I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?
Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:
One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.
Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.
Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.
Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.
Five, universal health care. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!
Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.
Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.
Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?
Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.
Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.
Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.
Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.
Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some non-politicians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.
I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to intelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.
From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.
We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have canceled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when he will rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.
Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.
6/16/2009
Right wing? I guess if the media says it, it is so.
I knew some kind of negative press would come from the media regarding the Holocaust Museum Shooting In Washington D.C. with the murder of Stephen Tyrone Johns by that idiot James von Brunn. It’s people like James von Brunn who are fossils of the past whose bile is becoming more irrelevant over time. There is something about that type of hatred that invokes my utter contempt and anger towards their intolerant and racist ideology. It’s nice to see what James von Brunn’s son thinks of the actions of his father, "I cannot express enough how deeply sorry I am it was Mr. Johns, and not my father who lost (his) life," Erik von Brunn, 32, said in a statement to ABC News. Here, even the legacy of James von Brunn condemns his ideology and actions. There is a fantastic contribution to ones lineage. Further generations of the von Brunn family have to deal with this blight to their family history.
When I hear on television or read about “the simpler time of the 50s” I cannot help but think about things like segregation, and the actions of a brave few like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, and the tragedy of Emmett Till-albeit sparking the flame of the Civil Rights movement that would come later. Reading, seeing on the history channel, and hearing about such things inspire awe in me when I think about what they had to go through. The adversity that they had to struggle with is only something I can speculate being of generation x. I can say that those past events are remembered, and influence subsequent generations (me) in a positive way.
I find more contradictions when I think about the Civil Rights movement becoming entwined with anti-war movement of the 60s. Where I would certainly see myself marching in complete support of Civil Rights for women and minorities, I am ideologically opposed to the anti-war aspect of it. Of course Vietnam was a complete debacle. What I am opposed to were the well to do people on the campus of Berkley and Columbia spitting on soldiers and the likes of that traitor Jane Fonda (as to is Sean Penn for my generation).
Those were just a few general examples, but I see that time as the beginning of an ideology that is something that I have to deal with today, liberalism. I find it rather ironic, where I opposed Reagan era policy and demonized the Republican Party as the core of the issue when I was younger, now I am more in line with their general ethos much more than I am the legacy of the anti-war movement. I need to make a clear distinction that I consider the Civil Rights and anti-war movements to completely different things.
I find one to be uplifting and motivating, and the other to be the actions of the naive and selfish. What we have now is the naive and selfish ideology so embedded into our psyche it took many years of reading, listening, and viewing to realize there was an alternative. I am quite happy that the alternative was more true to the roots of the founding fathers and what they had to say. I would have to summarize it as somewhat conservatism, with most of the emphasis being on responsible and informed individualism grounded in common sense. I won’t say that the founding fathers were perfect. For example, leaving the issue of those southern slave owners to future generations did a lot of damage in subsequent generations.
What I see as the actions of the naive and selfish as the corruption of liberalism seething into academia, government, and media. Where some of it makes perfect sense and I would support, there is a lot of it that follows Marxist and socialist ideology that I cannot forgive nor will overlook. Something inherently tells me big government is wrong and liberal bias is wrong.
This is an example of the dribble that I am talking about.
Chris Matthews and crap from MSNBC a great example to use. So much is covered in this interview on what is wrong with news today. I do need to give Susan Page some credit towards the end of the interview. I thought the she strived for that objectivity that I’d hope to see the media make the slightest attempt at doing. Joan Walsh and Chris Matthews, on the other hand, wonderfully exampled liberal media bias and oversimplification of issues so wonderfully following the Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” dogma.
The press remarked over and over again that he came from a right wing ideology. The thing is, James von Brunn’s ideology stems from leftist views. I wanted to make that statement because a recent DHS report stated “right wing” as well. The media likes to lump the racist and toxic ideology that James von Brunn subscribed to as right wing. Where in the world of op ed and 24 hour news, I would hope that an “objective” media would even try to pretend not to be so biased. Unfortunately, ethics, morals, and credibility are long gone for them. They liberal media are quite possibly one of the worst results of the naive and selfish ideology. I am not a professional in my analysis in and way what so ever. I just cannot fathom how simplistic this right/left paradigm is presented in traditional media.
There are some things that are left out of the public square because is opposes the agenda of the liberal press when they are providing their “in-depth” analysis, and these things are sure something that I did not learn from them. I wanted to provide a few historical examples of such things. I am going to use the same simplistic party lines and associations that the media presents, to give an idea that things are not as simple as they’d like them to be.
We all know that the end of slavery came from the party of Lincoln, the Republican Party. I have seen the liberal press paint that Republican Party as vastly different from the Republican Party today. That’s fine, but it was also the southern Democrats who were the greatest opposition in Civil Rights legislation before it became law. One of those in opposition was Senator Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia. Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, elected him “Exalted Cyclops” even. This Democrat is now 4th in line to the Presidency. While he regrets his past actions, it cannot be swept under the rug of inconvenient facts.
On a side note, another Democrat who opposed civil rights legislation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Albert Gore, Sr., father to “the sky is falling!” Al Gore environmental weenie we all know and love today. I must give credit to Albert Gore, Sr., though, for stating his opposition was one of his biggest mistakes.
School desegregation ended with the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. That event led to the incident at Little Rock Central High School. “On the morning of September 23, 1957, the nine African-American high school students faced an angry mob of over 1,000 European-Americans protesting integration in front of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.[5] As the students were escorted inside by the Little Rock police, violence escalated and they were removed from the school.[5] The next day, President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the 1,200-man 327th Airborne Battle Group of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to escort the nine students into the school.[5] By the same order, the entire 10,000 man Arkansas National Guard was federalized, to remove them from the control of Governor Faubus.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Central_High_School
Eisenhower was a Republican. On the other hand are the actions of a Democrat: “Faubus' name became internationally known during the Little Rock Crisis of 1957, when he used the National Guard to stop black Americans from attending Little Rock Central High School as part of federally ordered racial desegregation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orval_Faubus
These events need to be realized when you have to deal with the media op ed blaming right wing hate speech and right wing ideology being behind that cretin James von Brunn. He was a member of the neo-Nazi movement who demonized Jews, Christians, and minorities with an equal amount of contempt. Point being neo-Nazi.
Before I get into the more general details of political philosophy I wanted to post the basis to which I adhere to. It follows in line what I remember from school.
Racism stems from a form of collectivism, whereas the right stems from individualism. That individualism stems for rights and the dignity of the individual. During the 30s the Germans and Russians hammered out the leftist ideology defining what they believed in. Each agreed to define themselves as opposite of the other to emphasize their flavor of oppression. Despite that, what the two have in common is the opposition to freedom of the individual. We are faced with the notion of a large government seeking to control the individual. These racist ideologues seek to control the individual based on race is one of the aspects of collectivism.
The Nazi party means National Socialism, who pursued a totalitarian doctrine of intolerance to opposition of the state and worked towards finding the “final solution” to their Jewish problem. Here you have an example of the worst and most genocidal actions of a fanatical large government with a strict racial ideology. In other words, it is the manifestation of extreme evil being conducted by human beings. Erik von Brunn and his cronies supported a political ideology that contradicts individualism. As much as Chris Matthews and Joan Walsh try to associate Erik von Brunn and like people as “right wing,” it is simply untrue.
While the above can be simplistic, sometimes simple is better. Many liberals like to overanalyze things to come across as pseudo-intellectual wind bags. Common sense is good. When I stress individualism I make that association with conservatism, not the Republican party. Bush’s exponential growth of government during his 8 years is not an action of a conservative.
A good example of conservative doctrine (with a dash of Republican) is this:
While I do appreciate Reagan’s speeches, I also found Obama’s speeches very inspiring.
* I am testing embedding video into this blog, but I did want to take this opportunity to acknowledge great speakers who give different views, but very eloquently. I appreciate that immensely now. I would never have called Dubya eloquent at all.
It’s not the message that the Democratic Party has that I particularly disagree with. There are Republican Party issues which I disagree with just as much.
The root of the problem stems the naive and selfish liberal idiots who have permeated mass media, government, and academia in recent decades. To their tribute, we have seen the public square become a name calling match, political correctness obliterating common sense, and traditional American values being demonized. When one blames America first, they are so blind to history and the freedom and opportunity that this country has to offer I feel it’s my job to call them out.
In addition, to quote Jefferson, “when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty” is valid to this day. I’d consider it unpatriotic to not to peacefully address my grievances to government policy. What’s good to know is that the internet has become more mainstream in addressing alternative views to the main stream media, that liberal press is hemorrhaging from declining subscribers and viewers. It’s nice to see liberal bias is known, recognized, and failing. MSNBC and op ed talking heads like Chris Matthews really shine in their ridiculousness. Low consumer numbers reflect that.
When I hear on television or read about “the simpler time of the 50s” I cannot help but think about things like segregation, and the actions of a brave few like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, and the tragedy of Emmett Till-albeit sparking the flame of the Civil Rights movement that would come later. Reading, seeing on the history channel, and hearing about such things inspire awe in me when I think about what they had to go through. The adversity that they had to struggle with is only something I can speculate being of generation x. I can say that those past events are remembered, and influence subsequent generations (me) in a positive way.
I find more contradictions when I think about the Civil Rights movement becoming entwined with anti-war movement of the 60s. Where I would certainly see myself marching in complete support of Civil Rights for women and minorities, I am ideologically opposed to the anti-war aspect of it. Of course Vietnam was a complete debacle. What I am opposed to were the well to do people on the campus of Berkley and Columbia spitting on soldiers and the likes of that traitor Jane Fonda (as to is Sean Penn for my generation).
Those were just a few general examples, but I see that time as the beginning of an ideology that is something that I have to deal with today, liberalism. I find it rather ironic, where I opposed Reagan era policy and demonized the Republican Party as the core of the issue when I was younger, now I am more in line with their general ethos much more than I am the legacy of the anti-war movement. I need to make a clear distinction that I consider the Civil Rights and anti-war movements to completely different things.
I find one to be uplifting and motivating, and the other to be the actions of the naive and selfish. What we have now is the naive and selfish ideology so embedded into our psyche it took many years of reading, listening, and viewing to realize there was an alternative. I am quite happy that the alternative was more true to the roots of the founding fathers and what they had to say. I would have to summarize it as somewhat conservatism, with most of the emphasis being on responsible and informed individualism grounded in common sense. I won’t say that the founding fathers were perfect. For example, leaving the issue of those southern slave owners to future generations did a lot of damage in subsequent generations.
What I see as the actions of the naive and selfish as the corruption of liberalism seething into academia, government, and media. Where some of it makes perfect sense and I would support, there is a lot of it that follows Marxist and socialist ideology that I cannot forgive nor will overlook. Something inherently tells me big government is wrong and liberal bias is wrong.
This is an example of the dribble that I am talking about.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Chris Matthews and crap from MSNBC a great example to use. So much is covered in this interview on what is wrong with news today. I do need to give Susan Page some credit towards the end of the interview. I thought the she strived for that objectivity that I’d hope to see the media make the slightest attempt at doing. Joan Walsh and Chris Matthews, on the other hand, wonderfully exampled liberal media bias and oversimplification of issues so wonderfully following the Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” dogma.
The press remarked over and over again that he came from a right wing ideology. The thing is, James von Brunn’s ideology stems from leftist views. I wanted to make that statement because a recent DHS report stated “right wing” as well. The media likes to lump the racist and toxic ideology that James von Brunn subscribed to as right wing. Where in the world of op ed and 24 hour news, I would hope that an “objective” media would even try to pretend not to be so biased. Unfortunately, ethics, morals, and credibility are long gone for them. They liberal media are quite possibly one of the worst results of the naive and selfish ideology. I am not a professional in my analysis in and way what so ever. I just cannot fathom how simplistic this right/left paradigm is presented in traditional media.
There are some things that are left out of the public square because is opposes the agenda of the liberal press when they are providing their “in-depth” analysis, and these things are sure something that I did not learn from them. I wanted to provide a few historical examples of such things. I am going to use the same simplistic party lines and associations that the media presents, to give an idea that things are not as simple as they’d like them to be.
We all know that the end of slavery came from the party of Lincoln, the Republican Party. I have seen the liberal press paint that Republican Party as vastly different from the Republican Party today. That’s fine, but it was also the southern Democrats who were the greatest opposition in Civil Rights legislation before it became law. One of those in opposition was Senator Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia. Robert Byrd was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, elected him “Exalted Cyclops” even. This Democrat is now 4th in line to the Presidency. While he regrets his past actions, it cannot be swept under the rug of inconvenient facts.
On a side note, another Democrat who opposed civil rights legislation and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was Albert Gore, Sr., father to “the sky is falling!” Al Gore environmental weenie we all know and love today. I must give credit to Albert Gore, Sr., though, for stating his opposition was one of his biggest mistakes.
School desegregation ended with the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. That event led to the incident at Little Rock Central High School. “On the morning of September 23, 1957, the nine African-American high school students faced an angry mob of over 1,000 European-Americans protesting integration in front of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.[5] As the students were escorted inside by the Little Rock police, violence escalated and they were removed from the school.[5] The next day, President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the 1,200-man 327th Airborne Battle Group of the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to escort the nine students into the school.[5] By the same order, the entire 10,000 man Arkansas National Guard was federalized, to remove them from the control of Governor Faubus.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Central_High_School
Eisenhower was a Republican. On the other hand are the actions of a Democrat: “Faubus' name became internationally known during the Little Rock Crisis of 1957, when he used the National Guard to stop black Americans from attending Little Rock Central High School as part of federally ordered racial desegregation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orval_Faubus
These events need to be realized when you have to deal with the media op ed blaming right wing hate speech and right wing ideology being behind that cretin James von Brunn. He was a member of the neo-Nazi movement who demonized Jews, Christians, and minorities with an equal amount of contempt. Point being neo-Nazi.
Before I get into the more general details of political philosophy I wanted to post the basis to which I adhere to. It follows in line what I remember from school.
