It would be one thing if the Texas economy was sinking and appraisal rolls were shrinking. But our economy remains red-hot, creating almost 800,000 new jobs in the last three years, and appraisals have skyrocketed.

And it wasn’t like the state didn’t give school districts access to additional money without a mammoth rate increase. The state gave all districts an additional $2,000 per teacher and $275 per high school student.

Additionally, as part of the new formula, the first four pennies of tax rate above $1.00 are “magic pennies.” For property rich districts, those pennies are not subject to Robin Hood. For property poor districts, the state gives them the highest guaranteed yield ever, making the revenue generated the same as if those districts were Austin ISD.

What would a $1.17 property tax rate mean for homeowners? In San Antonio’s Southside ISD, the average homeowner’s property tax cut would be whittled to a mere three dollars.

Many school districts are also using the tax cut as cover for massive school bond packages. Houston-area school districts have placed more than $3 billion in proposals on next month’s ballot. Another Southeast Texas school district proposes to increase its debt service tax rate by 17 cents.

The disingenuous part of these elections is that the school districts will try to convince you that they are cutting your taxes rather than increasing them.

In Prosper ISD, taxpayers are being told that approving the maximum tax rate would result in a tax rate 13 cents lower than last year’s. But the Legislature gave school districts enough money this year to cut property tax rates by 33 cents.

If your local school district’s proposed tax rate isn’t at least 33 cents lower than last year’s, your school district is pilfering your tax cut.

The education bureaucracy went to the Legislature in 2004 – and again in 2005 and 2006 – asking for close to $10 billion in new money with no strings attached and no increased expectations. When the Legislature finally passed a school finance reform plan last year that reduced property taxes, provided targeted funding increases, and resolved the state’s school finance lawsuits for at least the next several years, the bureaucracy suffered a rare loss.

Rather than finding operational and program improvements and working within the new law, the school bureaucracy intends to exploit its weaknesses, contrive a funding crisis, and pin the blame on the Legislature.

The faster that a large number of school districts can raise their tax rates to the new maximum, the sooner they can re-open the school finance lawsuits, force even more special sessions, and stake a claim to untold additional billions of your tax dollars.

The school bureaucracy’s disregard for the taxpayers underscores the need for the Legislature to enact a lower rollback threshold and automatic elections when school districts propose a tax rate that would increase spending above enrollment growth plus inflation.

In the meantime, the only silver lining is that taxpayers must approve all bond issues and any proposed operations rate above $1.04.

David Guenthner is Director of Media and Government Relations for the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Comment's on Liberals

These are mine, I made them up today for your enjoyment:
10/28/07

1. Liberals are the guys in school who never figured out that being in “special ed.” and riding on the “short bus” did not mean that they were the intellectual elite.



2. It isn’t that Liberals object to “McCarthyism” per say, only that he was going after the wrong people.
   
   Had he been a Democrat associate of Henry Wallace and Alger Hiss, pursuing “Neocons,” there would be a very strong “grass roots” movement among Liberals for Joseph McCarthy to be the fifth face on Mt. Rushmore.
   
   If he had included “Christian Conservatives” as well, his beatification among Democrats would be assured.



3. Scratch a Conservative and you will often find a Libertarian underneath, scratch a Liberal and you will often find dirt underneath your fingernails.



4. I believe that the phrase “a thinking Liberal” is an oxymoron, or is it, “a moron breathing oxygen a Liberal?”



5. The Liberal theme song: “If I ruled the world, everyday would be the 24th day of October 1917.” [The official date of the Bolshevik coup d'état in Russia (soon to be the Soviet Union)]



6. Why is it that Liberals are so dedicated to following the philosophy one of the Marx brothers (Karl), even if his writing was the most comical?



7. Q. Can you name all of the Marx brothers?
   A. Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Zeppo, Gummo, and Karl.

Concerning the change in the association of colors with the two parties; in 1984 the Republican Party was associated with Blue, the Democrat Party with Red. The map of the United States showing who voted Republican and who vote Democrat resulted in the map of Reagan’s landslide victory being called “Lake Reagan.”

8. The [New York] Times, which published its first color presidential election map in 2000, followed the networks, although Archie Tse, a graphics editor who made the choice, provided a different rationale:
   'Both Republican and red start with the letter R,' he said.
   
   So? Both Democrat and Dumb start with the Letter “D.”



9. Q. What year did the Networks decide to change the Democrat Party from red to blue?
   A. 2000 A.D.- the same year that they finally figured out what Conservatives meant by the phrase “Better dead than red.”



10. 2000 A.D. wasn’t that the same year the mainstream media decided to give Communism a makeover and rename it “the Democrat Party?”



11. Words we automatically associate ignorance beginning with the letter “D.”
    
    A. Daft
    B. Demented
    C. Dim
    D. Dense
    E. Dodo
    F. Doltish
    G. Dullard
    H. Dumb
    I. Dunce, and of course…
    J. Democrat
    
    
    
    

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Sunni Insurgent Group Drives Al Qaeda from Sammara

Oh my God! Can it get any worse for Osama bin Laden or his allies among the Democrats in Congress?

First the ground work. Al Qaeda is a group spawned from the Wahabi sect of the Sunni religion, therefore they are Sunnis; or as the United States Department of State defined them:

"a radical Sunni Muslim umbrella organization established to recruit young Muslims into the Afghani mujahideen and is aimed to establish Islamist states throughout the world, overthrow ‘un-Islamic regimes’, expel U.S. soldiers and Western influence from the Gulf, and capture Jerusalem as a Muslim city."

The State Department must have been using President Bush's lexicon when they wrote this..."un-Islamic?" I guess that is Bush-speak for "non-Islamic." Hey who am I to quibble with their choice of words? It only slightly bothers me that President Bush sounds a lot like Yogi Berra.

So what we are seeing is Iraqi Sunni's, without the help United States troops, or Iraqi Army troops, taking on and defeating elements of al Qaeda in Iraq. Note that among those killed were two non-Iraqi Arabs (in other words outside agitators) and an Iranian...imagine that, an Iranian. Who could have guessed?

Here's the Reuters article:

Iraqi insurgents' clash with Qaeda kills 16

Sat Oct 27, 10:14 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A battle between al Qaeda in Iraq and a major Sunni Arab insurgent group killed at least 16 militants on Friday near the ancient city of Samarra, a senior security officer told Reuters on Saturday.

The fighting involved the Islamic Army, a nationalist group that has been hostile to al Qaeda since June and has fought the Sunni Islamist group in areas of Baghdad and some Sunni towns.

A security source in Salahuddin province, speaking on condition of anonymity, said two non-Iraqi Arabs and an Iranian were among those killed in the battle.

"The clashes ended yesterday with militants from the Islamic Army taking control of the area," he said. The area had been controlled by al Qaeda for months.

"No Iraqi or U.S. forces intervened in the battle," he said.

This has got to worry old Harry Reid and his cadre of pro-terrorist cheerleaders in the Democrat Party. No wonder their voices are getting more strident, the biggest election issue they have had, failure to achieve our goals in Iraq, is evaporating right in front of them.

This blows the Democat's entire election plan for 2008 right out the door. How can you declare President Bush's policy a failure when it is bearing fruit right before your very eyes? The Democrats have been betting very heavily on our losing the war in Iraq. Before President Bush's troop surge even got going, old "Snively Whiplash" Reid was declaring it a failure and now suddenly we are seeing Sunni tribesmen attacking an al Qaeda strong-hold and taking back an area which had been under al Qaeda control for "months."

None of this comes as a surprise to me; we have been hearing the ground-swell for some time now. Sunnis, liberated by our offensive from their fears of reprisal by terrorists, are beginning to flock to the Iraqi government's side, and fight back against the real foreign oppressors, the al Qaeda terrorists and their allies.

We are not close to the end of this Iraqi war for freedom, but this is a sure and certain sign that we are beginning to make headway. There remain a lot of difficult political and economic issues to be settled, but at least the Suunis are joining in the fight and at least on the local level are assisting American troops and Iraqi troops rather than trying to kill them.

We still have a long way to go to get to a stable, self-sustaining, Iraqi state fully capable of defending itself from outside enemies, but this is another big step towards, rather than away from, progress.

You can bet that the Democrat nay-sayers are squirming in their seats at this news. The more successful the President's new policy in Iraq becomes the less comfortable the Democrats will be. Commensurate with that, the less Iraq war stories will be featured on the front pages of the Paleo-media (the Times and the Post) and the mainstream media (CNN and the alphabet networks). They will attempt to play down this good news, but they cannot silence those of us out here in the neo-media.

The gamble the Democrats made long ago in basing their election policies on our failure in Iraq, of which they have been so certain and into which they have been putting so much effort for short term political advantage, is about to explode in their faces.

Look for more stories about Global Warming, Universal Healthcare, and Racism coming to an "oldspaper" near you.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: Facts Show Electric Deregulation a Clear Success

The Texas electricity market has come under intense scrutiny during the last couple of years, as legislators and the media look at a single statistic -- average price per kilowatt/hour -- and judge the state's steps toward electric competition to be a failure. But Bill Peacock, Director of the Foundation's Center for Economic Freedom, argues in this week's commentary that important context is being ignored and that a refusal to acknowledge the market's successes could deprive Texas consumers of the benefits from electric choice.

---

Facts Show Electric Deregulation a Clear Success

So Why Don’t More People Recognize This?

By Bill Peacock

Galileo, the 17^th Century Italian astronomer whom Albert Einstein called the father of modern science, was willing to change his views based on observation. For this, he was forced to spend the last years of his life under house arrest by those who refused to believe the sun was at the center of the solar system.

