My wallet stays thin these days. Any extra cash goes into my gas tank. Recently I was at the gas station once more, filling up, and I heard an annoying sound. It buzzed closer but I still didn't see anything. Then I caught a glimpse of it out of the corner of my eye -- an annoying gnat. I swatted at it but it just drifted there, taunting me, knowing that I couldn't hurt it. Then he's joined by his brothers and sisters and there is a whole cloud drifting around my head, buzzing my ears, even getting in my mouth. Ptooey. I finished filling up and sought the safety of the inside of my vehicle. A few gnats made it in with me but I blasted them with the air conditioner fan. Peace at last but I'm still poor.
Our politicians are like gnats when it comes to the current energy crisis. They buzz around, some times singly, sometimes in crowds, always on the move but somehow only being an annoyance. I hear pie-in-the-sky ideas about how to solve our rising gas prices but since gnats live in the sky I know they can't pull anything from it. I just hear the buzz of more empty or unrealistic promises: solar and wind mostly. Neither of these produce even a fraction of the daily energy generated using oil, coal, and natural gas in America. But they generate a lot of buzz.
Gnats can't solve problems, they can only be annoying. Our energy problems cannot be solved by an ineffective government, they must be solved by average citizens and private enterprise. Government can help best just by getting out of the way. The West wasn't won by the government, no one in Texas shouts, Remember the government! America has the most creative population on the planet. We can do anything if we put our mind to it. History clearly shows this. So why aren't we doing something now? Where are our leaders? Where is the vision? Where is our next privately funded Manhattan project? Why is it that all we have is a cloud of buzzing gnats and that we seem to wait for these gnats to do something? They're just gnats. We need to make our future ourselves like our forefathers did. We have the substance of liberty in our hearts and in our spirits. We have the ideas and the wherewithal to get them done. We beat the Brits in the Revolutionary War. Do we not have the cajones to solve what may be our largest challenge since that time? If we do not solve it, we will no longer be a great nation. We will become the buzzing gnats instead. We will have shown that we have no substance.
That gnat that flew into my mouth wasn't tasty and sure didn't provide any sustenance. Neither will all of the buzz from the politicians about alternative energy. We need the energy now but all we get is buzz. Buzz won't fill up my gas tank. Actually, no buzz at all would be nice. I could use the silence to think about ways to help my country become energy independent once more. Find your own silence of the gnats.
Take your medicine. It's good for you.
CodLiverOilGuy
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
What Liberals Will NOT Tell You about the Iraq War
I came across this article in Commentary Magazine. Unfortunately, for sanctimonious liberals, it reveals (as if those with commonsense didn't already know) that your glorious leader, Bill Clinton, warned anyone who would listen about the threat posed by one Saddam Hussein.
"It is too often forgotten, not least by historians, that George W. Bush did not invent the idea of deposing the Iraqi tyrant. For years before he came on the scene, removing Saddam Hussein had been a priority embraced by the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton and by Clinton’s most vocal supporters in the Senate:
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological weapons. . . . Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: he has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. . . . I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.These were the words of President Clinton on the night of December 16, 1998 as he announced a four-day bombing campaign over Iraq. Only six weeks earlier, Clinton had signed the Iraq Liberation Act authorizing Saddam’s overthrow—an initiative supported unanimously in the Senate and by a margin of 360 to 38 in the House. “Iraqis deserve and desire freedom,” Clinton had declared. On the evening the bombs began to drop, Vice President Al Gore told CNN’s Larry King:
You allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons. How many people is he going to kill with such weapons? . . . We are not going to allow him to succeed. [emphasis added]What these and other such statements remind us is that, by the time George Bush entered the White House in January 2001, the United States was already at war with Iraq, and in fact had been at war for a decade, ever since the first Gulf war in the early 1990’s. (This was literally the case, the end of hostilities in 1991 being merely a cease-fire and not a formal surrender followed by a peace treaty.) Not only that, but the diplomatic and military framework Bush inherited for neutralizing the Middle East’s most fearsome dictator had been approved by the United Nations. It consisted of (a) regular UN inspections to track and dispose of weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) remaining in Saddam’s arsenal since the first Gulf war; (b) UN-monitored sanctions to prevent Saddam from acquiring the means to make more WMD’s; and (c) the creation of so-called “no-fly zones” over large sections of southern and northern Iraq to deter Saddam from sending the remnants of his air force against resisting Kurds and Shiite Muslims."
Liberals who scream that George Bush, Dick Cheney, et al. are war criminals, seem to forget the following:
1. Saddam violated several UN resolutions calling for full transparency of his weapons program, with military force the ultimate consequence.
2. Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who also were both Democratic presidential candidates, looked at the same intelligence that the Bush Administration looked at; they ALL drew the same conclusion.
3. Bill Clinton referred to predatory, rogue nations looking to acquire WMD as an "unholy axis." Yet, Bush has taken endless heat over the term, "axis of evil."
I hate to break it you (actually I don't; anything to wipe that smug, latte-creamed, smile off your elitist face), but your accusations of an illegal war are wholly and absurdly ungrounded.
The Liberals' War and Who the REAL War Criminals Are
We've heard ad nauseum from the liberals and their Democratic enablers that the Iraq War is Bush's War, Bush's Vietnam, if you will. Since we're casting blame, isn't it fair to say that global warming, skyrocketing oil prices, and the impending energy crisis consists of the Democrats' war?
Those of us on the right also been chided ceaselessly for engaging fear-mongering and exaggerating the scope of the collective terrorist threat; we're laughed at when we say we're fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we're not fighting them here.
Yet we've heard that "global warming" is the most dangerous fight we'll make in our generation. I spied a liberal bumper that stated, "At least the war on the environment is going well."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This misinformed, misguided obsession with ethanol thanks to a collective hatred of big oil has shot food prices through the roof. Furthermore, a concerted misinformation campaign regarding the dangers of "drilling" have led us to beg despots in Saudi Arabia to pump more oil. Furthermore, it's too costly to provide additional refining capacity.
So your war has created food shortages and starving people AROUND THE WORLD, and $4.00+ plus per gallon gasoline prices; why, because people like Al Gore lied about the threats of global warming. They told us that there was a consensus in the scientific community; there was no consensus. In fact, thousands of scientists dispute any evidence that man has created global warming. Despite threats of persecution in the scientific community, scientists are speaking out.
If the environmentalists had their way, our society would set itself back two hundred years, pre-combustible engine period. Yet, what the environmentalists and their Democratic enablers FAIL to realize, is that cheap energy is the key to this economy. We hear Republican presidential nominee John McCain discussing real, viable options to solving the energy process: increased drilling, more refinery construction, more nuclear power, etc.
What is Democratic presidential nominee Barry Obama's plan: more solar and more wind power; more conservation.
Yeah, right.
Resident liberal know-nothing, John Nichols in The Nation (the same publication that misinformed us that our troops in Iraq were committing widespread atrocities) writes that those congressmen and senators that opposed Bush's Iraq War spending bill are acting responsibly. Of course those like Pelosi and Reid who are stalling, all the while pandering to the environmentalist lobby, regarding the issue of tapping into our vast energy resources are responsible elected officials too, right John?
Let's face it, environmentalist buffoons, your time is coming when obscene amount of public pressure will force even your Democratic stooges to tap into vast energy reserves, conceding that your global warming concoction is a damn hoax.
You liberals and your pie-in-the-sky mentality have accused Bush, Cheney, et al. of war crimes...how about those elected officials that ignored the threats and the now emerging reality that people are starving thanks to you.
Who are the war criminals now, you fools?
Those of us on the right also been chided ceaselessly for engaging fear-mongering and exaggerating the scope of the collective terrorist threat; we're laughed at when we say we're fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we're not fighting them here.
Yet we've heard that "global warming" is the most dangerous fight we'll make in our generation. I spied a liberal bumper that stated, "At least the war on the environment is going well."
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This misinformed, misguided obsession with ethanol thanks to a collective hatred of big oil has shot food prices through the roof. Furthermore, a concerted misinformation campaign regarding the dangers of "drilling" have led us to beg despots in Saudi Arabia to pump more oil. Furthermore, it's too costly to provide additional refining capacity.
So your war has created food shortages and starving people AROUND THE WORLD, and $4.00+ plus per gallon gasoline prices; why, because people like Al Gore lied about the threats of global warming. They told us that there was a consensus in the scientific community; there was no consensus. In fact, thousands of scientists dispute any evidence that man has created global warming. Despite threats of persecution in the scientific community, scientists are speaking out.
If the environmentalists had their way, our society would set itself back two hundred years, pre-combustible engine period. Yet, what the environmentalists and their Democratic enablers FAIL to realize, is that cheap energy is the key to this economy. We hear Republican presidential nominee John McCain discussing real, viable options to solving the energy process: increased drilling, more refinery construction, more nuclear power, etc.
What is Democratic presidential nominee Barry Obama's plan: more solar and more wind power; more conservation.
Yeah, right.
Resident liberal know-nothing, John Nichols in The Nation (the same publication that misinformed us that our troops in Iraq were committing widespread atrocities) writes that those congressmen and senators that opposed Bush's Iraq War spending bill are acting responsibly. Of course those like Pelosi and Reid who are stalling, all the while pandering to the environmentalist lobby, regarding the issue of tapping into our vast energy resources are responsible elected officials too, right John?
Let's face it, environmentalist buffoons, your time is coming when obscene amount of public pressure will force even your Democratic stooges to tap into vast energy reserves, conceding that your global warming concoction is a damn hoax.
You liberals and your pie-in-the-sky mentality have accused Bush, Cheney, et al. of war crimes...how about those elected officials that ignored the threats and the now emerging reality that people are starving thanks to you.
Who are the war criminals now, you fools?
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Liberals and this FISA nonsense
No doubt you've heard that MoveOn.org, a non-profit, HIGHLY liberal policy group, is urging Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama to filibuster any "any wiretapping bill that included retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that let the government listen in," according to Ben Smith at Politico.com.
Of course liberals are up in arms because congressional Democrats are considering immunity for telecommunication companies that partook in President Bush's domestic wiretapping program. Once again, liberals are wrong: incorrect about global warming, the profits of "big oil," the Iraq War, etc, and now this (Bush's wiretapping program).
It's interesting, and almost, sadly, comical, to hear liberals weigh in on how Bush, the neocons, the Republicans, Jesus Christ, etc, usurped the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Furthermore, it demonstrates how liberals, despite overtures stating their collective genius, really are nothing more than sheeple, simply regurgitating talking points propagated through liberal outlets like the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post.
"Spying on its citizens"
I've heard this claim made, ad nauseum by liberals, whether it's in user posts around the web in conversations with liberal colleagues at work. We've heard that Bush has stripped us of our "inalienable" rights. First of all, IF this was the course, the United States government has often "suspended" certain rights of its citizens during wartime. Note the Sedition Act of 1918, at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson that, "made it a crime to utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States' form of government." Second, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, through Executive Order 9066, interned first-generation Japanese and their children during World War II.
Second, and perhaps this question is simplistic in nature, but...does anyone know someone that was "spied upon" by the government?
I didn't think so...what liberals cannot grasp is that perhaps the United States government in fact is monitoring the conversations of young Muslim men, either in this country or in other countries? Of course liberals, in their infinite wisdom, simply cannot fathom.
"Nanny government"
You see, liberals are infatuated with the notion of civil liberties; it's an affront to their "civil liberties" if the government is involved in certain aspects of their lives. Ironically and perhaps hypocritically, liberals almost stereotypically so, believe in the concept of "Big Government." In other words, they really do want government involved in their lives, whether it's through the regulating of EVERYTHING, universal health care, entitlements, activist judicial rulings, etc.
Limitations of FISA
Lastly, the bottom provides a review of the limitations of the FISA. In a perfect world, liberals would understand that in TIMES OF WAR, the government is allowed to take extraordinary measures to ensure the safety of its populace. From the FISA wikipedia entry:
It will be a sad day if Telecom companies are punished simply ensuring that young Muslim men weren't hatching various plots to kill us.
Of course liberals are up in arms because congressional Democrats are considering immunity for telecommunication companies that partook in President Bush's domestic wiretapping program. Once again, liberals are wrong: incorrect about global warming, the profits of "big oil," the Iraq War, etc, and now this (Bush's wiretapping program).