Racism stems from a form of collectivism, whereas the right stems from individualism. That individualism stems for rights and the dignity of the individual. During the 30s the Germans and Russians hammered out the leftist ideology defining what they believed in. Each agreed to define themselves as opposite of the other to emphasize their flavor of oppression. Despite that, what the two have in common is the opposition to freedom of the individual. We are faced with the notion of a large government seeking to control the individual. These racist ideologues seek to control the individual based on race is one of the aspects of collectivism.
The Nazi party means National Socialism, who pursued a totalitarian doctrine of intolerance to opposition of the state and worked towards finding the “final solution” to their Jewish problem. Here you have an example of the worst and most genocidal actions of a fanatical large government with a strict racial ideology. In other words, it is the manifestation of extreme evil being conducted by human beings. Erik von Brunn and his cronies supported a political ideology that contradicts individualism. As much as Chris Matthews and Joan Walsh try to associate Erik von Brunn and like people as “right wing,” it is simply untrue.
While the above can be simplistic, sometimes simple is better. Many liberals like to overanalyze things to come across as pseudo-intellectual wind bags. Common sense is good. When I stress individualism I make that association with conservatism, not the Republican party. Bush’s exponential growth of government during his 8 years is not an action of a conservative.
A good example of conservative doctrine (with a dash of Republican) is this:
While I do appreciate Reagan’s speeches, I also found Obama’s speeches very inspiring.
* I am testing embedding video into this blog, but I did want to take this opportunity to acknowledge great speakers who give different views, but very eloquently. I appreciate that immensely now. I would never have called Dubya eloquent at all.
It’s not the message that the Democratic Party has that I particularly disagree with. There are Republican Party issues which I disagree with just as much.
The root of the problem stems the naive and selfish liberal idiots who have permeated mass media, government, and academia in recent decades. To their tribute, we have seen the public square become a name calling match, political correctness obliterating common sense, and traditional American values being demonized. When one blames America first, they are so blind to history and the freedom and opportunity that this country has to offer I feel it’s my job to call them out.
In addition, to quote Jefferson, “when the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty” is valid to this day. I’d consider it unpatriotic to not to peacefully address my grievances to government policy. What’s good to know is that the internet has become more mainstream in addressing alternative views to the main stream media, that liberal press is hemorrhaging from declining subscribers and viewers. It’s nice to see liberal bias is known, recognized, and failing. MSNBC and op ed talking heads like Chris Matthews really shine in their ridiculousness. Low consumer numbers reflect that.
6/10/2009
Health care
Health care reform is one of those things I know that is broken, but I am in no way an expert on what type of reform should be done. I know that government control of anything means massive inefficiency and bureaucratic red tape that should not be a factor with healthcare. I did some searching around and found a very interesting site that discusses socialized health care.
http://www.facesofgovernmenthealthcare.com/
http://www.facesofgovernmenthealthcare.com/
Good stuff!
I need to shout out to Obama's great performance and support for the armed forces by participating in this Steven Colbert show skit. I laughed my ass off when I saw this.
Steven Colbert Haircut - Ordered by Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBUJBqDtwwM
Here is a great bill going through congress:
HR 1207 to Audit the Federal Reserve
This gives a simple explanation of the bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRsLGS8Coz8
and further discussion on Glen Beck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hol2tbwhjY
Here is Ron Paul giving an explanation of it on CSPAN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PC9fkLMZmo
Steven Colbert Haircut - Ordered by Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBUJBqDtwwM
Here is a great bill going through congress:
HR 1207 to Audit the Federal Reserve
This gives a simple explanation of the bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRsLGS8Coz8
and further discussion on Glen Beck:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hol2tbwhjY
Here is Ron Paul giving an explanation of it on CSPAN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PC9fkLMZmo
6/09/2009
Why is Pelosi still in Congress?
Seriously, I hope she gets voted out and does her public service in CA…or far away from Washington. The vile woman does nothing but serve her own self interest and is completely clueless outside of her own personal gain.
I remember seeing a youtube clip where a girl stated that people are just afraid of a strong woman in a position of power, and supported her based on that notion. I am not afraid of a woman in a position of power in any way. Actually, I have great respect for Condoleezza Rice, Margaret Thatcher...even Hillary Clinton...to a certain extent. Where I am not a big fan her policies in the past, she is a force to be reckoned with. I have yet to see what she will do with her role in the State Department, but overall she seems to be doing a decent job.
As you can see, it’s not a woman thing. While Republicans are trying to make a big issues out of Sonia Sotomaors comments about white men, I can sort of understand where she comes from. I think that statement is being politicized to the point that it is just plain silly. But the aspect of white men in rolls of government is not particularly appealing to me. First, qualified people should be put into positions of government based on their qualifications, and not their race or sex. Those aspects seem irrelevant to me. I would much rather see people from all walks of life (though qualified) in public office because it offers better viewpoints by bringing to light opinions that would be more representative of our nation.
I need to make an exception to that disgusting excuse of a human being Nancy Pelosi. This is a rather interesting story about one my state representative’s attempts to contact Pelosi to further pursue what she wants to do about and further brings to light her calling the CIA a bunch of liars who misled her.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cantor-complains-pelosi-refuses-to-meet-with-him-2009-06-08.html
First watch this, where she boasts about the need for bipartisanship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFM44iiQczc
Here she claims that being bipartisan is owed to the American people, and such should be sought after by all representatives. But the big problem, according to her, is the Republicans are “radical, right wing agenda, special interest oriented that has no interest in the 1 in 5 children living in poverty in America.”*** Further into is, she stated that with the Democratic congress, she didn’t want its legacy to be that of a partisan nature-but of a more civil one.
The article from “thehill.com” goes to explain that Cantor’s inquiries to Pelosi’s office to see if she should receive further intelligence briefings. Which I think would be good to have some sort of official response in light of her outright accusation of calling the CIA liars who misled her on enhanced interrogations. What her, and her office, has done is “[Cantor] have put in requests to meet with her and have yet to be responded to.” Her not wanting to talk about the issue any further does not cut it. "I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this," she told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "I don't have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comment."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98BCGD80&show_article=1
So I guess this is Pelosi in action. I recall it being in the news and then that witch stated she’d not comment on it again...then off to China she went. Not much else has been said. I think the damage has been done and she needs to be held accountable for her official statements on the matter. She called the CIA liars. It’s as simple as that. She needs to be held accountable for her rhetoric. She has no excuse to weasel her way out of that one.
*** In a previous quote I had included “radical, right wing agenda, special interest oriented that has no interest in the 1 in 5 children living in poverty in America” because I need to point something out regarding those evil “radical, right wing agenda, special interest oriented” folks. I want to post some facts on that. Simply broken down, Republicans give more to charity than Democrats. Where a Republican will choose to “put their hand in their pocket” and generously donate to charities overall, the Democrat ethos seems to be more geared towards taking money out of someone else’s pocket and make a welfare program.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
I could not state it better: “The moral of that story is that when it comes to charitable giving - whether you’re talking time and/or money, conservatives beat liberals hands down - in spite of how often liberals wail about “mean-spirited conservatives” who hate the poor/elderly/sick, etc so much that they want to “deprive” them.”
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2009/04/16/why-isnt-joe-biden-more-generous-with-his-own-money-than-mine/
Lastly, in her video she stated the “3 C’s,” one of them being her prioritization of her constituents. She has burned some bridges there. For example, see Cindy Sheehan’s run for congress as an Independent in opposition to Pelosi (interesting video to): http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Sheehan_announces_independent_run_against_Pelosi_0809.html
Nancy Pelosi: the extreme moderate
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-fairbanks15apr15,0,6422702.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
While angering some of the more extreme anti-war types is one thing, as speaker of the house need not be calling the CIA liars and then NOT effectively explain herself. Her statement of refusal to talk about the issue further even makes her actions more disgusting. She has no credibility what so ever.
They should water board the truth out of her.
I remember seeing a youtube clip where a girl stated that people are just afraid of a strong woman in a position of power, and supported her based on that notion. I am not afraid of a woman in a position of power in any way. Actually, I have great respect for Condoleezza Rice, Margaret Thatcher...even Hillary Clinton...to a certain extent. Where I am not a big fan her policies in the past, she is a force to be reckoned with. I have yet to see what she will do with her role in the State Department, but overall she seems to be doing a decent job.
As you can see, it’s not a woman thing. While Republicans are trying to make a big issues out of Sonia Sotomaors comments about white men, I can sort of understand where she comes from. I think that statement is being politicized to the point that it is just plain silly. But the aspect of white men in rolls of government is not particularly appealing to me. First, qualified people should be put into positions of government based on their qualifications, and not their race or sex. Those aspects seem irrelevant to me. I would much rather see people from all walks of life (though qualified) in public office because it offers better viewpoints by bringing to light opinions that would be more representative of our nation.
I need to make an exception to that disgusting excuse of a human being Nancy Pelosi. This is a rather interesting story about one my state representative’s attempts to contact Pelosi to further pursue what she wants to do about and further brings to light her calling the CIA a bunch of liars who misled her.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cantor-complains-pelosi-refuses-to-meet-with-him-2009-06-08.html
First watch this, where she boasts about the need for bipartisanship:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFM44iiQczc
Here she claims that being bipartisan is owed to the American people, and such should be sought after by all representatives. But the big problem, according to her, is the Republicans are “radical, right wing agenda, special interest oriented that has no interest in the 1 in 5 children living in poverty in America.”*** Further into is, she stated that with the Democratic congress, she didn’t want its legacy to be that of a partisan nature-but of a more civil one.
The article from “thehill.com” goes to explain that Cantor’s inquiries to Pelosi’s office to see if she should receive further intelligence briefings. Which I think would be good to have some sort of official response in light of her outright accusation of calling the CIA liars who misled her on enhanced interrogations. What her, and her office, has done is “[Cantor] have put in requests to meet with her and have yet to be responded to.” Her not wanting to talk about the issue any further does not cut it. "I have made the statement that I'm going to make on this," she told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. "I don't have anything more to say about it. I stand by my comment."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98BCGD80&show_article=1
So I guess this is Pelosi in action. I recall it being in the news and then that witch stated she’d not comment on it again...then off to China she went. Not much else has been said. I think the damage has been done and she needs to be held accountable for her official statements on the matter. She called the CIA liars. It’s as simple as that. She needs to be held accountable for her rhetoric. She has no excuse to weasel her way out of that one.
*** In a previous quote I had included “radical, right wing agenda, special interest oriented that has no interest in the 1 in 5 children living in poverty in America” because I need to point something out regarding those evil “radical, right wing agenda, special interest oriented” folks. I want to post some facts on that. Simply broken down, Republicans give more to charity than Democrats. Where a Republican will choose to “put their hand in their pocket” and generously donate to charities overall, the Democrat ethos seems to be more geared towards taking money out of someone else’s pocket and make a welfare program.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
I could not state it better: “The moral of that story is that when it comes to charitable giving - whether you’re talking time and/or money, conservatives beat liberals hands down - in spite of how often liberals wail about “mean-spirited conservatives” who hate the poor/elderly/sick, etc so much that they want to “deprive” them.”
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2009/04/16/why-isnt-joe-biden-more-generous-with-his-own-money-than-mine/
Lastly, in her video she stated the “3 C’s,” one of them being her prioritization of her constituents. She has burned some bridges there. For example, see Cindy Sheehan’s run for congress as an Independent in opposition to Pelosi (interesting video to): http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Sheehan_announces_independent_run_against_Pelosi_0809.html
Nancy Pelosi: the extreme moderate
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-fairbanks15apr15,0,6422702.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
While angering some of the more extreme anti-war types is one thing, as speaker of the house need not be calling the CIA liars and then NOT effectively explain herself. Her statement of refusal to talk about the issue further even makes her actions more disgusting. She has no credibility what so ever.
They should water board the truth out of her.
6/08/2009
The Democratic playbook
The liberal tactics that were evident in the 2008 election can be summed up in a 2 Live Crew CD I had. It was called "As Nasty As They Wanna Be." As I have described in a previous post, the liberal smear machine and bias in the press can be summarized by the treatment of Sarah Palin in the press. In addition, the Bush administration was hammered pretty badly...but when it comes to many of Bush's policies being criticized I might have agreed with some aspects, but not the tone presented. Otherwise supposed legitimate and "professional" members of the press have turned into little nasty partisan creatures.
One of my favorite examples is CNN Reporter Susan Roesgen interviewing people during the TEA party. The TEA party meant taxed enough already, and it consisted of people from many different backgrounds expressing their discontent with the government's policy of seemingly out of control spending. This you tube video is an extension of what occurred after the part that was aired on CNN. I rather enjoy it because Susan Roesgen gets put on the spot and has to explain herself. I am completely bewildered by this "professional" reporters lack of good journalism skills.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xWGvdRQ9Q
The CNN incident is just one example of the partisan attacks on people who oppose the Obama administration's policy. As much as I do not like Rush Libaugh stating "I hope he fails" regarding Obama, it provides another good example. The press had "I hope he fails" all over the place. I looked for the whole context of the what he said, and what it turned out to be was he hoped his policies failed, not the president. That's about all of the 'support' I want to give to that dope addict. Ultimately, it is rather surprising that the Obama administration made a big deal about discussed Limbaugh in an official manner, where you'd normally see ignoring the issue. Any retort from the Obama administration just helped Rush's radio show ratings even more. Personally, if he's what the Republican party has to offer, the party is screwed.
A lot of the general nastiness and bias stems from an unethical and unprofesisonal press who are products of 60s radical thought. One of those promoters is a guy named Saul Alinsky, who was yet another Marxist America hating intellectual who was well known for his work called "Rules for Radicals." It's fascinating when you read of Alinsky, and apply his rules to the dialogue that we see from liberals in our government. In addition, this is not directly related (but notable) Hillary Clinton's senior honors thesis was on Sal Alinsky (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/).
A decent background of Alinsky can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm
A good description of the "Rules for Radicals" can be located here:
http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm
Now I wanted to apply a few rules to some of what we have heard, watched, and read over time.
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
Calling people who do not support Obama racist or people who do not support gay marriage homophobes are two that I can think of right off of the top of my head. I recall the racist dialogue coming from John Murtha during focus on the Pennsylvania campaign. He outright called his constituents racist because they did not support Obama. Such a faulty generalization from a member of congress in the context of mass media coverage is completely uncalled for.