Today, there are far too few people willing to follow Galileo when it comes to observing the Texas electric market. Though the facts clearly point to the success of deregulation in this market, the geocentric crowd remains convinced that consumer choice is a bad idea.

Why is this?

In some cases, it could be that people are misinformed. For instance, a recent article in the Houston Chronicle incorrectly identified markets such as Austin, San Antonio, and the Pedernales Cooperative as being regulated. In fact, markets served by cooperative and municipal electric companies have for years been the most deregulated in the state. If anything, the lower rates charged in these areas are proof positive of the long-term benefits of deregulation.

Another reason could be misperception. One legislator recently repeated the oft-made claim that while deregulation has worked well in the industrial and commercial markets, it has not done a good job in the residential market.

Again, observations tell a different story. Back in 2000, before deregulation, residential consumers paid 23.77 percent and 88.18 percent more for electricity, respectively, than commercial and industrial customers. Today, the ratio between residential and commercial customers is almost identical, while the gap between residential and industrial customers has narrowed to 62.47 percent.

The complexity of the regulatory system could also limit the ability of some to make accurate observations. The claim is often made that only deregulation exposes customers to the full impact of increases in natural gas prices. However, regulated systems always pass on fuel costs (and savings) to consumers—they just do so inefficiently.

Electricity prices in the efficient Texas market increased faster than in regulated markets when natural gas prices rose. In the last year, however, Texas prices have dropped 5.37 percent while the national average has increased 0.82 percent. Our comparatively inefficient neighbors in Oklahoma and Louisiana have seen prices increase by about five percent. As Texans enjoy the cost savings of deregulation, consumers in regulated markets will be paying for past higher natural gas prices in the years to come.

Finally, as with Galileo’s persecutors, old belief systems just die hard for some. How else can we explain the persistent but false perception that Texans are significantly worse off than the rest of the country?

It is true that the average price in Texas—12.51 cents per kWh—is about 13 percent higher than the national average. But the gap is closing as we recover from the price shocks associated with natural gas. And our prices are far better than in states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, California, and New York, where average rates run from 15 to 18.33 cents per kWh.

Furthermore, the re-regulators entirely ignore the benefits of a reliable supply of electricity. Deregulation brought a construction boom in electric generation plants to Texas, resulting in unsurpassed reliability. Yes, reliability comes at a cost, but one that Texas consumers have voluntarily paid to avoid California- and New York-style blackouts.

The facts are there for all to see. Let’s hope that more people start paying attention to them so that Texas consumers do not lose the nation’s most consumer-friendly electric market and get placed back under the lock and key of regulation.

Bill Peacock is Director for the Center for Economic Freedom with the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. He may be reached at bpeacock@texaspolicy.com.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The AARP Alternative American Seniors Association (No Longer NASCON)

Updated by

Will Malven
7/28/2009

Well I have visited the ASA website, and it appears that they remain a viable alternative to the very Liberal AARP.

I have added a new commentary on AARP, ASA, and Obama care here.

Will Malven
6/24/2008

I've noticed that a lot of people have been visiting my website in search of NASCON, the AARP alternative organization that was established some two or three years ago, and to which I have maintained a link (now non-working).

I am glad to say that I tracked them down and they have changed their name from NASCON to ASA, American Seniors Association.

From their website, http://www.americanseniors.org/ you can find out about all of the benefits they offer. Perscription benefits, Medicare Plans, Insurance Products and more. For those of you tired of the AARP working for the Democrat Party, you now have an alternative with a Conservative friendly agenda.

As they say on their website, "Now You Have A Choice."

Here is their latest news bulletin:

American Seniors Association Denounces Democrats for Slashing Medicare, Raising Taxes to Expand Government-Run Health Care

ASA: “Pelosi Power Grab Pits Children Against Grandparents, Fosters Intergenerational Warfare, and Ushers in Hillary Care 2.O”

The American Seniors Association, a grassroots advocacy organization for American seniors, today denounced the Democratic-led House of Representatives for passing a massive expansion of the S-CHIP program for children that included a massive tax increase and slashed funding for Medicare Advantage by $157 billion. The legislation was a top priority for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

“The Pelosi power grab is nothing more than Hillary Care 2.0,” said Jerry Barton, founder of ASA, which has 40,000 members nationwide and is the fastest-growing seniors organization in the country. “It takes a health care program created by Republicans that was intended for low-income children and extends it to families making up to $82,000 a year. It slashes Medicare funding by $157 billion. It limits health care choices for millions of senior. This is anti-senior and anti-taxpayer and we’ll oppose this big government health care scheme with all our energy and effort.”

An estimated 90 percent of children in families earning between 300% and 400% above the poverty level are already covered by private health insurance. Yet the Democratic House plan would remove these children from private health plans and put them in a government welfare bureaucracy---and slash managed care programs for seniors to pay for it.

“This big-government health care scheme pits children against their grandparents and fosters intergenerational warfare,” charged Barton. “It is clear that Democrats in Congress plan to finance government-run universal health care on the backs of America ’s seniors.”

Barton vowed to educate American seniors on the consequences of the legislation and inform millions of seniors on how their member of Congress voted. American Seniors Association is a grassroots organization that advocates sound public policy on behalf of American seniors through lower taxes, Medicare and Social Security reform, and fiscal responsibility.

As you can tell these folks have the right agenda for those who believe in good government, not big government. If you have been searching for an alternative to the anti-American, Democratic Party shill group euphemistically calling themselves "the American Association for Retired People," you have now found it.

I have no relationship with this organization, except my agreement with their rejection of the Democrat Party campaign for a "nanny state."

I will be placing a new link, with the proper website on the Right-hand column of my webpage so that you will now be able to find them easily anytime you wish.

Down with AARP, Up with American values and the ASA!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Pete Stark Forced to Apologize for His Uncalled For Personal Attack Against the Troops and Our President

As they say, "Payback's a hard dollar" ain't it Pete baby.

This should have been an easy vote for censure...just as Harry Reid's personal attack against an individual citizen-Rush Limbaugh-from the floor of the Senate should have been an easy vote for censure...just as Tom "the Fake War Hero" Harkin's personal attack against Rush Limbaugh should have been an easy vote for censure, but of course Democrats talk a good "ethics" game, they don't live up to their billing.

So, all this life-long, hateful, Liberal Democrat gets is a slap on the wrist. A public apology is nothing. Any real man would have done so without having to be forced by his party's leadership, but then Pete Stark is not a real man or he wouldn't have made such a hateful comment in the first place.

Stark Apologizes for Saying Troop Deaths Amuse Bush (Update1)
By Nicholas Johnston

Oct. 23 (Bloomberg) -- Democratic Representative Pete Stark of California apologized today for saying last week that U.S. troops were being killed in Iraq "for the president's amusement.''

"I want to apologize first of all to my colleagues, many of whom I have offended, to the president and his family, to the troops,'' Stark said on the House floor after lawmakers voted 196-173 to reject a Republican measure calling for his censure.

During the Oct. 18 debate on a measure to expand a children's health insurance program, Stark said Republicans won't spend more money on health care but will spend it on an `"llegal war in Iraq.''

"You're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement,'' Stark, 75, said last week.

It would appear that there are very few "real men" in the Democrat Leadership. Certainly Harry "Snively Whiplash" Reid's disgraceful conduct is not that of a man of genuine integrity. As for Tom Harkin's uncalled for personal insult and attack...that from a man who lied about being a Vietnam Vet, and war hero...well he's just a low-life, unworthy of any further comment.

Democrats seem to be quite low on the ethics and proper personal behavior scale. I won't even mention Hillary's unseemly abuses (that's multiple abuses folks) of the campaign finance rules...oops I just did mention it...shame on me.

The highest tenet of the Democrat Party these days seems to be somewhat Machiavellian, "the end justifies the means," and the end they seek is political power. Above and beyond anything else, the Democrats believe that it is their destiny to rule this nation, and the devil take the hindmost (that's you and I).

So to Pete Stark I simply say "Get a spine and stop you girlish crying." Oh yes, he was crying in the corner after making his apology and all his cohorts, who really agreed with him and only forced him to apologize for the good of the Party, not out of any sense of dignity or moral outrage were surrounding him and consoling him for having to stand up and be the man he should have been already.

What a weak bunch of amoral cowards those Congressional Democrats are. I wouldn't give a fig for any of them but Joe Lieberman and they kicked him out of their party for being a man and telling "truth to power" as the Democrats like to say (that's Liberal Democrat power).

Oh yeah, and if you want a real belly-laugh, you should go visit the moonbats at democratunderground.com:

Wow, just wow. They *MADE* Stark apologize. I am really not liking the leadership of the party now

and dailyKos.com

What Comes After Outrage?

The comments are hysterical...and pitiful...spiteful. How can people live with so much hatred? I can't even begin to fathom that kind of hatred.

[Soapbox alert!] I don't hate any Democrats. I may hate their works and what they believe in, but never the person. Sure I may call them comical or what I deem appropriatly rude names, some of them quite rude, I may at times even allow my anger to slip through into my writing, but hatred? Never! How can you hate someone you've never met? How can you hate a fellow human being? How can you value your own personal opinions and political philosophy over one of your fellow humans.

