Saturday, April 30, 2005

Did Bush or Media Lie About Iraq WMD?

Well we all know the refrain: "Bush lied about Iraqi WMD." Lefty slogan masters, who know their audience can't handle anything more complicated than a bumper sticker slogan, didn't burden their ilk with the Duelfer Report, the definitive CIA study of Iraq's WMD Programs.
Lefty sloganeers knew they could count on anti-Bush bias in the news media to carry their water for them and give the impression that Bush did lie about WMD in Iraq. Just do a Google search on the Duelfer Report and you'll find plenty of Headlines such as: "US 'Almost All Wrong 'on Weapons" That from the Washington Post.

In the Post headline the quote: "Almost all wrong" was incorrectly attributed to Duelfer -- ooops, WRONG! Never mind that the phrase "almost all wrong" when you are talking about nuclear, biological and chemical weapons should scare the heck out of everyone. So when Duelfer issued an addendum to his report in March 2005 and the Post comes out with the headline: "Report Finds No Evidence Syria Hid Iraqi Arms" you do want to ask a few questions.

If you read the report online you'll find a few troubling statements that are unlikely to be reported by media sources biased against Bush. Here are a few samples (emphasis added):

Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD:

  • As is obvious from other sections of the Comprehensive Report, Syria was involved in transactions and shipments of military and other material to Iraq in contravention
    of the UN sanctions. This indicated a flexibility with respect to international law and a strong willingness to work with Iraq.
  • ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war....ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation...
  • The addendums complete the record of the DCI's Special Advisor on Iraq's WMD. No doubt further information will become available over time. As Iraqi participants in these programs begin to speak more freely (publicly), new information and perspectives may emerge.

The statement "enough evidence to merit further investigation" stands in obvious contrast to the Post headline "Report Finds No Evidence." The answer to the WMD question remains unanswered, but one thing is clear: media bias and the left's penchant for self deception won't give us the answer anytime soon.

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Democrats Demand End to Judicial Filibuster...

Michelle Malkin: "'It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.' Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, May 14, 1997
'I find it simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.' Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, October 5, 1999
'Let's bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.' Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Congressional Record, September 11, 1997
'I respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor. . . .It is not appropriate not to have hearings on them, not bring them to the floor and not to allow a vote.' Sen. Joe Biden, Congressional Record, March 19, 1997
�If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down.� Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, September 28, 1998
�I do not believe that I as a member of the minority ought to have the right to absolutely stop something because I think it is wrong, that that is rule by minority.� Sen. Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, January 5, 1995
'The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court said: 'Some current nominees have been waiting a considerable time for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote or a final floor vote ... The Senate is surely under no obligation to confirm any particular nominee, but after the necessary time for inquiry, it should vote him up or vote him down.' Which is exactly what I would like.� Sen. Pat Leahy, Congressional Record, March 7, 2000
'The U.S. Senate likes to call itself the world's greatest deliberative body. The greatest obstructive body is more like it. In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him." New York Times editorial, "Time to Retire the Filibuster," January 1, 1995
"

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

It's About Time


Well it's about time!!! Yesterday, President Bush gives a very public show of support to House MAJORITY Leader Tom Delay. Shown here both departing Marine One, the President's helicopter, and boarding Air Force One for a return trip to Washington. At the same time, Vice President Dick Cheney and Presidential Assistant Karl Rove were meeting with key Senate leaders to push for the confirmation of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Why the big guns waited THIS LONG to show this level of public support is beyond me. For weeks, the Democrats have smeared the President's nominees repeatedly and the damage has already been done. But enough is enough!

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

For White House, Bolton debate about state of U.N. - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - April 26, 2005

Hello! Isn't this what we really SHOULD be talking about? Why is it that Democrats have been so succesful in shifting the debate away from their precious, but oh-so corrupt and WORTHLESS United Nations?

Let's put this train back on the track and confirm Bolton.

For White House, Bolton debate about state of U.N. - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - April 26, 2005: "The White House is shifting debate away from John R. Bolton, President Bush's embattled nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and toward the scandal-plagued U.N. itself.
'We are going to make the case from here on out that this is about reform -- or more of the same -- at the U.N.,' a senior administration official told The Washington Times.

"Senators are realizing this is about the U.N.," added the official, who discussed Mr. Bolton on the condition of anonymity. "And they know the president is firmly behind him."