In addition, I really see the application of rule 5 from the liberal immigration rights groups pushing for amnesty for illegal aliens. At first they were calling groups such as the Minute Men racist xenophobes, then in other interviews they insinuate individuals who do not support amnesty as being racist and xenophobes. In addition, an amazing double standard is everything is done so politically correct. Everybody is offended by this or that...but the liberal left can get away with calling Bush a Nazi or someone that does not support their cause to be ignorant and a hater. Any dialogue of opposition to their cause is immediately ridiculed using the lowest common denominator. While I won't agree with Obama's policy, out of respect for his office and being democratically elected, there is a certain degree of natural respect that I have for him and refuse to get nasty about things. But that is the problem, it's that sense of decency in which Saul Alinksy defines and applies his rule to.
One thing the seems to really apply is those who speak the loudest about intolerance tend to be the most intolerant of all, and the only "rights" the left supports is abortion and gay rights. An example is as soon as right leaning radio starts opposing Obama's policies, there is discussion of bringing back the fairness doctrine. In the larger scheme of things, the fairness doctrine is government control on free speech. Another obvious example is the 2nd Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/26/demint-tries-prevent-fairness-doctrine-revival/
Here is another one, albeit more general...RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
This one is pretty easy. We'll see a great depression if this stimulus bill isn't passed! And many other extreme situations as a result of not implementing X policy. But then again, that can be applied to "Our cities will be mushroom clouds is we don't invade Iraq and remove Sadam from power!" Another good example is Rahm Emanuel's gaff "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
While "Alinsky championed new ways to organize the poor and powerless that created a backyard revolution in cities across America," we are strife with massive corruption and voter fraud coming from ACORN and other wonderful things that this new administration is cranking out over time such as stimulus money going to waste (as I read Biden stating in the news today). While the Obama campaign was well done, and his supporters applied their nasty partisan attacks in a manner that would make Alinsky smile, there is a problem. While Alinsky focused on the means to change government by shaking up the power structure in order to have that "hope and change" implemented, he failed to really define what people did when they had it. Obama won and the other branches have DNC party in power now. Yet we see nothing coming from the government that is really helping this economic crisis as a whole. I think they should really go back and review the works of Benjamin Franklin and other founding fathers in regard to handling this economic crisis. I think that their wisdom would far outweigh some 60s Marxist dope each and every time.
One of my favorite examples is CNN Reporter Susan Roesgen interviewing people during the TEA party. The TEA party meant taxed enough already, and it consisted of people from many different backgrounds expressing their discontent with the government's policy of seemingly out of control spending. This you tube video is an extension of what occurred after the part that was aired on CNN. I rather enjoy it because Susan Roesgen gets put on the spot and has to explain herself. I am completely bewildered by this "professional" reporters lack of good journalism skills.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xWGvdRQ9Q
The CNN incident is just one example of the partisan attacks on people who oppose the Obama administration's policy. As much as I do not like Rush Libaugh stating "I hope he fails" regarding Obama, it provides another good example. The press had "I hope he fails" all over the place. I looked for the whole context of the what he said, and what it turned out to be was he hoped his policies failed, not the president. That's about all of the 'support' I want to give to that dope addict. Ultimately, it is rather surprising that the Obama administration made a big deal about discussed Limbaugh in an official manner, where you'd normally see ignoring the issue. Any retort from the Obama administration just helped Rush's radio show ratings even more. Personally, if he's what the Republican party has to offer, the party is screwed.
A lot of the general nastiness and bias stems from an unethical and unprofesisonal press who are products of 60s radical thought. One of those promoters is a guy named Saul Alinsky, who was yet another Marxist America hating intellectual who was well known for his work called "Rules for Radicals." It's fascinating when you read of Alinsky, and apply his rules to the dialogue that we see from liberals in our government. In addition, this is not directly related (but notable) Hillary Clinton's senior honors thesis was on Sal Alinsky (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/).
A decent background of Alinsky can be found at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm
A good description of the "Rules for Radicals" can be located here:
http://www.geocities.com/WallStreet/8925/alinsky.htm
Now I wanted to apply a few rules to some of what we have heard, watched, and read over time.
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon."
Calling people who do not support Obama racist or people who do not support gay marriage homophobes are two that I can think of right off of the top of my head. I recall the racist dialogue coming from John Murtha during focus on the Pennsylvania campaign. He outright called his constituents racist because they did not support Obama. Such a faulty generalization from a member of congress in the context of mass media coverage is completely uncalled for.
In addition, I really see the application of rule 5 from the liberal immigration rights groups pushing for amnesty for illegal aliens. At first they were calling groups such as the Minute Men racist xenophobes, then in other interviews they insinuate individuals who do not support amnesty as being racist and xenophobes. In addition, an amazing double standard is everything is done so politically correct. Everybody is offended by this or that...but the liberal left can get away with calling Bush a Nazi or someone that does not support their cause to be ignorant and a hater. Any dialogue of opposition to their cause is immediately ridiculed using the lowest common denominator. While I won't agree with Obama's policy, out of respect for his office and being democratically elected, there is a certain degree of natural respect that I have for him and refuse to get nasty about things. But that is the problem, it's that sense of decency in which Saul Alinksy defines and applies his rule to.
One thing the seems to really apply is those who speak the loudest about intolerance tend to be the most intolerant of all, and the only "rights" the left supports is abortion and gay rights. An example is as soon as right leaning radio starts opposing Obama's policies, there is discussion of bringing back the fairness doctrine. In the larger scheme of things, the fairness doctrine is government control on free speech. Another obvious example is the 2nd Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/26/demint-tries-prevent-fairness-doctrine-revival/
Here is another one, albeit more general...RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."
This one is pretty easy. We'll see a great depression if this stimulus bill isn't passed! And many other extreme situations as a result of not implementing X policy. But then again, that can be applied to "Our cities will be mushroom clouds is we don't invade Iraq and remove Sadam from power!" Another good example is Rahm Emanuel's gaff "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
While "Alinsky championed new ways to organize the poor and powerless that created a backyard revolution in cities across America," we are strife with massive corruption and voter fraud coming from ACORN and other wonderful things that this new administration is cranking out over time such as stimulus money going to waste (as I read Biden stating in the news today). While the Obama campaign was well done, and his supporters applied their nasty partisan attacks in a manner that would make Alinsky smile, there is a problem. While Alinsky focused on the means to change government by shaking up the power structure in order to have that "hope and change" implemented, he failed to really define what people did when they had it. Obama won and the other branches have DNC party in power now. Yet we see nothing coming from the government that is really helping this economic crisis as a whole. I think they should really go back and review the works of Benjamin Franklin and other founding fathers in regard to handling this economic crisis. I think that their wisdom would far outweigh some 60s Marxist dope each and every time.
6/05/2009
Cheney and Pelosi Have Poor Ratings in Common
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120761/Cheney-Pelosi-Poor-Ratings-Common.aspx
Pretty funny article showing the high level of faith we have in our Pelosi controlled congress. While the Cheney ratings are not particularly surprising, the Pelosi rating is pretty much dead on. I have searched for positive views on that banshee and can only find a few from her fellow democrats and San Francisco voters.
Personally, I cannot stand the woman. While I might give a certain degree of respect to the Obama administration, I give Pelosi none what so ever. She has proven to be a complete idiot, and her as speaker of the house shows little positive light for the democratic party as a whole.
Back in the 2006 election the code pink and other left leaning groups were calling for Bush's impeachment and demanded more accountability from their government. While I am 180 degrees different from their views, I wholeheartedly support their right to peacefully assemble to address their grievances to the government. One of Pelosi's platform promises was to pursue investigation of the Bush administration for any wrong doing. When she eventually was elected she essentially stated that was not in the best interest of government to do such things...or they had bigger fish to fry.
Other gaffs and acts of idiocy over the last few years didn't help change my opinion of her. She only proved to be some power hungry banshee out to achieve her agenda and not the wishes of the American people.
Take the most recent debacle in calling the CIA liars regarding her briefing of water boarding in 2002. She went to far to call the CIA a bunch of liars, despite the CIA being ran by Leon Panetta, who is a former Democratic House member. Such a boast should be cause for censure and a means to get that banshee to step down from office. I still cannot believe the audacity of that woman when I think about the caliber of fine people who work in our intelligence agencies. They do not hire people with questionable back grounds and have qualifications that Pelosi could only dream of achieving. How dare she call them liars.
Consider that the left praised the integrity and wonderful job the CIA did during the Valerie Plame issue some years back. Consider the scope of work that the CIA works with daily in the best interest of our country. I cannot fathom what they have done to save us from further terrorist attacks. All I know is while we'll never know what the "spook agencies" do, it is full of dedicated Americans who have 10 times more integrity than that whack job Pelosi.
I would fully support obtaining the truth of what she was told in 2002 by using methods such as water boarding on her.
Pretty funny article showing the high level of faith we have in our Pelosi controlled congress. While the Cheney ratings are not particularly surprising, the Pelosi rating is pretty much dead on. I have searched for positive views on that banshee and can only find a few from her fellow democrats and San Francisco voters.
Personally, I cannot stand the woman. While I might give a certain degree of respect to the Obama administration, I give Pelosi none what so ever. She has proven to be a complete idiot, and her as speaker of the house shows little positive light for the democratic party as a whole.
Back in the 2006 election the code pink and other left leaning groups were calling for Bush's impeachment and demanded more accountability from their government. While I am 180 degrees different from their views, I wholeheartedly support their right to peacefully assemble to address their grievances to the government. One of Pelosi's platform promises was to pursue investigation of the Bush administration for any wrong doing. When she eventually was elected she essentially stated that was not in the best interest of government to do such things...or they had bigger fish to fry.
Other gaffs and acts of idiocy over the last few years didn't help change my opinion of her. She only proved to be some power hungry banshee out to achieve her agenda and not the wishes of the American people.
Take the most recent debacle in calling the CIA liars regarding her briefing of water boarding in 2002. She went to far to call the CIA a bunch of liars, despite the CIA being ran by Leon Panetta, who is a former Democratic House member. Such a boast should be cause for censure and a means to get that banshee to step down from office. I still cannot believe the audacity of that woman when I think about the caliber of fine people who work in our intelligence agencies. They do not hire people with questionable back grounds and have qualifications that Pelosi could only dream of achieving. How dare she call them liars.
Consider that the left praised the integrity and wonderful job the CIA did during the Valerie Plame issue some years back. Consider the scope of work that the CIA works with daily in the best interest of our country. I cannot fathom what they have done to save us from further terrorist attacks. All I know is while we'll never know what the "spook agencies" do, it is full of dedicated Americans who have 10 times more integrity than that whack job Pelosi.
I would fully support obtaining the truth of what she was told in 2002 by using methods such as water boarding on her.
9/29/08 letter to a local paper of mine
To the editor:
I would like to respond to XXX "Time for Change in November." I want to focus on some root causes of the financial crisis and point out that 8 years of Bush in office is not the main reason behind the housing crisis and the current bank implosion.
While Obama might have done something to avert the crisis in 2006, his mantra of hope and change turns out to be thin and empty when we look into the actual solutions he has proposed. "Above my pay grade" and voting "present" do not reflect a good decision maker. The executive office requires decisions.
The bank meltdown was caused by the housing bubble primarily due to the subprime lending by banks to people who should never have been approved for their loan in the first place. The mortgages were risky, and now we as a nation are paying the price. The seed for the crisis was sown with the "Community Reinvestment Act" that was passed by Jimmy Carter and other Democrats. The act gave incentives to help low income borrowers. It helped some and was a noble idea. In 1995, Clinton added new provisions to the act in which forced banks to issue $1 trillion in new subprime loans. As a result, lenders did not mitigate the loan risk. The revisions made during the Clinton Administration allowed the securitization of the Community Reinvestment Act loans containing the subprime loans, which created subprime mortgage securities.
Companies such as Countrywide, Fanny Mae, and Freddy Mac all contributed to these subprime loans as housing prices increased. The selling of these mortgages to banks went on, and Fannie Mae later moving down the income ladder, offering attractive options to people who would not normally qualify for a mortgage loan. About 92% of Fannie Mae's subprime loans were variable rate and banks faced penalties for not supporting a certain percentage of those subprime loans. Fannie Mae's claim to guarantee these loans allowed the situation to continue. With interest rates, gas prices, and everything else up, low income borrowers were impacted and stopped paying off loans and banks stopped loaning. This resulted in the collapse of the subprime market, and those Fannie Mae "guarantees" became worthless because they kept overstating their assets. Banks collapsed due to government-sponsored securities issued by Fannie Mae.
Before the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), home prices increased with inflation and the CRA allowed prices to skyrocket out of control. Economic fundamentals did not support this raise (or bubble), but regulation-mandated credit did. In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended oversight and a regulatory overhaul of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the Democrats stopped it because regulation diminished the ability to finance loans to lower-income families (Barney Frank & Melvin Watt-Democrats).
In addition, John McCain warned of a mortgage collapse in 2005 and co-sponsored "The Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005", which would have regulated Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This legislative act was blocked twice by Democrats, including Chris Dodd and Barak Obama. Also, please read about Jim Johnson (former chairman of Fannie Mae) and Franklin Raines about their involvement with Barak Obama, who is #2 in receiving campaign contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, 49 times the amount John McCain received. In addition, Obama represented the law firm that sued banks for not issuing enough subprime loans (Miner, Barnhill, & Galland versus Citibank).
There is evidence to demonstrate that Obama is 'more of the same' and his accusations towards McCain are baseless when his hands are just as dirty as everyone else involved in this debacle that started back in 1995. I really wanted to cut Obama some slack because the Rezko, Ayers, and Wright associations were shady, but no different from many other politicians. Bill Clinton sure had his issues, but he still got my vote in 1992.
When I read about the $700 Billion Bailout included $100 million earmark for ACORN, a federally funded organization which he is associated with, that changed my opinion of Obama. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has its issues of federal indictments of voter fraud is the organization that he worked with in his "community organizer" days. Obama opposed and demonized McCain about earmarks didn't he? Obama is just more of the same. While I am NO fan of the Bush Administration, McCain seems to be the most honest of the lot. Also, the extreme bias and contempt exhibited by the media towards Palin has not helped in maintaining an objective opinion of the Obama campaign.