That, I believe, is the fundamental difference between Liberals and Conservatives...Liberals who thrive on emotion seem to hate those with whom they disagree...Conservative rarely hate those with whom they disagree because it wouldn't be reasonable...it serves no purpose except to destroy one's self. Hatred such as I see on those webpages eats at one's soul. It eclipses that which we all hold in common, our humanity. [I'll get off my soapbox now...sorry folks]

Up Joe Lieberman, Down Pete Stark!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Oh yeah, I forgot to say...Na, na, na, na, na, na...up yours Petey!:)

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

I Almost Forgot...Congratulations Governor Jindal

Yep folks, you read it right. Bobby Jindal won the Governor's race in that bastion of Democrat Governance (the state government that gave us the Katrina disaster-with the help of the mayor of "Chocolate Town-Ray Naygin). Ain't it just wonderful?

My home state, Louisiana actually has returned to some degree of sanity and elected a Republican Governor. Getting rid of Kathleen Blanco the incompetent Deomcrat governor who refused to activate the Louisiana National Guard when President Bush requested it, has been dumped.

Ooh-lah cher, I bet dem folk down dere in Mamoo and Morgan City country be some hot. I gaa-rontee you dat. Dey been Democrats fo' long time now, dat fo' sho.

Well, I'm from North Louisiana which has always been more Republican and all I can say is it's about time. Kathleen Blanco grossly mishandled her number one obligation, to protect the people of her state, as I pointed out at the time in my articleBlanco's Territorial Imperative. Remember that article? Just the same as Ray Nagin did when he sent all those folks to the Superdome and left them stranded while he flew off to DFW.

Remember all those buses he allowed to get flooded? Here's a picture just to remind you Democrats who are now crying in your beers:

and here's another picture of them just a friendly little reminder for all you Democrats out there:

Please be sure and notice just how close to the Superdome that second group of buses was.

The really astounding thing is that one little teenage boy, Jabbar Gibson. was more concerned about his fellow citizens than was the Mayor of "Chocolate Town."



Jabbar's story was detailed by Rick Casey of the Houston Chronicle as I posted in this pick-up:
Hurricane Katrina's First Public Civilian Hero

The only question remaining is why the Democrats in New Orleans were gullible enough to re-elect a cowardly incompetent like Nagin...I guess Ann Coulter is right again, If They had Brains They'd be Republicans...and they'd vote that way too.

Heck, they should have elected Jabbar Gibson, at least he had the guts and wisdom to know what to do.

Well I'm not proud of my home state a lot of times, they have a really checkered past as far as ethics in government (if that's not an oxymoron). Huey P. Long, Earl Long, Jimmie Davis (who built the first "Bridge to Nowhere"), and of course the wonderfully outrageous Edwin Edwards...my personal favorite...not a very good record.

Anyway, congratulations to Bobby Jindal. Hope you can turn things around down there, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Going where saner men fear to tread

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Pete Stark (D-CA) blows his lid

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Surely a Parody Website-OpEdNews.com

I have recently diverted myself from my usual visits to the Liberal websites, dailyKos.com and democraticunderground.com to spend a little time catching up with some other Liberal moonbats at a website absurdly and incorrectly named "OpEdNews.com." [Op-Ed is an Americanism derived from articles written on the facing page, or "opposite" page from those written by the newspaper's own editorial staff. They quite frequently (but not necessarily) express view opposing those of the editors.]

Surely, this website has got to be a parody site. The articles posted there are so obscenely self-congratulatory and so arrogant in tone; so far to the Left, and so divorced from reality that I can find no other explanation other than the authors intend to amuse their readers by parodying the far Left. The sad part is I fear that I am wrong and that these "writers" are actually serious.

First let me say that I was led to this website by one Steve Leser, a frequent contributor to dailyKos.com, democraticunderground.com, and of course OpEdNews.com following recent comments left on my webpage concerning my use of his "diary" entry on dailyKos titled:

"Ahmadinejad and his Columbia University Visit – All Happened as it Should"

Which I chose, entirely at random, to illustrate the naiveté of the Left and the way in which they view the world and events happening around them I titled "Ahmadinejad's Columbia Appearance Reveals the Astounding Naivete of Liberals ."

Out of a 2300 word blog containing four extended excerpts from three different sources and four different articles, Mr. Leser chose to focus on one "stage whisper" comment I made about Conservatives not being allowed to express their views as freely as Mr. Ahmadinejad. Here is the offending paragraph upon which Mr. Leser based his attack:

"In some ways Mr. Leser is correct. It is a tradition for universities to allow disparate views to be expressed (unless one is a conservative American political pundit) so that students receive the broadest and best understanding of the world in general, and to trust their reasoning ability to discern the true from the false and the good from the bad."[I've added emphasis to the offending phrase]

And here is Mr. Leser's complete initial comment:

Steven Leser said...
Interesting that in one of your comments, you suggest that conservative pundits are not offered opportunities to speak at American colleges and Universities. Ann Coulter has a ton of appearances at colleges and universities all around the country. I think the appearance fees she derives from college appearances are a significant portion of her income.

Such offhanded comments are typical of the errors in fact and judgement of most conservative pundits, commentators and bloggers. Who needs "Liberal naivete" when conservative 'facts' thoughtlessly hurled about are so often just plain WRONG.

From this simple beginning came a dialogue, which may yet continue, concerning my comments on his naivete in making the assertions he made and the general lack of grasp of reality that Liberal have when making their observations about the world around them.

As is typical of all Liberal arguments, it was completely off target and an attempt to divert attention from the fundamental truths being discussed about the Liberal mentality.

However, the gift that Mr. Leser inadvertently gave me was a pathway to a Liberal "Never, Never Land," that is truly quite remarkable. Mr. Leser assured me that this was the land of diverse viewpoints. Quite to the contrary, all I have found there is a bewildering array of bizzare Leftist thinking and an orgy of egoism the likes of which one rarely sees.

We are greeted by such noted(?) luminaries as "Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo" (note the author's humility). His self-authored biography-

"Professor Bagnolo is a Renaissance man: Cultural Anthropologist, Architectural designer, painter, writer, novelist, theologian. As a child prodigy, abed with polio for almost two years, with an off the charts IQ [I notice he fails to say which end of the charts...the short bus end perhaps?], reading at the graduate level by 5th grade, offered an opportunity to skip three grades at age 8.
Later He was a recipient of an Art Institute scholarship at age 11, a Ford Foundation Fellowship in Anthropology and in Painting and a merit scholarship in art, and was appointed a Graduate Research Assistant position in college. He holds a triple bachelor's degree in Painting and Drawing, Anthropology, Architectural Design Advertising. MA's in Cultural Anthro, Painting and more.
After being tenured he taught; architecture, anthropology, Theology, advertising, painting and drawing, entrepreneuring and Creative Profit Making. He produced a star-studded Music festival, had a radio talk show in Chicago, and cable TV show. Now, retired from Teaching, he paints, writes, and pursues other ventures."

I fear his writing fails to live up to his billing. It is exceptional only in its mediocrity both of reasoning and of use of pedestrian Liberal argumentation. He may be a Professor Emeritus, but he doesn't even know how to spell "vice versa."

Here is an example of his profundity:

September 27, 2007 at 21:44:17

Is It Bush's Fault That Racists In Baseball Are Flooding Politics In America, Or Is It Visa [sic] Versa?

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo
©2006

Evil manifests it self in strange ways-it seeps into our loves, our games, our weaknesses and soon the land, like Camelot in symbiosis with its leaders rots before our eyes, but those with ears hear and those with eyes see, and the rest, simply don't get it and it all goes to Hell in no hand-basket. here is the story of such an even that destroyed what it took 4.5 billion years to build, for the lust of god, black gold by a handful of demoniacs on the greed, bigotry and Culture of Death of the few which grew into the many after the Hun was killed in his bunker, his evil sprit entered the
bodies of several families and now swarms amidst the rotting, dying, land of once milk and honey, like Camelot, dying slowly, but there is no Arthur or Percival or Lancelot to save us and Excalibur lies broken in the Lake where the Lady of that Lake is trying to mend it, and God that she will have success! [Is this an unsourced quote or just some meanderings of a man on drugs?]

I am certainly no San Diego fan, but I had some time and just happened to stumble onto the game in which, a short time later the Runge, Winters, Bradley affair took place.

It all began when plate umpire Brian Runge asked Bradley if he had flipped his bat toward Runge's direction after being called out on strikes ending the fifth inning and that Winter's told him that Bradley had done so.

Moments later after he singled Bradley, asked Winter's if he told Runge that he threw his bat and Winter's answer escalated the event, adding insult before injury, called Bradley a "...piece of shit..." First base coach Bobby Meacham San Diego manager Bud Black said Winter's used profanity. Bradley said it was, "the most unprofessional and most ridiculous thing I've ever seen."

It was clear even to my 10-year-old neighbor who was watching the game next door with his dad, how the affair began. Although no one else mentioned it, it was the seed planting, provocative conversation point made by home plate umpire Brian Runge that initiated the problem. He should have known better than to listen to gossip and to bring the matter to Bradley's attention-his action was stupid, and unethical, it was also an indication of the attitude of MLB umpires who think that millions come to games to watch them play Pope and judge, but act more like pompous hypocrites. I recognized immediately that Bradley was the dupe in a three-way attempt to nail him. I think Runge should share the blame and whether or not the entire thing was a case of Pecksniffian, Judgmentalism or a trap, racially motivated mean spirited, vengeance, or merely a case of stupidity, I do not know.

However, my panoply of reasons quickly boiled down to one as I began to read the myriad comments on various website by those who either never saw anything but the carefully edited video-short beginning and focusing on Bradley's seeming tantrum, ignoring what may have led to his rightful anger, or was racially motivated. Reading the comments and replies one could only come to once conclusion the vast majority of those writing were either uneducated boobs, or racists, and many seemed either adolescents or grown-ups with adolescent minds, if any. The more I read of the comments, the more racism, intolerance, and bitter hatred, even in the cases of those whose language supported that they were awfully young. Pre and post adolescent racism is and always has multiplied under conservative administrations, but for the time and place was never worse than right now and the past, near, six years.