It's interesting, and almost, sadly, comical, to hear liberals weigh in on how Bush, the neocons, the Republicans, Jesus Christ, etc, usurped the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. Furthermore, it demonstrates how liberals, despite overtures stating their collective genius, really are nothing more than sheeple, simply regurgitating talking points propagated through liberal outlets like the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post.
"Spying on its citizens"
I've heard this claim made, ad nauseum by liberals, whether it's in user posts around the web in conversations with liberal colleagues at work. We've heard that Bush has stripped us of our "inalienable" rights. First of all, IF this was the course, the United States government has often "suspended" certain rights of its citizens during wartime. Note the Sedition Act of 1918, at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson that, "made it a crime to utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the United States' form of government." Second, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, through Executive Order 9066, interned first-generation Japanese and their children during World War II.
Second, and perhaps this question is simplistic in nature, but...does anyone know someone that was "spied upon" by the government?
I didn't think so...what liberals cannot grasp is that perhaps the United States government in fact is monitoring the conversations of young Muslim men, either in this country or in other countries? Of course liberals, in their infinite wisdom, simply cannot fathom.
"Nanny government"
You see, liberals are infatuated with the notion of civil liberties; it's an affront to their "civil liberties" if the government is involved in certain aspects of their lives. Ironically and perhaps hypocritically, liberals almost stereotypically so, believe in the concept of "Big Government." In other words, they really do want government involved in their lives, whether it's through the regulating of EVERYTHING, universal health care, entitlements, activist judicial rulings, etc.
Limitations of FISA
Lastly, the bottom provides a review of the limitations of the FISA. In a perfect world, liberals would understand that in TIMES OF WAR, the government is allowed to take extraordinary measures to ensure the safety of its populace. From the FISA wikipedia entry:
"K. A. Taipale of the World Policy Institute, James Jay Carafano of the Heritage Foundation,[20] and Philip Bobbitt of the University of Texas Law School,[21] among others,[22] have argued that FISA may need to be amended (to include, among other things, procedures for programmatic approvals) as it may no longer be adequate to address certain foreign intelligence needs and technology developments, including: the transition from circuit-based communications to packet-based communications; the globalization of communications infrastructure; and the development of automated monitoring techniques, including data mining and traffic analysis.[23]FISA was concocted in an age when land-line telephone systems resided at the forefront of our communication systems. What it didn't account for, in 1978, were email, text messaging, cell phones, PDA's, etc.The need for programmatic approval of technology-enabled surveillance programs is particularly crucial in foreign intelligence. See, for example, John R. Schmidt, the associate attorney general (1994–1997) in the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton,[24] recalling early arguments made by then-Attorney General Edward Levi to the Church Committee that foreign intelligence surveillance legislation should include provisions for programmatically authorizing surveillance programs because of the particular needs of foreign intelligence where "virtually continuous surveillance, which by its nature does not have specifically predetermined targets" may be required. In these situations, "the efficiency of a warrant requirement would be minimal."
And, in a recent essay, Judge Richard A. Posner opined that FISA “retains value as a framework for monitoring the communications of known terrorists, but it is hopeless as a framework for detecting terrorists. [FISA] requires that surveillance be conducted pursuant to warrants based on probable cause to believe that the target of surveillance is a terrorist, when the desperate need is to find out who is a terrorist.”[25]"
It will be a sad day if Telecom companies are punished simply ensuring that young Muslim men weren't hatching various plots to kill us.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Islamic Nations Want Divisive Issues on the Agenda at UN Racism Conference
Shaking my head in disbelief...
So it's okay to disparage every other religion while operating the moniker of "religion of peace;" it's okay to marginalize, discriminate, and persecute those that don't adhere to the however many pillars that belong to said religion. It's okay to advertise a placard stating that "Jesus was Mohammed's slave" in country such as Britain or France. It's also okay to project your views and beliefs onto "infidels."
But when someone or some group challenges Islam, that person is branded as "Islamophobic" or "racist." According to CNSNews.com, "Despite the controversy surrounding a United Nations conference on racism being planned for next year, Islamic governments are reaffirming their intention to press for the inclusion of such divisive issues as foreign occupation' and criticism of Islam.
Preparations for next spring's international gathering moved ahead this week, with a debate at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva. Critics raised concerns about the direction the process is taking."
Note the following, courtesy of CNSNews.com:
The crux of the
Here's the complete article:
So it's okay to disparage every other religion while operating the moniker of "religion of peace;" it's okay to marginalize, discriminate, and persecute those that don't adhere to the however many pillars that belong to said religion. It's okay to advertise a placard stating that "Jesus was Mohammed's slave" in country such as Britain or France. It's also okay to project your views and beliefs onto "infidels."
But when someone or some group challenges Islam, that person is branded as "Islamophobic" or "racist." According to CNSNews.com, "Despite the controversy surrounding a United Nations conference on racism being planned for next year, Islamic governments are reaffirming their intention to press for the inclusion of such divisive issues as foreign occupation' and criticism of Islam.
Preparations for next spring's international gathering moved ahead this week, with a debate at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva. Critics raised concerns about the direction the process is taking."
Note the following, courtesy of CNSNews.com:
"The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc of Muslim states that enjoys considerable influence in the HRC, is leading a campaign at the U.N. to have what it calls the defamation of Islam outlawed."It's interesting, isn't it, that an organization representing a religion that persecutes minorities, non-Muslims while denying rights to women would hold sway in the United Nations, but considering the demographics and politics of said UN, it makes sense.
The crux of the
Here's the complete article:
Islamic Nations Want Divisive Issues on the Agenda at UN Racism Conference
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor
June 20, 2008
(CNSNews.com) - Despite the controversy surrounding a United Nations conference on racism being planned for next year, Islamic governments are reaffirming their intention to press for the inclusion of such divisive issues as "foreign occupation" and criticism of Islam.
Preparations for next spring's international gathering moved ahead this week, with a debate at the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva. Critics raised concerns about the direction the process is taking.
Plans for the conference have been dogged by concerns that it may produce a re-run of the last major U.N. conference on racism in Durban, South Africa in 200. The Durban conference was characterized by anti-Israel rhetoric, prompting the U.S. and Israeli delegations to withdraw in protest.
The aim of the 2009 conference is to review progress made since the 2001 event in the global fight against racism, but the Israel-Palestinian issue threatens once again to feature strongly, along with the question of "Islamophobia" that has taken on increasing prominence in the years since 9/11.
Canada and Israel have indicated they will not participate in the conference, and the U.S., while stopping short of announcing a boycott, says it will not attend if the conference promises to repeat the 2001 one.
In 2001, Israel was accused of employing apartheid-like policies in its dealings with the Palestinians, while Zionism -- the foundational ideology of the Jewish state -- was itself labeled racist.
Pro-Palestinian voices continue to make those arguments, while Israel's supporters contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not about race. Critics of the events in Durban also say that its skewed focus on Israel diverted attention from numerous issues of egregious racial discrimination around the globe.
The review conference will be held over five days next April in Geneva, home to a number of U.N. agencies, including the HRC. The council has been tasked to oversee the planning by a 20-country preparatory committee, chaired by Libya and including Iran, Cuba and Pakistan among its members.
In the Swiss city this week, members of the council held a debate on racism and discussed preparations for the review conference, including the drafting of an outcome document.
The envoy of two Islamic member states, Algeria and Azerbaijan, both raised the issue of foreign occupation.
Algeria's representative proposed that the outcome document should include a specific chapter on the issue of populations under foreign occupation, while Azerbaijan's envoy charged that those under foreign occupation were in most cases the victims of racism.
Although neither referred specifically to Israel, a paper drawn up in preparation for the drafting of the outcome document includes a section on "people under foreign occupation" and it cites only one case - the Palestinians.
'Racio-religious profiling in war on terror'
Another theme emerging in the preparation for the review conference is that of Islamophobia, a phenomenon some argue is a "contemporary form of racism" that should fall under the purview of the racism conference.
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a bloc of Muslim states that enjoys considerable influence in the HRC, is leading a campaign at the U.N. to have what it calls the defamation of Islam outlawed.
Pakistan and Iran, both leading OIC members, raised the issue during the debate in Geneva.
Iran's delegate cited a recently-released documentary filmlinking the Koran with terrorism and extremism, calling it an example of incitement to racial and religious hatred.
Pakistan's envoy, Marghoob Saleem Butt, said in a statement that the document that will emerge from the review conference "must include space to eliminate new and emerging manifestations of racism."
"It must provide a comprehensive protection mechanism to the victims including those who had suffered the wrath of [the] war on terror in terms of racio-religious profiling and its consequential incitement to racio-religious hatred," he added.
Several non-governmental organizations taking part in the debate raised concern about the agenda of the OIC nations.
A International Humanist and Ethical Union representative, Roy Brown, raised the race factor in the conflict situation in Sudan and the plight of Dalits (lower-caste "untouchables") in India. Yet, he said, Muslims in the West were free to practice their religion. Brown wondered why there was a specific and selective focus on Islamophobia.
Hillel Neuer of U.N. Watch said there were "worrying signs" that the review conference may repeat some of the elements that plagued the 2001 gathering. He noted that the preparatory committee, at Iran's behest, had refused to accredit a Canadian Jewish NGO wanting to attend next year's conference.
Yet the same committee, Neuer said, had accredited another NGO, "whose very name - the Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign - brings back the hateful and divisive rhetoric of 2001."
(Iran says it objected to the inclusion of the NGO, the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, because it had failed to answer a set of questions Iran had put to it. The NGO eventually withdrew its application, protesting that the deliberations had been turned into a "discriminatory procedural football.")
Also taking part in this week's debate, the World Union for Progressive Judaism's David Littman also raised the religion issue, asking why the indiscriminate killing in the name of God should not be recognized as defamation of religion.
U.N.-accredited NGOs represented by Brown and Littman have raised that issue before, appealing at the HRC and other U.N. forums for "calls to kill in the name of God or religion -- any religion" to be condemned.
In a letter last year to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the (now outgoing) U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, they wrote, "A policy of silence on this ideology of Jihad by Muslim spiritual and secular leaders, the OIC and Arab League -- as well as the inter-national community -- implicitly condones this evil, an evil that should be condemned unequivocally by senior Muslim theologians as a 'defamation of Islam.'"
Liberals: Living in a 9/10 World
It's amazing how our country, not JUST liberals locked away in their pie-in-the-sky worlds, have forgotten about 9/11, the string of terrorist attacks that occurred under Bill Clinton's watch, and how Clinton and his cronies propagated the threat of Saddam Hussein's WMD program during the 1990's.
Be that as it may, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is still looking to hold the Bush Administration accountable for supposedly usurping the Constitution. I came across this story, courtesy of liberal Nick Juliano of the Raw Threat, discussing Feingold purportedly retreating from his threats to bring Bush, Cheney, et al., to justice.
Don't forget the recent praise in which Obama and others on the Left have expressed their glib satisfaction with a recent Supreme Court decision to allow prisoners held at the Guantanamo Country Club, er prison, to request hearings our courts.
It's amazing how the Democrats discuss, so cavalierly, President Bush's alleged disregard for the Constitution, yet it's the Left's inherent belief that they control every aspect of society through draconian government regulations.
Really, it's a soft-core approach to usurping our rights granted to us via the Constitution, whether it's the environmentalists' depriving us of cheap energy, or a bill afoot in committee to make it a hate crime to speak one's mind about alternative lifestyles or religions other than Christianity (see: Islam), or perhaps it's a recent motion to limit the amount of conservative talk radio present (of course the Mainstream Media is absolutely saturated with liberal propaganda).
Furthermore, we have hotshot, liberal, activist judges (California and Oklahoma; Supreme Court) invoking their own perverted brand of justice, by overriding the voice of the people.
Furthermore, the article states the following:
Be that as it may, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is still looking to hold the Bush Administration accountable for supposedly usurping the Constitution. I came across this story, courtesy of liberal Nick Juliano of the Raw Threat, discussing Feingold purportedly retreating from his threats to bring Bush, Cheney, et al., to justice.