On a side note, I won't discount some parts of deregulation leading to negative consumer rights consequences, but I wanted to make note that MANY of these consumer protections have been brought to us by Ralph Nader…also running for President.
I support John McCain. Barak Obama can keep his version of "change"!
Sources:
http://www.nypost.com/video/?vxSiteId=0db7b365-a288-4708-857b-8bdb545cbd0f&vxChannel=PostUs&vxClipId=1458_386235&vxBitrate=300
http://www.kmbc.com/politics/10214492/detail.html
http://bartonbulletin.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/democrats-loading-bailout-with-special-interest-cash-100-million-for-acorn/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
I would like to respond to XXX "Time for Change in November." I want to focus on some root causes of the financial crisis and point out that 8 years of Bush in office is not the main reason behind the housing crisis and the current bank implosion.
While Obama might have done something to avert the crisis in 2006, his mantra of hope and change turns out to be thin and empty when we look into the actual solutions he has proposed. "Above my pay grade" and voting "present" do not reflect a good decision maker. The executive office requires decisions.
The bank meltdown was caused by the housing bubble primarily due to the subprime lending by banks to people who should never have been approved for their loan in the first place. The mortgages were risky, and now we as a nation are paying the price. The seed for the crisis was sown with the "Community Reinvestment Act" that was passed by Jimmy Carter and other Democrats. The act gave incentives to help low income borrowers. It helped some and was a noble idea. In 1995, Clinton added new provisions to the act in which forced banks to issue $1 trillion in new subprime loans. As a result, lenders did not mitigate the loan risk. The revisions made during the Clinton Administration allowed the securitization of the Community Reinvestment Act loans containing the subprime loans, which created subprime mortgage securities.
Companies such as Countrywide, Fanny Mae, and Freddy Mac all contributed to these subprime loans as housing prices increased. The selling of these mortgages to banks went on, and Fannie Mae later moving down the income ladder, offering attractive options to people who would not normally qualify for a mortgage loan. About 92% of Fannie Mae's subprime loans were variable rate and banks faced penalties for not supporting a certain percentage of those subprime loans. Fannie Mae's claim to guarantee these loans allowed the situation to continue. With interest rates, gas prices, and everything else up, low income borrowers were impacted and stopped paying off loans and banks stopped loaning. This resulted in the collapse of the subprime market, and those Fannie Mae "guarantees" became worthless because they kept overstating their assets. Banks collapsed due to government-sponsored securities issued by Fannie Mae.
Before the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), home prices increased with inflation and the CRA allowed prices to skyrocket out of control. Economic fundamentals did not support this raise (or bubble), but regulation-mandated credit did. In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended oversight and a regulatory overhaul of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the Democrats stopped it because regulation diminished the ability to finance loans to lower-income families (Barney Frank & Melvin Watt-Democrats).
In addition, John McCain warned of a mortgage collapse in 2005 and co-sponsored "The Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005", which would have regulated Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This legislative act was blocked twice by Democrats, including Chris Dodd and Barak Obama. Also, please read about Jim Johnson (former chairman of Fannie Mae) and Franklin Raines about their involvement with Barak Obama, who is #2 in receiving campaign contributions from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, 49 times the amount John McCain received. In addition, Obama represented the law firm that sued banks for not issuing enough subprime loans (Miner, Barnhill, & Galland versus Citibank).
There is evidence to demonstrate that Obama is 'more of the same' and his accusations towards McCain are baseless when his hands are just as dirty as everyone else involved in this debacle that started back in 1995. I really wanted to cut Obama some slack because the Rezko, Ayers, and Wright associations were shady, but no different from many other politicians. Bill Clinton sure had his issues, but he still got my vote in 1992.
When I read about the $700 Billion Bailout included $100 million earmark for ACORN, a federally funded organization which he is associated with, that changed my opinion of Obama. ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) has its issues of federal indictments of voter fraud is the organization that he worked with in his "community organizer" days. Obama opposed and demonized McCain about earmarks didn't he? Obama is just more of the same. While I am NO fan of the Bush Administration, McCain seems to be the most honest of the lot. Also, the extreme bias and contempt exhibited by the media towards Palin has not helped in maintaining an objective opinion of the Obama campaign.
On a side note, I won't discount some parts of deregulation leading to negative consumer rights consequences, but I wanted to make note that MANY of these consumer protections have been brought to us by Ralph Nader…also running for President.
I support John McCain. Barak Obama can keep his version of "change"!
Sources:
http://www.nypost.com/video/?vxSiteId=0db7b365-a288-4708-857b-8bdb545cbd0f&vxChannel=PostUs&vxClipId=1458_386235&vxBitrate=300
http://www.kmbc.com/politics/10214492/detail.html
http://bartonbulletin.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/democrats-loading-bailout-with-special-interest-cash-100-million-for-acorn/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
9/24/2007
Ahmadinejad at Columbia University
I say let him speak. Not because I support some wanna be dictator's hateful rhetoric. Ahmadinejad is a complete, and total idiot. He should be allowed to speak because it gives American's the opportunity to protest. He gets to see what the people of Iran are unable to do. Watching the news over the past few days, it appears that there are quite a number of groups organizing to protest whatever he has to say. I appreciate those organization having the opportunity to speak out against his rhetoric. He cannot possibly say anything that would be shocking. Prior to his trip to the U.S. he was seen on TV in an old soviet style May Day parade, with military vehicles driving by with "Death to Israel!" and "Death to USA!" written on them.
A good article on Ahmadinejad is here.
Here is another one insinuating that he was involved in the 1979 Iran hostage crisis.
It's pretty obvious that Ahmadinejad is a nut. Let him speak, it gives a medium for his opposition and we are a free society able to offer different views and options. With that in mind, I have to question why Columbia invites Ahmadinejad to speak at their university, promoting different views on things, where the university has shown a severe lack of support for the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC).
"As Columbia welcomes Ahmadinejad to campus, Columbia students who want to serve their country cannot enroll in the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) at Columbia. Columbia students who want to enroll in ROTC must travel to other universities to fulfill their obligations. ROTC has been banned from the Columbia campus since 1969. In 2003, a majority of polled Columbia students supported reinstating ROTC on campus. But in 2005, when the Columbia faculty senate debated the issue, President Bollinger joined the opponents in defeating the effort to invite ROTC back on campus." Source
Also, "Prior to the late 1960s, Columbia’s current anti-US military atmosphere seems to have been almost nonexistent. Indeed, as early as 1916 an ROTC program was instituted on campus, where it matured and grew during the two World Wars, the Cold War, the Korean War, and even part of the Vietnam War era. Producing some of the finest naval officers ever to serve our country, at one point Columbia was actually churning out more Navy ensigns per year than even the US Naval Academy. In 1968, however, the university’s administration expelled all ROTC programs from campus in order to appease the sometimes-violent student protesters who opposed the Vietnam War – one of whom actually decimated Columbia’s ROTC offices with a Molotov cocktail.
The university’s ban on ROTC remained in place until a 1980 decision to not only allow its students to participate in the ROTC program at nearby Fordham University, but also to have a record of ROTC classes displayed on their Columbia transcripts. In 1990 however, this policy came to an end. While Columbia students could still take part in ROTC programs on neighboring college campuses, their transcripts no longer reflected that participation. To this day, ROTC classes are not considered part of the regular curriculum of studies. When the military recently forced Columbia to allow on-campus military recruiting (under the banner of the Solomon Amendment, which allows for the denial of federal funding to colleges that prohibit or prevent ROTC or military recruitment), the university’s president openly urged students not to interview – because of what he called the military’s discrimination against homosexuals." Source
It just seems that Columbia supports anti-American rhetoric, while at the same time doesn't support the military. I have heard talk of the threatening to deny Columbia federal funding. I think that is a fantastic idea. The old 60's radicals who could not get a job other than hidden on a college campus really do not need federal money. If they are so anti-military, I say deny them their public funding. They don't need it.
A good article on Ahmadinejad is here.
Here is another one insinuating that he was involved in the 1979 Iran hostage crisis.
It's pretty obvious that Ahmadinejad is a nut. Let him speak, it gives a medium for his opposition and we are a free society able to offer different views and options. With that in mind, I have to question why Columbia invites Ahmadinejad to speak at their university, promoting different views on things, where the university has shown a severe lack of support for the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC).
"As Columbia welcomes Ahmadinejad to campus, Columbia students who want to serve their country cannot enroll in the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) at Columbia. Columbia students who want to enroll in ROTC must travel to other universities to fulfill their obligations. ROTC has been banned from the Columbia campus since 1969. In 2003, a majority of polled Columbia students supported reinstating ROTC on campus. But in 2005, when the Columbia faculty senate debated the issue, President Bollinger joined the opponents in defeating the effort to invite ROTC back on campus." Source
Also, "Prior to the late 1960s, Columbia’s current anti-US military atmosphere seems to have been almost nonexistent. Indeed, as early as 1916 an ROTC program was instituted on campus, where it matured and grew during the two World Wars, the Cold War, the Korean War, and even part of the Vietnam War era. Producing some of the finest naval officers ever to serve our country, at one point Columbia was actually churning out more Navy ensigns per year than even the US Naval Academy. In 1968, however, the university’s administration expelled all ROTC programs from campus in order to appease the sometimes-violent student protesters who opposed the Vietnam War – one of whom actually decimated Columbia’s ROTC offices with a Molotov cocktail.
The university’s ban on ROTC remained in place until a 1980 decision to not only allow its students to participate in the ROTC program at nearby Fordham University, but also to have a record of ROTC classes displayed on their Columbia transcripts. In 1990 however, this policy came to an end. While Columbia students could still take part in ROTC programs on neighboring college campuses, their transcripts no longer reflected that participation. To this day, ROTC classes are not considered part of the regular curriculum of studies. When the military recently forced Columbia to allow on-campus military recruiting (under the banner of the Solomon Amendment, which allows for the denial of federal funding to colleges that prohibit or prevent ROTC or military recruitment), the university’s president openly urged students not to interview – because of what he called the military’s discrimination against homosexuals." Source
It just seems that Columbia supports anti-American rhetoric, while at the same time doesn't support the military. I have heard talk of the threatening to deny Columbia federal funding. I think that is a fantastic idea. The old 60's radicals who could not get a job other than hidden on a college campus really do not need federal money. If they are so anti-military, I say deny them their public funding. They don't need it.
9/20/2007
Moveon.org, I used to like you but...
Follow the basic notion that liberalism is a disease, moveon.org’s case has gotten so sickening it’s at the point of being utterly delusional and bat shit crazy. The best way to describe my relationship with moveon.org is like a girlfriend you have. At first she is cool, but after awhile the preliminary niceties are over and one night she is convinced you are cheating on her and gives you a ration of hell for going out with the boys...but she thinks you are going to the other woman's house. For the record I am married, and have never cheated on anyone.
My turning point with moveon.org was with the ad they posted. “It's General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” This link touts their proud message https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html.
Now Bush had a speech the other day...or another episode of lies, BS, and horse s**t. Regardless of what Iraq lies he is touting, he did condemn moveon.org because of what they said about General Petraeus and no democrat has said anything about it. At the core, that is just wrong. General Petraeus is amazing. Bush is not! But General Petraeus is the sh*t. Now the official stance from moveon.org is this:
Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org, reacted quickly to Bush's comments.
"What's disgusting is that the president has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/20/bush.petraeus/index.html
Slam Bush. Fine. I would expect a liberal response to be that vehement and foul...from an official. Libs are great at 2 things. Crying and yelling. I am saying that because all they do is character assassinate and whine from emotion before logic or fact. Don't get me wrong, what they said about Bush is right on, but what pisses me off is their official response is still evident of disdain towards General Petraeus. Which their official statement follows the logical fallacy of missing the point, which is quite sad when coming from an organization that tries to make itself look important.
So you have the moveon.org printing an ad equating a career military general as a traitor. The president says moveon.org sucks, and their official response bashes the president, but fails to apologize for their slander against of General Petraeus. I'd like to show the background behind the two.
Eli Pariser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Pariser
General Petraeus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Petraeus
Eli Pariser is the person picked out of the lot to represent moveon.org. This is the best of their best. It's Eli Pariser's job stick to their convictions. Their lack of acknowledgment about slamming General Petraeus shows their weakness. A military General who served with distinction (under
It's tough, around 2004 I bought a movie called “Uncovered - The Whole Truth About the Iraq War”. It was a great documentary! Ex
Now in 2007 you have this organization prints this ad to evoke a reaction based on emotion by slandering and incredible man. They strike right at the military. An organization they only wish they had 1/10 of the integrity and honor that is associated with them. Moveon.org has only showed that they are a bunch of leftist liberal bastards who don't give a crap about making any sense when it comes to their arguments. For that, they fail. As an alternative, I watched a documentary called “Rush to War” that was very good. There was no moveon.org association with it.
In the scheme of things we still have a bunch of democrats offering "change" in 2008, but they cannot condemn the fringe aspects that their own party. Meaning that they cannot squelch their leftist aspects. They do a wonderful job and slamming the military. Just read quotes slamming them from Dick Durbin, Pelosi, John Murtha, etc. by searching the web for details. Where I will call them useless liberal cry babies, I'll still respect them for their general stance. But when they slam the military, that crosses the line. Slam the commander in chief, do not slam those who's job it is to follow orders. It's the act of a cowardice what the libs do.
11/09/2006
Libs and the 2006 mid-term elections
Bush is nowhere near being a conservative. He ran being associated with that guise, but his voting record has proven that he has made Government ever bigger while he has been in office. Take for example the Dept. of Homeland Security. It’s an additional layer of bureaucracy on an already ineffective security design that has been ruined in the 90s and not improved upon since 9/11. The greatest failure of our intelligence gathering was due to
3/21/2006
I heart liberals...