Wow, what an intuitive leap of logic! From baseball "rhubarb" to racist adolescence being multiplied under conservative administrations; talk about a "left-fielder..."

Like Liberals in general, all who don't see the world as they see it are immediately reduced to "uneducated boobs, or racists." All of that from a few comments left on a video cut of the incident. Now admittedly I have not visited whatever site to which Mr...Oh excuse me, "Professor Emeritus Bagnolo" is referring, but I do understand the dangers of making a psychological evaluation by proxy. He goes on to relate all this "racism" to the desire of some to place an asterisk along side the home run record of Barry Bonds, who as shocking as it may be to some, happens to be a black man.

I would only ask "Professor Emeritus Bagnolo" if it was racism as well when the baseball commissioner placed an asterisk (now ignored) beside Roger Maris' record 61 homeruns in a season because he achieved his amazing feat in playing 161 games out of 163 rather than the 151 out of 155 that the "Babe" played. Clearly a case of racism...oh wait...Maris was white, not black.

Thus is the level of intellect to be found on the "OpEdNews.com" website. More to come later, as there is plenty of fodder for ridicule on this wonderful tin-hat website.

Long Live Our American Republic!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Joe Wilson and Richard Armitage Maybe Guilty of Violating the National Securities Act By Outing Plame

Okay folks. If I was gullible enough to believe this story from CBS, the network which ran with Bill Burkett's faked up memo about President Bush failing to fulfill his Air National Guard duties; the network which employed Dan "The Liar" Rather for 20 some-odd years; and if I was to believe Raw Story and if I was to believe Valerie Plame Wilson, a proven liar; a woman who committed perjury during her testimony before a Congressional investigating committee, then it appears to me that there is actionable criminal behavior in the so-called "outing" of Valerie Plame. Problem is that we all know that it was both Joseph Wilson, himself and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage who committed the crime, and not anyone in the White House.

So...it's time for the Attorney General's office to begin an investigation of Joseph Wilson and Richard Armitage on charges they violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

CBS confirms 2006 Raw Story scoop: Plame's job was to keep nukes from Iran

Muriel Kane and Dave Edwards
Published: Saturday October 20, 2007

CBS News has confirmed, in advance of a 60 Minutes interview with outed CIA agent Valerie Plame to be run this Sunday, that Plame "was involved in operations to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."

"Our mission was to make sure that the bad guys, basically, did not get nuclear weapons," Plame told 60 Minutes. Plame also indicated that her outing in 2003 had caused grave damage to CIA operations, saying, "All the intelligence services in the world were running my name through their databases" to see where she had gone and who she had met with.

RAW STORY first revealed Plame's Iran mission and the damage done to CIA operations by her outing in a February 13, 2006 story by Raw investigative editor Larisa Alexandrovna, titled "Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say." In that article, Alexandrovna wrote:

According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

Speaking under strict confidentiality, intelligence officials revealed heretofore unreported elements of Plame's work. Their accounts suggest that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program. ...

Intelligence sources would not identify the specifics of Plame's work. They did, however, tell RAW STORY that her outing resulted in "severe" damage to her team and significantly hampered the CIA's ability to monitor nuclear proliferation. ...

The individual in the CIA responsible for initiating the investigation into what became known as "Plamegate" was Stanley Moskowitz, CIA Director of Congressional Affairs.

In his January 30, 2004 letter to Rep. John Conyers, Jr., (D-MI) who had queried the Director of Central Intelligence in an earlier letter of September 29, 2003, "regarding any contacts the... Agency (CIA) has had with the Department of Justice (DoJ) to request an investigation into the disclosure earlier that year of the identity of an employee operating under cover [Valerie E. Wilson, aka Valerie Plame]," he writes that, after an internal inquiry into the matter, the CIA made a referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for investigation of "possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information."

[From Wikipedia]

Just an observation...and question:

How curious. Why would he contact Conyers, the ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee rather than the Republican Chairman of the Committee? Is it possible that Mr. Moskowitz was sympathetic to Conyers' call for impeachment and had a personal agenda against President Bush?

Anyway, we know for a fact that Armitage was Novak's source for the information,yet he was basically ignored during the investigation of the White House and "Scooter" Libby. We also know as I cited in my article linked to above, that Wilson had already "outed" his wife to Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times well before the Novak article was even written, yet again there has been no investigation of Joseph Wilson for criminal behavior.

Bob Woodward knew Valerie Plame's identity, again from Richard Armitage, a month before Novak's article and before Wilsons New York Times Tale of Lies, "What I Didn't Find in Africa", published in The New York Times on July 6, 2003.

On February 12, 2007, Woodward testified in "Scooter" Libby's trial as a defense witness. While on the witness stand, an audiotape was played for the jury that contained the interview between Armitage and Woodward in which Plame was discussed. The following exchange is heard on the tape:

“WOODWARD: But it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency. I mean that's just —
ARMITAGE: His wife works in the agency.
WOODWARD: Why doesn't that come out? Why does —
ARMITAGE: Everyone knows it.
WOODWARD: — that have to be a big secret? Everyone knows.
ARMITAGE: Yeah. And I know Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off because he was designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So, he's all pissed off.
WOODWARD: But why would they send him?
ARMITAGE: Because his wife's a [expletive] analyst at the agency.
WOODWARD: It's still weird.
ARMITAGE: It — It's perfect. This is what she does she is a WMD analyst out there.
WOODWARD: Oh she is.
ARMITAGE: Yeah.
WOODWARD: Oh, I see.
ARMITAGE: Yeah. See?
WOODWARD: Oh, she's the chief WMD?
ARMITAGE: No she isn't the chief, no.
WOODWARD: But high enough up that she can say, "Oh yeah, hubby will go."
ARMITAGE: Yeah, he knows Africa.
WOODWARD: Was she out there with him?
ARMITAGE: No.
WOODWARD: When he was ambassador?
ARMITAGE: Not to my knowledge. I don't know. I don't know if she was out there or not. But his wife is in the agency and is a WMD analyst. How about that [expletive]. [From Wikipedia]

So now we have this "new" allegation coming from the "Truth in Broadcasting Experts" at CBS. If-and I do mean if-there is any substance to these claims, then it would appear that Joe Wilson and Richard Armitage are responsible for much of the trouble we are having with Iran. By blowing Valerie Plame's cover, these two men, for Democrat Party political advantage, they have endangered Israeli and American lives and security.

Time for Joe Wilson to "pay the piper." Perhaps he can take "Scooter" Libby's place in prison.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

First Listen: Texas PolicyCast for 10/18/07

The latest edition of Texas PolicyCast is now available for preview on the TPPF website (www.TexasPolicy.com).

Over the last few years, Texas has been on the leading edge of a national debate on how best to meet the infrastructure needs of a growing population and economy. In many countries, the private sector has been given a prominent role in the development and management of major infrastructure projects. But in Texas, proposals for privately built and financed toll projects have met with vehement opposition. We look at these issues in the second part of our interview with Len Gilroy, senior policy analyst at the Reason Foundation and managing editor of the Reason Foundation's Privatization Watch newsletter.

We hope you enjoy this interview. You may also sign up for a free subscription to Texas Policycast on iTunes.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF commentary: Correct competition in corrections

Privately managed correctional facilities have come under heightened scrutiny as a result of the severe problems uncovered at a Texas Youth Commission contract detention center operated by the GEO Group. However, the problem with privatized corrections is not the result of privatization per se, but rather in the sole focus on cost-cutting in such contracts. In this week's commentary, Marc A. Levin, Director of the Foundation's Center for Effective Justice, argues that private correctional facilities can provide substantial benefits to the state if they are used as laboratories of innovation to develop and test new programs to increase educational and employment outcomes and reduce recidivism of offenders.

---

Correct Competition in Corrections

by Marc A. Levin

Albert Einstein’s observation that “in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity” could easily apply to the Texas Youth Commission.

Following a series of abuse scandals, the closure of a TYC contract detention center operated by the GEO Group prompted a Texas Senate hearing last week on the role of private operators in juvenile and adult corrections. Texas should not abandon the use of competition in corrections, but this is a promising opportunity to boldly restructure such outsourcing.

While the conditions at the GEO lockup were unsanitary, the sexual abuse cases at the core of this spring’s TYC scandal occurred almost entirely in government-operated facilities. Moreover, TYC spends $62,000 per year per youth on its own facilities, but its contract with GEO Group for this facility was $24,000 less. Of course, there’s no virtue in saving money if kids are being neglected, but the conditions could and should have been remedied for a cost far lower than that difference.

At the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, private adult prisons save taxpayers 10 to 15 percent and are contractually required to provide exactly the same product as TDCJ facilities – right down to the cell locks. However, that's not necessarily a good thing, as one-third of TDCJ offenders are re-incarcerated within three years of release. Similarly, the GEO Group provided the same re-socialization programming as TYC’s own facilities, and most likely had a recidivism rate equal to TYC's dreadful 52 percent.

The true promise of competition in corrections lies not in saving money while providing the same product as state-run prisons, but in harnessing the innovation of the private sector to develop programming that will reduce recidivism, since 99 percent of inmates are ultimately released.

The average Texas inmate has a sixth grade education and lacks vocational skills, both of which are highly correlated with returning to a life of crime. Future requests for proposal should not simply seek the lowest bidder, but combine a per diem with performance incentives based on the recidivism rate, the number of GEDs earned by inmates, demonstrated educational progress by inmates , and the amount of restitution and child support paid by inmates through earnings from on-site private industry work programs. Private operators would thus compete to come up with innovative programs that measurably reform offenders, reducing the crime rate and the future burden of incarceration on taxpayers.