"Wary of making the debate between liberty and security into a campaign issue, Congressional Democrats appear ready to retreat in their years-long effort to instill some sort of accountability on the Bush administration and its enablers in the telecommunications industry for their extra-legal surveillance of Americans."Give me a break. Hasn't this refrain gotten a little tiresome? Not only has the all-too-real threat of terrorist evaporated from the latte-saturated minds of the Left, but with every passing day, they seem to align themselves further with our enemies: whether's it's Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama's long-standing claim to "negotiate" with Iranian Madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as well as the party's collective declaration to withdraw troops from Iraq, DESPITE overwhelming progress in the past year, or their tacit belief that Islamic fundamentalists are justified to share an incomprehensible anger towards us.
Don't forget the recent praise in which Obama and others on the Left have expressed their glib satisfaction with a recent Supreme Court decision to allow prisoners held at the Guantanamo Country Club, er prison, to request hearings our courts.
It's amazing how the Democrats discuss, so cavalierly, President Bush's alleged disregard for the Constitution, yet it's the Left's inherent belief that they control every aspect of society through draconian government regulations.
Really, it's a soft-core approach to usurping our rights granted to us via the Constitution, whether it's the environmentalists' depriving us of cheap energy, or a bill afoot in committee to make it a hate crime to speak one's mind about alternative lifestyles or religions other than Christianity (see: Islam), or perhaps it's a recent motion to limit the amount of conservative talk radio present (of course the Mainstream Media is absolutely saturated with liberal propaganda).
Furthermore, we have hotshot, liberal, activist judges (California and Oklahoma; Supreme Court) invoking their own perverted brand of justice, by overriding the voice of the people.
Furthermore, the article states the following:
"Congressional leaders have reached an accord with the White House on the update to a controversial surveillance law that essentially legalizes the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program and seems likely to let off the hook the phone companies that facilitated it.Under the bipartisan measure, a court could dismiss a suit if there is written certification that the White House asked a phone company to participate in the warrantless surveillance program Bush began shortly after the September 11 attacks and assured the company it was legal."
Here's a classic example of how the Left is living in a pre-9/11 world: Feingold and others invoke FISA when discussing the notion of wiretaps and other means of electronic surveillance. FISA was written in the late 1970's, prior to the advent of email, cell phones, text messages, etc. FISA does NOT allow for surveillances on such communication mediums, only land-line phones.
You can argue sedition on behalf of the Left; I make no such claim. But what I do state is that once again, the Left has demonstrated their lack of coherence in foreign policy and the war on terror.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The Liberal Double-Standard
Have you ever gone to Newshounds.com? I was alerted to its presence, sort of like Ben Kenobi being alerted to Darth Vader’s presence in Star Wars, regarding a statement FOX News anchor Brit Hume made about Democratic presidential nominee and resident liberal messiah Barry Obama.
Allegedly, Hume made disparaging comments or twisted the truth about the Golden Child. The bottom line is that I got a real kick out of the way the liberal Newshounds.com rushed to Obama’s defense.
Newshounds.com embodies the collective liberal mindset. Anytime someone on the right, or someone with a good head on his/her shoulders, impugns or even attempts to demand accountability for a series of verbal gaffes and questionable decision-making of said Golden Child, we’re met with fierce resistance, including name-calling, brow-beating, condescension, etc. On the whole, it’s been interesting to watch the liberals “valiantly defend” their nominee.
This sort of deranged behavior typifies how liberals fail to grasp history, especially mistakes they’ve made in the past or statements they’ve made to which they NOW contradict themselves. See:
Moreover, Nevermind the fact that Liberals accosted a Republican president for eight years; yet, as soon as those of us question the integrity and experience of a Democrat, we suffer from “Barachnophobia,” or as Newshounds states, we’re racist, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Muslim, etc.
It’s ALMOST comical, but it isn’t.
This Liberal Fascination with "Justice"
Democratic presidential nominee Barry Obama believes that if captured, Al Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden should face a Nuremberg-like trial rather than be made a martyr, according to the Associated Press.
Haven't we heard this refrain before? Oh sure we did...President Bill Clinton was obsessed with the legal ramifications of capturing and/or killing bin Laden during the 1990's PRIOR to 9/11. According the UK Telegraph, "Seeking to portray himself as tough enough to be commander-in-chief, the Democratic presidential candidate warned that there was an executive order dating back to Bill Clinton's presidency that allowed the CIA to kill bin Laden if capture was not an option."
Really? Then when presented with the option, why didn't Bill Clinton authorize lethal force to be used against bin Laden when clandestine U.S. forces had the terrorist leader in their sites (on multiple occasions)? Because Clinton and his administration were worried that the world wouldn't look too kindly upon bin Laden's death at the hands of Americans.
Once again, a Democrat worried about what the world thinks. We're seeing that now; note the following:
"Though he refused to detail what approach he would take to bring bin Laden to justice, he sought to show a more sympathetic American face to the world when he described the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders as an exemplar of sound victors' justice."
Once again, the liberals are worried about global perception; we don't NEED global permission to act in the best interests of this country. If thousands of murderous religious fanatics wish to kill Americans, we need to liquidate them before they can do any damage.
Haven't we heard this refrain before? Oh sure we did...President Bill Clinton was obsessed with the legal ramifications of capturing and/or killing bin Laden during the 1990's PRIOR to 9/11. According the UK Telegraph, "Seeking to portray himself as tough enough to be commander-in-chief, the Democratic presidential candidate warned that there was an executive order dating back to Bill Clinton's presidency that allowed the CIA to kill bin Laden if capture was not an option."
Really? Then when presented with the option, why didn't Bill Clinton authorize lethal force to be used against bin Laden when clandestine U.S. forces had the terrorist leader in their sites (on multiple occasions)? Because Clinton and his administration were worried that the world wouldn't look too kindly upon bin Laden's death at the hands of Americans.
Once again, a Democrat worried about what the world thinks. We're seeing that now; note the following:
"Though he refused to detail what approach he would take to bring bin Laden to justice, he sought to show a more sympathetic American face to the world when he described the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders as an exemplar of sound victors' justice."
Once again, the liberals are worried about global perception; we don't NEED global permission to act in the best interests of this country. If thousands of murderous religious fanatics wish to kill Americans, we need to liquidate them before they can do any damage.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Attempting to Enlighten a Liberal
Originally, I wanted to title this piece, "Attempting to EDUCATE a Liberal," but I soon realized that a sizeable chunk of liberals are diplomats, professors, and other educated folk; despite my own master's degree, a liberal would show their educational prowess by browbeating me while resorting to name-calling.
I came across an article today in the Washington Post, which despite the source, was fairly non-partisan in nature. The article consists of emails from people on both sides of the political spectrum admonishing the opposing candidate on the recent Supreme Court decision to allow terrorist detainees to REQUEST a hearing in court.
Note some of the emails:
Unbelievable. While you Leftist swine drink your lattes, our fighting men and women are waging a heroic, epic conflict against terrorists who would you gladly usurp your rights. NEWSFLASH Liberal: these people that you have blithely embraced while offering them a chair at the negotiation table, laugh at how naive you are. They are USING you, all the while abhoring your godless, secular ways.
They've hated us BEFORE Bush; how soon you forget arguably the first volley in the War on Terror, the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis, the suicide bombings in Lebanon during the early 80's, the endless airplane hijackings during the 80's and 90's, and nonstop terrorist attacks that occurred during the Clinton Administration.
9/11 happened during the first year of Bush's presidency; but the planning, training, and financing occurred during the Clinton Administration, all because he had neither the fortitude nor heart to actually extract Osama bin Laden or deal EFFECTIVELY with every terrorist attack that occurred either on our soil (FIRST WTC bombings) or against American interests abroad (e.g. '98 Embassy bombings, Khobar towers, USS Cole, etc).
Give me a break.
I came across an article today in the Washington Post, which despite the source, was fairly non-partisan in nature. The article consists of emails from people on both sides of the political spectrum admonishing the opposing candidate on the recent Supreme Court decision to allow terrorist detainees to REQUEST a hearing in court.
Note some of the emails:
motorfriend said, "Before exploring the fine points of combatting terrorism, McCain owes the American people an apology for what he and his party have done to this once proud country. War criminals, liars, frauds, traitors . . . words cannot begin to capture the magnitude of their crimes."My initial reaction to the above emails was one of sheer disbelief; but I soon realized that in our country today, the Liberals are arrogant and ignorant as they've been since the Vietnam War. These comments demonstrate your typical defeatist, Blame-America-First mentality running rampant among Liberals. Furthermore, the world's ills, especially those perceived in the Islamic world are OUR own fault, or President Bush's fault for that matter. Moreover, if you read the comments above, not only are the readers ingrates for freedoms fought and died for by our military, but they essentially either compare our President, his administration, and our military to some of the world's worst tyrants, or they believe them to be worse.
dsrobins predicted that "...John McCain will lose the election in November. McCain, like Bush, wants to keep Americans terrified about what might happen next..."
kogejoe said, "It's funny how McCain is trying to project his own party's problem on his opponent. How does he even have the gumption of accusing Obama of a "9/10 mindset" when 9/11 happened on BUSH'S WATCH?... There are now more terrorists in Iraq than before we attacked them. Talked about "failed policy."
carolm62 said, "...When we infuriate the world by acting like evil tyrants, as when we deny a prisoner the basic right to answer to the charges leveled against him, why should we be surprised if people seek revenge? McCain is fostering terrorism, not defeating it."
rcc_2000 wrote, "...Yeah, we've heard the GOP "tough on terror" talk before and all it has brought us is a more unstable, dangerous world. Fact is the GOP has been the terrorists best friend and advocate. I guess the GOP and McCain do not think they have screwed us up enough."
Unbelievable. While you Leftist swine drink your lattes, our fighting men and women are waging a heroic, epic conflict against terrorists who would you gladly usurp your rights. NEWSFLASH Liberal: these people that you have blithely embraced while offering them a chair at the negotiation table, laugh at how naive you are. They are USING you, all the while abhoring your godless, secular ways.
They've hated us BEFORE Bush; how soon you forget arguably the first volley in the War on Terror, the 1979-80 Iranian hostage crisis, the suicide bombings in Lebanon during the early 80's, the endless airplane hijackings during the 80's and 90's, and nonstop terrorist attacks that occurred during the Clinton Administration.
9/11 happened during the first year of Bush's presidency; but the planning, training, and financing occurred during the Clinton Administration, all because he had neither the fortitude nor heart to actually extract Osama bin Laden or deal EFFECTIVELY with every terrorist attack that occurred either on our soil (FIRST WTC bombings) or against American interests abroad (e.g. '98 Embassy bombings, Khobar towers, USS Cole, etc).
Give me a break.
"Why I'm Voting Democrat"...Hilarious article
I came across this article, courtesy of HumanEvents.com. Obviously, the article is satirical in nature, but it does poke fun at the inane, pie-in-the-sky views of the Liberal Mind, or lack thereof.
Why I'm Voting DemocratPosted 06/18/2008 ET
Updated 06/18/2008 ET
A new video on YouTube is taking the Internet by storm. Entitled "I'm Voting … Republican," the satirical clip depicts actors playing conservative Americans of all shapes and sizes explaining why they would vote for the GOP.
"Arnold Jones" says he's voting Republican because "all other countries are inferior to us" -- and his wife, "Trudy Jones," adds, "and we should start as many wars as we need to keep it that way." A soldier in Iraq states that he's voting Republican "so I can stay in Iraq" -- and a young boy, labeled "future draftee," points a fake gun at the camera and smiles while saying "so I can go to Iran!"
A black couple says they're voting Republican because they "like a conservative majority on the Supreme Court," with the wife noting, "we really like knowing that even if we're separate, we'll still be called equal."
This insulting nonsense is precisely what liberals think of conservatives: We're all warmongers, racists, environmental rapists and secret emissaries of big corporations. We're going to reinstitute the draft, start a war with Canada and then relocate African-Americans to Quebec.
This sort of tripe should be dismissed out of hand. In the spirit of evenhandedness and fair play, however, I feel it my duty to explain why I'm going to vote Democrat.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that the best strategy in war is defeat. It broadens the mind to learn Japanese, German and Arabic. Talk about multiculturalism!
