Another Clinton Plant?

What do you think?

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

Anderson Cooper: CNN Blows It Again. Blatant Pro-Democrat Bias

Well I guess by now you've heard or seen the news that the "Gay General" who asked the Youtube question about gays in the military turns out not to have been a Republican at all, but a Democrat operative of...you guessed it...the Queen of Corruption, Lies, and Dirty Politics, Senator Hillary Rodham, Mrs. William J. "Bubba and the Blue Dress" Clinton. He served as a co-chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton's National Military Veterans group. Kerr is also a member of Hilldebeast's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Americans for Hillary Stearing Committee, as well as having been a member of John Kerry's National Veterans Steering Committee.

Not only was he not vetted properly by CNN, but he was allowed by Anderson Cooper, Millionaire Gayboy, to respond to the Republican candidates answers with a tirade lasting over two minutes of uninterrupted air-time. I wonder if the fact that Anderson is a little Light in the heels had anything to do with allowing a questioner like Brig.[adoon] General Keith H. "Deborah" Kerr, U.S. Army, Ret. (hey, at least he wasn't a "Rear" Admiral) more time than any of the candidates received to answer his question.

Although General Keithie wasn't the only ringer in the queue, his inclusion was the most eqregious of the lot. Anderson Cooper appeared to be prepared to allow the Swishbuckling Soldier more time, but the audience began to get restless and some catcalls begin to come from them forcing Anderson to finally cut him off.

The first person to call CNN down on this was one of their guest commentators Bill Bennett. So how is it that a guest commentator had to point out to a news network that one of their questioners was a Democrat, Hillary Camp, plant. What does that say about the level of investigation CNN does on all of its news stories. Here's the National Ledger's report:

Hillary Clinton Plant: CNN Gives Clinton Co-Chair Keith Kerr Prime Airtime

By Amanda Williams
Nov 28, 2007

CNN was heavily criticized for giving Hillary Clinton a pass in their last televised debate by the network. Wolf Blitzer lobbed such softballs at the US Senator from New York that he was publicly praised by the campaign. Now it appears the network allowed a "Clinton plant" to ask not only a question on YouTube, but then gave him a microphone and allowed the military veteran prime airtime to push his agenda.

Keith Kerr a retired Colonel., U.S. Army; retired Brigadier General, California National Reserve pushed forward his issue of allowing gay Americans to serve openly in the US Military. While that is certainly a fair issue and open for debate, once again CNN looks to be in the hip pocket of the Clinton campaign.

It would have slipped by except CNN commentator Bill Bennett actually let the cat out of the bag and told CNN host Anderson Cooper that the former soldier apparently works for Clinton in the post debate analysis. Cooper played dumb at the time, but it did not last long as moments after the debate a bit of investigation showed that he is indeed a member of Hillary Clinton's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Americans For Hillary Steering Committee.

According to Town Hall, he's also part of a film production crew trying overturn the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Cooper then tried to play the "oops" card. In the final seconds of the post-debate coverage, Anderson Cooper acknowledged that CNN messed this up and states that CNN did not know that Kerr has a position within the Clinton campaign and that had they known, they would have disclosed the association.

Anderson Cooper's little "oops" act won't wash, General Keith Kerr has twice before appeared on CNN promoting his pro-gay military agenda. Yep I said "twice."

It now turns out that the question by the so-called "Log Cabin Republican" is an Obama supporter. The question about the Farm Supports for "Big Agra," was asked by a former intern for Democrat Senator Jane Harmon. There's more.

Michelle Malkin has a list of planted Democrat questions asked in the "Debate."

Rush Limbaugh finds the list of questions that were asked preposterous (as do a lot of Republicans); playing into the Democrat stereotype of what Republicans are like. They asked about the Confederate flag (let's ask the Democrats that one, afterall it was their party that supported the flying of it historically), whether or not the candidates believed the Bible was word for word truth, what punishment should be meted out to a woman who has an illegal abortion or the doctor who performs the abortion (from an Edwards supporter), as well as the two gay rights questions. None of these topics is even on the horizon in the presidential election. Afterall, it was William J. "Bubba of the Blue Dress" Clinton who instituted the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

To quote Rush, this was a bogus debate format which demeans the office of the President of the United States.

I guess now we know what CNN actually stands for, Clinton News Network.

Down CNN, Up Republicans.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

Oh yea, and once more we have proof that Democrats are congenital liars.

What do you think?

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

Mitt's Disturbing Denial: "Romney Denies Vowing No Muslims In Cabinet"

Will Malven
11/27/2007

Frankly, I find this announcement somewhat disturbing. We are in a War Against the Global Islamic Jihad and given that circumstance I believe, with all due respect to our Muslim Bretheren, that until they take a firmer and unequivocal stance against their extremist fellow Muslims, I would not be comfortable having any Muslim in a position to set national policy.

Organzations like CAIR have proven themselves to be apologists for the terrorists and intent on taking offense whenever Americans wish to take perfectly reasonable steps to protect themselves from further acts of terrorism.

Romney Denies Vowing No Muslims In Cabinet
Republican Presidential Hopeful Disputes Account By Muslim Businessman

St. Petersburg, Fla., Nov. 27, 2007
(CBS) This story was written by CBS News' Scott Conroy.

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is facing questions about religion today. And for once, it's not his own.

Speaking to reporters after a health care forum in St. Petersburg, Florida, Romney emphatically disputed a Muslim businessman’s account of what transpired at a mid-November fundraising event in Las Vegas.

Mansoor Ijaz wrote in a Christian Science Monitor column published today that Romney said he “cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified” for a Muslim in his administration, in light of the percentage of Muslims living in the U.S.

CBS News asked Romney to provide his version of the encounter, which occurred at an event that was closed to media.

“His question was, 'did I need to have a Muslim in my cabinet to be able to confront radical jihad and would it be important to have a Muslim in my cabinet,'" said Romney. "And I said, ‘No I don’t think that you have to have a Muslim in the cabinet to be able to, to take on radical jihad any more than during the Second World War we needed to have a Japanese-American to help us understand the threat that was coming from Japan,’ or something of that nature.”

With all due respect to Mr. Ijaz and those Muslims who have been helpful in our fight against Islamic Extemists, I do not want any Muslims in any President's Cabinet.

If a President chose to hire an advisory level Western friendly Muslim to assist him in dealing with Muslim nations, that would be fine, but to suggest that we "need" or want a Muslim in our national government simply out of some sense of diversity is poppycock. When every Imam in every Mosque within the United States formally renounces violence as a means of achieving their ends and when every Mosque flies the American Flag declaring their allegiance to the United States of America, our Constitution, and the defense of our freedoms and liberties, then I might be more inclined to accept such an appointment.

I do not care about diversity for diversity's sake. I believe that profiling is an effective preventive tool when used by the police and our Department of Homeland Security. The absurd concept, as originally put forward by Transportation Secretary Norm Minneta, that our TSA officers should not profile "Arabic looking people," is suicidal and not cost effective.