Oversight of private facilities must also be restructured. TYC-employed monitors, seven of whom have since been fired, evidently failed for months to report the squalor at the GEO facility. Ordinarily, a corrections agency has an incentive to whitewash problems at all facilities because they reflect poorly on an agency’s oversight. However, the situation reverses when, as in the case of TYC, capacity is being reduced and the agency might want to safeguard its own budget, employees, and turf.

To avoid this kind of Jekyll and Hyde oversight, legislators should assign to the Texas Commission on Jail Standards the authority to monitor conditions at private lockups. The Commission effectively performs this function for county jails and would not face the conflicts inherent in simultaneously contracting and competing with the private operator.

Besides offering innovation and cost control if contracts are properly structured, privately operated facilities have several other advantages. First, they can be used as a stopgap measure for overflow while new prison diversion initiatives reduce the need for new prisons. State-run lockups are virtually impossible to close due to the jobs they create in those rural communities.

Private prisons also buffer against overly powerful prison guard unions. The state corrections employees union in California has made more than $10 million in political donations and sank Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's December 2006 plan for prison alternatives. As a result, California taxpayers will pay $7.4 billion for new prisons, while some guards make more than $100,000 a year.

Competition can work in corrections, but policymakers must think outside of the cell rather than trying to wring the last dollar of savings from replicating the state's cookie cutter corrections programs.

Marc A. Levin, Esq. is Director of the Center for Effective Justice at the Texas Public Policy Foundation (www.texaspolicy.com), a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. He can be reached at mlevin@texaspolicy.com.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF Policy Primer: Energy and the Environment-Economic Growth in the Face of the Challenges of Clean Air and Global Warming

Despite dramatic improvements in air quality in Texas over the last 30 years, ever-tightening “clean air” regulations continue to impose heavy costs on the Texas economy. On the horizon, potential regulation of CO2 could have a much greater impact on Texas’ economic growth, manufacturing, and energy production, despite the mounting body of evidence challenging the effectiveness of such regulations. This event will examine the environmental successes in Texas, the upcoming regulatory challenges we are facing, and what can be done to avoid imposing heavier regulatory costs on Texas businesses and consumers.

November 14th, 2007

Location:
Houston City Club
One City Club Drive
Houston TX 77046

11:00 to 12:30 - Panel Discussion

Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Joel Schwartz, American Enterprise Institute (invited)
Bill Peacock, Texas Public Policy Foundation

12:30 - Luncheon

Remarks: Brooke Rollins, Texas Public Policy Foundation
Keynote Address: Rep. Dennis Bonnen, Chairman of the House Environmental Regulation Committe

Price: $15.00 per person (complimentary for current donors)

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF expert to speak at Heritage Foundation

AUSTIN – Bill Peacock, Director of the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Center for Economic Freedom, will speak at the Heritage Foundation on Thursday, October 18^th.

The Heritage Foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute will convene experts and political leaders from around the country to discuss America’s fast changing property insurance environment. Particularly in the hurricane zone that stretches from Texas to South Carolina, homeowners have paid ever-higher homeowners’ insurance rates as government-backed insurance entities have grown ever larger.

This conference will focus on ways that the United States can retain a vibrant, private insurance industry that provides rationally priced insurance for everyone without placing an enormous burden on taxpayers. Mr. Peacock will share his research and assessment of the Texas property insurance market, especially related to windstorm coverage.

The conference will take place on Thursday, October 18^th between noon and 3 p.m. CDT. Mr. Peacock will present on the first panel, which is expected to begin around 12:40 p.m. The event will be webcast on the Heritage Foundation’s website, http://www.heritage.org/press/events/index.cfm.

WHAT: “Making Property Insurance More Affordable for Everyone: What Private Companies, State, Local and Federal Governments Should Do”

WHEN: Thursday, October 18, 2007
12:00 – 3:00 p.m. (CDT)

WHERE: The Heritage Foundation – Van Andel Center
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Liberal Bites Ass

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Environment for Enlightenment

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

If Thoughts were Horses...

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Felon Sandy Berger the "Burgler" is Back with the Clinton Machine

Well here's some news which falls under the, "Are you really surprised?" catagory.

Sandy Berger Is Unpaid Adviser to Sen. Hillary Clinton
FOX NEWS
Monday , October 08, 2007

WASHINGTON —

Sandy Berger, the former national security adviser to President Bill Clinton who was convicted after he stole and destroyed top secret documents, is now advising Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, FOX News confirms.

The New York Democrat's campaign downplayed the fact, saying Monday that Berger is an informal, unpaid adviser to the campaign. He has been a longtime friend of both Clintons.

"Sandy Berger is a longtime friend of the Clintons but he has no official role in the campaign," spokesman Blake Zeff said.

Aides to the campaign were unapologetic about Berger's advisory role, noting he is not a central figure but has valuable and welcome input that he is providing voluntarily.

The (Washington, D.C.) Examiner reported the connection Monday

The Clintons are sociopaths, what would you expect? For those of you who are Democrats and Liberals I will provide you the definition:

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
"sociopath [(soh-see-uh-path, soh-shee-uh-path)]

Someone whose social behavior is extremely abnormal. Sociopaths are interested only in their personal needs and desires, without concern for the effects of their behavior on others. (Compare psychopath.)"[Emphasis added]

So...given the fact that Hillary Clinton is a sociopath, why would she hesitate to hire a treasonous felon to advise her campaign for the Presidency.

One has to know if for no other reason that Sandy Berger knows all the dirt on the former Clinton administration. What better way to keep him quiet than to guarantee him a spot in the Hillary Clinton administration. Of course with the way in which the enemies of the Bill Clinton administration had a habit of dissappearing or dying under mysterious circumstances, she is probably not worried about Sandy Berger (speaking metaphorically) spilling his guts...probably because he knows that is precisely what would happen to him should he talk out of turn.

Where is the mainstream media on this story? Right where you would expect them to be; nowhere. It's not on CNN, it's not on MSNBC, it's not on CBS, it's not on ABC, it not in the Washington Post, it's not in the New York Times-Jazeerah, it's not...well you get the picture.

Another complete cover-up by the Left dominated press. Where is Media Matters on this story? They seem to be very concerned about corruption...that was a joke people. Hillary created Media Matters for America.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

3rd Party Conservatives-The Self-Righteous Guardians of the Right

Ever since Rudy Giuliani became a very real possibility as the Republican Nominee for President, I have been faced with a difficult decision. Whether to sacrifice some of my hard-core Conservative principles and support a man with whom I have very fundamental disagreements on core Conservative principles like gun-control legislation, the right to abortion on demand, and gay marriage, and vote for the Repbulican nominee, or to allow my own personal principles to endanger my fellow citizens and the nation which I so dearly love and defend.

I have made that choice based on that very last factor. I know what my ideal candidate would look like, but it is highly unlikely that I could carry my own neigborhood, let alone the national electorate.

We all have our own ideals which we would, were we dictator of the world, see instituted as law. I would make it mandatory for all free, law-abiding citizens to acquire, train in the use of, and carry openly, a firearm of sufficient caliber to defend themselves or their neighbors.

Such an idea would probably not sell very well in some areas of the nation where, unlike in the South, people have grown up in abject fear of firearms (and practically everything and everyone around them, like New York). Freedom does have its price, but apparently not everyone is willing to pay that price and I understand that.

Having stated that, I understand that some in this nation feel threatened by the possibility that their specific rights to keep and bear arms might be limited in some way or even assailed.

It doesn't particularly frighten me, because I will never yield my firearms to the government regardless of what they say. Why, because like the other many other rights which have not been enumerated in the Bill of Rights, the right to self-protection is a God given right and therefore the government has no right to take that from me which God has given me. So I don't fear my government...yet.

Now as to the subject of Rudy Giuliani and others who the self-appointed "Guardians of Light" (read Conservatism) are rebelling against, I only say that Rudy at his worst is better by several magnitudes than anyone the Left (Democrats) are offering up.

What follows is a portion of what one such self-righteous Guardian posted on the internet, on the website "Capitol Hill Coffee House" with a link to the entire article, followed by my e-mail in response.

When did Life, Liberty and Freedom Become an extreme Right-Wing Idea?
By JB Williams on (Oct 08, 07)

If the GOP isn’t a conservative party, there is no need for it…

So-called “right-wing conservatives” (the foundational base of the Republican Party) are prepared to grant Republican moderates who hijacked their party, their 2008 election wish.

You want a liberal? - We’ll give you one!

Almost every political pundit in America is asking if hard-headed “Christian conservatives” are really prepared to defect from their Republican Party in ’08 if they can’t get a conservative nominee from the RNC. But my question is; - when did respect for the “unalienable” right to Life, Liberty and Freedom, become an extreme right-wing ideal, held dear only by “Christian conservatives?”

Who told RINOs that Life, Liberty and Freedom are extreme ideas? Who told moderate Republicans that they belong to a secular socialist party? America already has a liberal party pushing secular socialist ideals in America. We don’t need two. Who is offering the nation a conservative alternative?

If not the Republican Party, then there is no need for the Republican Party.

And since when is the conservative “base” (foundation) of the Republican Party, just some “extreme wing” of the party?

Dear Mr. Williams,

A simple question deserves a simple answer. When it becomes a threat to the good of the nation. When such blind adherence to principle endangers the American people. It is a simple case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. A simple and realistic view of life.