To underscore the point, the White House wants Mr. Bolton to meet with Sen. George V. Voinovich to assuage the Ohio Republican's concerns about the nominee's temperament, which some consider abrasive.

Enlisting the support of Mr. Voinovich would allow the administration to focus more on the United Nations, which has been rocked by scandals ranging from the oil-for-food program in Iraq to sexual abuse by peacekeepers in Africa.

Hillary Clinton Facing Jail Time?

Our lefty pals are just adamant that Tom Delay be put in jail for allegedly allowing a lobbyist to pay for a trip. Fine by me if you want to enforce the law... But if you want to enforce the law, let's enforce it for everyone, and not just use it against Republicans which seems to be the norm.

We've already talked about the ethical and legal lapses of House MINORITY Leader Nancy Pelosi, but let's not forget about Hillary.

Here's an update on the latest Clinton scandal.

New York Post Online Edition:: "DAVID Rosen, the national finance Director for Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, goes on trial May 3 on charges of breaking federal campaign law. The senator's spokespeople insist that she didn't gain from the alleged crime that the campaign realized no financial benefit from Rosen's understating the costs of a gala Clinton Hollywood fund-raiser.
Not true. Hillary's campaign realized not just a huge benefit, but one critical to her election chances.
...
Hillary's Hollywood gala that raised $1 million in hard money that August. This meant that the campaign could use soft money to pay for all costs up to $400,000. David Rosen conveniently reported to the campaign treasurer that the event did, indeed, cost $400,000, avoiding the necessity of spending any hard money on the affair.

But the federal indictment of Rosen, FBI affidavits and the testimony of the event organizers — Peter Paul and Aaron Tonkin — all confirm that the extravaganza's true cost was at least $1.2 million. Press leaks suggests that the feds may have Rosen on tape acknowledging that he understated the cost of the event on purpose.

Here's why he would have done it: If the real cost of the event were $1.2 million instead of $400,000, the campaign would have had to use hard money to make up the difference. The Hillary Clinton campaign would have had $800,000 less of hard money to spend running TV ads and funding get-out-the-vote operations.
...
So if Rosen had owned up to the full cost of the fundraiser, the campaign would have had to cough up $800,000 of hard money at exactly the time that it needed the funds the most.

Did Hillary know? Paul and Tonken say she did, and it seems obvious that she must have: Hillary followed every dime in her campaign, personally calling donors for most of it. How could she possibly not have known of a decision that saved her $800,000?

But the person who knows if she knew is David Rosen. If found guilty, he faces a potential sentence of 15 years. If the feds threaten him with jail — and it's hard to see how they wouldn't —Rosen faces a choice: Tell the truth or go to prison.

Affirmative Action for Conservatives!

Here's another reason why we need affirmative action to redress some of the funding inequalities that the left has long enjoyed... And of course it will be so much fun to listen to the lefties squeal and call us names as we take away their monopoly hold on public funds:

Commentary :: Evan Coyne Maloney :: AcademicBias.com:

"[T]o compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. "

Thomas Jefferson

Should universities actively recruit students to support specific political positions? Alumni like me--as well as parents, students and taxpayers--should be giving that question some serious thought, as it is our money being used to do just that on many campuses.
At Bucknell University--my alma mater--there are offices staffed by paid employees of the university who spend their time encouraging students to adopt their political views. The leading offender seems to be an office called the Women's Resource Center. With a name like that, you might assume the office helps all women equally, regardless of politics. You'd be wrong.
Last year, Bucknell's Women's Resource Center sponsored a bus trip so students could attend a political rally in Washington, D.C. to protest the Bush Administration. More recently, the office sent out a campus-wide e-mail soliciting participation in a three-day conference sponsored by something called the 'Feminist Majority Foundation.' And each week, the WRC sponsors 'Feminist Friday.'

The Resource Center for Certain Women

Last I checked, feminism was a political ideology, and it isn't one to which all women subscribe. There are also plenty of women who call themselves feminists who don't consider themselves leftists, but it seems the Women's Resource Center isn't interested in providing equal service to them. When some female students saw that the WRC was in the business of arranging trips to political protests, they asked for similar help setting up a trip to a rally with a different political philosophy. The students were turned down. Feminism is supposed to be about allowing women to%

Monday, April 25, 2005

More Bigotry of the Left

Evan says this much better than I do:

Brain-Terminal.com: "Tina Brown is a hateful person. For evidence of this, look no further than her recent column discussing the election of Pope Benedict XVI. The bigotry begins right in the second sentence, and it doesn't let up:
For those of us who came to Manhattan precisely because you're guaranteed never
to meet anyone who has read the 'Left Behind' series, America's much-celebrated
spiritual revival can have its trying moments.