If the so called "Six Imams" don't like it; if the Muslims in America don't like it, then let them return to their native lands.

I have no doubt that there are many Arabic and Muslim people in American who are good loyal citizens. I have no doubt that many have served honorably over the years in our armed forces and they have my undying gratitude but they, on the other hand, should accept that it is not unreasonable to more carefully scrutinize individuals resembling the terrorist who have killed the thousands of citizens in the Twin Towers attack and have attempted to strike additional targets.

I wonder if, had the terrorists been a dozen blonde haired, blue eyed Swedes, these same people would be outraged at white, blonde haired, blue eyed, Americans were the ones being scrutinized.

Somehow I doubt it.

Bad decision Mitt. You have been caught once more by your tendency to pander to special interest groups rather than standing on principle.

Long Live Our American Republic

What do you think?

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

What do you think?

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

How Can We Help Joe Horn?

Added 12/05/07: If you want to help Joe go HERE

As a result of my editorial, American Hero Joe Horn: Pasadena Shootings Justified and Praiseworthy, I have received a number of letters from readers like this one from Rod:

Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:16 PM
Subject: How Can We Show Our
Support of Joe Horn?

If “Quanell X” (whatever the hell that means) can demonstrate, why can’t we pro-Joe citizens do the same? Or would it be better to write my congressman? Start a petition?

I don’t know what to do, but I feel compelled to do something—can you offer any direction?

Rod

Now I am no civic leader, but I think, since I have already interjected myself into this issue by way of my editorials, I can at least offer my own suggestions. I responded to Rod with the following recommendations which I believe to be measured and reasonable.

Subject: Re: How Can We Show Our Support of Joe Horn?

I don't know Rod,

You could start by writing a letter to the Houston Chronicle. Keep it controlled and civil, while still expressing support for Joe Horn and disdain for Quanell X.

After that maybe write your members of Congress, the Houston District Attorney's Office, and the Mayor's Office. You could even refer them to or send them a copy of my article or one of the other many articles that have been written in support of Joe Horn's actions.

You might also simply send Joe Horn a letter of support and prayers. Tell him that you're with him in spirit and know that he did what was necessary.

I don't think staging a counter protest would be very constructive unless you could coordinate it with some group like Houston members of freerepublic.com.

They tend to be very active and capable in that direction.

The best way to help Joe is to spread the word to the potential grand jury pool, meaning our local citizens, of the facts as we know them and the laws as we interpret them.

Somehow we have to let these District Attorneys and Judges know that we will not allow them to punish Joe without there being consequences in the next election. We have to get them to understand that there is a higher law than the laws the state puts on the books and those laws are the laws of our Creator as outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

With your permission, I would like to post your letter and my answer on my web page, with just your nickname "Rod."

Would that be okay with you?

Thanks for reading my blog and for writing me. What we cannot do alone, we can do together.

Will Malven

As you can surmise, Rod was gracious enough to give me permission ot use his e-mail.

A lot of us feel very strongly about this issue and about the steady erosion of and restrictions placed upon our Liberties. We have watched with growing displeasure over the last several decades, as special interest groups, anti-liberty lobbying groups and the ACLU have sought to achieve throught our court systems what they have been unable to achieve through our state legislatures in restricting our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, our Freedom of Speech, and our Freedom of thought (What is a "hate-crime" but an effort to discern the thoughts of an individual in the commission of a crime). We already have allowed ourselves to be subject to the once apocryphal "Thought Police."

There is a very strong underswell of individuals, like Rod and me. We are tired of seeing our rights slowly constricted as various groups begin to complain that they "feel insulted," or "are offended by," or "are intimidated by" words and symbols that others use to express their own ideals and feelings.

We are offended when kids who are caught hanging "nooses" are charged with "hate crimes," while individuals who feel free to burn our National Flag and hang our leaders in effigy are excused as "exercising their First Amendment rights." We are offended by the jerks in Pink "T" shirts who feel it is their right to disrupt the proceding of our elected representatives.

If the actions of Joe Horn are considered by some to be a danger to our society, then the actions of individuals like Quanell X and his little band of Storm Troopers marching around towns with loaded firearms represent a far greater threat to our society and his advocacy of violence against "good white people" in River Oaks is an encitement to violence.

Far too often now we are seeing our local, state, and federal governments bow to pressure from agitators out of fear or political expediency. We have seen our forefathers desire to prevent a tyranny of the majority be turned into a tyranny of the minority over the will of the majority.

We, who still believe in our nation and our government as intended by our forefathers rather than perverted by those who would destroy it or turn it into a carbon copy of Old Europe, must take these opportunities to speak out as they present themselves.

Our Fouding Fathers left the governments of Old Europe behind because they felt constrained by them. They developed a new system of government dependent upon the participation of the individual rather than their leaders. We live in a Republic which was designed to empower its citizens, not a police state intended to cow its citizens.

Maybe it's time we take up the mantle of freedom and leadership our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us and stop the erosion of our liberties...while we still have them.

TAKE ACTION! Speak out. Write letters. Make phone calls. Take a few minutes each week to inform yourself as to what is occurring around you and meet your neighbors.

Our culture is uniquely suited these days to allow us to cocoon ourselves in our homes and ignore the world around us. Perhaps it is time for the sleeping giant, "the silent majority" as the late President Nixon once called us, to once more awaken and make ourselves known.

I hope you will join your fellow citizens in making your opinions known to your local and state governments as well as your national elective office holders.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

What do you think?

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

Quanell X versus Joe Horn? Give Me Joe for a Neighbor Anytime.

Well you knew it had to happen. New Black Panthers leader Quanell X, a Jesse Jackson wannabe, has decided to poke his nose into the Joe Horn Pasadena shootings. Whenever there is a possibility of a story taking on any kind of racial overtones, you can bet that this Black Racist Group will put in an appearance.

Activist Calls 'Neighbor Shooting' Murder

POSTED: 5:40 pm CST November 19, 2007
UPDATED: 6:36 pm CST November 19, 2007

HOUSTON -- A man who shot and killed two burglary suspects said it was self-defense, but a community activist called it murder, KPRC Local 2 reported Monday.

The case has been controversial since the shooting happened shortly after 2 p.m. on Wednesday at a home in the 7400 block of Timberline in the Village Grove East subdivision in Pasadena.

Community leaders gathered in front of the home where the accused burglars, Miguel DeJesus, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, were shot. They said neighbor Joe Horn went too far.

"We believe Mr. Horn became judge, jury and executioner all at the same time. We believe that Mr. Horn violated direct orders from a 911 dispatcher," said Quanell X with the New Black Panther Party.