At what point does principled conservatism degenerate into self-righteous pig-headedness? It’s a simple question with a simple answer. When the so-called “principled conservative” is willing to let the nation be victimized by a Stalinist/Marxist government simply because that conservative” is not getting his or her way.

America has always survived and prospered under Republican guidance whether RINO or Conservative. Nixon, by your standards was a RINO; Ford, by your standards was a RINO. Problem is, Reagan by your standards was also a RINO. You disagree? Look at his record. He was pro-gay rights and even made the battle against HIV/AIDS a part of the national agenda. He claimed to be pro-life, but he named Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court as a nod to the feminists [are you saying that was a conservative action]-he could hardly have done worse by “conservative” standards, His other appointment, Arthur Kennedy has been adequate at best [George W. Bush by contrast is not a Conservative, rather he is a moderate, but at least his Supreme Court Appointments, as well as his lower court appointments have, virtually without exception, proven to be superb]. Reagan pulled our troops out of Lebanon 6 months after the Marine barracks was bombed. Surely no “Conservative” would capitulate to terrorism.

America is almost always damaged beyond recovery by Liberal Democrats. From Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” we became partly socialist. From Johnson’s “Great Society” we became even more socialist and anti-life. Under Jimmy Carter, we gave away the Panama Canal and became the laughing stock of the world, and damn near became a unilateralist (nuclear disarmament) nation. Because of Clinton, we became the target and victim of a terrorist attack, and involved in a war which had zero to do with American security, and where we still have troops on duty.

Now you, Mr. Self-Righteous “Conservative,” would for the sake of your ego and your own definition of who or what is “Conservative” and “correct” for this nation, would endanger our national security. The primary obligation of our President and our federal government is to “secure our nation against all enemies foreign and domestic”. You would willingly turn control of this nation to a bunch of Marxists and Stalinists simply because you are not getting your way.

Any person who would willingly see his nation endangered for the sake of his own “principles” is by my definition a coward and a traitor; and a selfish one at that.

The current crop of Democrats in Congress and running for the Presidency are the most extreme in history. They are Marxist/Stalinist in philosophy and temperament. They do not care about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights except as they may see fit to apply it. They do not believe in freedom, they believe in control. They do not believe in capitalism, they believe in the complete and equal redistribution of wealth. All of the Democrat Presidential hopefuls from John Edwards to Barrack Hussein Obama, to Hillary Rodham Clinton would be willing to destroy our nation simply to instate a socialist system of government, and none of them would hesitate to strip you or any other American of whatever rights the saw fit to limit to achieve that end.

Do you really think that a House led by Nancy Pelosi or a Senate led by Harry Reid would stand in their way, or do you believe it more likely that they would be sympathetic to that aim. Are you really so naïve as to believe that there is no difference between Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney, or even John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

Your entire rant is a paean to self. Your self-righteous arguments ring far more of the tone of the self-loving, know it all, emotionalism of a Liberal than they do of rational Conservatism. So I will ask you a question in return.

When did it become patriotic to allow “Life, Liberty, and Freedom (it’s actually the Pursuit of Happiness, by the way) to be jeopardized by a tyrant simply because you are not happy with the choices being offered by the Republican Party. Do you really care more about the faithfulness to your own ideals than about the welfare of the nation and its people? Are you really that selfish?

Even Rudy, with his highly questionable stance on our inherent right to keep and bear arms, his repugnant stance on abortion, and his openness to gay marriage, even he, at his Liberal worst, would never sell the country down the road to socialism and Marxism. Even if he turns out to be the nightmare you self-appointed “Guardians of the Right” assume he is, he is yet a long, long way from the alternative.

I find it personally repugnant that anyone would contemplate allowing, either by their action or by their inaction, our nation to suffer the long term damage such a capitulation to Democrats would cause.

You claim to be a conservative, I believe you are a juvenile, emotional thinker who, like James Dobson, Richard Viguerie, and Patrick J. Buchannan is more interested in his own agenda than in the good of the nation.

The philosophy you are espousing is the philosophy espoused by freedom’s greatest enemies, “The end justifies the means.” It is the philosophy that one is willing to see the total destruction, or near total destruction, of his nation and his fellow citizens simply so that next time, assuming there will be a next time, the people will have “learned their lesson” and will vote the way you want them to. It is granting to the
voting masses a level of awareness and concern that may not exist.

In a nation in which more than half the population believe that the Jon Stewart show is a hard news program, you are expecting a level of rationality which probably doesn’t exist.

Sometime, Mr. Quixote...err...Williams, the perfect really is the enemy of the good enough for now.

Interesting that you allow no comments on your webpage, no contrary views to be expressed. Is that the sign of a courageous conservative, or is it the sign a closed-minded, self-righteous, self-appointed know-it-all? Reminds me of a Liberal.

Will Malven
the houston conservative

There is no greater threat to our nation and the interests of our citizens that those who appoint themselves the guardians of what is right for all. The standing effort by those such as James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, and Tim Lahaye, in seeking a third party candidate to oppose Rudy or Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney, is an intentional act of sabotage. It is an effort to make things turn out so bad for the people that they will change direction and move to the Right as apparently happened in the 1980 election.

The problem is, Ronald Reagan was a phenomenon of his time. As I stated above, even he could never reach the standards now being set by the self-appointed "Guardians of Truth." If there was a "Ronald Reagan in the offing, he would be making noise right now. We would not, in the Repbulican Party be desperately searching for him, he would already be here. Ronald Reagan was well known and respected in Conservative circles long before he stood for office. He gave the nominating speech for Barry Goldwater in 1964. He was governor of the most populous state in the nation for eight years.

If such a comparable Conservative icon exists right now, please someone point him out because I don't see him. I see lots of great Conservative politicians; men who impress me greatly, men like Jim Sessions and John Cornyn in the Senate; men like Dundan Hunter, Jeb Henserling, and John Culberson in the House, but I see no Ronald Reagans.

Ronald Reagan was a rarity, a man combining humor, compassion, vision, and strong Conservative ideals with an ability to reach out and touch the commonality we as American all feel.

I fear that until some one like him comes to the forefront, we may be faced, as we are today with choosing from a less than perfect lot. I am a Conservative. I will put my life-long Conservative advocacy and credentials up against those of any who care to challeng me, but I am not a fool, not will I betray the trust of my fellow citizens out of any sense of outrage at not being center-stage in the next Republican Convention. I will support the Republican Candidate whether it be Giuliani, Thompson, McCain, Romney, or perhaps Huckabee, not because he is a Republican, but because he is not the extreme Left-wing Stalinist/Marxist Democrat against whom he will be running.

I will support him because of what he is not, a threat to the freedoms and liberties of our nation. I will support him, whoever he is because he will not be, unlike our Democrat Party opponents, ignorant enough to repeatedly state that we live in a "Democracy" rather than a "Republic."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Truth is conveniently missing from global warming debate

On Monday, former Vice President Al Gore brought his "Inconvenient Truth" speaking tour to the Frank Erwin Center at the University of Texas at Austin. But no matter how many times he uttered his claim that "the debate is over" on man-made global warming, a sizable portion of the scientific community would beg to differ. In this week's commentary, Drew Thornley, a policy analyst in the Foundation's Center for Economic Freedom, notes the devastating effects on mankind if we make hasty and far-reaching policy decisions based on political pressure instead of solid science.

---

Truth is conveniently missing from global warming debate
By Drew Thornley

If the popular press is your source for climate science, you are probably terrified the end is near—moving as far inland as possible and staying inside to avoid heat stroke. You might be altering your lifestyle to combat the effects of carbon dioxide emissions. But if you look at the facts about “global warming,” the picture is not as bleak as it may seem.

Whenever anyone refuses to debate an issue and repeatedly asserts the “debate is over,” red flags should go up. Al Gore, who brought his man-made global warming message to Austin on October 1st, claims the debate is over. But as MIT Professor Richard Lindzen says, this is “a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition.”

Findings released in September reveal more than 500 scientists have published research findings refuting one or more elements of man-made global warming theory. The climate debate is anything but over.

However, even if human-created global warming were proved, there would still be no need for alarm. Gore and other global warming alarmists insist increased global temperatures are bad. On the contrary, a warmer earth would be a net benefit to us all.

Uninhabitable and inarable land could become suitable for living and farming. More carbon dioxide in the air means healthier plants and trees. Better agriculture raises living standards and reduces poverty.

Warmer temperatures reduce energy bills, as savings on heating costs are estimated to exceed added cooling costs. Additionally, cold causes twice as many deaths as heat, worldwide; seven times as many in Europe. Warming is positive and shouldn’t be feared.

However, even if we ignore all of the evidence and allow that man is causing harmful warming, carbon dioxide-reduction projects are still terrible investments. The European Union (a party to the Kyoto emissions treaty) spends vast amounts of money to curtail emissions, but, since 2000, the EU’s increase in emissions is almost double that of the United States (a non-Kyoto country). Even if all Kyoto-signees curb their emissions, those reductions will be offset by massive increases from non-Kyoto developing countries, like China and India.

At the Copenhagen Consensus Center, top-level economists (including four Nobel laureates) evaluated 17 global priorities, from an investment standpoint. The three climate initiatives claimed the bottom three spots, all categorized as “Bad Opportunities,” meaning “for each dollar spent, we would end up doing much less than a dollar worth of good for the world.”

Pumping vast sums of money into global warming makes no sense, when the same money could lead to actual solutions to genuine global problems, such as malnutrition, dangerous water and unsanitary living conditions, HIV/AIDS, and malaria.