While this is obviously hyperbole, all hyperbole is built upon what the writer believes is an underlying truth. In Tina Brown's mind, anyone who has read any of the 'Left Behind' religious-themed books is not someone she even wants to meet. Now, I don't consider myself a religious person, but I will admit a sympathy for them, since it seems that the religious are one of the few groups left in America that it is acceptable to openly despise. Maybe my sympathy stems from my experience in college, where this straight white male learned real fast that I was an 'oppressor' who could be blamed personally for events that occurred centuries ago.
Virtually every time a person of faith is shown in pop culture, for example, it is for the purpose of ridicule. This, of course, would not be acceptable were any other group consistently disparaged in such a way, but Tina Brown and her colleagues in the business of creating pop culture have no problem demonstrating their open scorn of religious people. There's not even a word for those who, like Tina, hate religious people. Hate black people? Okay, you're a racist. Hate gay people? A homophobe. But what are you if you hate the religious? Maybe a liberal, if we are to take our cues from Tina Brown.
One of the greatest hypocrisies of the cultural left is that they demand tolerance and acceptance from everyone but themselves. I guess it's human nature to harbor irrational disdain towards "the other" among our fellow man. But I have a real problem with the liberal scolds who harangue others about tolerance while displaying so little of it themselves. "

Bolton to Run for Voinovich Senate Seat

Now here's an idea (parody Kim):
ScrappleFace: "Bolton Withdraws to Run for Voinovich Senate Seat
by Scott Ott
(2004-04-22) -- Embattled U.N. Ambassador nominee John Bolton stunned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today by withdrawing from consideration for the U.N. post in order to challenge Ohio Republican George Voinovich for his Senate seat in 2006.
'You must become the change you wish to see,' said Mr. Bolton, quoting his 'tranquility mentor', Mahatma Gandhi. 'And as I sat before that committee last week, I thought it would be nice to see a real Republican Senator sitting in Voinovich's empty chair.'
Mr. Voinovich, who is a Republican, failed to attend last week's confirmation hearings and this week said he couldn't vote because his Democrat colleagues appeared agitated about unproven allegations against Mr. Bolton.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, 'While President Bush regrets losing a qualified U.N. Ambassador, he looks forward to campaigning for Mr. Bolton for Senate, and only wishes he could run in Rhode Island as well.'"

Religous Left Bigotry

Ever hear anyone complain when John Kerry or Bill Clinton gave blatantly political speeches in CHURCHES during CAMPAINGNS?

I'll wait while you try and recall (should I play the Jeopardy theme again?0

What? Couldn't think of a single instance where people complained about Democrats using churches for blatantly partisan purposes?

Sooo.... as if we needed ANOTHER example of the Religious Left imposing it's values and demonstrating their hypocrisy AT THE SAME TIME... here you go:

OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today: "Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, delivered a videotaped address yesterday to a rally sponsored by the Family Research Council, a Christian group. Democrats and liberals are apoplectic. As we noted Friday, John Kerry* took to the Senate floor last week to denounce Frist, taking care to point out that some of his best friends are 'people of faith.' "

Right Wing Christian Republicans Imposing Their Values AGAIN!

First they banned the oh so sensible practice of pulling a fetus partially from the womb and crushing it's skull. Now this..... When will they stop imposing their values on the rest of us?

White House to Enforce Abortion-Fetus Law: "The Bush administration said Friday that it would enforce a nearly 3-year-old federal law that requires doctors to attempt to keep alive a fetus that survives an abortion."

The first paragraph was sarcasm... just thought I'd make that clear since I'm sure there is some lefty nutbag that might take it seriously... or worse, believe it!

Saturday, April 23, 2005

Newt Gingrich: Conservatives Need to Take Power, Not Just Take Office

How many times have we conservatives bemoaned the fact that once our guys get elected to office they seem to lose their way and just roll over and play dead whenever some shrill and partisan Democrat demands it?

Well Newt Gingrich, a master of conservative thought and political strategy has been working on a few new ideas, including a new Contract for America in the 21st Century.

Newt points out that what is needed is not just more Republicans in office, but Republicans willing to work for a transformation of our government and political process. Reminding readers of former British Prime Minister's adage: “first you win the argument; then you win the vote" he goes on to list a number of steps to achieve this transformation.