This leader of these self-appointed inheritors of the 60's militant group known as The Black Panthers is like Jesse Jackson's echo. Whenever and wherever there is a microphone and a willing reporter, Quanell X will be there to spew his hatred and baseless accusations. Bobby Seale, who with Huey P. Newton began the Black Panther Movement of the 60's and 70's, has public renounced Quanell X's copycat organization:

New Black Panthers of a Different Stripe

Monday, October 14, 2002

OAKLAND, Calif. — Veteran Black Panthers of the 1960s and '70s are roaring again, but their cry this time is not over racial disparities at large, but racism within the New Black Panther Party.

Now a fixture on the speaker circuit, Black Panther Party co-founder Bobby Seale is accusing the New Black Panthers of sullying the original group's reputation by showing up heavily armed at demonstrations and preaching violent, racist and extremist views on its Web site.

"This new group has a bunch of xenophobic, black nationalist rhetoric, which is tantamount to a bunch of racist rhetoric," Seale said.

"Why not call themselves the new black Muslims? They only take our name because of their own personal exploitation, their own economic gain, pure and simple," said former Black Panther Party Chief of Staff David Hilliard

For Quanell X to criticize Joe Horn is laughable after the spectacle he and his tiny band of followers have put on over the past several years as he has (for the most part unsuccessfully) tried to make himself into the newest spokesman for the Black Community. For those of you with short memories, Quanell X first hit the scene in January of 1999. Convicted murderer Gary Graham was scheduled for execution and New Black Muslim Movement leader Quanell X urged young blacks to take out their anger against whites in wealthy neighborhoods if this execution was carried out. Telling black youths If they

"feel that you just got to mug somebody because of your hurt and your pain, go to the River Oaks and mug some good white people."

Later members of "The New Black Panthers" led by Quanell X, staged a series of armed protests:

Black Panther Party defends Shaka Sankofa
By Jeff Franks

Houston, Texas, June 16— The debate over the pending execution of Shaka Sankofa (Gary Graham), a black man who many believe was wrongly convicted, heated up on Friday when a dozen gun-toting black militants staged a protest outside the Texas Republican Party’s state convention. The protest turned into a brief confrontation when one of the members of the New Black Panther Party, who arrived at the protest in an open-top Hummer stretch limousine, shoved a convention delegate who shouted that the protesters were “evil persons.”

The militants, most of them wearing black military style uniforms and carrying rifles or shotguns, demanded that Graham receive a new trial and that Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, declare a moratorium on capital punishment. Displaying guns in public is not illegal in Texas except in certain instances.

“We demand an immediate moratorium on the white supremacist, racist and classist death penalty in the state of Texas and across the country,” said Quanell X, the group’s leader.

The following week, on June 22nd, Quanell X and about a dozen of his followers traveled to Huntsville, Texas to protest Gary Graham's execution. Once again they showed up in black military style uniforms carrying loaded AK-47's and Shotguns.

In 2004 they staged another such ostentatiously armed protest in Jaspar, Texas to protest the truly heinous dragging death of James Byrd by three white men with prison ties to racist organizations.

I hope the irony of Quanell X's slandering of Joe Horn as a "cold-blooded murderer" doesn't escape the readers' attention. Here is a man who has made his reputation by attempting to intimidate white people using loaded firearms in public demonstrations. As in Mr. Horn's actions, there is nothing illegal in Mr. X's actions or those of his little army of followers, but there is something unsavory about someone who has repeatedly endangered public safety as a means of making public political statements.

Quanell X is entitled to his free speech rights, just as I am entitled to mine. What I don't want to happen is for members of the Houston District Attorney's office to be intimidated into over reacting and persecute Joe Turner for doing what every law abiding citizen has not just the right but the obligation to do.

Remember what happened at Duke University and remember that the members of the "New Black Panthers" accused those (now proven innocent) young men of vile racist actions; indicting and convicting them before the evidence was presented. An act of pure racist hatred-black against white-and an action for which they have yet to have apologized.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

I thought I had seen everything until...

I was driving down Post Oak a week ago;
the woman driving the car next to me
was using a breast pump on herself...

What do you think?

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

Wolf Blitzer Rolls Over for Hillary...Nice Doggy.

Sit! Stay! Fetch! Roll over! Speak! Good boy Wolf! Good Boy!

It looks like Matt Drudge's assertion that the Hillary Clinton Campaign told Wolf Blitzer not to allow any tough questions or attacks on Hillary by the other candidates or reporters turned out to be the truth. Although vehemently denied by the CNN host of "The Situation Room" and "Late Edition," Wolf clearly received instructions (or threats) from the Hillary Camp to prevent "another Tim Russert moment" from occurring during this debate. Wolf has now solidly secured his place as official media lap-dog for the Hillary Clinton campaign, a space previously occupied at CNN by Bill Snyder.

Last night's Democrat Party "debate" was one of the biggest "snoozes" of the year as debate moderator Wolf Blitzer made certain that any genuine back-and-forth exchange was terminated before it could damage Hillary.

As for Hillary, her programming was nearly flawless. Kudos are deserved for the technicians back at "ClintonLand" for their superb work in correcting the code errors which became evident during the previous debate. Animatronic Hillary was in full form.

The debate started out promising, with a series of heated exchanges between Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and John Edwards. Obama and Edwards both began to attack Hillary's previous "waffling" answer to the question (from the previous debate) as to whether she supported New York State Governor Spitzer's suggestion to grant driver's licenses to illegal aliens. During the exchange, the best shot came from B. Hussein Obama, who mentioned that "it only took us two weeks to get a clear answer" from Hillary on the driver's license question. But the excitement was short-lived as Wolf stepped in and cut off the exchange before it had a chance to upset Hillary's carefully composed (drugged-up?) demeanor.

Hillary began the debate looking tranquillized, almost somnambulent (perhaps they should be screening all of these candidates for drugs prior to the debate). As the exchanges heated up, Hillary quickly turned a bright red. Her eyes got small, and her mouth got tighter as the initial exchange got more intense and then...Wolf Blitzer quickly asserted his authority to prevent what might have been a chance to see Hillary completely implode. After that, her programming kicked in and she returned to her natural robotic self.

As is typical of all Liberals, Hillary labeled John Edwards' effort to bring Hillary's track record into the debate as "mud-slinging." I believe those were the code words given to Lap-dog Blitzer as a signal step in and stop all exchanges of any significance, because it was from that point on that any pretense of holding a genuine debate was dropped and the program deteriorated into a series of claims, pandering, and equivocating.

Obama's big moment came and went as he stumbled in several of his answers, and prove to be completely incapable of remaining coherent when asked a couple of simple "yes" or "no" questions. The first (and more ironic of the stumbles) occurred when he was asked (shortly after attacking Hillary for her waffling answer on driver's licenses for illegal aliens) if illegal aliens should be given driver's licenses. The second, incredibly, came when the candidates were asked whether human rights issues should ever (or always) trump national security.

Bill Richardson, who has previously proven his unrelenting stupidity, was the only one to flatly answer that question with an unequivocal "yes." The rest of the candidates answered no with varying degrees of equivocation. Obama stoutly refused to give a yes or no answer, repeatedly stating that "the two should not be incompatible." Hillary's answer as well as Chris Dodd's was a solid "no." proving once again that, dumb as she is, she's smart enough to know what the majority of the people believe.