Man Overboard
By Ruth Marcus
“I have a new theory about what's behind everything that's wrong with the Bush administration: manliness.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032001416_pf.html
This is a case example of why liberals are morons. In this piece a Washington Post (staffed by people who masturbate to Lenin or Marx books before they write their Op Ed pieces) reporter analyzes a conservative Harvard professor’s book in which it’s described as: “Mansfield's thesis is that manliness, which he sums up as "confidence in the face of risk," is a misunderstood and unappreciated attribute.”
As much as I appreciate the women’s studies stuff that was part of my curriculum in school, I have to state some blatantly obvious facts that this idiot reporter fails to factor in that would at least seem important-those where the basis are from common sense compared to some gender studies filter.
First off, think about a conservative professor at Harvard of all places! That has got to be some sort of affirmative action thing for political parties, but he is no Ward Churchill, so he is probably fine. Now “Man Overboard” is nice if I was some professor stuck in the world of academia where I can hide from the real world. I live and work in the real world. The only consistent thing that I can derive truth from is common sense. Any sort of theory is just that. It’s not absolute. Common sense, by it’s nature, proves to be more consistent. Now here are some things that are more realistic and point out why liberals are morons.
“The undisputed manliness of the Bush White House stands in contrast to its predecessors and wannabes. If Republicans are the Daddy Party and Democrats the Mommy Party, the Clinton White House often operated like Mansfield's vision of an estrogen-fueled kaffeeklatsch: indecisive and undisciplined.” Republicans are not any sort of daddy party. The administration is full of neo-con ***holes who want to push the agenda that has been laid out years ago in The Project for the New American Century publications. The current administration is in no way any sort of fatherly role model. Maybe some daddy who fathers many kids and skips town to avoid child care payments. The Republican Party, save a few, has not showed one ounce of responsibility since the invasion of Iraq.
As for Democrats being called a mommy party? That is giving them too much credit. I would call them the party of indecisive, decentralized Nancy boys. All the democrats do is offer complaints with no solution, and when they are asked to stand up they are total p*ssies. For example, “Oh, I cannot vote to censure the President for violating the Constitution! It’s an election year!” Democrats are utterly useless. They are supposed to provide opposition, but the only thing we see them do is buckle, bitch, and cower. I have way too much respect for mommies to compare any democrat to one.
“Vice President Cheney sounded like a warrior claiming tribute after victory in battle: "We won the midterms. This is our due," Cheney reportedly said.” Sorry, Cheney is not a warrior. That statement is an insult to warriors, those men AND WOMEN serving in our armed forces. The Whitehouse website states that Cheney was a “distinguished career as a businessman and public servant.” He never did any military service, fine…but he is not a warrior either. That is an insult to those men AND WOMEN who defend our country who are the warriors. Cheney is the worst kind of piece of cr*p there is out there. He, and the rest of the chicken hawks in their little committees (such as The Project for the New American Century) think they are warriors, and they know what is best for America. Other sovereign nations, our Constitution, and the American people be damned. I wanted to see justice for 9/11. In March of 2003, with the focus on Iraq, it was a vast change to the focus that united many Americans. We wanted justice and revenge; we gave the government more power to do the right thing. They were irresponsible and screwed us bad. All of these neo-cons are not warriors. They might think they are when they pop their viagra, but they are not warriors. Shooting that poor guy hunting still does not make Cheney are warrior. If I play a soldier in a video game, I know that I am still not a warrior.
“Mansfieldian manliness is present as well in Bush's confident -- overconfident -- response to Hurricane Katrina (insert obligatory "Brownie" quote here). And the administration's claim of almost unfettered executive power is the ultimate in manliness: how manly to conclude that Congress gave the go-ahead to ignore a law without it ever saying so; how even manlier to argue that your inherent authority as commander in chief would permit you to brush aside those bothersome congressional gnats if they tried to stop eavesdropping without a warrant.”
I would never call manliness a reason as to why the Katrina was handled so abysmally or an excuse to for the executive branch to violate the Fourth Amendment of the constitution. I would call it the result of electing a moron as President who fails to handle his job at many different levels. Both home and abroad, the oval office is completely screwing up America. The funny thing is, these people are supposed to be conservatives, but reality shows they practice the total opposite of what the present themselves to be. Manliness not, ignorant power hungry dangerous people, yes.
Manliness, to me, is conviction, integrity, and honorable. The people mentioned in Ruth Marcus’s article are not manly in any way. Not to omit women, it is more important to have conviction, integrity, and honor as a public servant. So manliness as a reason for Bush’s actions is the result of a useless gender specific filter being put on politics. I’d even call Ruth Marcus gender biased, because she is stuck in the rut of seeing things as gender driven, where by its nature you omit women who show conviction, integrity, and honor. Doing that follows the horrible generalizations that liberal elitist idiots do unto themselves. They place labels on things which only hurt themselves.
Liberals are morons, plain and simple.
By Ruth Marcus
“I have a new theory about what's behind everything that's wrong with the Bush administration: manliness.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/20/AR2006032001416_pf.html
This is a case example of why liberals are morons. In this piece a Washington Post (staffed by people who masturbate to Lenin or Marx books before they write their Op Ed pieces) reporter analyzes a conservative Harvard professor’s book in which it’s described as: “Mansfield's thesis is that manliness, which he sums up as "confidence in the face of risk," is a misunderstood and unappreciated attribute.”
As much as I appreciate the women’s studies stuff that was part of my curriculum in school, I have to state some blatantly obvious facts that this idiot reporter fails to factor in that would at least seem important-those where the basis are from common sense compared to some gender studies filter.
First off, think about a conservative professor at Harvard of all places! That has got to be some sort of affirmative action thing for political parties, but he is no Ward Churchill, so he is probably fine. Now “Man Overboard” is nice if I was some professor stuck in the world of academia where I can hide from the real world. I live and work in the real world. The only consistent thing that I can derive truth from is common sense. Any sort of theory is just that. It’s not absolute. Common sense, by it’s nature, proves to be more consistent. Now here are some things that are more realistic and point out why liberals are morons.
“The undisputed manliness of the Bush White House stands in contrast to its predecessors and wannabes. If Republicans are the Daddy Party and Democrats the Mommy Party, the Clinton White House often operated like Mansfield's vision of an estrogen-fueled kaffeeklatsch: indecisive and undisciplined.” Republicans are not any sort of daddy party. The administration is full of neo-con ***holes who want to push the agenda that has been laid out years ago in The Project for the New American Century publications. The current administration is in no way any sort of fatherly role model. Maybe some daddy who fathers many kids and skips town to avoid child care payments. The Republican Party, save a few, has not showed one ounce of responsibility since the invasion of Iraq.
As for Democrats being called a mommy party? That is giving them too much credit. I would call them the party of indecisive, decentralized Nancy boys. All the democrats do is offer complaints with no solution, and when they are asked to stand up they are total p*ssies. For example, “Oh, I cannot vote to censure the President for violating the Constitution! It’s an election year!” Democrats are utterly useless. They are supposed to provide opposition, but the only thing we see them do is buckle, bitch, and cower. I have way too much respect for mommies to compare any democrat to one.
“Vice President Cheney sounded like a warrior claiming tribute after victory in battle: "We won the midterms. This is our due," Cheney reportedly said.” Sorry, Cheney is not a warrior. That statement is an insult to warriors, those men AND WOMEN serving in our armed forces. The Whitehouse website states that Cheney was a “distinguished career as a businessman and public servant.” He never did any military service, fine…but he is not a warrior either. That is an insult to those men AND WOMEN who defend our country who are the warriors. Cheney is the worst kind of piece of cr*p there is out there. He, and the rest of the chicken hawks in their little committees (such as The Project for the New American Century) think they are warriors, and they know what is best for America. Other sovereign nations, our Constitution, and the American people be damned. I wanted to see justice for 9/11. In March of 2003, with the focus on Iraq, it was a vast change to the focus that united many Americans. We wanted justice and revenge; we gave the government more power to do the right thing. They were irresponsible and screwed us bad. All of these neo-cons are not warriors. They might think they are when they pop their viagra, but they are not warriors. Shooting that poor guy hunting still does not make Cheney are warrior. If I play a soldier in a video game, I know that I am still not a warrior.
“Mansfieldian manliness is present as well in Bush's confident -- overconfident -- response to Hurricane Katrina (insert obligatory "Brownie" quote here). And the administration's claim of almost unfettered executive power is the ultimate in manliness: how manly to conclude that Congress gave the go-ahead to ignore a law without it ever saying so; how even manlier to argue that your inherent authority as commander in chief would permit you to brush aside those bothersome congressional gnats if they tried to stop eavesdropping without a warrant.”
I would never call manliness a reason as to why the Katrina was handled so abysmally or an excuse to for the executive branch to violate the Fourth Amendment of the constitution. I would call it the result of electing a moron as President who fails to handle his job at many different levels. Both home and abroad, the oval office is completely screwing up America. The funny thing is, these people are supposed to be conservatives, but reality shows they practice the total opposite of what the present themselves to be. Manliness not, ignorant power hungry dangerous people, yes.
Manliness, to me, is conviction, integrity, and honorable. The people mentioned in Ruth Marcus’s article are not manly in any way. Not to omit women, it is more important to have conviction, integrity, and honor as a public servant. So manliness as a reason for Bush’s actions is the result of a useless gender specific filter being put on politics. I’d even call Ruth Marcus gender biased, because she is stuck in the rut of seeing things as gender driven, where by its nature you omit women who show conviction, integrity, and honor. Doing that follows the horrible generalizations that liberal elitist idiots do unto themselves. They place labels on things which only hurt themselves.
Liberals are morons, plain and simple.
9/01/2005
Horrible event, bad media angle
The letter says it all. The other two articles will be linked at the bottom, they were really good...
Re: Lost in the Flood
Why no mention of race or class in TV's Katrina coverage?
By Jack Shafer
http://www.slate.com/id/2124688/nav/tap2/
Dear Mr. Shafer,
Please stop acting like a typical liberal egghead and stop focusing on a bogus race/class issue with this hurricane disaster. Along with reading about the damage done, personal stories, and looking into possible charitable contributions, I come across your story. I was rather surprised to see the same liberal ranting about race and class. I'd like to think that it would be Americans supporting other Americans. Who gives a crap about the ethnic background of the people covering the news. Your story is truly a piece of trash. I'd love to see you fired and give another news person the opportunity to take your place.
Since you are part of the "media," please do something useful and mention ways to help people. I found the Josh Levin and Ari Kelman quite good, then I see your filth and realize that liberalism is truly a disease. Everything does NOT have to do with race and class. The problem with you liberals is that you are so down on everything you cannot see any good in anything. Take off your horse blinders, and use the talents as a journalist to do something useful for once. You are missing the point. For example, an English class that focuses more on the ethnicity of famous authors, rather than the quality of the works actually written by those authors, are missing the point.
Please do something useful, I hope that there is some human being left in you. Unfortunately, your liberal views have probably eradicated your sense of decency and common sense.
Regards,
J
VA
Good stories:
Mourning My New Orleans
Our family has lived there for a century. Where will we go now?
By Josh Levin
http://www.slate.com/id/2125352/nav/tap2/
City of Nature
New Orleans' blessing; New Orleans' curse.
By Ari Kelman
http://www.slate.com/id/2125346/nav/tap2/
Re: Lost in the Flood
Why no mention of race or class in TV's Katrina coverage?
By Jack Shafer
http://www.slate.com/id/2124688/nav/tap2/
Dear Mr. Shafer,
Please stop acting like a typical liberal egghead and stop focusing on a bogus race/class issue with this hurricane disaster. Along with reading about the damage done, personal stories, and looking into possible charitable contributions, I come across your story. I was rather surprised to see the same liberal ranting about race and class. I'd like to think that it would be Americans supporting other Americans. Who gives a crap about the ethnic background of the people covering the news. Your story is truly a piece of trash. I'd love to see you fired and give another news person the opportunity to take your place.
Since you are part of the "media," please do something useful and mention ways to help people. I found the Josh Levin and Ari Kelman quite good, then I see your filth and realize that liberalism is truly a disease. Everything does NOT have to do with race and class. The problem with you liberals is that you are so down on everything you cannot see any good in anything. Take off your horse blinders, and use the talents as a journalist to do something useful for once. You are missing the point. For example, an English class that focuses more on the ethnicity of famous authors, rather than the quality of the works actually written by those authors, are missing the point.
Please do something useful, I hope that there is some human being left in you. Unfortunately, your liberal views have probably eradicated your sense of decency and common sense.
Regards,
J
VA
Good stories:
Mourning My New Orleans
Our family has lived there for a century. Where will we go now?
By Josh Levin
http://www.slate.com/id/2125352/nav/tap2/
City of Nature
New Orleans' blessing; New Orleans' curse.
By Ari Kelman
http://www.slate.com/id/2125346/nav/tap2/
8/05/2005
This is amazing...
A View Of Iraq From A Soldier
Speech to the "Out of Iraq" Congressional Caucus on July 19, 2005
By John Bruhns
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9670.htm
08/03/05 "ICH" -- -- I am a concerned veteran of the Iraq War. I am not an expert on the vast and wide range of issues throughout the political spectrum, but I can offer some first hand experience of the war in Iraq through the eyes of a soldier. My view of the situation in Iraq will differ from what the American People are being told by the Bush Administration. The purpose of this message is to voice my concern that we were misled into war and continue to be misled about the situation! in Iraq every day. My opinions on this matter come from what I witnessed in Iraq personally.
George Bush and his political advisors have been successful in presenting a false image to the American people that Saddam Hussein was an "imminent" threat to the security of the United States. We were told that there was overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed a massive WMD program, and some members of the Bush Administration even hinted that Saddam may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.
We now know most of the information given to us by the current Administration concerning Iraq, if not all the information, was false. This was information given to the American people to justify a war. The information about weapons of mass destruction and a link to Osama Bin Laden scared the American people into supporting the war in Iraq. They presented an atmosphere of intimidation that suggested if we did not act immediately there was the possibility of another ! attack. Bush said himself that we do not want the proof or the smoking gun to come in the form of a "mushroom cloud." Donald Rumsfeld said, "We know where the weapons are."