I'm voting Democrat because I'm mad that George W. Bush hasn't caught Bin Laden. That's because Bin Laden is the only Islamic terrorist in the world.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that if I don't have enough money, the solution is for the government to take more of my money. Who needs money when gas is $5 per gallon?
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that the ideal family is two homosexual bonobos, a goat and a parrot raising a human baby. Love and compassion is all it takes to make a successful family!
I'm voting Democrat because it's my body, and if I want to kill my baby, I'll do it, even if its head is in the birth canal. If I want to cut out my intestines and feed them to the crocodiles, I'll do that too. That's the freedom our forefathers enshrined in the Constitution.
I'm voting Democrat because our enemies on the battlefield deserve comfy hotel rooms, Pay-Per-View, prostitutes and all the benefits of American citizenship.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe we need other countries' permission for me to turn down my thermostat.
I'm voting Democrat because I care about the real victims of crime -- criminals.
I'm voting Democrat because the real cure for racism includes preferential policies based on race -- particularly in presidential voting. If you believe that a black candidate ought to be qualified, as well as black, you're worse than Bull Conner.
I'm voting Democrat because everyone deserves crappy healthcare. Sure, you'll have to wait years for that life-saving cancer surgery. But it's first come, first served at the cemetery!
I'm voting Democrat because I believe in minority rights (except in Muslim countries), free speech (with regard to pornography but not conservative talk radio), environmentalism (unless we're talking about Al Gore's house) and diplomacy (but never backed by the threat of military force).
I'm voting Democrat because I like the words "hope" and "change." Also "kazoo." That's a funny word.
I'm voting Democrat because I believe that America's founders were rich, white, greedy xenophobes, and that America's founding principles are hogwash requiring periodic editing from an unelected group of liberal judges.
Most of all, I'm voting Democrat because I like the ideas they have over in France, but I don't feel like moving there. I'll threaten to move, but I really won't. After all, I have a good job, healthcare, lower taxes, free speech and a social framework that promotes family structure. And all of it is defended by the most effective fighting force on the planet.
If only the institution of far-left values resulted in a great country. Oh, well. That won't stop me from voting Democrat, though. After all, I'm voting Democrat because thought isn't one of my strong suits."
To Obama: Why? Why Do You Insist on Defeat?
I came across this article, courtesy of CNN.com, whereby Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama insists his mind is set on withdrawing troops from Iraq after he's elected.
My question to Obama: why? Why do you and your liberal ilk insist on singing the Defeatist refrains? Why do you insist on disparaging our military under the guise of supposedly supporting them? Why do you insist on sending our enemies a message that if THEY persevere and engage in a low-intensity warfare, our country collectively will turn tail and run?
Just what purpose does that serve?
You just don't get it, do you Barry? Neither do your Leftist brethen...
Some points from the article:
My question to Obama: why? Why do you and your liberal ilk insist on singing the Defeatist refrains? Why do you insist on disparaging our military under the guise of supposedly supporting them? Why do you insist on sending our enemies a message that if THEY persevere and engage in a low-intensity warfare, our country collectively will turn tail and run?
Just what purpose does that serve?
You just don't get it, do you Barry? Neither do your Leftist brethen...
Some points from the article:
"Obama says the need to withdraw troops is twofold:'One is to spur more action out of the Iraqis. ... But the second reason for withdrawal is the fact that we're spending $10 [billion] to $12 billion a month in Iraq,' Obama said Monday while on a two-day swing through Michigan.
'The people here in Flint, Michigan, who I'm going to be talking to, would like to see some of that investment made here at home.'"
Of course these are the same people Obama admonished for being narrow-minded by clinging to God and guns while frowning on immigration.
Second, Republican presidential candidate pointed out, correctly mind you, that Obama has NOT visited Iraq for nearly 900 days.
"About the same time Obama was speaking to his traveling press corps, McCain told reporters at a press conference at his Arlington, Virginia, headquarters that Obama 'is now is closing in on his 900th day since he visited Iraq.'"
'The whole debate in this campaign should be about whether we're going to allow that surge to continue to succeed or we're again going to do what Sen. Obama wanted to do, and that is to set a date for withdrawal long ago without giving the surge a chance to succeed,' said McCain, again criticizing Obama for not meeting directly with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq.
'I don't know how you can draw conclusions such as Sen. Obama has without even sitting down and talking with our commander on the ground,' he added."
This falls in line with the same tired argument that I hear from liberals ad nauseum, that the surge hasn't worked, we're killing more civilians than terrorists, and our young fighting men and women are dying by the hundreds for nothing. Granted, I've never been to Iraq, but guess Liberal, you haven't either. I don't CARE what CNN or CBS tells you, when 9 out of 10 journalists across ALL media states that he/she leans left, I know I need to filter my mainstream media.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Ah, the Leftist Media
The Leftist media is "at it again," thank you Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal Constitution...
In his limited response to Christian-centric emails regarding Barry Obama, he resorts to typical Leftist name-calling and condescension. Note the following:
His limited statement concerns some emails comparing Barry Obama to the anti-Christ, or discuss his thick Muslim heritage. Bookman blithely poo-poo's the sheer notion that Obama is nothing more than a good Christian! Christian my ass...
What's ironic is that the Democratic party, namely Barry Obama, wish to negotiate with crazies such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korean dictator Kim Jung Il. Keep in mind that Ahmadinejad proposes hastening the arrival of the 12th, or is it 13th Imam through apocalyptic means. Kim Jung Il is simply certifiable; how else can you explain starving millions of people and isolating his country?
Of course since the criticism emanates from the Christian Right, they're considered wacko's. After all, they have no room under the Democratic umbrella. They're not "cultured" enough.
Here's the complete piece:
In his limited response to Christian-centric emails regarding Barry Obama, he resorts to typical Leftist name-calling and condescension. Note the following:
"Boy, this Obama fellow has really gotten the loony contingent all worked up. He’s a sleeper agent for Islam!! He’s the anti-Christ described in Revelations!!!! Excerpts from my recent email offer a frightening peek into our ugly national id."Typical Leftist rhetoric; when they don't agree with you, they either to call you a nasty name, or try to make you feel stupid because you're not as "refined" or "cultured."
His limited statement concerns some emails comparing Barry Obama to the anti-Christ, or discuss his thick Muslim heritage. Bookman blithely poo-poo's the sheer notion that Obama is nothing more than a good Christian! Christian my ass...
What's ironic is that the Democratic party, namely Barry Obama, wish to negotiate with crazies such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or North Korean dictator Kim Jung Il. Keep in mind that Ahmadinejad proposes hastening the arrival of the 12th, or is it 13th Imam through apocalyptic means. Kim Jung Il is simply certifiable; how else can you explain starving millions of people and isolating his country?
Of course since the criticism emanates from the Christian Right, they're considered wacko's. After all, they have no room under the Democratic umbrella. They're not "cultured" enough.
Here's the complete piece:
Obama the Anti-Christ
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Boy, this Obama fellow has really gotten the loony contingent all worked up. He’s a sleeper agent for Islam!! He’s the anti-Christ described in Revelations!!!! Excerpts from my recent email offer a frightening peek into our ugly national id.
E-MAIL #1:
According to The Book of Revelations, the anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal…. the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything ….
Is it OBAMA?? I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet…do it!
E-MAIL #2:
How long did it take Islam and their oil money to find a candidate for President of the United States? As long as it took them to place a Senator from Illinois and Minnesota?…..
Find a candidate who can get away with lying about their father being a ‘freedom fighter’ when he was actually part of the most corrupt and violent government in Kenya’s history. Find a candidate with close ties to The Nation of Islam and the violent Muslim overthrow in Africa, a candidate who is educated among white infidel Americans but hides his bitterness and anger behind a superficial toothy smile. Find a candidate who changes his American name of Barry to the Muslim name of Barak Hussein Obama, and dares anyone to question his true ties under the banner of ‘racism’. Nurture this candidate in an atmosphere of anti-white American teaching and surround him with Islamic teachers. Provide him with a bitter, racist, anti-white, anti-American wife, and supply him with Muslim Middle East connections and Islamic monies. Allow him to be clever enough to get away with his anti-white rhetoric and proclaim he will give $834 billion taxpayer dollars to the Muslim-controlled United Nations for use in Africa….
Lies and deception behind a master plan — the ingredients for ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ or the placement of an anti-American president in our nation’s White House? Is it mere coincidence that an anti-capitalist runs for president at the same time Islamic sharia finance and law is trying to make advancing strides into the United States? Is it mere coincidence this same candidate wants to disarm our nuclear capability at a time when terrorist Muslim nations are expanding their nuclear weapons capability? Is it mere coincidence this candidate wants to reduce our military at a time of global jihad from Muslim nations?
Democrats: "party of the people" my rear (regarding energy, especially)
I came across this article, courtesy of SignonSanDiego.com which essentially epitomizes how out-of-touch Liberals and Democrats really are with the American people. The article offers two different takes, conveniently from each side of the political spectrum, on the energy crisis.
The Democrats love to pin the blame for high gas prices on the oil companies: "look at the profits," they cry...if it was only that simple. Rather, the oil profits are driven by supply and demand: Economics 101; as China and India continue to develop, as more people there start driving, as more manufacturing consumes more energy, they will GLADLY subsidize oil, thus providing cheap energy to their citizens.
No amount of price controls will ever control oil profits. "Big Oil" does not have to sell their supply to us. China and India will gladly buy whatever "Big Oil" is selling at whatever prices, hence the subsidies.
Furthermore, the oil companies cannot just drill at will offshore or in Alaska, thanks to obscene amounts of government regulations, taxes, and environmental obstacles, the notion of drilling is a pipe-dream. It won't happen, not while environmental groups have their way.
The second point that requires analysis comes from the mouth of Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer; note the following:
Message to goofy liberals; your day is coming...there will come a point where we WILL develop our domestic energy supply, whether it's oil or coal, despite your inane ramblings about global warming. Enjoy your time-imposed existence. It won't last much longer. The good people of this country who you do not represent will see to it.
Here's the complete article:
First, "The 'No More Excuses Energy Act' would have encouraged new refinery construction, extended the wind-production tax credit, sparked investment in new nuclear power plants, lifted a congressional moratorium on drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf and opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 'environmentally responsible' drilling. Shelf drilling, the GOP claimed, could provide the nation with 17 billion barrels of oil, while refuge drilling could produce a million barrels a day for several decades."Naturally, the Democrats INFORM us that oil companies pretty much can do whatever they want; they're not being prohibited from drilling. Do they think we're that stupid? Sadly, the Democrats do, thus their endless insistence that they control every facet of our lives.
"Democrats argue that the nation can't drill its way out of the problem. They note that 80 percent of the oil available on the shelf already is open for leasing, but that oil companies have concluded it's not yet worth their money to drill. And they contend that no oil would come from drilling in the refuge for at least a decade."
The Democrats love to pin the blame for high gas prices on the oil companies: "look at the profits," they cry...if it was only that simple. Rather, the oil profits are driven by supply and demand: Economics 101; as China and India continue to develop, as more people there start driving, as more manufacturing consumes more energy, they will GLADLY subsidize oil, thus providing cheap energy to their citizens.
No amount of price controls will ever control oil profits. "Big Oil" does not have to sell their supply to us. China and India will gladly buy whatever "Big Oil" is selling at whatever prices, hence the subsidies.
Furthermore, the oil companies cannot just drill at will offshore or in Alaska, thanks to obscene amounts of government regulations, taxes, and environmental obstacles, the notion of drilling is a pipe-dream. It won't happen, not while environmental groups have their way.
The second point that requires analysis comes from the mouth of Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer; note the following:
"Saying oil companies have quadrupled their profits in the past six years, Boxer portrayed them and the GOP as conniving co-conspirators in the robbery of typical Americans, and Democrats as champions of 'the average family.'Are you kidding ME, Barbara Boxer? I found these statements absolutely ridiculous. We can think the elitist, pie-in-the-sky liberals who represent a sizeable portion of the Democratic party. For a group (the Democrats) that supposedly represent the working class, it would appear they would rather entertain the wishes of the "money-portion" of the party. As mentioned above, we can thank environmental hurdles for the high prices.“'If anyone ever says to you there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, there is an enormous difference,' she said. 'And it has to do with whose side you are on. In the case today, it was: Are you on the side of big oil and foreign oil, or are you on the side of the American people?'"