My overall impressions:

• Hillary's people garnered the lion's share of seats, as evinced by the loud cat-calls which occurred whenever either of Hillary's two main opponents dared to attack her record by actually stating it.
• Biggest winner among the candidates-Hillary Clinton who, simply by not "blowing it," has cleared the final hurdle and assured herself the nomination of the Democrat Party
• Biggest loser among the candidates-definitely Barrack Hussein Obama. He often sounded as inexperienced as he is. Clearly he is unprepared for the office he is seeking.
• Second biggest winner among the candidates-Joe Biden who dared to give straight answers and objected to the so-called moderators efforts to inject their personal agendas into the debate. He and Dodd were the only ones on the stage that I could see being President without completely destroying the country, if only marginally so.
• Biggest loser of the entire broadcast-Wolf Blitzer who clearly caved into pressure from the Clinton campaign. His primary function during the debate appeared to prevent the other candidates from attacking Hillary.
• The "Undecided" questioners were quite clearly handpicked and not a random selection of people, nor were the choice of questioners randomly chosen by Suzanne Malveaux, who clearly had her own agenda to pursue.
• Along with the usual boring Bush bashing, nutroot pandering idiots, Suzanne trotted out the obligatory mother's with troops in Iraq or recently returned from Iraq, specifically chosen to prove that all veterans and all mothers of troops in Iraq hate George Bush and don't want to serve in Iraq and are afraid of being sent to Iran.

Overall, what had the possibility of being a defining moment for the anti-Hillary crowd turned into a totally boring two hour "I hate George Bush and Dick Cheney" advertisement for bad government, the Democrat way: higher taxes, more spending, abandonment of our commitments and our allies in the Middle East, doom and gloom and whining endlessly about how our Constitutional Rights have been violated...blah, blah, blah.

It was so boring that I quit watching it for a while just to preserve my sanity, but out of a sense of obligation to you, my readers, I sacrificed myself and returned to endure the final half-hour just so I could report this whole joke of a debate to you.

It now appears that nothing but Hillary completely imploding in one of her speeches can possibly stop her coronation as Queen of the Democrats (a position normally assigned to Barney Frank).

God help us if you people don't vote for the Republican candidate, we may all wind up speaking Arabic (or Spanish).

Long Live Our American Republic

What do you think?

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

Lafayette, You Have Returned!

Wow, after French President Sarkozy's speech yesterday, I guess I'm going to have to lay off the French jokes. The French President wasted no time in declaring his friendship with America and the President. This is quite some turnaround from Giscard d'Estaing, François Mitterrand, the crook, Jacques Chirac. Even de Gaulle was a fairly cool towards the United States and NATO from 1955 onward due primarily to French jealousy over the close relations between Britain and the United States.

It often seemed that the French were short on gratitude for sacrifices of British and American troops in defeating Germany and giving them back their nation. For a long time, it seemed as though the French resented the fact that we kept rescuing them from their failures. This has always seemed strange from an historical perspective considering how close the French and Americans have been since the creation of our nation.

It was Alexandre de Tocqueville who first gave Americans a good look at themselves from the perspective of an outsider and an admirer. It was the French who gave us the Statue of Lady Liberty in 1886 in celebration of our first Centennial Celebration. Most importantly, it was General Lafayette (the Marquis de Lafayette) who voluntarily came to America to assist our armies in defeating the British and winning our independence.

After decades of rocky relations and a lot of sniping, it now appears as though America finally has a strong ally in the Presidency of France. This is long overdue and much appreciated.

This hypocritical celebration from the New York Lies (All the Lies fit to print):

Congress Warms to France’s New President

By ELAINE SCIOLINO
Published: November 8, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 — The United States Congress welcomed Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, with loud cheers and standing ovations on Wednesday, a sign that France had been forgiven for opposing the American-led war in Iraq.

In a speech to a joint meeting of Congress — a rare honor for a head of state — Mr. Sarkozy seemed to strike all the right notes. He spoke of his love of the American dream and cultural icons of the 20th century, from Elvis Presley to Ernest Hemingway. He expressed admiration for American values and for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He thanked the United States for saving France in two world wars, rebuilding Europe with the Marshall Plan and fighting Communism during the cold war.

When he called France “the friend of the United States of America,” the hall, packed with lawmakers, many of whom held France in disdain only a few years ago, burst into applause. When he said that a nuclear-armed Iran was “unacceptable,” they stood and applauded.

President Bush also showered his French counterpart with praise at a joint news conference following a tour and lunch at Mount Vernon, the Virginia home of George Washington.

“It’s safe to say that you’ve impressed a lot of people here on your journey,” Mr. Bush said, calling Mr. Sarkozy “the kind of fellow I like to deal with.”

It's a safe bet that President Sarkozy's and France's change of direction and improved ties to President Bush and America is not very really appreciated by the Democrats in Congress, nor in the New York Lies, given their hostility towards President Bush and the War in Iraq.

The Democrats in Congress, never shy of demonstrating their hypocrisy, greeted the new French President warmly. Tom Lantos (D-CA) said:

"In view of everything we know now — the flawed intelligence, the miserable execution of the post-military phase — the French certainly were right."

Perhaps Mr. Lantos, but then hindsight is often 20/20, but not always so. Lantos said this as if Sarkozy was endorsing the treasonous actions of the Democrats, while completely ignoring President Sarkozy's call for a "democratic, stable, and diverse Iraq." That call is the furthest thing from what the Democrats have been working towards or would like to see.

It is good to see some sanity return to the French electorate and their leadership. It is always good when old friends renew their close ties.

While Sarkozy's appearance in America signals a substantial shift in French politics and foreign policy, he was careful not to go too far in endorsing all of the policies of the Bush Administration, which is as it should be. We have many differences left to be ironed out between our two nations but, at least for the time being, it appears that French sanity has returned.

Perhaps it was the recent experiences the French people have had in dealing with their own Muslim problem that has caused this shift in mood, but whatever it was, Sarkozy is definitely a big step in the opposite direction of the enmity of Jacques Chirac's administration.

For me, the biggest moment was Sarkozy's acknowledgement of the debt the free world owes America and his salute to our troops and their willingness to sacrifice themselves for the good of others.

“Every time, whenever an American soldier falls somewhere in the world, I think of what the American Army did for France,” Mr. Sarkozy said as his audience applauded. “I think of them and I am sad, as one is saddened to lose a member of one’s family.”

I welcome France back to the world of sanity and liberty.

As for the warm reception in Congress by the Democrats who have been working feverishly to allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons and to assure our defeat in Iraq, I can only say of them that it appears that Liberals in America just have a thing for France, whether the French hold us in contempt or as a strong ally and friend. I guess the Liberals in the Times and in Congress just want to be French.

How very strange, I just want to be a Loyal American.