Cutting emissions will negatively impact the reliable, efficient energy supply that has been, and continues to be, crucial to Texas’ economic growth. A booming energy market has opened the floodgates of economic prosperity here, and decreasing the energy supply or artificially raising its costs will harm all sectors of our economy.

Measures proposed by climate scaremongers to reduce carbon dioxide emissions threaten our economic prosperity. That reality, rather than the possibility of melting ice caps and rising sea levels, is a genuine cause for concern.

Drew Thornley is a policy analyst in the Center for Economic Freedom at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Bush Vetos SCHIP Expansion Bill: "Oh, the Humanity!"

Hoorah! Finally President Bush has used his Veto pen to block a huge expansion of the original SCHIP coverage which would include 3 million illegal aliens and middle class families earning as much as $85,000/year. In addition it would redefine the word children to include adults aged 25.

This is another case of Democrats playing games with the lives of poor children for political gain. The Democrat Party clearly would prefer to have a political issue than they would provide insurance coverage to those who truly need assistance. I can say this because Democrats knew that President Bush would veto the bill. He had already told them that this expansion of coverage to include those who are clearly in the middle class was unacceptable and would be vetoed.

They also refused a compromise version which President Bush would have been glad to sign. Therefore one can only conclude that they wanted this issue for political fodder than solve the problem.

Here is the New York Times-Jazeerah coverage:

Bush Vetoes Children’s Health Insurance Bill

By DAVID STOUT
Published: October 3, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 — President Bush vetoed the children’s health insurance bill today, as he had promised to do, setting the stage for more negotiations between the White House and Congress.

Mr. Bush wielded his pen with no fanfare just before leaving for a visit to Lancaster, Pa. The veto was only the fourth of Mr. Bush’s presidency.

“Because the Congress has chosen to send me a bill that moves our health care system in the wrong direction, I must veto it,” Mr. Bush said in his veto statement, adding that he hoped to work with the lawmakers “to produce a good bill that puts poorer children first.”

The bill was approved by Congress with unusual bipartisan support, as many Republicans who side with the president on almost everything else voted to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or Schip, from its current enrollment of about 6.6 million children to more than 10 million.

For Ted Kennedy to take to the Senate floor and claim the following when he still votes for abortion of the unborn, is an outrageous example of hypocrisy.

“Today we learned that the same president who is willing to throw away a half trillion dollars in Iraq is unwilling to spend a small fraction of that amount to bring health care to American children.”

Hey Teddy, first of all the President's primary obligation (as is yours) is the defense of the nation, something you have consistently voted against. Secondly, since when is an illegal alien an American? Last, since when is a 25 year old considered a "child?"

Then of course we have the wit and wisdom of John "the Gigolo" Kerry-Heinz who stated:

“Today with a single stroke of his veto pen, President Bush single-handedly jeopardized health care for millions of poor children.”

Hey John, he doesn't jeopardize nearly as many children as you and your pro-abortion friends kill every year.

Harry Reid that bastion of truth and integrity (and real estate) described the President's veto as "heartless" and showed just how “detached President Bush is from the priorities of the American people.” I guess the American people are far more interested in you expanding your ill-gotten wealth through "sweet-heart" real estate deals. Or maybe their more interested in your slandering of Rush Limbaugh from the Senate floor.

The SCHIP expansion was based on lies. It was to be financed by a cigarette tax. Of course this is a classic "sin-tax" which is the most regressive form of taxation. It disproportionately hits the poorest families. In addition to placing an additional tax-burden on those who can least afford it (the same people this program is supposed to be helping), the revenues from such a tax will be ever decreasing as people quit smoking because they cannot afford the habit, or because they will turn to the black market for cigarettes.

Like all Liberal programs this expansion is a poorly thought out "feel good" legislation which at best is a patch-work repair of a bad socialist program. If Democrats actually cared about providing health-care to all poor children they would pass a law making payments for insurance a direct tax deduction. This would bring millions of people into the private healthcare system rather than creating a huge bureaucracy and move us further in the direction of a Canadian type of single payer system.

Until Democrats stop supporting the murder of millions of unborn children every year in the form of abortion, they have absolutely no moral standing to criticize the President.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Speaking of Phony Soldiers, Hey Tom Harkin How Dare You!

Thanks to Michelle Malkin we are reminded of this event:

Fake war hero Tom Harkin smears Rush Limbaugh
By Michelle Malkin • October 1, 2007 04:46 PM

"...Is there any doubt that Tom Harkin is a MoveOn.org Democrat?

None. None at all.

Harkin attacking Rush Limbaugh on the Senate floor:

Well, I don’t know. Maybe he was just high on his drugs again. I don’t know whether he was or not. If so, he ought to let us know. But that shouldn’t be an excuse.

Why is Harkin counter-attacking so viciously?

Maybe this has something to do with it:

Instapundit flashback: TOM HARKIN, FAKE WAR HERO.

Hey Tom, you liar, haven't you ever heard the old saw "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?" Claiming to be a veteran of the Vietnam War when you are not is a lie. Not being satisfied by being caught in that lie, you then told a second lie...flying combat missions over Cuba, another lie.

How dare you sir? How dare you stand on the floor of the Senate, a self-confessed liar and proceed to tell a lie about Rush Limbaugh, and even worse to make a personal attack against his integrity.

It is time for Tom Harkin to leave the Senate. It is certainly time for him to be censured for his actions.

I thought I had seen pretty much every bad thing Democrats could do. After the Borking of Judge Bork and the attempted lynching of Supreme Justice Thomas, one would think that I would be beyond being shocked by anything Democrats could do, but this personal onslaught by Democrat Senators simply to draw attention away from the hateful libeling by MoveOn.org in calling General Petraeus "General Betray Us." I am simply flabergasted at the audacity and dishonesty. Joseph Stalin would be proud of you, Mr. Tom "The Phony Hero" Harkin."

Democrats are the lowest form of politician and the conduct of this current crop of Democrat members of Congress is the most dishonest and corrupt group I have ever seen in my life.

Harry Reid and Tom Harkin would have to stand on their tiptoes to kiss the soles of Richard Nixon's shoes.

If I was a Democrat today, I wouldn't have the guts to hold my head up out of embarrassment over this vile display.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Another Meaningless Poll From ABC/Washington Post

This nonsense just kills me, but you can bet that all of the news services will be touting the results of this (what amounts to a push poll) poll as further evidence that the Democrats are unbeatable in 2008.

We might as well take the questions one by one but here is the teaser from the WaPo:

Advantage Democrats?

On most top issues, Democrats hold advantages over President Bush and the Republicans in Congress. But declining congressional approval ratings and a widespread perception of inaction raise questions about how long their edge can hold.

The questions being asked in this poll are so leading and so absurd that they render the results meaningless.

First question: Do you think Congress should approve the $190 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year or reduce it?

• Approve all money - 27%
• No Opinion - 3%
• Approve no money - 3%
• Reduce somewhat - 43%
• Reduce Sharply - 23%

Like most polling questions, this one is just plain pointless. Why not ask, "Do you think Congress should approve $900 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?" I guarantee you that the result would be the same. People don't ever want to spend money on war, haven't a clue as to what it costs or what the money is spent on, and in a nation split virtually down the middle, the poll results show precisely that...in other words, nothing.

You have 3% who are absolutely clueless as to what planet they are on, it you add the ultra-rabid anti-war at any cost (3%) to the simply rabid anti-war response (23%) you get a total of 26%, just one percent lower than those who say approve all money - 27%. Then you have the "moderates" who are nearly as clueless as that first 3%, who feel all "icky" about war, haven't a clue as to how to handle the Iraq/Afghanistan situation and simply wish it would all go away so they could watch their football or hockey games without having to worry about Iraq at all.

They know they are against the war because they think that they are supposed to be against it, but deep inside they know that we cannot just walk away from our responsibilities, so they simply take the easiest path, the one most travelled. I suspect that these are also the same people who get their world news from Dave Letterman, Jay Leno, and Jon Stewart.

Question Two: Do you support or oppose increasing federal spending on children's health insurance by $35 billion over the next five years?

• Support - 72%
• Oppose - 25%
• No Opinion - 3%

Again an idiot's question which tells us nothing except that most people like "feel good legislation" even if they are clueless to the alternatives. This time you have the same 3% who still haven't figured out what day it is. Then you have 25% who are the only people who have a clue as to what the Constitution says and stands for, how this government was intended to run and what the purpose of government truly is. Last you have 72% who would have answered in the affirmative if the number had been $5 billion, or $50 billion.

They only know that it "feels" all unpleasant-like to think that there are children who don't have insurance (and though false, by implication, no medical care at all). These are the people who feel guilt ridden over their own prosperity, but not so guilt ridden that they are willing to shell out their own money in sufficient amounts to support the charities which would have, in the past, taken care of those children. These are the essence of the "somebody else's problem voters." They think that "let the government do it" sounds like a reasonable and equitable way of handling the whole uncomfortable affair. Letting the government do it lets them off the hook and assuages their guilt over not giving "enough."

Question Three: Which political party do you trust to do a better job handling -

• The situation in Iraq - Democrats 49% - Republicans 34%
• Health care - 56% - Republicans 26%
• The federal budget deficit - 52% - Republicans 29%

Well here we can glean some little insight into the psyche of the American public. The party in the White House always bears the blame for any problems encountered on the international front, especially when the people hear the same lies repeated over and over again by the heavily Democrat favoring mainstream media. This is "Bush's war" so since we have encountered some difficulty, Republicans must be at fault, and to some degree, the facts bear this out. The war after the war was poorly thought out and poorly prepared for and even though we are now, because of the troop surge, beginning to see some real progress, such progress is never rapid enough for our Sesame Street culture where fast food, 15 second advertisements and action movies dominate our lives.