After 9/11, comments like this proved to be a successful scare tactic to use on the American People to rally support for the invasion. Members of the Bush Administration created an image of "wine and roses" in terms of the aftermath of the war. Vice-President Dick Cheney said American troops would be greeted as "liberators." And there was a false perception created that we would go into Iraq and implement a democratic government and it would be over more sooner than later. The White House also expressed confidence that the alleged WMD program would be found once we invaded.
I participated in the invasion, stayed in Iraq for a year afterward, and what I witnessed was the total opposite of what President Bush and his Administration stated to the American People.
The invasion was very confusing, and so was the period of time I spent in Iraq afterward. At first it did seem as if some of the Iraqi people were happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein. But that was only for a short period of time. Shortly after Saddam's regime fell, the Shiite Muslims in Iraq conducted a pilgrimage to Karbala, a pilgrimage prohibited by Saddam while he was in power. As I witnessed the ! Shiite pilgrimage, which was a new freedom that we provided to them, they used the pilgrimage to protest our presence in their country. I watched as they beat themselves over the head with sticks until they bled, and screamed at us in anger to leave their country. Some even carried signs that stated, "No Saddam, No America." These were people that Saddam oppressed; they were his enemies. To me, it seemed they hated us more than him.
At that moment I knew it was going to be a very long deployment. I realized that I was not being greeted as a liberator. I became overwhelmed with fear because I felt I never would be viewed that way by the Iraqi people. As a soldier this concerned me. Because if they did not view me as a liberator, then what did they view me as? I felt that they viewed me as foreign occupier of their land. That led me to believe very early on that I was going to have a fight on my hands.
During my year in Iraq I had many altercations with the so-called "insurgency." I found the insurgency I saw to be quite different from the insurgency described to the American people by the Bush Administration, the media, and other supporters of the war. There is no doubt in my mind there are foreigners from other surrounding countries in Iraq. Anyone in the Middle East who hates America now has the opportunity to kill Americans because there are roughly 140,000 US troops in Iraq. But the bulk of the insurgency I faced was primarily the people of Iraq who were attacking us as a reaction to what they felt was an occupation of their country.
I was engaged actively in urban combat in the Abu Ghraib area west of Baghdad. Many of the people who were attacking me were the poor people of Iraq. They were definitely not members of Al Qaeda, left over Baath Party members, and they were not former members of Saddam's regime. They were just your average Iraqi civilian who wanted us out of their country.
On October 31st, 2003, the people of Abu Ghraib organized a large uprising against us. They launched a massive assault on our compound in the area. We were attacked with AK-47 machine guns, RPGs and mortars. Thousands of people took to the streets to attack us. As the riot unfolded before my eyes, I realized these were just the people who lived there. There were men, women, and children participating. Some of the Iraqi protesters were even carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein. My battalion fought back with everything we had and eventually shut down the uprising.
So while President Bush speaks of freedom and liberation of the Iraqi people, I find his statements are not credible after witnessing events such as these. During the violence that day I felt so much fear throughout my entire body. I remember going home that night and praying to God, thanking him that I was still alive. A few months earlier President Bush made the statement, "Bring it on" when referring to the attacks on Americans by the insurgency. To me, that felt like a personal invitation to the insurgents to attack me and my friends who desperately wanted to make it home alive.
I did my job well in Iraq. During the deployment, my superiors promoted me to the rank of sergeant. I was made a rifle team leader and was put in charge of other soldiers when we carried out missions.
My time as a Team Leader in Iraq was temporarily interrupted when I was sent to the "Green Zone" in Baghdad to train the Iraqi army. I was more than happy to do it because we were being told that in order for us to get out of Iraq completely the Iraqi military would have to be able to take over all security operations. The training of the Iraqi Army became a huge concern of mine. During the time I trained! them, their basic training was only one week long. We showed them some basic drill and ceremony such as marching and saluting. When it came time for weapons training, we gave each Iraqi recruit an AK-47 and just let them shoot it. They did not even have to qualify by hitting a target. All they had to do was pull the trigger. I was instructed by my superiors to stand directly behind them with caution while they were shooting just in case they tried to turn the weapon on us so we could stop them.
Once they graduated from basic training, the Iraqi soldiers in a way became part of our battalion and we would take them on missions with us. But we never let them know where we were going, because we were afraid some of them might tip off the insurgency that we were coming and we would walk directly into an ambush. When they would get into formation prior to the missions we made them a part of, they would cover their faces so the people of their communities did not identify them as being affiliated with the American troops.
Not that long ago President Bush made a statement at Fort Bragg when he addressed the nation about the war in Iraq. He said we would "stand down" when the Iraqi military is ready to "stand up." My experience with the new Iraqi military tells me we won't be coming home for a long time if that's the case.
I left Iraq on February 27, 2004 and I acknowledge a lot may have changed since then, but I find it hard to believe the Iraqi people are any happier now than they were when was I was there. I remember the day I left there were hundreds of Iraqis in the streets outside the compound that I lived in. They watched as we moved out to the Baghdad Airport to finally go home. The Iraqis cheered, clapped, and shouted with joy as we were le! aving. As a soldier, that hurt me inside because I thought I was supposed to be fighting for their freedom. I saw many people die for that cause, but that is not how the Iraqi people looked at it. They viewed me as a foreign occupier and many of the people of Iraq may have even preferred Saddam to the American soldiers. I feel this way because of the consistent attacks on me and my fellow soldiers by the Iraqi people, who felt they were fighting for their homeland. To us the mission turned into a quest for survival.
I wish I could provide an answer to this mess. I wish I knew of a realistic way to get our troops home. But we are very limited in our options in my opinion. If we pull out immediately, it's likely the Iraqi security forces will not be able to provide stability on their own. In that event, the new Iraqi government could possibly be overthrown. The other option would be to reduce our troop numbers and have a gradual pullout. That is very risky because it seems that even with the current number of troops the violence still continues. With a significant troop reduction, there is a strong possibility the violence and attacks on US and coalition forces could escalate and get even worse. In my opinion, that is more of a certainty.
And then there is the option that President Bush brings to the table which is to "Stay the Course." That means more years of bloodshed and a lot more lives to be lost. Also, it will aggravate the growing opposition to the US presence in Iraq throughout the region and that could very well recruit more extremists to join terror organizations that will infiltrate into Iraq and kill more US troops.
So it does not seem to me we have a realistic solution, and that frightens me. It has become very obvious that we have a serious dilemma that needs to be resolved as soon as possible to end the ongoing violence in Iraq. But how do we end it is the question?
We must always support the troops. If there were a situation in which the United States is attacked again by a legitimate enemy, they are the people who are going to risk their lives to protect us and our freedom. In my opinion, the best way to support them now is to bring them home with the honor and respect they deserve.
In closing, I ask that we never forget why this war started. The Bush Administration cried weapons of mass destruction and a link to Al Queda. We know that this is false and the Bush administration concedes it as well. As a soldier who fought in that war, I feel misled. I feel that I was sent off to fight for a cause that never existed. When I joined the military I did so to defend the United States of America, not to be sent off to a part of the world to fight people who never attacked me or my country. Many have died as a result of this. The people who started this war need to start being honest with t! he American people and take responsibility for their actions. More than anything, they need to stop saying everything is rosy and create a solution to this problem they created.
Thank you for hearing me out. God Bless our great nation, the United States of America.
John Bruhns
Speech to the "Out of Iraq" Congressional Caucus on July 19, 2005
By John Bruhns
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9670.htm
08/03/05 "ICH" -- -- I am a concerned veteran of the Iraq War. I am not an expert on the vast and wide range of issues throughout the political spectrum, but I can offer some first hand experience of the war in Iraq through the eyes of a soldier. My view of the situation in Iraq will differ from what the American People are being told by the Bush Administration. The purpose of this message is to voice my concern that we were misled into war and continue to be misled about the situation! in Iraq every day. My opinions on this matter come from what I witnessed in Iraq personally.
George Bush and his political advisors have been successful in presenting a false image to the American people that Saddam Hussein was an "imminent" threat to the security of the United States. We were told that there was overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed a massive WMD program, and some members of the Bush Administration even hinted that Saddam may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.
We now know most of the information given to us by the current Administration concerning Iraq, if not all the information, was false. This was information given to the American people to justify a war. The information about weapons of mass destruction and a link to Osama Bin Laden scared the American people into supporting the war in Iraq. They presented an atmosphere of intimidation that suggested if we did not act immediately there was the possibility of another ! attack. Bush said himself that we do not want the proof or the smoking gun to come in the form of a "mushroom cloud." Donald Rumsfeld said, "We know where the weapons are."
After 9/11, comments like this proved to be a successful scare tactic to use on the American People to rally support for the invasion. Members of the Bush Administration created an image of "wine and roses" in terms of the aftermath of the war. Vice-President Dick Cheney said American troops would be greeted as "liberators." And there was a false perception created that we would go into Iraq and implement a democratic government and it would be over more sooner than later. The White House also expressed confidence that the alleged WMD program would be found once we invaded.
I participated in the invasion, stayed in Iraq for a year afterward, and what I witnessed was the total opposite of what President Bush and his Administration stated to the American People.
The invasion was very confusing, and so was the period of time I spent in Iraq afterward. At first it did seem as if some of the Iraqi people were happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein. But that was only for a short period of time. Shortly after Saddam's regime fell, the Shiite Muslims in Iraq conducted a pilgrimage to Karbala, a pilgrimage prohibited by Saddam while he was in power. As I witnessed the ! Shiite pilgrimage, which was a new freedom that we provided to them, they used the pilgrimage to protest our presence in their country. I watched as they beat themselves over the head with sticks until they bled, and screamed at us in anger to leave their country. Some even carried signs that stated, "No Saddam, No America." These were people that Saddam oppressed; they were his enemies. To me, it seemed they hated us more than him.
At that moment I knew it was going to be a very long deployment. I realized that I was not being greeted as a liberator. I became overwhelmed with fear because I felt I never would be viewed that way by the Iraqi people. As a soldier this concerned me. Because if they did not view me as a liberator, then what did they view me as? I felt that they viewed me as foreign occupier of their land. That led me to believe very early on that I was going to have a fight on my hands.
During my year in Iraq I had many altercations with the so-called "insurgency." I found the insurgency I saw to be quite different from the insurgency described to the American people by the Bush Administration, the media, and other supporters of the war. There is no doubt in my mind there are foreigners from other surrounding countries in Iraq. Anyone in the Middle East who hates America now has the opportunity to kill Americans because there are roughly 140,000 US troops in Iraq. But the bulk of the insurgency I faced was primarily the people of Iraq who were attacking us as a reaction to what they felt was an occupation of their country.
I was engaged actively in urban combat in the Abu Ghraib area west of Baghdad. Many of the people who were attacking me were the poor people of Iraq. They were definitely not members of Al Qaeda, left over Baath Party members, and they were not former members of Saddam's regime. They were just your average Iraqi civilian who wanted us out of their country.
On October 31st, 2003, the people of Abu Ghraib organized a large uprising against us. They launched a massive assault on our compound in the area. We were attacked with AK-47 machine guns, RPGs and mortars. Thousands of people took to the streets to attack us. As the riot unfolded before my eyes, I realized these were just the people who lived there. There were men, women, and children participating. Some of the Iraqi protesters were even carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein. My battalion fought back with everything we had and eventually shut down the uprising.
So while President Bush speaks of freedom and liberation of the Iraqi people, I find his statements are not credible after witnessing events such as these. During the violence that day I felt so much fear throughout my entire body. I remember going home that night and praying to God, thanking him that I was still alive. A few months earlier President Bush made the statement, "Bring it on" when referring to the attacks on Americans by the insurgency. To me, that felt like a personal invitation to the insurgents to attack me and my friends who desperately wanted to make it home alive.
I did my job well in Iraq. During the deployment, my superiors promoted me to the rank of sergeant. I was made a rifle team leader and was put in charge of other soldiers when we carried out missions.
My time as a Team Leader in Iraq was temporarily interrupted when I was sent to the "Green Zone" in Baghdad to train the Iraqi army. I was more than happy to do it because we were being told that in order for us to get out of Iraq completely the Iraqi military would have to be able to take over all security operations. The training of the Iraqi Army became a huge concern of mine. During the time I trained! them, their basic training was only one week long. We showed them some basic drill and ceremony such as marching and saluting. When it came time for weapons training, we gave each Iraqi recruit an AK-47 and just let them shoot it. They did not even have to qualify by hitting a target. All they had to do was pull the trigger. I was instructed by my superiors to stand directly behind them with caution while they were shooting just in case they tried to turn the weapon on us so we could stop them.
Once they graduated from basic training, the Iraqi soldiers in a way became part of our battalion and we would take them on missions with us. But we never let them know where we were going, because we were afraid some of them might tip off the insurgency that we were coming and we would walk directly into an ambush. When they would get into formation prior to the missions we made them a part of, they would cover their faces so the people of their communities did not identify them as being affiliated with the American troops.
Not that long ago President Bush made a statement at Fort Bragg when he addressed the nation about the war in Iraq. He said we would "stand down" when the Iraqi military is ready to "stand up." My experience with the new Iraqi military tells me we won't be coming home for a long time if that's the case.
I left Iraq on February 27, 2004 and I acknowledge a lot may have changed since then, but I find it hard to believe the Iraqi people are any happier now than they were when was I was there. I remember the day I left there were hundreds of Iraqis in the streets outside the compound that I lived in. They watched as we moved out to the Baghdad Airport to finally go home. The Iraqis cheered, clapped, and shouted with joy as we were le! aving. As a soldier, that hurt me inside because I thought I was supposed to be fighting for their freedom. I saw many people die for that cause, but that is not how the Iraqi people looked at it. They viewed me as a foreign occupier and many of the people of Iraq may have even preferred Saddam to the American soldiers. I feel this way because of the consistent attacks on me and my fellow soldiers by the Iraqi people, who felt they were fighting for their homeland. To us the mission turned into a quest for survival.