Long Live the French Republic!!!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Lone Star Lesson with Brooke Rollins

"Lone Star Lesson" is a daily radio commentary narrated by Texas Public Policy Foundation president Brooke Rollins on today's most important issues. The segments air on KVCE 1160 AM (Dallas/Fort Worth) each weekday at 6:42 a.m., 7:42 a.m., 8:42 a.m., 4:42 p.m., 5:42 p.m., and 6:47 p.m.

These clips will be stored in the Audio Gallery section of the site, but here are the latest "Lessons."

Sicko health care?
The liberal agenda for children's health insurance
Who didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize
Drawing the line on criminal law
Rolling up the welcome mat for employers?

Dropouts and crime
The conservative alternative to SCHIP expansion
Bridge to higher gas taxes
More doctors in Texas
Report on government reports

What do you think?

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

Why the Surprise? New York Times Reporters Always Misrepresent the Facts

Blackwater Security Worldwide. Just the name brings chills up and down the spines of terrorists, criminals and Democrat Politicians.

Well it should, they are the most competent international private security service in the world. This year alone, they have completed over 1800 missions in Iraq, mostly transporting ungrateful politicians and diplomats around Iraq. Although almost every mission Blackwater undertakes comes under intense fire, they have found it necessary to return fire on only 56 of those 1800 missions.

Out of the roughly 5000 escort missions that Blackwater has been assigned by the United States Department of State, under whose authority they fall, they have never lost a single American passenger. Not a single failed mission in the three years that Blackwater has been in Iraq. Not one.

On the other hand, Blackwater itself has lost 30 men in the completion of those missions.

This week, National Review Online (NRO) has an article by Mark Corallo that is well worth reading. My only complaint is that he uses the oxymoron "well respected reporter" in referring to a member of the New York Lies staff. For the life of me, I cannot imagine any Conservative, or even just a believer in our troops and their mission, whether Liberal hawk or Conservative hawk, being surprised by finding their words twisted by a reporter of the New York Lies, but here is his incredulous report:

Hot Water for Blackwater
The real story doesn’t run to script.

By Mark Corallo

I woke up Thursday morning, checked the Blackberry, and found an e-mail from a television-producer friend asking about comments attributed to me by the New York Times about Blackwater USA. Remembering my lengthy conversation with a reporter about the security firm, I expected a thank-you call from my former clients. Then I read the story.

I’m not naïve and I’m no rookie in dealing with the media. But when one spends 40 minutes on the phone with a highly respected reporter, singing the praises of a company that does heroic service to our country, one expects those comments to be reflected in the story.

When the Times’s John Broder called me about Blackwater, he wanted to know what I made of the company’s recent public-relations push. My response was that it was long overdue: For far too long, the State Department gagged Blackwater, barring them from defending themselves from unfair attacks in the media and by liberal congressman trying to score political points with the MoveOn.org crowd.

I explained that the men of Blackwater were true patriots, heroes who volunteered to go into harm’s way to protect the lives of American diplomats and elected officials, some of whom were attacking the very company that kept them safe overseas. Yet because the antiwar Left (most vocally supported by liberal Democrats in the House and Senate) wanted to score political points, they constantly accused Blackwater of being unaccountable and above the law. Nothing, I said, was further from the truth, and these so-called legislators should be ashamed of themselves for being ignorant of the statutes governing the conduct of security contractors overseas.

I went on at length about the vision and commitment of Blackwater’s founder and owner Eric Prince. Instead of spending the rest of his life relaxing on the interest from a sizeable inheritance, Prince decided to become a Navy Seal. While serving on active duty he realized that the Navy lacked the facilities to conduct the kind of training that would make our soldiers, sailors, and Marines even more proficient and skilled war fighters. When he left active service, he created Blackwater USA and dedicated his life to making America even safer.

As Mr. Corallo reports, the men of Blackwater Security are all highly trained Special Forces or law enforcement officers. They are not the cowboys that Henry Waxman is attempting to portray them as. They are professional, efficient, competent, and self-controlled. They do not randomly spray bullets when attacked; mostly they do not return fire at all. Their mission is to get their charge to his or her destination unharmed, and engaging the enemy in a firefight is not the best means of doing so.

On rare occassions, an employee violates the strict codes of behavior which Blackwater imposes on their employees. When this happens, the employee is terminated, fined, and sent back to America at the guilty party's own expense. If the employee has violated any laws, then they are investigated by the United States Department of Justice, and if need be, they are charged and brought to trial under crimial indictment.

If there is any failing in the punishment of an employee's misbehavior, it is the fault of the Justice Department, not of Blackwater. Blackwater is not an arm of the Federal Government and is not a law-enforcement entity. As private contractors they are employed by the U.S. Department of State. It is up to the Department of State to exercise due diligence in the supervision of any contractor it employees.

What we are seeing happen with the Waxman inquisition is another pitiful attempt by Democrats to interfere with and hinder the successful completion of our mission in Iraq. The people who really need investigating by Congress and the FBI are these members of Congress who are relentlessly working for our defeat in the war on terror.

Henry Waxman is a traitor to his nation. He is actively seeking to interfere with the prosecution of a military action,in an effort to score political points for his Democrat Party. He is not interested in winning in Iraq; he is interested in pandering to his political base. He is not interested in what is good for the nation, only what is good for his political party at the moment. For a member of Congress to do so is a violation of their oath of office and is effectively treasonous activity.

Up the Brave Men of Blackwater, down the Effete Wimps of Waxman's Democrat Traitors.

By the way, here is a link to the original New York Lies article: Blackwater Mounts a Defense With Top Talent

I still cannot believe that any grown man would find such duplicity from the "reporters" of the New York Lies surprising.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Some Information on the Bond Elections This Year

This guy calls himself "The Mighty Wizard," and I don't even know his politics, but he appears to have a pretty good handle on at least some of the upcoming Bond Elections. He reports on his website (linked to the title above) that he attended the Friday, October 26, 2007 Houston Property Rights Association meeting at which three speakers were invited to address the numerous bond elections on the ballots this year. Here is a portion of his report:

"The first speaker was Larry Tobin, speaking on the Port of Houston Authority's $250 million bond proposal.

As can be seen by looking at the links above, Mr. Tobin, a Taylor Lake Village Council member, has long been a watchdog of the Port and has been speaking out against port, or pork bonds. Tobin started his talk by asking the audience if anyone knew the primary difference between the PoH and most of the rest of the ports in America? When nobody raised their hands, Mr. Tobin then told them two things. First, the PoH has mostly liquids as its main source of cargoes, and second that the PoH is the only port in America that does not pay the bulk of its capital costs. Instead, the PoH lives primarily off of the levies of Harris County taxpayers. He stated that, in his view, the Port has practically no accountability. It is not a component of the City of Houston, Pasadena, or any other entity. He said that, "the board is composed of a bunch of flunky appointees that are running this thing."