Message to goofy liberals; your day is coming...there will come a point where we WILL develop our domestic energy supply, whether it's oil or coal, despite your inane ramblings about global warming. Enjoy your time-imposed existence. It won't last much longer. The good people of this country who you do not represent will see to it.
Here's the complete article:
LETTER FROM WASHINGTON | DANA WILKIEHot air on gasUNION-TRIBUNEJune 16, 2008Now that gas prices threaten to wipe out more than a few summer road trips, we really need someone to blame.But there's no need to go to such trouble, because the folks out here in Congress are doing that for us. As with just about any issue that makes Americans grumpy – the rising cost of food, salmonella poisoning, hot August days – lawmakers here are bound to turn the topic into an opportunity to brand their political foes as bottom-dwelling, self-serving scoundrels who don't deserve the public's trust.
That's especially the case less than five months from a presidential election.
Two lawmakers' offices last week demonstrated the point nicely.
The first was the office of Rep. Darrell Issa, which blasted House Democratic leaders for refusing to allow a vote on legislation designed to address the sad fact that filling the tank of my minivan now costs 40 percent more than my monthly water bill.
The “No More Excuses Energy Act” would have encouraged new refinery construction, extended the wind-production tax credit, sparked investment in new nuclear power plants, lifted a congressional moratorium on drilling along the Outer Continental Shelf and opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to “environmentally responsible” drilling. Shelf drilling, the GOP claimed, could provide the nation with 17 billion barrels of oil, while refuge drilling could produce a million barrels a day for several decades.
“It is outrageous that with gas approaching $5 a gallon, Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi has not acted to unlock America's domestic energy reserves,” said Issa, a Vista Republican. “We are paying a high price at the pump today for decades of bad policy decisions that have placed our own oil and gas resources off-limits.”
Democrats argue that the nation can't drill its way out of the problem. They note that 80 percent of the oil available on the shelf already is open for leasing, but that oil companies have concluded it's not yet worth their money to drill. And they contend that no oil would come from drilling in the refuge for at least a decade.
Issa was among those who signed a “discharge petition” designed to force the bill to the House floor, where Democratic leaders had prevented it from coming to a vote. The GOP needn't have bothered. It was clear that Republicans lacked the clout to strong-arm a vote, but the exercise did give them a chance to remind voters just what bottom-dwelling, self-serving scoundrels those Democrats really are.
BOTTOM-DWELLERS, TAKE 2
Then there was Sen. Barbara Boxer, who went to the floor last week to blast the GOP for blocking a vote on legislation that would have imposed a windfall-profits tax of 25 percent on oil companies that don't invest in renewable-energy sources and would have ended $17 billion in tax breaks that oil companies now enjoy.
“Today at gas stations across the nation, the American people are suffering,” the California Democrat said. “They are facing sticker shock. They are having to choose – choose between something they might buy at the store for dinner and filling up the tank.”
The GOP, Boxer suggested, needs to get with the 21st century and stop blocking incentives that might boost investment in renewable-energy sources such as solar, wind, biofuels, biomass and geothermal heat.
Saying oil companies have quadrupled their profits in the past six years, Boxer portrayed them and the GOP as conniving co-conspirators in the robbery of typical Americans, and Democrats as champions of “the average family.”
“If anyone ever says to you there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, there is an enormous difference,” she said. “And it has to do with whose side you are on. In the case today, it was: Are you on the side of big oil and foreign oil, or are you on the side of the American people?”
For its part, the GOP said the nation can't tax its way out of the problem.
The Democrats' “Consumer-First Energy Bill” never had a chance of passing the Senate, but it did give them a chance to remind voters just what a passel of bottom-dwelling, self-serving scoundrels those Republicans really are.
Message to Democrats: We Can See You
As the Twin Cities Conservative, I am wont to profile liberal politics and how it impacts Minnesota. An important topic that is prevalent is the current U.S Senate between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Stuart Smalley, er Al Franken.
I came across the article below, courtesy of the St. Cloud State University Chronicle. A couple of points Franken makes in a recent speech epitomize a microcosm of the lying filth liberals and their Democratic enablers utter every day; in this, it's the Iraq War.
Sorry to break it to you, liberals but...THE SURGE WORKED. Violence is down in hot beds such as Basra, Sadr City, Fallujah, etc. Fewer American soldiers are dying to preserve the vision of a Middle East democracy. A fledging Iraqi government is taking shape.
Of course pie-in-the-sky liberals would have us believe that our exit from Iraq would undoubtedly cause Islamic terrorists to recant their oaths of murders towards all things American and thus engage in peace "dialogues." Give me a break...only in a liberal dream will that EVER occur.
The Democrats, in this case Al Franken, have offered us the stars, the moon, etc. In their world, universal health care works, our country can operate unabated with open borders, and no wars occur. Unfortunately for those of us on the Right, a significant portion of this country is listening to their message.
Here's the complete article:
I came across the article below, courtesy of the St. Cloud State University Chronicle. A couple of points Franken makes in a recent speech epitomize a microcosm of the lying filth liberals and their Democratic enablers utter every day; in this, it's the Iraq War.
Sorry to break it to you, liberals but...THE SURGE WORKED. Violence is down in hot beds such as Basra, Sadr City, Fallujah, etc. Fewer American soldiers are dying to preserve the vision of a Middle East democracy. A fledging Iraqi government is taking shape.
"He instead focused on his plans for the future of Minnesota, which include universal healthcare, rebuilding the middle class, a commitment to developing sources of renewable energy and fighting global warming, and bringing U.S. Troops home from Iraq."
"Franken's Web site calls out Coleman for his continued refusal to authorize the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, as well as his failure as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to look into contracting in Iraq by Halliburton and other corporations."What good would a withdrawal do at this point? Nothing; if anything, a complete troop withdrawal would proffer catastrophe ramifications: refugee crisis, resurgence in sectarian violence, rebirth of Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist murderers, etc.
Of course pie-in-the-sky liberals would have us believe that our exit from Iraq would undoubtedly cause Islamic terrorists to recant their oaths of murders towards all things American and thus engage in peace "dialogues." Give me a break...only in a liberal dream will that EVER occur.
The Democrats, in this case Al Franken, have offered us the stars, the moon, etc. In their world, universal health care works, our country can operate unabated with open borders, and no wars occur. Unfortunately for those of us on the Right, a significant portion of this country is listening to their message.
Here's the complete article:
Al Franken recieves DFL nomination
By: Andy Baker
Posted: 6/16/08
Comedian-turned-U.S. Senatorial candidate Al Franken secured the official endorsement from Minnesota's Democratic Farmer Labor Party (DFL) on June 7 in Rochester.
Fellow DFL hopeful Jack Pallmeyer withdrew from the race immediately after the results from the first ballot came in.
Franken received the support of 61.8 percent of the delegates, compared with 35.3 percent for Nelson-Pallmeyer.
After Nelson-Pallmeyer's withdrawal however, delegates unanimously endorsed Franken.
Despite recent controversy over the political correctness of some of Franken's past work as a comedian as well as a writer and cast member on Saturday Night Live, the St. Louis Park-raised Democrat appeared unfazed at a campaign rally Thursday at the Communication Workers of America (CWA) Local 7200 Hall in Minneapolis.
Franken made no mention of the recent, much-publicized criticism he has received with regards to his career in comedy.
He instead focused on his plans for the future of Minnesota, which include universal healthcare, rebuilding the middle class, a commitment to developing sources of renewable energy and fighting global warming, and bringing U.S. Troops home from Iraq.
"The people of this state want a change," Franken told an energized crowd at the CWA Hall on Lake Street."It's time we had a senator who took this job seriously."
Prior to and throughout his campaign, Franken has been highly critical of the Bush Administration and of his opponent, Republican incumbent Norm Coleman, particularly with regards to the Iraq War.
"Coleman seems like more of a windsock figure," Franken supporter Jacob Wascalus said after the rally in Minneapolis.
"He doesn't necessarily vote based on his conscience, but rather on whatever the popular thing is at the time."
Franken's Web site calls out Coleman for his continued refusal to authorize the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, as well as his failure as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to look into contracting in Iraq by Halliburton and other corporations.
The Coleman campaign in turn, has accused Franken of being dishonest about Coleman's voting record since taking office and of being unprepared for the job of U.S. Senator.
At Thursday's rally, Franken addressed the need to faithfully represent his college-aged voters, who have grown up during the Bush presidency. "They don't know that government is supposed to work," Franken said.
Franken has been traveling all over Minnesota during his campaign to talk to voters about issues that affect them.
Franken has made several stops in Central Minnesota, including a "roundtable discussion" at a home in Sauk Rapids during which he addressed several issues affecting working families in Minnesota, including the sharp spike in Minnesota college tuition costs.
At Thursday's rally, Franken invoked the words of deceased U.S. Senator and champion of the DFL party, Paul Wellstone.
"The future belongs to those who are passionate and work hard," Franken said to wild applause.
As Minnesota's senate race heats up with the Democratic primary out of the way, both Franken and Coleman will have to work hard and passionately as they fight for their respective visions of the state's future.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Obama: The Communist Connection
I read a very fascinating article, courtesy of Townhall.com, whereby Democratic presidential nominee Barry Obama's communist/socialist ties are examined.
The bottom line is this: does it really surprise anyone that Obama has ties to communism? After all, it's been shown that Obama has ties to a hate-mongering man of th cloth (Reverend Jeremiah Wright) and a terrorist (Weather Underground's Bill Ayers). Yet, it doesn't really matters. Our supposedly-objective press has given this neophyte politician a free pass on his background.
What a joke...
Here are some highlights from the article:
First, "In Hawaii, he was mentored by a member of the Communist Party by the name of Frank Marshall Davis. In Chicago, his career was launched and he was close friends with a number of communists and socialists."
Second, "It really begins even before Obama gets to Chicago because according to his book, when he goes to college -- first Occidental College and later Columbia University -- he picks among his friends Marxist professors. Obama himself admits this. He also admits attending socialist conferences. That would suggest the influence that Davis had on Obama extended into his college and university years.
The bottom line is this: does it really surprise anyone that Obama has ties to communism? After all, it's been shown that Obama has ties to a hate-mongering man of th cloth (Reverend Jeremiah Wright) and a terrorist (Weather Underground's Bill Ayers). Yet, it doesn't really matters. Our supposedly-objective press has given this neophyte politician a free pass on his background.
What a joke...
Here are some highlights from the article:
First, "In Hawaii, he was mentored by a member of the Communist Party by the name of Frank Marshall Davis. In Chicago, his career was launched and he was close friends with a number of communists and socialists."
Second, "It really begins even before Obama gets to Chicago because according to his book, when he goes to college -- first Occidental College and later Columbia University -- he picks among his friends Marxist professors. Obama himself admits this. He also admits attending socialist conferences. That would suggest the influence that Davis had on Obama extended into his college and university years.
Now when he gets to Chicago, we find that once again he gravitates and comes into the company of the most extreme anti-American elements, including socialists and communists. Keep in mind that the Weather Underground terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, were communist terrorists. They were not just '60s radicals. These were people who openly supported the communist enemy killing Americans in Vietnam. Some of the members in this group, including Dohrn, had traveled to Havana, Cuba, to get instructions from the communists about how to wage their campaign in the United States."
If, in the event that these associations truly come to light, will the Mainstream Media continue to treat Obama with kid gloves?Obama: to ruin this country
I saw that headline, courtesy of Google Alerts, and nearly lost my breakfast. The media's love affair with Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama continues as well as its portrayal of him as modern day American messiah.
Think of the taxes, think of the regulation, think of the burden this man will attempt to "bestow" upon us. Imagine a country where traditional values are admonished.
Here's the likely agenda of a President Obama:
Appointments of activist judges whom, rather than applying a strict interpretation of the Constitution, will do their damnedest to implement their progressive agendas
A "green" agenda that further buries our economy. What our economy needs now is cheap energy more than anything. Look at what restricting our driving will do to tourism, restaurants, entertainment, etc. As the environmentalists despise all things "Big Oil," it's the citizenry that suffer.
Sullying the office of the President of the United States by welcoming our ideological enemies with welcome arms. As a liberal is wont to do, Obama believes that we can TALK to people like Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung Il, despite overtures from the latter two that would contradict any sort of notion.