Democrats have always held an advantage in the emotional issues, so their advantage on healthcare is always predictable as is the sun's rising.

As to the federal budget deficit; President Bush has been astonishingly successful in reducing the size of the deficit over the last five years. This in spite of a Republican Congress which forgot who they were and began spending money like it was someone elses...come to think of it...it was...ours. This is a simple case of the pigeons coming home to roost. Spend recklessly, get blamed for the deficit...again aided by a press sympathetic to the Democrat Party. Still our Republican drunken sailors deserve this slap in the face.

Question Four: Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is doing their job?

• Congress - Approve 29% - Disapprove 65% (down 15% since April)
• Democrats in Congress - Approve 38% - Disapprove 57% (down 16% since April)
• Republicans in Congress - Approve 29% - Disapprove 57% (down 10% since April)

What does this tell us? Well first that this is a very unpopular Congress. The wild-eyed Looney left feels that the Democrats have failed to keep their promise to end the war...are you really that surprised?" Democrats are more satisfied by their people in Congress than are Republicans; for Republicans, a lot of this displeasure is over their failure to move quickly and strongly to stem the hemorrhage of illegal aliens crossing our borders. Far too many Republican threw their lot in with President Bush, who for some inexplicable reason, refuses to understand the seriousness and anger of his constituents over this issue, even going so far as to insult their intellect and grasp of the whole subject. A lot of displeasure on the right as well over the Compos/ Ramos imprisonment of border guards for doing their duty.

Question Five: Over all how much do you thnk Congress has accomplished this year?

• A great deal/good amount 16%
• No opinion 1%
• Not much/nothing 82%

Here we have the die-hard Democrats, the "Yellow dogs," at 16%, the absolutely clueless at 1% (Are we on Earth yet?) and the disappointed - 25%/disaffected - 20% - Democrats in combination with the partisan Republicans - 51%

Last question: Do you think Democrats in Congress have gone too far or not far enough in opposing the war in Iraq?

• Too far - all adults 35% - Democrats 11% - Independents 36% - Republicans 68%
• Not far enough - all adults 55% - Democrats 79% - Independents 53% - Republicans 27%
• Right amount - all adults 5% - Democrats 7% - Independents 5% - Republicans 2%

This is simply a case of too many people who think like Neville Chamberlain. Those who know who Neville was are the ones who answered "Too far." Those who don't know who Neville Chamberlain was are the ones who answered "Right amount." Those who are Neville Chamberlain answered "Not far enough."

There are far too many people in this nation who remain absolutely clueless as to the nature and aims of our enemies.

The "I just don't get it" crowd - Democrats actually believe that you can negotiate with terrorists whose sole aim is the destruction of our nation's culture and society if not its entire population. Their best spokesman is, by far, John Edwards who made the inane statement that "the war on terror is a bumper sticker." These are the Bill Clintons, Hillary Clintons, Barrack Obama's who still view terrorism as a criminal matter, not a manifestation of the Global Islamic Jihad.

Added to them are the idiots like Dennis Kucinich who has actually reversed a time tested and proven policy and is calling for "Strength through peace, rather than Peace through strength" [go figure] and the naive isolationists who like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan believe that we can just withdraw from the world and it will all pass us by.

That last group, the "Right amount" people are just basically clueless and still searching for Iraq on their map of the United States.

You can bet that this totally meaningless poll will be mentioned extensively by all of the mainstream media, with them focusing particularly on those numbers which support their anti-war, anti-troop stance.

For me, all this poll proves is that some folks are stupid, some are clueless and uninformed and a few of us are actually paying attention, something I knew long before this poll was taken.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

My Letter to Senator John Cornyn Protesting "Snively Reids" Personal Attack from Senate Floor

Harry "Snively Whiplash" Reid demeaned the prestige of the Senate in his un-called for dishonest personal attack against Rush Limbaugh.

It is unheard of for a so-called Senate "Leader" to use the power and alledged prestige of his position to launch a personal attack against any American citizen as the cowardly whiney Harry Reid did today from the floor of the Senate, using his perogative and protection as Majority Leader to fire his lies at radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh.

Top Democrat blasts Limbaugh for 'phony soldiers' comment

WASHINGTON (CNN)

The top Democrat in the Senate slammed Rush Limbaugh Monday over his recent controversial "phony soldiers" remark, despite the conservative talk-radio host's protests that his words have been taken out of context.

Limbaugh's comments in question came Wednesday when Limbaugh and a caller were discussing critics of the Iraq war:

"What's really funny is, they [Iraq war critics] never talk to real soldiers," the caller said. "They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media."

"The phony soldiers," Limbaugh then said.

Several Democrats released statements late last week condemning the remarks, and in a speech on the Senate floor Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called the comments "so beyond the pale of decency that it cannot be left alone."

"Just as patriotism is the exclusive realm of neither party, taking a stand against those who spew hate and impugn the integrity of our troops is a job that belongs to all of us," Reid said.

"I can't help but wonder how my Republican colleagues would have reacted if the tables were turned -- if a well-known Democratic radio personality had used the same insulting line of attack against troops who support the war," the Nevada Democrat added.

First Harry, there are no "well known Democratic radio personalities." Second, people like you and Nancy Pelosi and Russ Feingold and Teddy Kennedy, and the unpopular hosts of the failed so-called "Air America" have been insulting the troops on the front lines everyday.

The pages of the New York Times, The LA Times, and the Washington Post are laced with hatred of the military and attempts to undermine the moral of our troops everyday. Liberals like you have been declaring our "defeat" before the surge, which has shown amazing success, has even had a chance to work.

In other words Harry, you have been doing exactly that hypothetical activity to which you refer for the past four years. It has been the bricks and mortar upon which you have built your platform. So Please, save us the self-righteous act. We've seen your lies before and we are not convinced.

One would expect that such an assault on the dignity of that august body by such a petty and politically motivated pack of lies and deceit would be roundly criticized by his fellow senators. Instead some chose to join in this dishonest, attack in hopes of damaging Mr. Limbaugh's reputation. Included in Hairless Reid's personal attack was the truly laughable reference to Rush Limbaugh's "dwindling audience." Another in a long series of lies from the mouth of Senator Snively.

Even more despicable and personal was Tom Harkin's accusation that perhaps Rush was under the influence of drugs when he was speaking:

Well, I don’t know. Maybe he was just high on his drugs again. I don’t know whether he was or not. If so, he ought to let us know. But that shouldn’t be an excuse.

It is becoming more and more blatantly obvious that the "minor stroke" which the Majority Leader suffered 2 years ago has damaged his mental faculties far more than was originally thought. It is also obvious that although Democrats always talk about compassion, they are in reality the most hateful and petty of people. Tom Harkin should be censured for his ad hominem attack against Rush Limbaugh.

That such a pre-planned and clearly orchestrated (with their masters and string pullers at MoveOn.org and Media Matters) display of bad manners and poor judgement could take place without the protests of senators of a more measured and reasonable outlook is dissappointing to say the least.

Where, I am forced to ask, is the condemnation of the great dean and master of Senatorial Decorum Robert Byrd? Why has no senator come out to protest this personal abuse of power?

Well I have sent My Senator, John Cornyn the following e-mail:

Dear Senator Cornyn,

I am appalled at the behavior of your colleague Senator Reid in taking to the floor to personally attack radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh by repeating lies told about Mr. Limbaugh by the George Soros controlled Media Matters for America.

It is an unconscionable abuse of Senatorial privilege to, in effect, use the protection of the his office to slander one of our troops greatest supporters. This is especially true considering the efforts made by this same Senator to undermine the morale of our troops and pander to the most extreme leftist segment of our citizenry.

The facts are clear and Senator Reid had more than enough time to discover the truth prior to his verbal assault on Rush. Mr. Limbaugh has never denigrated in any way any Iraq war veteran for their stance on the Iraq war. For those most responsible for the difficulties we have encountered in promoting peace and stability in Iraq, excepting the terrorists themselves, to make such a transparent, politically motivated attack on Mr. Limbaugh is hypocritical in the most despicable meaning of the word.

Such a personal attack for callow political reasons must not be allowed to be left unanswered.

I ask; I demand that you and other Conservatives who are or should be aware of the truth of the matter to have those words taken down or at least answered in kind from the floor.

I find it obscene that such a man even holds office in the same august body as men like you, but as a colleague, I feel it is encumbent upon you to respond to this contemptible activity by the Democrats.

With all respect and real gratitude for the work you have been doing on we Texan's behalf,

Thank-you for your service.

Sincerely,
William C. Malven
http://houstonconservative.com/

I sincerely hope that this fine Senator who has done so much for Conservatives in the past will force this issue on the Senate floor and put it on the record that such a personal attack demands that Senators Reid and Harkin apologize for their remarks.

It may interest you to know that Rush Limbaugh issued a direct challenge to Senator Harry Reid for him to come on the Rush Limbaugh show and make the same accusations he made from the floor of the Senate without the protection of his status as a United States Senator.

Ummm...I wouldn't hold my breath, Liberals like Reid don't have the courage to face off with Rush Limbaugh one on one because they know that they will be exposed for the liars they are.

Once again those on the Left have proven they will go to any lengths and stoop to any low level to score political points, simply because they cannot respond to Conservative arguments with truth, reason, and logic. Once again organizations like MoveOn.org and Media Matters have proven that lies and distortion are their bread and butter.

...and once again Liberal members of the press have proven themselves ever ready to repeat the lies being told by these organizations without attempting to determine the truth...

HUMPPPHHH! Reporters indeed! Propagandists clearly is the correct term.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below