Tobin told the audience that the really tough questions should come to heel at the Harris County Commissioners Court, but our esteemed Commissioners do not ask the tough questions needed to really turn things around. Tobin continued, saying that we could run the port with private terminal operators, with leaseholds which could cover debt service. He then noted that every time there is a new bond issue to be voted on, the campaigners for the bonds always talk about the jobs, jobs, jobs that will be created if we pass the bonds. Tobin asked the audience, who pays for all this? It's the pigs feeding at the trough.

Tobin told the audience that the cruise terminal operations cannot find new passenger ships for the immediate future, as Norweigan has left and only two ships call every week. However, these terminals can make for nice meeting facilities. Go figure.

I don't know about you but I find this kind of thinking a just a little bit disturbing..."they make for nice meeting facilities?" Surely we can find "nice meeting facilities without spending $250 Million in taxpayer funds.

This guy provides a pretty good amount of information and it looks to be well worth you perusal if you are interested in informing yourself before you cast your vote (always a good idea).

Well I was going to list another interesting looking blog, but unfortunately like far too many blogs, once people discover how much time it takes to do the research to run a really well informed blog, they sort of lose interest. Either that our they run out of ideas (that never seems to be a problem for me, I just love telling other people what I think and what they should think.

Anyway, I'll keep looking for good, useful election information. Meanwhile, go to Google.com and do searches using various words like "houston elections," "houston voting," "houston ballots," "houston...well you get the idea."

Please remember, that voting is not simply a privilege, it is your obligation as a citizen. If you don't exercise it every chance you get, you might just lose it someday...especially if a Democrat gets elected to national office.

I tend to be fairly non-partisan in local elections, because I am more interested in the person and that for which they stand, than I am what their party affiliation is. I think Mayor White has done his job admirably and I will most likely vote for him.

Please don't ask me to do your thinking for you in local elections, as I have stated before, I am very much focused on the national scene and that consumes virtually all of my blogging time.

More later as it becomes available. Meanwhile VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

Our government-OUR NATION-cannot function properly if you do not do your part, so VOTE!!!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

More Proof that Politics Trumps Good Policy for Democrats

I have been saying it for a long time, and now this headline about Senators Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein publicly announcing their decision to vote to approve the President's nominee for Attorney General, Michael B. Mulkasey and the story accompanying it, written by Eggan and Kane, is just further vindication of my informed opinion that, for Democrats, politics always trumps good policy.

I first saw a solid confirmation of my assumption during an interview by Tim Russert of Tom Daschle shortly after he was kicked out of Congress. By his own constituency during the 2000 election. Tim Russert asked him about what he was feeling during the Monica Lewinsky affair and he replied that he felt betrayed. He then went on to discuss his strategy for the Party.

Mr. Daschle stated that he was just about to send a letter to President Bill Clinton advising him that it would be best for the Nation if he was to "resign his Presidency." He then said it suddenly struck him how bad such a move would be for the Democrat Party. It was then that he came up with the idea to go on the offensive, attacking the Republicans, the credibility of Special Prosecutor Ken Starr, and attacking the Mainstream Media and their reporting.

That's right folks; from his own mouth he stated that he put the good of the Democrat Party over the good of the Nation. Democrats have been doing so ever since.

Here's the Washington Post Article:

Democratic Defections Clear Path For Mukasey
2 Senators Say Nominee Is Best Bush Would Offer

By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer and washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Saturday, November 3, 2007; Page A01

The nomination fight over attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey effectively came to an end yesterday, as two key Senate Democrats parted from their colleagues and announced their support for the former judge despite his controversial statements on torture.

The orchestrated announcements by Sens. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) virtually guarantee that Mukasey will be approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, to be followed by his likely confirmation in the full Senate later in the month.

The developments mark an important political victory for President Bush, who mounted a spirited and aggressive defense of Mukasey in recent days. They also underscore the pitfalls facing Democrats as the party struggles to stake out an independent policy on national security issues during a presidential campaign season.

A growing number of Democrats, including the four senators running for president, declared their opposition to Mukasey this week after his repeated refusal to say whether an interrogation technique known as waterboarding amounts to illegal torture under U.S. law. Mukasey called the tactic "repugnant" but said he could not assess its legality without access to classified material.

Now since we know that the Washington Post is just the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party and what they report is the official Democrat Party Line, the choice of the word "defections" is very important and specifically chosen to inspire outrage in the Democrat Party rank and file membership. Note also the choice of the term "orchestrated announcements." The choice of words is again not by accident. It is intended to imply that in some way these two Senators are in league with President Bush either by choice or by coercion through some imagined Machiavellian plot instigated by the President.

You see no one is allowed to dispute the official Democrat Party line for something so trivial as a matter of conscience. Of course old "Microphone Moth," Chucky Schumer is caught in a trap of his own devising since he was the one who recommended Mr. Mukasey as a "consensus" choice. Even he would be unable to be so hypocritical as to oppose someone he recommended. It's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't for him.

For Diane Feinstein, it is one of those very rare moments of lucidity in which she realizes the truth, which she has accurately stated. Were the Democrats to reject Mukasey, it is very probable that they would spark a war with the President and his next appointment would be Ted Olsen or someone like him. Such a nominee would be an anathema to all Democrats.

So it appears that for all the Democrat (MSM) hoopla to the contrary Mukasey's appointment as the next A.G. is all but assured.

Of course one should never underestimate the ability of a Democrat to demonstrate their hypocrisy. A quick visit to democraticunderground.com, dailyKos.com, and OpEdNews.com, or as I like to call them, the lunatic asylums of the Left-wing, reveals that both of these two very Liberal Democrats are now being subjected to the same "hate-speech" to which everyone else in the Democrat Party who dares to disagrees with them is routinely subjected.

Yep, the tin-hat wearing Kool-Aid drinkers are in an orgy of hatred (a condition in which they seem to be on a permanent basis), spouting lies (as usual) this time about two of their very own.

It would be very difficult to find any two individuals in Congress more Liberal than Chuck Schumer and DiFi. This reaction is simply a further confirmation of the lunacy of those on the Left. Their intolerance of dissent far surpasses anything one could imagine in members of the KKK upon finding a black man in their midst, hiding under a white sheet. To call the denizens of the Left who routinely visit these websites Stalinists would be to defame Stalin.

These people continue to amuse me almost as much as they frighten me at the thought that they might someday actually become something other than the extremist fringe group they are. What amuses me even more is that they seem to believe that almost everyone in America agrees with them.

I believe first and foremost that a Federal politician's obligation is first to the good of the Nation as a whole, second to his constituents, and third to his Party. Democrats believe precisely the reverse and they have proven it time and again.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Hypocritical Hillary: Not Ready for Prime Time

The reaction of the Clinton Camp over Hillary Clinton's discomfiture at being asked a single "tough question," has to be the ultimate in pseudo-feminist hypocrisy. It can only be compared to her cringing umbrage-taking during her run for the Senate when she was subjected to the "intolerable threat" of the diminutive Rick Lazio crossing the stage during their debate, brandishing a campaign finance agreement at her "in a threatening manner" and asking her to sign it right there on the stage.