A few notes from this article:
"No, it doesn't necessarily mean he will be a good President, or even that he will make a decisive break with the disastrous foreign policies that have turned half the world against the US. However, he remains a potent metaphor for all that is best in the American constitution - the stuff about it being self-evident that all men are created equal."
Oh yes, the aforementioned view that it is OUR fault (that being the Bush Administration) is almost laughable. People forget that Saddam was violating double-digit United Nations sanctions and that Al Qaeda was hitting American interests at will prior to George Bush taking office. But when our government decides to be proactive, we truly become the Great Satan, malevolent and imperialistic.
"Yup, I know that women are not quite as equal as men. And for the black American underclass, it is equality of misery. But he has lived that contradiction. Barack Obama's own life experience is his best recommendation. He made a conscious decision to align himself with the black American dispossessed as a community activist in Chicago. His wife, Michelle, knows about being part of an underclass. His election would represent atonement for America's wars and for its capitulation to the politics of the super-rich. If the US can't come to its senses under Obama, it can't do it at all."
Another absolute joke here; Barry Obama doesn't represent poor Black American anymore than $400 haircut John Edwards represents the poor South. Obama has enjoyed the fruits of his riches from the cradle. He comes from money; he knows money. Furthermore, as a community activist, Barry Obama can share some of the blame for the subprime housing mess; it was "activists" like him who bullied lenders into handing out loans to poor people with bad credit on the premise that if they did not distribute said loans, they would be branded as racist.
You don't hear the mainstream media discussing that, do you?
Think of the taxes, think of the regulation, think of the burden this man will attempt to "bestow" upon us. Imagine a country where traditional values are admonished.
Here's the likely agenda of a President Obama:
Appointments of activist judges whom, rather than applying a strict interpretation of the Constitution, will do their damnedest to implement their progressive agendas
A "green" agenda that further buries our economy. What our economy needs now is cheap energy more than anything. Look at what restricting our driving will do to tourism, restaurants, entertainment, etc. As the environmentalists despise all things "Big Oil," it's the citizenry that suffer.
Sullying the office of the President of the United States by welcoming our ideological enemies with welcome arms. As a liberal is wont to do, Obama believes that we can TALK to people like Ahmadinejad and Kim Jung Il, despite overtures from the latter two that would contradict any sort of notion.
A few notes from this article:
"No, it doesn't necessarily mean he will be a good President, or even that he will make a decisive break with the disastrous foreign policies that have turned half the world against the US. However, he remains a potent metaphor for all that is best in the American constitution - the stuff about it being self-evident that all men are created equal."
Oh yes, the aforementioned view that it is OUR fault (that being the Bush Administration) is almost laughable. People forget that Saddam was violating double-digit United Nations sanctions and that Al Qaeda was hitting American interests at will prior to George Bush taking office. But when our government decides to be proactive, we truly become the Great Satan, malevolent and imperialistic.
"Yup, I know that women are not quite as equal as men. And for the black American underclass, it is equality of misery. But he has lived that contradiction. Barack Obama's own life experience is his best recommendation. He made a conscious decision to align himself with the black American dispossessed as a community activist in Chicago. His wife, Michelle, knows about being part of an underclass. His election would represent atonement for America's wars and for its capitulation to the politics of the super-rich. If the US can't come to its senses under Obama, it can't do it at all."
Another absolute joke here; Barry Obama doesn't represent poor Black American anymore than $400 haircut John Edwards represents the poor South. Obama has enjoyed the fruits of his riches from the cradle. He comes from money; he knows money. Furthermore, as a community activist, Barry Obama can share some of the blame for the subprime housing mess; it was "activists" like him who bullied lenders into handing out loans to poor people with bad credit on the premise that if they did not distribute said loans, they would be branded as racist.
You don't hear the mainstream media discussing that, do you?
Friday, June 6, 2008
A foreigner's naive take on Barry Obama
So is Barry Obama a Christian or a Muslim?
I've heard reports from admittedly unreliable sources proclaiming the presumptive Democratic nominee to be a practicing. Subsequently, the liberal thought police have responded en masse with statements that Obama is a practicing Christian.
So I'm confused...if the liberals are attempting to destroy the Christian institution in this country, why would they rally around Obama's alleged Christianity? Why does it matter?
To be honest, I'm not sure Obama is a Christian. From all indications, he's not a traditional Christian like the majority of the citizens of this country. Rather, he's a new-age Christian, adhering to a similar brand of Christianity as Oprah. Furthermore, as Obama has been a member of the Church of Hate, led by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, how can we believe him when he says he's a Christian?
What kind of Christian rails against its brother for inventing diseases and causing terrorism? How can a Christian lie and fabricate stories? I came across this piece courtesy of the Today's Zaman, a publication out of Turkey. It's fascinating to read such skewed thoughts regarding our country from the pens of foreigners.
Some points:
"It is no accident that Obama, who is a new-generation black politician, is apparently immune from anti-white sentiments and that young whites represent an indispensable portion of his enthusiastic constituency."
That's called white guilt. A significant portion of Obama's followers are either so charmed by the man's words or believe by voting for a black president, it somehow demonstrates how open-minded one is; i.e. "I'm on your side."
"One can assume anti-American violence would diminish and US credibility in spreading freedoms would be improved."
The author proposes that if Obama were president, the world would suddenly hate us less, because after all, George Bush has created terrorism. It wasn't concocted by radicals in the madressahs of Saudi Arabia decades ago, or fomented on the battlefields of Afghanistan in the 1980's.
"Anti-Obama bigots feel freer to raise the issue of his father's religion and Muslim name. Obama vehemently denies he is a Muslim, given emerging Islamophobia in American society, especially in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. If it weren't for the political climate, Obama would most probably speak proudly about his father and Muslim-convert brother's cultural values as well."
A couple of things here: if you're anti-Obama, you're bigotted. The author assumes that if you dislike Obama it's a result of one's latent racism. No, I'm sorry to say that I dislike Obama (besides being a liberal and espousing values to which I cannot adhere) because I find him disengenous and phony. Second, the author assumes that a "emerging Islamophobia" is fabricated in the minds of ignorant Americans. It couldn't be because we're inundated with reports of grotesque violence committed by a sect of people in the name of Allah, or that these crimes occur daily all over the world? Or because radicals have stated their beliefs, unequivocally, their desire to rid the world of infidels and create a pan-global Islamic caliphate.
I've heard reports from admittedly unreliable sources proclaiming the presumptive Democratic nominee to be a practicing. Subsequently, the liberal thought police have responded en masse with statements that Obama is a practicing Christian.
So I'm confused...if the liberals are attempting to destroy the Christian institution in this country, why would they rally around Obama's alleged Christianity? Why does it matter?
To be honest, I'm not sure Obama is a Christian. From all indications, he's not a traditional Christian like the majority of the citizens of this country. Rather, he's a new-age Christian, adhering to a similar brand of Christianity as Oprah. Furthermore, as Obama has been a member of the Church of Hate, led by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, how can we believe him when he says he's a Christian?
What kind of Christian rails against its brother for inventing diseases and causing terrorism? How can a Christian lie and fabricate stories? I came across this piece courtesy of the Today's Zaman, a publication out of Turkey. It's fascinating to read such skewed thoughts regarding our country from the pens of foreigners.
Some points:
"It is no accident that Obama, who is a new-generation black politician, is apparently immune from anti-white sentiments and that young whites represent an indispensable portion of his enthusiastic constituency."
That's called white guilt. A significant portion of Obama's followers are either so charmed by the man's words or believe by voting for a black president, it somehow demonstrates how open-minded one is; i.e. "I'm on your side."
"One can assume anti-American violence would diminish and US credibility in spreading freedoms would be improved."
The author proposes that if Obama were president, the world would suddenly hate us less, because after all, George Bush has created terrorism. It wasn't concocted by radicals in the madressahs of Saudi Arabia decades ago, or fomented on the battlefields of Afghanistan in the 1980's.
"Anti-Obama bigots feel freer to raise the issue of his father's religion and Muslim name. Obama vehemently denies he is a Muslim, given emerging Islamophobia in American society, especially in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. If it weren't for the political climate, Obama would most probably speak proudly about his father and Muslim-convert brother's cultural values as well."
A couple of things here: if you're anti-Obama, you're bigotted. The author assumes that if you dislike Obama it's a result of one's latent racism. No, I'm sorry to say that I dislike Obama (besides being a liberal and espousing values to which I cannot adhere) because I find him disengenous and phony. Second, the author assumes that a "emerging Islamophobia" is fabricated in the minds of ignorant Americans. It couldn't be because we're inundated with reports of grotesque violence committed by a sect of people in the name of Allah, or that these crimes occur daily all over the world? Or because radicals have stated their beliefs, unequivocally, their desire to rid the world of infidels and create a pan-global Islamic caliphate.
Thank you Republicans
As many can attest, the environmentalists have done their best to hoodwink American citizens into believing that humankind is responsible for creating global warming. Despite significant opposition from scientists, the notion of global warming and climatology have absolutely gripped this country, prevalent in all walks of life.
According to the Associated Press, "Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, pushing debate over the world's biggest environmental concern to next year for a new Congress and president."
What the Democrats will not necessarily admit is that the burden of fighting alleged global warming will fall squarely on the taxpayer.
Chief sponsor, liberal, and all-around bonehead, Barbara Boxer D-CA stated, "'There is no tax increase'...She said the emissions trading system would provide tax relief to help people pay energy prices. And supporters disputed that it would substantially increase gasoline prices."
Is she kidding? Hardly...this sort of rhetoric is typical of Democrats; they mistakenly believe that enacting price controls on oil companies, raising taxes, and punishing trade partners like Colombia is somehow good for this country.
Furthermore, scientists and other noted experts dispute the established dogma that global warming is nothing more than part of a cyclical pattern in the Earth's weather history.
Thank you Republican for being the voice of reason. It's time to stop this global warming nonsense.
According to the Associated Press, "Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a global warming bill that would have required major reductions in greenhouse gases, pushing debate over the world's biggest environmental concern to next year for a new Congress and president."
What the Democrats will not necessarily admit is that the burden of fighting alleged global warming will fall squarely on the taxpayer.
Chief sponsor, liberal, and all-around bonehead, Barbara Boxer D-CA stated, "'There is no tax increase'...She said the emissions trading system would provide tax relief to help people pay energy prices. And supporters disputed that it would substantially increase gasoline prices."
Is she kidding? Hardly...this sort of rhetoric is typical of Democrats; they mistakenly believe that enacting price controls on oil companies, raising taxes, and punishing trade partners like Colombia is somehow good for this country.
Furthermore, scientists and other noted experts dispute the established dogma that global warming is nothing more than part of a cyclical pattern in the Earth's weather history.
Thank you Republican for being the voice of reason. It's time to stop this global warming nonsense.
Minneapolis Star-Tribune: New TV ad scolds Coleman for taking oil industry funds
Giggling with delight; that's how I'd describe the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's blurb about incumbent Minnesota Republican Senator Norm Coleman for taking campaign contributions from oil companies.
According to the Star-Tribune, "A Democratic-leaning organization on Thursday unveiled a television advertisement criticizing Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman for campaign contributions he has received from oil industry interests."
The perception I see is that because "Big Oil" is evil, as vehemently portrayed by the Mainstream Media, this will negatively affect the Coleman campaign against Democratic challenger Al Franken, among others.
The Star-Tribune states, "It challenges Coleman for voting to grant oil and gas companies billions of dollars in tax breaks and says he has accepted $210,000 in campaign contributions from oil company interests.
The reason why "Big Oil" is reporting such profits is that in a free market society, supply/demand sets prices. Oil exporters such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela, for example cannot pump more oil, or face political crises that often impact production. Furthermore, if our Democratically-controlled legislature would ever enact price control measures, oil companies would more than likely laugh in our face and sell their wares to China and India, where demand is astronomical.
Regardless, Coleman has to decide where he stands here; this country is not configured at this point, and with the current state of the economy, to implement alternative energy sources. Cheap fuel could potentially be a shot in the arm for our economy. Unfortunately, big oil is portrayed as an evil, thanks to the liberal mainstream media and the environmentalist movement. Yet, he talks about supporting the Lieberman/Warner cap and trade legislation.