Newt is thinking of running for President. I wish I could support him. He's got the ideas to move this country forward in a new and positive direction. But he's been so successfully demonized by the left simply because he was effective that I doubt he could be elected. This is the reason why it is IMPERATIVE we put a stop to the Democrats game in charging House Minority Leader Tom Delay and the obstruction of President Bush's nominees in the Senate.

Take the Test: Are You Conservative?

Another page from Newt's own web page is this simple test:

Where do you stand on the great and growing gap between traditional American values and the secular liberalism of the Left? Take the following test.

Score each statement from 1 to 10 depending on how much you agree or disagree with it, with 10 meaning you strongly agree and 1 meaning you strongly disagree. If youÂ’re neutral, write 5.

Add the score at the end. The higher the score, the more you lean toward traditional American values. The lower the score, the more you favor the secular left-liberal system.

____ 1. We should be allowed to say “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

____ 2. Able-bodied people on welfare should be required to work.

____ 3. Men who assault pregnant women and kill the unborn child should be prosecuted for assault and murder.

____ 4. The United States should put its own interests first and cooperation with international organizations second.

____ 5. Believe in God.

____ 6. Proud to be an American.

____ 7. Schools should teach new immigrants about American values.

____ 8. Everyone should learn English.

____ 9. Personal injury lawyers should get no more than 15 percent of any award.

____ 10. It is possible to use new technology and new science to develop clean, renewable energy that protects the environment and the economy.

Add up your score. If you scored above 51 points, Winning the Future: A 21st Century Contract with America is for you. This book is about how you can protect and defend AmericaÂ’s traditions and values.

Click here to find out what the rest of America thinks about each statement.

Quick Reads

Whew! The previous post was a long one, but I decided to keep at that story until I got it right. Here's a few quick reads that caught my attention:

  • Senator Ted Kennedy's brother in-law, Ray Reggie, a long time fundraiser for the Democratic Party is convicted of bank fraud and conspiracy. Reggie also raised money for the Clinton's and stayed overnight in the White House. The story gets even better... Reggie supposedly was wired as part of a plea deal get information on illegal fundraising. He also was arrested for posing as a police officer, using a blue light on the top of his car to pull over a carload of young girls (was Bill Clinton with him?)
  • Nancy Pelosi, Democrat House MINORITY Leader is called upon to prove that she isn't guilty of the same thing she is attacking Tom Delay, House MAJORITY Leader of doing. How's it feel Nancy?
  • Here's a roundup of conservative bloggers who support the nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations: ConfirmBolton.com. I had to get in there and post a few comments. Some leftist weanie said it was bad Bolton was a meanie... But what you bet this same guy saw nothing wrong with Hillary Clinton throwing ashtrays and lamps at Bill Clinton... come to think of it... I didn't see anything wrong with that either... and if Bolton were to throw a few lamps at Kofi Annan I wouldn't complain.
  • I was too busy to comment earlier on Secretary of State Rice's whirlwind world tour where she did such an excellent job representing our nation. She was in Russia this week and put in another stellar performance. She speaks Russian and took part in a radio talk show to demonstrate the belief that democracy and press freedom are vital to Russia moving forward.
  • Anyone who is not brain dead (this leaves out our lefty pals, but they're back in their caves this week) knows that Social Security is in trouble. An even bigger problem may be Medicare which is eating up the federal budget faster than Democrats can raise taxes. In seventy years Medicare will cost 60 TRILLION DOLLARS! Democrats need to come up with some real ideas to help solve this and other problems, just stopping Bush isn't going to cut it.

Friday, April 22, 2005

Confirmation Process is Broken: Let's Fix It

By now it should be evident and transparent to anyone who breathes oxygen on a regular basis that Democrats in Washington have tossed aside any essence of responsible government in order to launch an all out attack against every aspect of President Bush's government. I wonder if they have all become Nancy Reagan Democrats and "Just Say No" to whatever President Bush and the Republicans in Congress propose. Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats House MINORITY Leader said as much when asked what plan the Democrats had for fixing Social Security: "We don't have a...(pause)...Our plan is to stop Bush."

Democrats in the House of Representatives led by Pelosi have nothing better to do than block President Bush at every turn and make charges against House MAJORITY Leader Tom Delay for doing the exact same things Democrats themselves do.