Reaction from the "women just want to be treated the same as men" Democrats was typically hypocritical. How dare he threaten her in front of all those people. "Oh! The humanity!" You can't imagine the damage a man might cause with a piece of paper. Especially a man as big and threatening as Rick Lazio [hint, Lazio is about as threatening as Richie Cunningham on Happy Days].

That single act of "aggression" by Lazio was enough to sink his campaign thanks in large part to the huge media play Hillary's cringing, speechless, inability to stand her ground received.

As Lou Waters of CNN said at the time:

"...folks are saying he [Rick Lazio] was overly aggressive."

[Later, Waters goes on to say, following a short clip of a Lazio press conference] "...That's Rick Lazio continuing to aggressively press his case for the elimination of soft money from the New York Senate race, as he did in his first debate with Hillary Clinton, an aggression that he has been criticized for, pressing his point too forcefully.

In response to that, earlier in the week, Lazio has been telling reporters that there's a double standard, because -- I'm going to quote him now -- "you're a man or a woman, and that you can't make the point forcefully because you are a man, and the person you're making the point with is a woman. I just think that is sexist," that's Lazio.

Waters didn't even have the guts to point out Hillary's hypocrisy and that of the press' reaction. He chose instead to make sure that the audience was aware that he was quoting Rick Lazio. What a coward Lou Waters was.

Now, running to be President of the most powerful nation on Earth, Hillary has once again run crying to her protectors. The crime this time? That "horrid Conservative" Tim Russert [Russert a Conservative? Don't make me laugh] dared to ask her a question for which she had no pre-programmed answer. She danced all around it and ended up taking one of those classic "I'm for it and I'm against it" stances the Clinton's are famous for.

How dare Mr. Russert threaten Hillary's carefully rehearsed and practiced performance by asking her a "tough" question about whether or not she approved of the New York State Governor's decision to offer driver's licenses to illegal aliens? Sorry Hill, it's not a difficult question unless you are attempting to deceive those watching into believing that you are capable of running this nation.

The reaction coming from the Hillary camp was as hysterical as when former President Bush (#41) was overheard saying that he had tried to "kick a little ass" the night before (the night of his debate with then Democrat vice-presidential nominee, Geraldine Ferraro). The howls coming from Democrats in the Press were deafening.

Hillary's reaction was to run to her alma mater, Wellesley College, with its predictably friendly audience and begin bragging about how she is "breaking the glass ceiling," or as she put it, "In so many ways, this all-women’s college prepared me to compete in the all-boys’ club of presidential politics." She neglected to mention that she had sent Bill Clinton in to do the heavy lifting of criticizing Tim Russert and her opponents of engaging in “The Politics of Pile-on,” a description lifted from her website. Poor baby.

Dan Balz carries the Washington Post's water on this story:

Victim or a Party Crasher in the 'All-Boys Club'

Dan Balz
Washington Post-On the Trail

Hillary Clinton's return to Wellesley College on Thursday was a stroke of scheduling serendipity for a campaign seized by the desire to play the gender card after Tuesday's debate in Philadelphia.

"In so many ways, this all-women's college prepared me to compete in the all-boys club of presidential politics," the Democratic frontrunner told an enthusiastic, young generation audience at her alma mater.

That presidential politics has largely been an all-male profession is hardly in dispute. Not only has the country never elected a woman president, but the ranks of campaigns past and present have been dominated by men and the media pack that trails along after the candidates is equally unbalanced against women. Witness the nauseating number of boxing metaphors before and after Tuesday's debate.

Even the many women who populate and play increasingly important roles in presidential and other campaigns recognize -- often to their annoyance -- that the vernacular of politics is that of blood sport and gamesmanship and that the pressurized atmosphere inside these campaigns is more a combination of locker room and fraternity than classroom and sorority. So there is a ready audience for what Clinton is saying about the world she seeks to conquer.

Hey Dan...ummm neither? I never heard of Maggie Thatcher running home to her husband crying for him protect her from the tough questions. Maggie Thatcher would have destroyed any and all comers with her intellect and strength. Of course Maggie had real strength of character. She was not just a Walt Disney animatronic puppet like Hillary Clinton.

This woman wants to run the most powerful nation on Earth and she can't handle this tiny amount of heat? Her candidacy is a joke. Not a very funny joke, but a joke nonetheless. Can you imagine the late Jean Kirkpatrick behaving in such a weak fashion? Can you imagine Ann Coulter whining about being verbally assaulted after being asked such a banal and reasonable question?

Imagine what those in the Middle East are thinking after seeing the past week's performance by Hillary Clinton. Those Arabs will chew her up and spit her out like yesterdays pilaf.

If she is elected, she will be the most dangerous woman in the world. She has shown her lack of intellectual agility and she would very likely lash out against any nation which might humiliate her. Just like her philandering husband Bill, Hillary is a stupid, trailer-trash, bumpkin who is way out of her depths in running for the Presidency.

She is supposed to be the "smartest woman on Earth." In fact she is a weak, ineffectual, poser, just as was her husband Bubba. Worse yet, whereas Bill at least could be affable and stupid with only a modicum of vindictiveness (that was his shtik), Hillary is vindictive and hateful by nature and it is exacerbated by her stupidity. Small mindedness and vindictiveness run hand-in-hand and she is the archetype for those characteristics.

If this nation elects Hillary Clinton then all of the warnings by President Bush about allowing our enemies to grow unchecked will be for naught and World War III will be a virtual certainty. A President Hillary Clinton will be laughed out of any negotiations with any Muslim states even if she wears a Birka and she will then attempt to show how strong she is by launching an attack against those who mock her. We already know about her notorious temper-tantrums. If she reacts that way to the people around her and who know her, how will she react when she is snubbed by our Islamic enemies? She is liable to begin lobbing nukes around the world like a drunken blind-man playing darts.

Hillary Clinton is cowardly, bullying, arrogant, and incompetent with less to show for credentials than Bill and she is even more incompetent than was Jimmy Carter. If we were to survive her Presidency, she will not have "shattered the glass ceiling, she will have turned it into a ceiling of solid concrete for the next 10 generations.

Hillary Clinton is a bad version of Bill and her Presidential administration would be just as bad if not worse. She is just as corrupt-probably more so-just as arrogant, just as incompetent, and less intelligent than Bill. She has the personality of a musk ox and the laugh of a hyena. She is rude, boorish and insulting to people around her. She curses and uses profanity with such abandon that she demonstrates her limited intellect by her limited lexicon of personal insults.

She knows less about how to run a country than she knows about how to run a kitchen. Her record in the Senate, or should I say lack of record in the Senate bespeaks to her lack of qualifications. Stupidity and arrogance pretty much run hand in hand and Hillary has them both in spades. Apparently Hillary was out memorizing quotes from Chairman Mao when brains were being handed out at Wellesley.