But at some point, especially in the face of a potential economic catastrophe in this country, the good people of this country are going to DEMAND cheap fuel. At some point, it's time to drill in Alaska and offshore, while building additional oil refineries.
I don't see this ad as a detriment; Coleman needs to embrace the idea of expanding our drilling and building aforementioned refineries. Moreover, it's time to hit back against the global warming proponents.
According to the Star-Tribune, "A Democratic-leaning organization on Thursday unveiled a television advertisement criticizing Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman for campaign contributions he has received from oil industry interests."
The perception I see is that because "Big Oil" is evil, as vehemently portrayed by the Mainstream Media, this will negatively affect the Coleman campaign against Democratic challenger Al Franken, among others.
The Star-Tribune states, "It challenges Coleman for voting to grant oil and gas companies billions of dollars in tax breaks and says he has accepted $210,000 in campaign contributions from oil company interests.
"Minnesotans are paying more for gas than ever while big oil companies are making billions," the ad charges."
Hardly true...big oil is already the most heavily taxed and regulated industry in the country. You've probably heard your liberal co-workers, colleagues, and friends clamor about either levying price controls against oil companies or taxing them further. Sorry to say, that in a free market society, those sorts of measures do not work.The reason why "Big Oil" is reporting such profits is that in a free market society, supply/demand sets prices. Oil exporters such as Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela, for example cannot pump more oil, or face political crises that often impact production. Furthermore, if our Democratically-controlled legislature would ever enact price control measures, oil companies would more than likely laugh in our face and sell their wares to China and India, where demand is astronomical.
Regardless, Coleman has to decide where he stands here; this country is not configured at this point, and with the current state of the economy, to implement alternative energy sources. Cheap fuel could potentially be a shot in the arm for our economy. Unfortunately, big oil is portrayed as an evil, thanks to the liberal mainstream media and the environmentalist movement. Yet, he talks about supporting the Lieberman/Warner cap and trade legislation.
But at some point, especially in the face of a potential economic catastrophe in this country, the good people of this country are going to DEMAND cheap fuel. At some point, it's time to drill in Alaska and offshore, while building additional oil refineries.
I don't see this ad as a detriment; Coleman needs to embrace the idea of expanding our drilling and building aforementioned refineries. Moreover, it's time to hit back against the global warming proponents.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Is America Vulnerable?
Has our military become so weakened and overextended that the American homeland is now ripe for attack?
What other factors are contributing to the weakness of our country?
How can anyone ever attack America given her large inventory of nuclear missiles?
Let me first say that the American military is without equal on the face of this planet in all aspects: leadership, training, and equipment. If American civilians were as strong, well motivated, and successful as her military, she would stand another 200+ years. America does not emulate her military as she did in the past though. She has grown weak for a variety of reasons and her military may no longer be sufficient to protect her in the world. She is currently weak in how she utilizes her military, her nuclear strategy is outdated, all exacerbated by a variety of other factors, including serious economic problems.
Using Her Conventional Military
- The American military is hobbled by political meddling. Military might is only as good as the government that wields it. American politicians often lack the political will to win or make the tough choices.
- Part of the success of the American military is due to its use of intensive energy. The American military is the largest single entity oil user in the world. America can deploy more assets more quickly than anyone else...as long as there is unlimited fuel. As such, America has supply line vulnerabilities. Our Navy and Air Force help maintain the security of these lines. As long as all arms of the military are functioning smoothly, America can project her might anywhere in the world...as long as there is unlimited fuel.
- Her armed forces are the most technologically sophisticated in the world but numerically, small. If the technology edge is ever blunted, American forces become extremely vulnerable.
- The American military is currently overextended and may be near exhaustion, being asked to perform too many missions in too many places with too few personnel.
Using Her Nuclear Weapons
America is greatly feared for the nuclear might she commands. Again, her missiles are unmatched in number and sophistication. This should make her completely invulnerable but there are a few sticking points:
- MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, no longer valid. During the Cold War this balance of terror kept both sides from pushing the big button. But with the rise of supra-national terror organizations, this philosophy is no longer a deterrent. If al Qaeda explodes a nuke on US soil, who is America going to nuke?
- Enemies may be willing to absorb a nuclear counter strike. Russia and China both have active civil defense programs. They have shelters for their civilian population as well as routine drills in major urban areas. America's program has been dismantled. Do you know where to go if the sirens start blaring? Assuming a first strike from Russia, they could have their civilians safely squirreled away when we counterattack. Major damage to Russian cities? Yes, but they can rebuild. In the meantime, the heavy loss of civilian life in America would severely limit her ability to recover. Winner: Russia and their ally, China. Not a cheap victory but a victory.
- Political vacillation may delay response. Over the last 2-3 decades, the American military has been repeatedly hobbled by political interference. The same lack of conviction could prove fatal during a nuclear exchange.
- Americans are extremely afraid of all radiation. Radiation at any significant level is feared by most Americans. Too many years of fear mongering by the press has left the population uninformed about the true nature of radiation. In a radiation emergency, I fear too many will act like drowning victims, panicking, and ultimately doing themselves great harm.
A Weakened America
America's strengths, he military and nuclear might, may not be able to protect her adequately in today's world. A whole host of additional problems plague American society and government, including:
- High national debt
- High personal debt
- The dollar is very weak, near collapse
- The economy is near credit lock-up, the so called credit crunch
- Only short-term gain is valued by American political leaders
- Over 40% of the American economy is government
- Too much of America's debt is owned by foreigners
- Imperfect computer security, possibly leaving her vulnerable to cyber-attack
- Manufacturing has moved offshore; almost everything is imported
- Not exploiting her natural resources. She has oil, mineral, and timber wealth. Much of it is left untapped
- Excessive regulations choke new business growth, especially environmental regs
- America has a poor image abroad
- The American sense of entitlement, that somehow everyone else is responsible for our well-being except ourselves.
America is vulnerable and in danger of losing her status as sole superpower. America is the most dynamic nation in the world but first needs to realize there is a problem, a big problem. America also must have the leaders with the strength of character and belief in their convictions to correct these problems and bring America back to her former glory. All I see though is denial, denial in the populace and ostrich-behavior in DC. Great leaders? Where are they? Ron Paul is the only political leader with an ounce of common sense and the understanding of what America really faces. Is he in charge? The fact that he is not speaks volumes about America. Like an alcoholic, until America admits she has a problem, no solution is possible. America better wake up soon or start hiring more Russian and Mandarin teachers for her children.
Take your medicine. It's good for you.
CodLiverOilGuy
What other factors are contributing to the weakness of our country?
How can anyone ever attack America given her large inventory of nuclear missiles?
Let me first say that the American military is without equal on the face of this planet in all aspects: leadership, training, and equipment. If American civilians were as strong, well motivated, and successful as her military, she would stand another 200+ years. America does not emulate her military as she did in the past though. She has grown weak for a variety of reasons and her military may no longer be sufficient to protect her in the world. She is currently weak in how she utilizes her military, her nuclear strategy is outdated, all exacerbated by a variety of other factors, including serious economic problems.
Using Her Conventional Military
- The American military is hobbled by political meddling. Military might is only as good as the government that wields it. American politicians often lack the political will to win or make the tough choices.
- Part of the success of the American military is due to its use of intensive energy. The American military is the largest single entity oil user in the world. America can deploy more assets more quickly than anyone else...as long as there is unlimited fuel. As such, America has supply line vulnerabilities. Our Navy and Air Force help maintain the security of these lines. As long as all arms of the military are functioning smoothly, America can project her might anywhere in the world...as long as there is unlimited fuel.
- Her armed forces are the most technologically sophisticated in the world but numerically, small. If the technology edge is ever blunted, American forces become extremely vulnerable.
- The American military is currently overextended and may be near exhaustion, being asked to perform too many missions in too many places with too few personnel.
Using Her Nuclear Weapons
America is greatly feared for the nuclear might she commands. Again, her missiles are unmatched in number and sophistication. This should make her completely invulnerable but there are a few sticking points:
- MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, no longer valid. During the Cold War this balance of terror kept both sides from pushing the big button. But with the rise of supra-national terror organizations, this philosophy is no longer a deterrent. If al Qaeda explodes a nuke on US soil, who is America going to nuke?
- Enemies may be willing to absorb a nuclear counter strike. Russia and China both have active civil defense programs. They have shelters for their civilian population as well as routine drills in major urban areas. America's program has been dismantled. Do you know where to go if the sirens start blaring? Assuming a first strike from Russia, they could have their civilians safely squirreled away when we counterattack. Major damage to Russian cities? Yes, but they can rebuild. In the meantime, the heavy loss of civilian life in America would severely limit her ability to recover. Winner: Russia and their ally, China. Not a cheap victory but a victory.
- Political vacillation may delay response. Over the last 2-3 decades, the American military has been repeatedly hobbled by political interference. The same lack of conviction could prove fatal during a nuclear exchange.
- Americans are extremely afraid of all radiation. Radiation at any significant level is feared by most Americans. Too many years of fear mongering by the press has left the population uninformed about the true nature of radiation. In a radiation emergency, I fear too many will act like drowning victims, panicking, and ultimately doing themselves great harm.
A Weakened America
America's strengths, he military and nuclear might, may not be able to protect her adequately in today's world. A whole host of additional problems plague American society and government, including:
- High national debt
- High personal debt
- The dollar is very weak, near collapse
- The economy is near credit lock-up, the so called credit crunch
- Only short-term gain is valued by American political leaders
- Over 40% of the American economy is government
- Too much of America's debt is owned by foreigners
- Imperfect computer security, possibly leaving her vulnerable to cyber-attack
- Manufacturing has moved offshore; almost everything is imported
- Not exploiting her natural resources. She has oil, mineral, and timber wealth. Much of it is left untapped
- Excessive regulations choke new business growth, especially environmental regs
- America has a poor image abroad
- The American sense of entitlement, that somehow everyone else is responsible for our well-being except ourselves.
America is vulnerable and in danger of losing her status as sole superpower. America is the most dynamic nation in the world but first needs to realize there is a problem, a big problem. America also must have the leaders with the strength of character and belief in their convictions to correct these problems and bring America back to her former glory. All I see though is denial, denial in the populace and ostrich-behavior in DC. Great leaders? Where are they? Ron Paul is the only political leader with an ounce of common sense and the understanding of what America really faces. Is he in charge? The fact that he is not speaks volumes about America. Like an alcoholic, until America admits she has a problem, no solution is possible. America better wake up soon or start hiring more Russian and Mandarin teachers for her children.
Take your medicine. It's good for you.
CodLiverOilGuy
John Kerry was NOT a war hero and how it pertains to the 2008 election
In addition to my duties blogging for the Twin Cities Conservative, I’m also a sports nut (primarily football and baseball). Thus, I listen to local sports talk courtesy of KFAN. Often the various programs delve into material other than sports, politics, movies, music, etc. This morning, I heard one of the local radio personalities discussing how the Republicans will completely discredit Barry Obama by the time the presidential election rolls around; he then cited John Kerry’s complete dismantling at the hands of the Republican Party in 2004.
His quote, “The man was a war hero.”
My response: BS.
The man was a seditious liar who distorted the realities of the Vietnam War. Note the following:
He concocted phony war crime charges against his fellow servicemen.
He exaggerated his own heroism during his tour.
He misrepresented the effectiveness and purpose of his purported “missions.”
Yet somehow, it’s the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group that are the villains. I’ve heard the arguments, many of these former military personnel neither served with Kerry nor knew him. Regardless, Kerry’s anti-war activism was a betrayal to his fellow servicemen and detrimental to those still fighting in
The bottom line: John Kerry served his country, but he negated his service when he betrayed his fellow servicemen; he sold them out.
A couple of points pertinent to the 2008 campaign.
Hmmm, we’ve seen exaggerated claims recently; note Democratic presidential candidate and
The Democrats love to lecture us on their patriotism and their support of the truth, but do so as they blame this country for causing terrorism and indicting our own for war crimes and phony atrocities. We’ve seen
But, we’re talking about Democrats, so does it surprise you?