I wish I could provide an answer to this mess. I wish I knew of a realistic way to get our troops home. But we are very limited in our options in my opinion. If we pull out immediately, it's likely the Iraqi security forces will not be able to provide stability on their own. In that event, the new Iraqi government could possibly be overthrown. The other option would be to reduce our troop numbers and have a gradual pullout. That is very risky because it seems that even with the current number of troops the violence still continues. With a significant troop reduction, there is a strong possibility the violence and attacks on US and coalition forces could escalate and get even worse. In my opinion, that is more of a certainty.
And then there is the option that President Bush brings to the table which is to "Stay the Course." That means more years of bloodshed and a lot more lives to be lost. Also, it will aggravate the growing opposition to the US presence in Iraq throughout the region and that could very well recruit more extremists to join terror organizations that will infiltrate into Iraq and kill more US troops.
So it does not seem to me we have a realistic solution, and that frightens me. It has become very obvious that we have a serious dilemma that needs to be resolved as soon as possible to end the ongoing violence in Iraq. But how do we end it is the question?
We must always support the troops. If there were a situation in which the United States is attacked again by a legitimate enemy, they are the people who are going to risk their lives to protect us and our freedom. In my opinion, the best way to support them now is to bring them home with the honor and respect they deserve.
In closing, I ask that we never forget why this war started. The Bush Administration cried weapons of mass destruction and a link to Al Queda. We know that this is false and the Bush administration concedes it as well. As a soldier who fought in that war, I feel misled. I feel that I was sent off to fight for a cause that never existed. When I joined the military I did so to defend the United States of America, not to be sent off to a part of the world to fight people who never attacked me or my country. Many have died as a result of this. The people who started this war need to start being honest with t! he American people and take responsibility for their actions. More than anything, they need to stop saying everything is rosy and create a solution to this problem they created.
Thank you for hearing me out. God Bless our great nation, the United States of America.
John Bruhns
8/03/2005
John Bolton, and why he is the man for the job
Here are a few quotes about the guy. No his record is NOT squeaky clean. Some of his policies and associations actually suck. But as the man for this particular job, I see no better fit.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 1997, Bolton articulated his dismissive view of international treaties. "Treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes," he wrote, "In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations." In other words, international treaties signed by the United States should not be considered as a body of law that the United States should respect in its international engagement but rather just political considerations that can be ignored at will.
In early 2001 Bolton observed: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States ."
In 1998, when he was senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, Bolton described the ICC as "a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naïve, but dangerous."8 Early in the first year of the Bush administration, Bolton prevailed upon Secretary of State Colin Powell to give him the honor of renouncing the Clinton administration's signature of the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Bolton called the moment he signed the letter abrogating Clinton 's approval of the ICC "the happiest moment in my government service."
Bolton has long dismissed the legitimacy of the United Nations--a multilateral organization that the United States played a key role in creating--not as a pet organization but as a international organization dedicated to "collective security." A longtime activist with the Federalist Society, Bolton has used this right-wing association of lawyers, judges, and legal experts as a forum to lash out against the United Nations. In a 1994 speech at the liberal World Federalist Association, Bolton declared that "there is no such thing as the United Nations." To underscore his point, Bolton said. "If the UN secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
Bolton is a militarist who embraces the "peace through strength" philosophy of international affairs. Praising Bolton in a speech he delivered on January 1, 2001 at the American Enterprise Institute, Sen. Jesse Helms, who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon."
In mid-2001 Bolton announced at the UN Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons that Washington opposed any initiative to regulate trade in small arms or in non-military rifles--or any effort that would "abrogate the constitutional right to bear arms." Accompanying Bolton to the conference were members of the National Rifle Association (NRA). "It is precisely those weapons that Bolton would exclude from the purview of this conference that are actually killing people and endangering communities around the world," said Tamar Gabelnick, director of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project at the Federation of American Scientists. She charged that the U.S. delegation, led by Arms Control Secretary Bolton, single-handedly destroyed any possibility of consensus around the Small Arms Action Plan.17
Bolton in February 2003 said that once regime change plans in Iraq were completed, "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria , Iran , and North Korea afterwards."21
Bolton is not only one of the administration's leading hawks on China policy, he is also its strongest advocate of Taiwan's independence and of U.S. defense of Taiwan.
John Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, rejects the legitimacy of international law--at least when international conventions, treaties, and norms constrain what he regards as U.S. national interests. Bolton also has a record of questionable legal and ethical dealings at home.
http://www.counterpunch.org/barry03142005.html
Pros:
- Told the UN Criminal Court to shove it up their ass. We do not need an international court bypassing our individual Constitutional rights.
- Told the UN to shove their arms control up their ass, recognizing our second amendment rights as provided in the US (not UN!) Constitution.
- Recognized that International Treaties can be invalid and useless, and we have the right as a sovereign nation to enforce, refuse, or maintain such treaties. For example, after the First World War, Germany was bound to the League of Nations Versailles Treaty. European nations did a great job at enforcing that! See WW 2. In contrast, I know the same can be said about Iraq, but I always say if Bush shoved the UN’s own violated resolutions into their faces and went unilaterally because the UN is a paper tiger, I would have NO complaints about Iraq. Well, maybe a better exit strategy and better nation building.
- Stated the facts about China and North Korea.
Cons:
- PNAC association.
- He can be lumped as a neocon.
You know, and then I think about where this man is going to work. The United Nations, the most corrupt and useless organization that really needs to be sent packing away from US soil. With what issues Bolton has, I think he cares about American policy, sees the UN corruption for what it is, and will kick some ass representing our country. Why do you say, read below.
Demonstrating how disconnected the UN is from reality, Rosett notes that in a recent UN survey Secretary General Kofi Anan frets over ‘tone at the top,’ a reference to the ‘less positive’ opinion most UN staffers have of their senior leaders. The problem isn’t tone, she continues, but ‘accountability at the top’ (emphasis added). In detailed testimony provided to the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, Rosett elaborated at length the incredible web of corruption that defined and obscured the UN Oil for Food Program.
Oil for Food was in theory a program whereby Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, though under international UN embargo, could sell limited amounts of oil and in return use the funds generated to purchase needed commodities such as food and medical supplies for its population. It was established by December 1996 and continued under UN supervision until Coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein in last year.
The fraud represented in the Oil for Food program, encouraged and virtually administered by the UN, gave Saddam funds to continue to procure missile technology from North Korea, pursue WMD research and development programs, and funnel money to his own thugs and terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam, Islamic Jihad and suicide bombers. In short, the UN kept in power the very dictator they professed to condemn in the Security Council chambers.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14000
In other words, screw the UN except for their fantastic human rights and aid programs. I did not vote for them or Kofi Anan.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 1997, Bolton articulated his dismissive view of international treaties. "Treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes," he wrote, "In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations." In other words, international treaties signed by the United States should not be considered as a body of law that the United States should respect in its international engagement but rather just political considerations that can be ignored at will.
In early 2001 Bolton observed: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States ."
In 1998, when he was senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, Bolton described the ICC as "a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naïve, but dangerous."8 Early in the first year of the Bush administration, Bolton prevailed upon Secretary of State Colin Powell to give him the honor of renouncing the Clinton administration's signature of the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Bolton called the moment he signed the letter abrogating Clinton 's approval of the ICC "the happiest moment in my government service."
Bolton has long dismissed the legitimacy of the United Nations--a multilateral organization that the United States played a key role in creating--not as a pet organization but as a international organization dedicated to "collective security." A longtime activist with the Federalist Society, Bolton has used this right-wing association of lawyers, judges, and legal experts as a forum to lash out against the United Nations. In a 1994 speech at the liberal World Federalist Association, Bolton declared that "there is no such thing as the United Nations." To underscore his point, Bolton said. "If the UN secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
Bolton is a militarist who embraces the "peace through strength" philosophy of international affairs. Praising Bolton in a speech he delivered on January 1, 2001 at the American Enterprise Institute, Sen. Jesse Helms, who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon."
In mid-2001 Bolton announced at the UN Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons that Washington opposed any initiative to regulate trade in small arms or in non-military rifles--or any effort that would "abrogate the constitutional right to bear arms." Accompanying Bolton to the conference were members of the National Rifle Association (NRA). "It is precisely those weapons that Bolton would exclude from the purview of this conference that are actually killing people and endangering communities around the world," said Tamar Gabelnick, director of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project at the Federation of American Scientists. She charged that the U.S. delegation, led by Arms Control Secretary Bolton, single-handedly destroyed any possibility of consensus around the Small Arms Action Plan.17
Bolton in February 2003 said that once regime change plans in Iraq were completed, "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria , Iran , and North Korea afterwards."21
Bolton is not only one of the administration's leading hawks on China policy, he is also its strongest advocate of Taiwan's independence and of U.S. defense of Taiwan.
John Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, rejects the legitimacy of international law--at least when international conventions, treaties, and norms constrain what he regards as U.S. national interests. Bolton also has a record of questionable legal and ethical dealings at home.
http://www.counterpunch.org/barry03142005.html
Pros:
- Told the UN Criminal Court to shove it up their ass. We do not need an international court bypassing our individual Constitutional rights.
- Told the UN to shove their arms control up their ass, recognizing our second amendment rights as provided in the US (not UN!) Constitution.
- Recognized that International Treaties can be invalid and useless, and we have the right as a sovereign nation to enforce, refuse, or maintain such treaties. For example, after the First World War, Germany was bound to the League of Nations Versailles Treaty. European nations did a great job at enforcing that! See WW 2. In contrast, I know the same can be said about Iraq, but I always say if Bush shoved the UN’s own violated resolutions into their faces and went unilaterally because the UN is a paper tiger, I would have NO complaints about Iraq. Well, maybe a better exit strategy and better nation building.
- Stated the facts about China and North Korea.
Cons:
- PNAC association.
- He can be lumped as a neocon.
You know, and then I think about where this man is going to work. The United Nations, the most corrupt and useless organization that really needs to be sent packing away from US soil. With what issues Bolton has, I think he cares about American policy, sees the UN corruption for what it is, and will kick some ass representing our country. Why do you say, read below.
Demonstrating how disconnected the UN is from reality, Rosett notes that in a recent UN survey Secretary General Kofi Anan frets over ‘tone at the top,’ a reference to the ‘less positive’ opinion most UN staffers have of their senior leaders. The problem isn’t tone, she continues, but ‘accountability at the top’ (emphasis added). In detailed testimony provided to the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, Rosett elaborated at length the incredible web of corruption that defined and obscured the UN Oil for Food Program.
Oil for Food was in theory a program whereby Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, though under international UN embargo, could sell limited amounts of oil and in return use the funds generated to purchase needed commodities such as food and medical supplies for its population. It was established by December 1996 and continued under UN supervision until Coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein in last year.
The fraud represented in the Oil for Food program, encouraged and virtually administered by the UN, gave Saddam funds to continue to procure missile technology from North Korea, pursue WMD research and development programs, and funnel money to his own thugs and terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam, Islamic Jihad and suicide bombers. In short, the UN kept in power the very dictator they professed to condemn in the Security Council chambers.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14000
In other words, screw the UN except for their fantastic human rights and aid programs. I did not vote for them or Kofi Anan.
8/01/2005
CAFTA
Brought to you by glorious leader, our true “conservative” president is looking out for the American people and doing a fine job at upholding the constitution that he swore to! Unfortunately, it passed by 2 votes—mainly because of the actions of grass roots organizations did a great job of letting representatives know more detail on what they were voting for. In turn, glorious leader, our true “conservative” president pulled all of his back scratching beltway antics in full steam.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45467
CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=23673
That story is an op-ed piece that explains why it’s screwed up. I am not a fan of the CFR. In addition, the below transcript from Lou Dobbs on CNN gives further detail. I really looked for a video file, but could not find one.
CAFTA's big secret
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2005jun30.html
The actual CNN transcript is here
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html
In summary, this quote really explains the overall CAFTA crap…
SYLVESTER: Supporters of CAFTA say it will open up Central American markets to U.S. companies and lead to lower prices for consumers. But critics are urging lawmakers to look at the fine print, because they may be giving away far more than they're getting.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html
I wonder what this means for the constitution and the American people. Does our government serve us anymore? Or are we its servants now?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45467
CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=23673
That story is an op-ed piece that explains why it’s screwed up. I am not a fan of the CFR. In addition, the below transcript from Lou Dobbs on CNN gives further detail. I really looked for a video file, but could not find one.
CAFTA's big secret
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2005jun30.html
The actual CNN transcript is here
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html
In summary, this quote really explains the overall CAFTA crap…
SYLVESTER: Supporters of CAFTA say it will open up Central American markets to U.S. companies and lead to lower prices for consumers. But critics are urging lawmakers to look at the fine print, because they may be giving away far more than they're getting.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html
I wonder what this means for the constitution and the American people. Does our government serve us anymore? Or are we its servants now?
7/21/2005
How much freedom are we willing to give up to feel safe?