What do I look for should she win the Presidency? The end of everything that makes being an American worthwhile. A lurch to the Left far surpassing that of FDR or Lyndon Baines Johnson.

I would look for a Presidency very much like that of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

On an interesting side-note, I just recently received the same kind of attack that Hillary's detractors are now receiving when I questioned the competency of Cindy Sheehan in her absurd run to replace Nancy Pelosi in the House of Representatives.

It's okay for them to lash out with abandon at any and all targets of opportunity using language that should embarass them to be uttering, but the instant someone attempts to point out their pettiness, their attacker is subjected to instant, visceral, personal attacks of hate by sympathetic defenders. How dare you question Cindy Sheehan's competency, don't you know she lost her son in Iraq? Don't you know that you are not allowed to attack a woman?

These weak-kneed women who presume to seek high office in the government of the United States had better be made of sterner stuff, because you can be certain that they will be tested. Hillary will be tested immediately by Putin, by Kim Jung Il, by Hugo Chavez, by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and by every rogue and villain with a grudge against America. Will Hillary run to her husband and ask him to personally tongue lash (yuck, sorry for the phrasing there) anyone who dares challenge her or will she just press the launch button on every nuke we have?

Ask yourself one question, if Hillary can't handle a single difficult question being asked by one of her most ardent admirers, Tim Russert, former assistant to the Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives, Tiop O'Neal, without being thrown in a tizzy, how the Hell is she going to deal with the responsibilities of being President, by throwing a lamp at Mahmoud? She sure ain't gonna to seduce him with her charm.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

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

Democrats on Iran are Exemplary of Cognitive Dissonance

For one to listen to Democrats dance and spin on the issue of Iran and their potential acquisition of nuclear weaponry is for one to come to understand the meaning of the term “Cognitive Dissonance.”

Somewhere in their tiny little brains, they are dimly aware that an Iranian nation with nuclear weapons is a bad idea; they just can't make the intuitive leap to what must be done to prevent it. Somewhere in their tiny little brains, they understand that Iran is a terrorist nation which is sending Qut members into Iraq to kill American troops and sponsoring groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, but they are incapable of comprehending the implications of the fact.

As a result, they believe that negotiation, or as B. Hussein Obama expressed it this week "aggressive diplomacy," will convince a nation bent on destroying Israel, America, and the entire Western Civilization to play nicely and give up their hell bent determination to destroy all Christians and Jews.

Democrats have never learned the lessons of Neville Chamberlain and all successive appeasers in their efforts to cajole, bargain, and drink hot tea with those who have no interest in peace. The last "leader" of the Democrats to use his inestimable charms to our ill effect was Jimmy Carter, the most incompetent President in the last 100 years. For being so incompetent Jimmy Carter, the "nukier Engineer," has garnered himself a Nobel Peace Prize. He received this for his stunning success in convincing the North Koreans to completely eliminate their "nukier weapons program." Even today we are enjoying the peace dividends from the former President and Nobel Laureate's efforts. The world is a safer place due to Jimmy's carefully engineered negotiations with the despot Kim Jung Il...oh wait, that's right; North Korea got all of the benefits promised by this "genius" of Democrat diplomacy (a.k.a. surrender) and immediately returned to the manufacture of their "nukier weapons."

Not only did North Korea take the Carter/Clinton gift of millions of barrels of oil and billions of dollars and then return to doing precisely the opposite of what the "promised" to do, but they began exporting their technology to whomever would pay money for it. We were forced to wait until a Republican administration got in and brought sufficient pressure to bear using the nations surrounding North Korea, those who stand to lose the most in the face of a nuclear armed hostile dictatorship, to see the North Korean government finally beginning to dismantle their nuclear weapons capability.

Unfortunately, due to the neglect and apathy of the Clinton administration, this occurred too late to prevent North Korea from building a Nuclear weapon, and it is now believed that they possess a handful of functional weapons. Also as a result of the Clinton/Carter fiasco, we now have Syria, Iran, and-look for it soon-Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, the American Left's latest Marxist celebrity magnet, striving to become nuclear power.

Of course North Korea alone couldn't do all of this it has been aided by our “new best friend” China, and our former” new best friend” Vlad "the Impaler" Putin doing his best impression of Ivan the Terrible rebuilding Czarist Russia. As a result of all of this, we are now at a more dangerous point in history than any time since Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War.

The Democrats' answer to all of these threats is to be even more cajoling and obsequious, or to lecture our political enemies sternly, while at the same time be unwilling to mention the possibility of military action and never, ever mention the possibility of a nuclear strike against them. Why that would be positively uncivilized.

Hint to all Democrats: When dealing with uncivilized, murderous louts, it doesn't work to be a fawning doormat. It also doesn't work if you announce to the entire world that you would never-fill in the blank- in response to whatever actions they might take. It is at that point that the insane asylum we call the Democrat Party becomes dumb and dangerous.

I say this because, should the unthinkable happen and Iran, or Syria or one of our other terrorist enemies decide to use their newly acquired weapons against us, then it is very likely that a Democrat President, in a sudden fit of hysteria, will punch the "World War III button" and end us all.

Sudden, emotionally driven, lashing out is the domain of Liberalism. They are so shocked that they have been wrong all this time, and their entire world is thrown so far out of kilter, they will panic and "Let slip the dogs of war" without carefully thinking it through. Striking out in emotion because you suddenly discover that your entire philosophy and diplomatic efforts were wrongly directed, or say...because you were caught with your pants down around your ankles in the Oval Office with an "intern," does not make for good foreign policy. It usually results in striking precisely the wrong target, with entirely inappropriate weapons, at exactly the wrong time.

Now to Democrats, taking out an empty training camp in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in the Sudan may sound like good policy, but it is the most certain means I can think of to make an enemy out of an ally or a neutral party.

History has repeatedly shown us that diplomacy, whether it be stern lectures ala B. Hussein Obama’s “aggressive personal diplomacy,” or the obsequiousness of Jimmy Carters pleading with Iran in his feckless attempts to get the American hostages released at the end of his Presidency, will not work where the belligerent against which it is being used, is intent of you demise at any and all cost.

The sorts of enemies we face today are not impressed by polite discourses and seven course meals. They find such benign behavior quaint, laughable, and a certain sign of your weakness. These enemies will only respond to the sure and certain application of enough violence to convince them that the course they have chosen is wrong and self-destructive. Even at that, they may require actual elimination or substantial loses to make such a realization come to fruition.

In short they respect bullets and bombs far more than flattery and whispering sweet nothing into their ears by puffy faced, effete, elitists whom they correctly discern are being condescending and insincere in their efforts. The people most likely to be persuaded by the Democrat approach to diplomacy are nations which are already civilized and at peace with their neighbors, or which will compulsively surrender at the sound of a car backfiring, like the French.

Democrats have a lot in common with the French, they both lack the will to fight, they both assume they are naturally correct, and they are singularly unprepared to lead the way through a hostile environment.

Long Live Our American Republic!

What do you think?

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