But things are even worse in the Senate where Democrats have invented new ways to use filibusters and obvious partisan tactics to delay or deny President Bush the confirmation of nominees he has selected to staff federal offices and judgeships. Just think back a few months to the confirmation hearings for Secretary of State Rice. Senator Barbara Boxer demanded and the Senate MAJORITY sheep went along with a delay of Rice's confirmation that would have enabled her to attend President Bush's inauguration as the Secretary of State. Can anyone recall what issue was so important to Senator Boxer that this was necessary??? I'll wait while you think about it.....

The nomination of John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations is just the latest example of Democrat's obstruction and attack strategy. We all know the U.N. is a mess and needs to be cleaned up (previous posts here, here and here). Rather than debate how the United States can assist the U.N. in cleaning up their act, Democrats have undertaken a smear campaign against Bolton. The latest charge comes from a woman who accuses Bolton of harassing her (not sexually) in a hotel in Moscow in 1994. OH HORROR! So of course the Senate should look into the matter. Well, it turns out the woman founded the Dallas chapter of Mothers Opposing Bush, or MOB for short. These unsubtantiated allegations which were unreported during Bolton's Senate confirmation hearings for previous nominations.

Armed with that information, Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio went along with Democrats demands that the nomination be delayed while the Senate looks into the matter. I'm disappointed with Voinovich. He should know that this just encourages more obstruction on the part of the Democrats. As White House Political Officer for a trip by President Reagan to Ohio in 1988, I invited then Mayor of Cleveland Voinovich to join the President onstage for an event. I would never have done so if I thought he was so weak kneed.

Democrats are using a different tactic to obstruct, delay and deny President Bush's judicial nominees a vote before the whole Senate. In an unprecedented move, Senate Democrats have overturned centuries of Senate traditions and are using the practice of a legislative filibuster to deny these nominees a vote.

What's the Solution?

Students of government learn early on that our form of government is by majority rule with minority rights. Rights for the minority include the right to legislative staff and resources in accord with their numbers. They include the right to be heard in legislative matters. These rights do not extend to total block of conservative nominees or legislation by any means possible.

When Democrats were in the majority they frequently revised Senate rules to get around legislative blocks by the minority (though NOT of judicial nominees). Master of the parliamentary maneuver is Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, one who currently defends use of the filibuster in this manner. Yet, Senator Byrd admits that the constitutionally mandated Senate role of "advise and consent" means that a vote, let alone a twisted confirmation process is NOT required.

There is absolutely no need for Republicans to demonstrate further sensitivity to Democrats who obstruct, smear, delay and deny the rightful expression of the will of the majority. I can recall NO TIME when Republicans were in the Minority where Democrats had the slightest hesitation in ramrodding through whatever nominee or legislation or rules that were put forward by their parties leadership.

"Just say no" may be good advice to teenagers regarding drugs, but it is not the foundation for effective government solutions to the serious issues this nation faces. It demonstrates an absence of any positive alternative to President Bush's policy and personnel and a bankruptcy of ideas.

To fix the problem, Republicans in the Senate should discover a backbone and tell the two-faced hypocrites on the other side of the isle that enough is enough. Force a rules change that prohibits these unprecedented filibusters of nominees and use the power of majority to cease the circus of smear campaigns.

Monday, April 18, 2005

Japan, China, Taiwan and the US: Trouble Brewing

In February, I posted on the little reported news of a new defense and security arrangement between the United States and our former bitter enemy Japan. It didn't get much notice at the time, but among people who pay attention to geostrategy and national security issues it was a big deal.

The news certainly did not go unnoticed in China, where relations between Japan and China have worsened in the past few months. A protest this past weekend brought out tens of thousands of Chinese demonstrating against Japan. The Chinese strongly oppose seating Japan as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and demand an apology from the Japanese for the brutality inflicted on Chinese citizens during the war. Lastly, and perhaps most telling is a demand that Japan relinquish it's sovereignty over small islands in the East China sea and all sea rights pertaining to them.

What's interesting is that most of the protestors were not alive until years after World War II had ended and there is no record of similar protests in the years following the end of that war.

So what is up? Roger Hedgecock of KOGO radio reminded listeners today that the sea rights that China is demanding from Japan just happen to be vital geostrategic waterways in the event that the United States and Japan are called upon to live up to their obligations to defend the people of Taiwan against an attack by the Communist mainland. And with a burgeoning Chinese military taking on an ever larger global presence the issue of Taiwan's defense becomes more important.