I read that in a news story discussing “Lawmakers Focus on Patriot Act Extension”
http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=116&sid=134058 that really made me think of the Ben Franklin quote I see from time to time: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
In addition, Bush is politicizing the most recent bombings in London as a means to push legislation to extend the Patriot Act. “Bush sees London attacks as reason for Patriot Act”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050720-102536-4094r.htm
I really have a problem with seeing this document passing again. Why? Because the items that violate the Bill of Rights are still there. It’d make sense to pass the portions of the act that gives more money to support state & local jurisdictions. But that damned document still has those laws in place which violate the Bill of Rights. First, read this:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Patriot Act allows the FBI to conduct secret searches without a warrant, access personal information, and jail people without charges. This can be done to regular Americans. I remember that the first Patriot Act was passed without congress even reading it, which was bad enough. I hope that this extension does not pass. It gives one branch of the government too much authority to violate the constitution. When I think about it, the commander in chief was elected to uphold the constitution and swore an oath to it. At the same time the commander in chief passes legislation to stymie the Bill of Rights. I just do not get it. I know the Patriot Act sucks. Why? Read on…
Patriot Act report documents civil rights complaints
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/21/justice.civil.liberties/
Report on USA Patriot Act Alleges Civil Rights Violations
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0721-01.htm
USA Patriot Act, Civil Rights, Privacy Issues
http://usliberals.about.com/od/patriotactcivilrights/
http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=116&sid=134058 that really made me think of the Ben Franklin quote I see from time to time: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
In addition, Bush is politicizing the most recent bombings in London as a means to push legislation to extend the Patriot Act. “Bush sees London attacks as reason for Patriot Act”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050720-102536-4094r.htm
I really have a problem with seeing this document passing again. Why? Because the items that violate the Bill of Rights are still there. It’d make sense to pass the portions of the act that gives more money to support state & local jurisdictions. But that damned document still has those laws in place which violate the Bill of Rights. First, read this:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Patriot Act allows the FBI to conduct secret searches without a warrant, access personal information, and jail people without charges. This can be done to regular Americans. I remember that the first Patriot Act was passed without congress even reading it, which was bad enough. I hope that this extension does not pass. It gives one branch of the government too much authority to violate the constitution. When I think about it, the commander in chief was elected to uphold the constitution and swore an oath to it. At the same time the commander in chief passes legislation to stymie the Bill of Rights. I just do not get it. I know the Patriot Act sucks. Why? Read on…
Patriot Act report documents civil rights complaints
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/21/justice.civil.liberties/
Report on USA Patriot Act Alleges Civil Rights Violations
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0721-01.htm
USA Patriot Act, Civil Rights, Privacy Issues
http://usliberals.about.com/od/patriotactcivilrights/
7/14/2005
Karl Rove and the neocon weasels
I have been listening to right and left radio and reading various stories about Karl Rove the last few days. I have heard both sides of the story, and can understand the desire to hold this guy on treason charges. One point that his supporters say is that Valerie Plame was not a true operative, therefore nothing was done. It makes sense, to a point. What I really see if that the important part of this whole topic really needs to be considered: Karl Rove and the cabinet, are they capable of such “treasonous” and devious things?
Simple answer, for me, is YES. So I would not put it past Rove to rat out a CIA whatever. The whatever, being the “he said, she said” type of nonsense that the media talking heads are yammering about the specifics of the case. It’s tough to tell really. All I know is that the points that really mattered is that this is the media’s opportunity to get back at an otherwise secretive and “we can do no wrong” administration. It’s going to be a lot of debate and accusations. I guess we’ll see how it plays out. Bush won’t fire Rove and he won’t be help for treason. Crap, I think the entire cabinet should be put up on charges and impeachment hearings to kick Bush out of office are needed. Clinton may have done bad things, but Bush’s bad things are costing lives. In addition, he is doing much worse things to this country. It’s kind of tough to associate Bush as being a ‘conservative’ or ‘Republican’ when we see citizens rights going down the shitter, an open border, the Cheney-Haliburton "exclusive" Iraq contracts (why no competition???), and shady and bogus reasoning to invade Iraq.
One thing to point out is everyone (as in both parties) supported his Afghanistan campaign. When they seek answers to why and what was the reason for Iraq the only thing that really turns up is misleading and bogus lies as justification for going in. Recent information has turned up that would back those claims, but it should have been used then and not after the fact.
Search the web for PNAC, or The Project for the New American Century. There is an excellent website which covers them. Basically, it’s a neocon think tank that has papers, studies, etc. in which people say the agenda of invading Iraq was a priority of PNAC outlined in some of their works. The reason this beltway think tank stands out from the other ones is the fact that people associated with PNAC also hold positions in the oval office. Paul Wolfowitz, who drafted a document in which “US military dominance over Eurasia and preemptive strikes against countries suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction” is among them. It sure gives me warm fuzzies! The neocon list, plus the above quote, can be found here: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html?leftNavInclude
A great analysis website is http://www.pnac.info/. Ok, now I have read these documents and websites for awhile now. A lot of it is good input on ideology of how to spend our resources in defense spending and where new threats or shifts in strategy might be in the future. I support the defense industry wholeheartedly. Heck, many of their developments are great contributions to civilian or medical technological advancements.
In all, PNAC is a good group. But the nefarious part comes from their emphasis on who is in the white house now and their agenda prior to 2003. For example, note this:
“In the Beginning - In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.
The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.”
http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000043.html
It really makes me wonder how much of this was just anticipated. Were the 9/11 attacks and subsequent ousting of the Taliban the perfect excuse for these goons in the oval office to seek to take out Sadam? They just needed the means to their end, and those means are sketchy at best. I call them bogus sexed up BS turned into flat out lies. I saw a DVD called “The Truth About the Iraq War” where ex-CIA and other inside the beltway people were being interviewed. It did a great job of explaining fact vs fiction with the evidence to go to war. I do not trust the current administration at all anymore.
You know, if they were just honest with the American people, I would have a different opinion. I know PNAC, a secretive administration, MANY instances of people saying the Iraq justification was a lie, and creepy-sleazy-silly acts like what Rove might or might not have done. I just do not trust them one damned bit. I am all for a strong defense, retaliation for 9/11, ousting Sadam simply because he is an asshole, and the war on terrorism…it just seems that what we should be doing and what has gone on is completely different. For that, 2008 will be a good year. In addition, for what a demon we paint Sadam now, I tend to remember such things as these…
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
I just don’t see the Constitution giving the Federal Government the right or the power of empirical aspirations. Isn’t what we left in the first place? I am all for a strong defense as stated in what is required in the Constitution, but what do preemptive strikes based on bogus information have to do with anything? These idiots in office need to review that document that they made an oath to serve. They are bound to that contract so long as they hold public office. I commend those who also know the citizenship has the power to remove them from power. Not a revolution, that’s stupid…we are not that bad off. I am thinking along the lines of the free press pointing out the actions of those elected to office. I am talking about those whistle blowers who are demonized at times, and are probably much more patriotic than those accusing them of wrong doing. Those folks are great, and we need more of them. Sorry, I thought “Deep Throat” did a great job. If the status quo sucks, change it.
Simple answer, for me, is YES. So I would not put it past Rove to rat out a CIA whatever. The whatever, being the “he said, she said” type of nonsense that the media talking heads are yammering about the specifics of the case. It’s tough to tell really. All I know is that the points that really mattered is that this is the media’s opportunity to get back at an otherwise secretive and “we can do no wrong” administration. It’s going to be a lot of debate and accusations. I guess we’ll see how it plays out. Bush won’t fire Rove and he won’t be help for treason. Crap, I think the entire cabinet should be put up on charges and impeachment hearings to kick Bush out of office are needed. Clinton may have done bad things, but Bush’s bad things are costing lives. In addition, he is doing much worse things to this country. It’s kind of tough to associate Bush as being a ‘conservative’ or ‘Republican’ when we see citizens rights going down the shitter, an open border, the Cheney-Haliburton "exclusive" Iraq contracts (why no competition???), and shady and bogus reasoning to invade Iraq.
One thing to point out is everyone (as in both parties) supported his Afghanistan campaign. When they seek answers to why and what was the reason for Iraq the only thing that really turns up is misleading and bogus lies as justification for going in. Recent information has turned up that would back those claims, but it should have been used then and not after the fact.
Search the web for PNAC, or The Project for the New American Century. There is an excellent website which covers them. Basically, it’s a neocon think tank that has papers, studies, etc. in which people say the agenda of invading Iraq was a priority of PNAC outlined in some of their works. The reason this beltway think tank stands out from the other ones is the fact that people associated with PNAC also hold positions in the oval office. Paul Wolfowitz, who drafted a document in which “US military dominance over Eurasia and preemptive strikes against countries suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction” is among them. It sure gives me warm fuzzies! The neocon list, plus the above quote, can be found here: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html?leftNavInclude
A great analysis website is http://www.pnac.info/. Ok, now I have read these documents and websites for awhile now. A lot of it is good input on ideology of how to spend our resources in defense spending and where new threats or shifts in strategy might be in the future. I support the defense industry wholeheartedly. Heck, many of their developments are great contributions to civilian or medical technological advancements.
In all, PNAC is a good group. But the nefarious part comes from their emphasis on who is in the white house now and their agenda prior to 2003. For example, note this:
“In the Beginning - In 1992, Paul Wolfowitz, then-under secretary of defense for policy, supervised the drafting of the Defense Policy Guidance document. Wolfowitz had objected to what he considered the premature ending of the 1991 Iraq War. In the new document, he outlined plans for military intervention in Iraq as an action necessary to assure "access to vital raw material, primarily Persian Gulf oil" and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and threats from terrorism.
The guidance called for preemptive attacks and ad hoc coalitions but said that the U.S. should be ready to act alone when "collective action cannot be orchestrated." The primary goal of U.S. policy should be to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States. When the document leaked to the New York Times, it proved so extreme that it had to be rewritten. These concepts are now part of the new U.S. National Security Strategy.”
http://www.pnac.info/blog/archives/000043.html
It really makes me wonder how much of this was just anticipated. Were the 9/11 attacks and subsequent ousting of the Taliban the perfect excuse for these goons in the oval office to seek to take out Sadam? They just needed the means to their end, and those means are sketchy at best. I call them bogus sexed up BS turned into flat out lies. I saw a DVD called “The Truth About the Iraq War” where ex-CIA and other inside the beltway people were being interviewed. It did a great job of explaining fact vs fiction with the evidence to go to war. I do not trust the current administration at all anymore.
You know, if they were just honest with the American people, I would have a different opinion. I know PNAC, a secretive administration, MANY instances of people saying the Iraq justification was a lie, and creepy-sleazy-silly acts like what Rove might or might not have done. I just do not trust them one damned bit. I am all for a strong defense, retaliation for 9/11, ousting Sadam simply because he is an asshole, and the war on terrorism…it just seems that what we should be doing and what has gone on is completely different. For that, 2008 will be a good year. In addition, for what a demon we paint Sadam now, I tend to remember such things as these…
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
I just don’t see the Constitution giving the Federal Government the right or the power of empirical aspirations. Isn’t what we left in the first place? I am all for a strong defense as stated in what is required in the Constitution, but what do preemptive strikes based on bogus information have to do with anything? These idiots in office need to review that document that they made an oath to serve. They are bound to that contract so long as they hold public office. I commend those who also know the citizenship has the power to remove them from power. Not a revolution, that’s stupid…we are not that bad off. I am thinking along the lines of the free press pointing out the actions of those elected to office. I am talking about those whistle blowers who are demonized at times, and are probably much more patriotic than those accusing them of wrong doing. Those folks are great, and we need more of them. Sorry, I thought “Deep Throat” did a great job. If the status quo sucks, change it.
7/07/2005
London bombings
I went to Edgware Road station & Kings Cross several times when I was there last October on a visit with my girlfriend. Now that my initial worries of my friends in the UK are fine, I can think about the people who did this horrible act. I hope that they bring those assholes that did this to justice. When I read the website about the claims of the terrorists doing such an act in the name of Allah, it being his will, and the same old horse shit tribute given to the “martyrs” really makes me think what God would approve of this? Also, today it was reported that the Egyptian envoy to Iraq was killed by al-Qaeda in Iraq. So you have an Egyptian Muslim called an infidel and killed by another Muslim in the name of God.
Tough to take in. I realize that there is a separation of degrees. The problem is radical Islam, compounded with little to no voice from the moderates does little to nothing to help them. In comparison, you have rabid abortion clinic bombers who kill in the name of God, so it’s not just “Islam.” It’s tough to distinguish this to some extent because a suicide bomber and Islam (though it is radical in this case) can go hand in hand with many people’s perceptions. My thoughts about it really coincide with what Blair said:
Blair condemns bombers who "act in name of Islam"
LONDON, July 7 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair, condemning the London bombings that killed at least 33 people on Thursday, said: "We know that these people act in the name of Islam."
In a statement from his London residence, a grim-faced Blair thanked The Muslim Council of Britain for roundly condemning the bombers who struck in the early morning rush hour.
"We know that these people act in the name of Islam but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are decent and law abiding people who abhor this kind of terrorism every bit as much as we do," Blair said.
It’s good to see some Islamic groups condemning the actions of a few who claim to represent the “word of Allah”. I just hope that more Muslims stand up to these people and work towards eliminating these terrorist assholes.
Another thing I hope to see is Blair actually having balls and doing what Bush failed to do—bring those guilty to justice. I hope Blair does not follow the inaction of our moron in chief. We do not have the mastermind of 9/11 in custody, Bush seems to not care. He is not important. I am glad we have that stupid tyrannical despot Sadam in custody, but he did not cause 9/11.
I wish Blair good luck in capturing those guilty. I’d like to thank Bush for continuing to be an idiot and listening to the neo-con assholes that he has in his cabinet or advisors, you have really screwed this country with lies and inaction. Lastly, I hope the best for the victims of the London bombings.
Tough to take in. I realize that there is a separation of degrees. The problem is radical Islam, compounded with little to no voice from the moderates does little to nothing to help them. In comparison, you have rabid abortion clinic bombers who kill in the name of God, so it’s not just “Islam.” It’s tough to distinguish this to some extent because a suicide bomber and Islam (though it is radical in this case) can go hand in hand with many people’s perceptions. My thoughts about it really coincide with what Blair said:
Blair condemns bombers who "act in name of Islam"
LONDON, July 7 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair, condemning the London bombings that killed at least 33 people on Thursday, said: "We know that these people act in the name of Islam."
In a statement from his London residence, a grim-faced Blair thanked The Muslim Council of Britain for roundly condemning the bombers who struck in the early morning rush hour.
"We know that these people act in the name of Islam but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims both here and abroad are decent and law abiding people who abhor this kind of terrorism every bit as much as we do," Blair said.
It’s good to see some Islamic groups condemning the actions of a few who claim to represent the “word of Allah”. I just hope that more Muslims stand up to these people and work towards eliminating these terrorist assholes.
Another thing I hope to see is Blair actually having balls and doing what Bush failed to do—bring those guilty to justice. I hope Blair does not follow the inaction of our moron in chief. We do not have the mastermind of 9/11 in custody, Bush seems to not care. He is not important. I am glad we have that stupid tyrannical despot Sadam in custody, but he did not cause 9/11.
I wish Blair good luck in capturing those guilty. I’d like to thank Bush for continuing to be an idiot and listening to the neo-con assholes that he has in his cabinet or advisors, you have really screwed this country with lies and inaction. Lastly, I hope the best for the victims of the London bombings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)