S.D. county approves rezoning for new oil refinery
According to the Associated Press, voters in Union County, South Dakota have approved a proposal to build the first new U.S. oil refinery in more than 30 years.
A blow for "going green," indeed, in my estimation. My face is contorted by a Jack Nicholson-as-the-Joker smile knowing that the greenies are going to be up in arms.
The bottom line is that the distorted, misrepresented views of the environmental moment may soon be overruled by practical needs and common sense, both root strengths in American that have been neglected for far too long.
Of course conservation is a good thing, but within reason, but essentially the environmental movement has lied to us.
I found two segment sof the article, courtesy of the liberal Minneapolis Star-Tribune, quite telling:
"Union County residents voted 58 percent to 42 percent Tuesday to endorse the rezoning of almost 3,300 acres of pristine farm land north of Elk Point for the oil refinery."
Pristine...subjective comment in a supposedly objective piece of journalism. Telling statement, that our environment naturally supersedes the need for cheap energy in this country, especially with our economy on the verge of collapse.
Second, a 58-42 vote was contentious? Why, because the environmentalist groups yelled louder? What about the jobs created; decreasing oil dependence from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela; the myth of ethanol; higher food prices, etc.?
How can a liberal, or specifically an environmentalist, be opposed to this?
Because it promotes "big oil," "global warming," "pollution," etc. Well the bottom line is that REGULAR folk, which makes up a majority of this country, are getting tired of taking out a second mortgage to pay for their fuel and food.
A blow for "going green," indeed, in my estimation. My face is contorted by a Jack Nicholson-as-the-Joker smile knowing that the greenies are going to be up in arms.
The bottom line is that the distorted, misrepresented views of the environmental moment may soon be overruled by practical needs and common sense, both root strengths in American that have been neglected for far too long.
Of course conservation is a good thing, but within reason, but essentially the environmental movement has lied to us.
I found two segment sof the article, courtesy of the liberal Minneapolis Star-Tribune, quite telling:
"Union County residents voted 58 percent to 42 percent Tuesday to endorse the rezoning of almost 3,300 acres of pristine farm land north of Elk Point for the oil refinery."
Pristine...subjective comment in a supposedly objective piece of journalism. Telling statement, that our environment naturally supersedes the need for cheap energy in this country, especially with our economy on the verge of collapse.
Second, a 58-42 vote was contentious? Why, because the environmentalist groups yelled louder? What about the jobs created; decreasing oil dependence from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela; the myth of ethanol; higher food prices, etc.?
How can a liberal, or specifically an environmentalist, be opposed to this?
Because it promotes "big oil," "global warming," "pollution," etc. Well the bottom line is that REGULAR folk, which makes up a majority of this country, are getting tired of taking out a second mortgage to pay for their fuel and food.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Barry Obama won't acknowledge the truth in Iraq
I came across this article, written by martial arts expert and action movie star, Chuck Norris courtesy of Townhall.com. In the article, Norris warns the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Barry Obama, that he is in for a rude awakening if he visits Iraq, for he will not like what he sees.
In his treatise, Norris offers the following points:
1.) Barry Obama has one made trip to Iraq, and that was two years ago.
2.) Obama either receives his updates regarding Iraq from reliable sources or chooses not to believe the "facts on the ground."
Let's face it, Obama is not going admit that the Iraq War is progressing nicely, or that "we" are winning, ESPECIALLY not in an election year. Any tacit admission of success would reinforce the notion that President Bush 1.) invaded Iraq legally; 2.) has justification to do so.
If Obama were to concede that the surge, for example, has been working, he would alienate the far-left, anti-left base. Those groups blithely think that we can talk to our enemies while presuming that there is good in all people.
Furthermore, you can't admonish the war effort but "support the trips," a craft the Democrats have attempted to perfect the last few years. For example, how many times have we seen a Democrat discuss the war effort in a negative fashion while speaking in front of a "support our troops" banner?
These gestures are thinly veiled disguises, nothing more.
In his treatise, Norris offers the following points:
1.) Barry Obama has one made trip to Iraq, and that was two years ago.
2.) Obama either receives his updates regarding Iraq from reliable sources or chooses not to believe the "facts on the ground."
Let's face it, Obama is not going admit that the Iraq War is progressing nicely, or that "we" are winning, ESPECIALLY not in an election year. Any tacit admission of success would reinforce the notion that President Bush 1.) invaded Iraq legally; 2.) has justification to do so.
If Obama were to concede that the surge, for example, has been working, he would alienate the far-left, anti-left base. Those groups blithely think that we can talk to our enemies while presuming that there is good in all people.
Furthermore, you can't admonish the war effort but "support the trips," a craft the Democrats have attempted to perfect the last few years. For example, how many times have we seen a Democrat discuss the war effort in a negative fashion while speaking in front of a "support our troops" banner?
These gestures are thinly veiled disguises, nothing more.
How to curb rising food costs?
According to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon food production must rise by 50 percent to meet growing demands.
What you won't hear in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, or the majority of the liberal media outlets, that rising food prices are a direct result of our love affair here in the United States with ethanol. We're using more farm land to grow corn, conversely using less land to grow other crops, and subsequently drive up food prices.
Why? For an arguably cleaner burning fuel? For a fuel that consumes too much energy to create it?
All for the myth, the lie if you will, of global warming.
Here's the answer, and it's one the Liberals do not want to embrace; open our Alaskan oil fields; drill off shore; build more refineries.
This isn't a solution that can occur overnight, but it's one we should get started on. Here's something I virtually guarantee: before long, the general populace will be clamoring for the government to lower gas prices, "global warming" be damned.
Here's the complete piece:
What you won't hear in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, or the majority of the liberal media outlets, that rising food prices are a direct result of our love affair here in the United States with ethanol. We're using more farm land to grow corn, conversely using less land to grow other crops, and subsequently drive up food prices.
Why? For an arguably cleaner burning fuel? For a fuel that consumes too much energy to create it?
All for the myth, the lie if you will, of global warming.
Here's the answer, and it's one the Liberals do not want to embrace; open our Alaskan oil fields; drill off shore; build more refineries.
This isn't a solution that can occur overnight, but it's one we should get started on. Here's something I virtually guarantee: before long, the general populace will be clamoring for the government to lower gas prices, "global warming" be damned.
Here's the complete piece:
ROME - World food production must rise by 50 percent by 2030 to meet increasing demand, U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon told world leaders Tuesday at a summit grappling with hunger and civil unrest caused by food price hikes.
The secretary-general told the Rome summit that nations must minimize export restrictions and import tariffs during the food price crisis and quickly resolve world trade talks.
"The world needs to produce more food," Ban said.
The Rome-based U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization is hosting the three-day summit to try to solve the short-term emergency of increased hunger caused by soaring prices and to help poor countries grow enough food to feed their own.
In a message read to the delegates, Pope Benedict XVI said "hunger and malnutrition are unacceptable in a world which, in reality, has sufficient production levels, the resources, and the know-how to put an end to these tragedies and their consequences."
The Pope told the world leaders that millions of people at threat in countries with security concerns were looking to them for solutions.
Ban said a U.N. task force he set up to deal with the crisis is recommending the nations "improve vulnerable people's access to food and take immediate steps to increase food availability in their communities."
That means increasing food aid, supplying small farmers with seed and fertilizer in time for this year's planting seasons, and reducing trade restrictions to help the free flow of agricultural goods.
"Some countries have taken action by limiting exports or by imposing price controls," Ban said. "They only distort markets and force prices even higher."
The increasing diversion of food and animal feed to produce biofuel, and sharply higher fuel costs have also helped to shoot prices upward, experts say.
The United Nations is encouraging summit participants to start undoing a decades-long legacy of agricultural and trade policies that many blame for the failure of small farmers in poor countries to feed their own people.
Wealthy nations' subsidizing their own farmers makes it harder for small farmers in poor countries to compete in global markets, critics of such subsidies say. Jim Butler, the FAO's deputy director-general, said in an interview ahead of the gathering that a draft document that could be the basis for a final summit declaration doesn't promise to overhaul subsidy policy.
Congress last month passed a five-year farm bill heavy on subsidies, bucking White House objections that such aid in the middle of a global food crisis wasn't warranted.
The head of the summit's U.S. delegation, Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer, insisted on Monday that biofuels will contribute only 2 or 3 percent to a predicted 43 percent rise in prices this year.
Figures by other international organizations, including the International Monetary Fund, show that the increased demand for biofuels is contributing by 15-30 percent to food price increases, said Frederic Mousseau, a policy adviser at Oxfam, a British aid group.
"Food stocks are at their lowest in 25 years, so the market is very vulnerable to any policy changes" such as U.S. or European Union subsidizing biofuels or mandating greater use of this energy source, Mousseau said.
Brazil is another large exporter of biofuels, and President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva was expected to defend biofuels at the summit.
Several participants won't even be talking to each other at the summit.
Australia's foreign minister decried as "obscene" Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe's participation in the summit. The longtime African leader has presided over the virtual transformation of his country from former breadbasket to agricultural basket case.
Zimbabweans increasingly are unable to afford food and other essentials with agriculture paralyzed by land reform and the world's highest rate of inflation.
The Dutch ministry for overseas development pledged to "ignore" Mugabe during the summit.
EU sanctions against Mugabe because of Zimbabwe's poor human rights record forbid him from setting foot in the bloc's 27 nations, but those restrictions don't apply to U.N. forums.
Jewish leaders and some Italian politicians were among those denouncing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's attendance at the meeting. On Monday, Ahmadinejad repeated his call for the destruction of Israel, which is also participating in the summit.
Ahmadinejad was scheduled to give a summit news conference Tuesday afternoon.
Schafer, asked about the presence of the Zimbabwean and Iranian leaders, told reporters in Rome that the two were welcome to attend the summit, but that U.S. delegates would not be meeting with them.
Monday, June 2, 2008
So what do we make of Barry Obama?
Good news, Obama-Bots!
He renounced his hometown church based on a recent spat of racist, demeaning sermons. Keep in mind that it finally took him 20 years to get the picture. With that said, he did it!! In the last two months he admonished his erstwhile confidant, Reverend Jeremiah Wright while packing his bags and forlornly leaving his religious sanctuary of the past 20 years.
So everything is copasetic with the good senator from Illinois, correct? The Obama-bots can stand down now and concentrate on electing him to a term in the White House, thus ensuring four years of socialized medicine, advancement of alternative lifestyles, appeasement at the hands of terrorists, open borders, higher taxes, increased focus on global warming, ETC.
You get the picture.
With that said, does anyone with a brain (sorry Liberals, this excludes you) really believe that Barry Obama was NOT affected by the inane ramblings of one Reverend Wright. If you do, Earth to you...
I have had conversations with Democrats who believe the views of Wright are either DEAD-ON, are much ado about nothing.
I personally find it fascinating that a man who has discussed "racial healing" in this country by stressing "change" marinated in venom for the past 20 years. Should we not assume that either some of Wright's message SUNK IN or was at least TACITLY endorsed by Obama?
Would he intentionally tune out the reverend when he embarked on a tirade against the American government or the evils of "whitey?"
He renounced his hometown church based on a recent spat of racist, demeaning sermons. Keep in mind that it finally took him 20 years to get the picture. With that said, he did it!! In the last two months he admonished his erstwhile confidant, Reverend Jeremiah Wright while packing his bags and forlornly leaving his religious sanctuary of the past 20 years.
So everything is copasetic with the good senator from Illinois, correct? The Obama-bots can stand down now and concentrate on electing him to a term in the White House, thus ensuring four years of socialized medicine, advancement of alternative lifestyles, appeasement at the hands of terrorists, open borders, higher taxes, increased focus on global warming, ETC.
You get the picture.
With that said, does anyone with a brain (sorry Liberals, this excludes you) really believe that Barry Obama was NOT affected by the inane ramblings of one Reverend Wright. If you do, Earth to you...
I have had conversations with Democrats who believe the views of Wright are either DEAD-ON, are much ado about nothing.
I personally find it fascinating that a man who has discussed "racial healing" in this country by stressing "change" marinated in venom for the past 20 years. Should we not assume that either some of Wright's message SUNK IN or was at least TACITLY endorsed by Obama?
Would he intentionally tune out the reverend when he embarked on a tirade against the American government or the evils of "whitey?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