Gosh....if we only had a missile defense it might not be such a problem.

I know... that's alot to think about, and it's sure to put a bee in the bonnet of every peacenik this side of Vladivostok. But hey.. that's why I'm here.

Today's Class Quiz: What Have Dems Done Lately

O.K. class... listen up... The Democrats have been pretty busy lately. They are blocking votes to confirm just about every judge who dared to be conservative. They're out to get House MAJORITY Leader Tom Delay for doing just the same things they do. They're trying to hold up the nomination of United Nations Ambassador, John Bolton just for the heck of it.

We all know that this country has alot of problems, or so we are constantly being told by the news media and their Democrat friends. So,I'd like to ask the class if they can name a recent policy initiative by Democrats in Congress to address concerns regarding either:
  • Defense and the war on terror
  • Education
  • The environment
  • Social Security
  • Healthcare
  • Immigration
  • Tax policy and the economy

Can anyone name a Democrat policy initiative in these areas of vital concern? Anyone???

Recent speeches by Democrat Party Chairman Howard Dean and House MINORITY Leader Nancy Pelosi to the California Democrats went on... and on... and on... with the same whiny drivel we've heard from these folks for four years now. While the country needs to move forward with positive solutions to problems, only one party has any idea what to do...

Saturday, April 16, 2005

Save Tom Delay: A Political and Moral Imperative

Well the Democrats and media driven circus to find something that sticks to Tom Delay continues. Let's ignore the fact that Democrats like House MINORITY Leader Nancy Pelosi have already been fined for violations of Political Action committee funding. Ignore the fact that Senate MINORITY Leader Harry Reid has lined the pocket of every one of his sons and even son in law (chart here in PDF format lays it out). Of course Hillary Clinton's recent fundraising irregularities pale in comparison to the dubious manner by which she profited $100,000 for cattle futures when Bill was still governor of Arkansas.

The question of Tom Delay isn't really about Ethics at all, otherwise, House Democrats would not be preventing the committee from meeting and possibly clearing his name. Nearly every Democrat takes trips paid for by lobbyists as Delay is accused of doing. Many of them also hire family members to work on campaigns. No folks, we all know the game here, as we've seen it played out again and again.

Like him or not, Tom Delay is a conservative who moves the House of Representatives forward in a way that conservatives intended when they voted for these guys. Would you really want the House to be run like the Senate?

For example. How long have Republicans promised to get rid of the death tax. You know, that nasty hand of government grabbing half your property, on which you have already paid taxes, before it can be passed to your family. A measure just passed the House to do just that. And it would not have happened without Tom Delay. Democrats will say "You're giving tax breaks to the rich" but for every Bill Gates who benefits, there are a million family farms whose land would have to be sold to pay the tax on the death of the farmer.

It's time Republicans stopped throwing overboard some of our best leaders because some hypocritical Democrats with far worse skeletons in their closet get a lot of TV time simply for pointing the finger at us. We threw Newt Gingrich overboard during the Clinton impeachment scandal because he was unfaithful to his wife. But Democrats only moved on to the next target and we lost Speaker-Designate Bob Livingston because he too had an adulterous affair some many years prior.

None of those resignations on principle had the slightest impact on Democrats, nor did they refocus public and media attention. It only played into the hands of those whose only goal is to acquire power.

When was the last time a Democrat was tossed overboard by his party? I could only think of one: Bob Torricelli, Senator from New Jersey. But he only dropped out of the 2002 Senate race because they practically had photos of him taking wads of cash and expensive gifts from David Chang. But never mind, Democrats just overturned New Jersey election law (USING A JUDGE.... SEE A PATTERN???) and allowed Frank Lautenberg to take his place.

Stack Delay up against Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Reid or Torricelli and we can rename him "Snow White." But allow the "politics of personal destruction" machine to take him down and the you have to say: "who's next."

ENOUGH!

Wednesday, April 13, 2005


It's about time we let the Bolton into the UN China shop... and if he busts up some of the crooked crockery so much the better...

Monday, April 11, 2005

US House Majority Leader Delay Target #1


Target Delay continues... Here's a shirt sold on the internet that says "Dear Tom Delay, Please commit suicide. Sincerely Everyone." First of all, when they talk about "everyone" they do NOT speak for me..... And second, if you put out a shirt similar to this and changed the name to "Hillary" you could expect a knock on your door from some oh so not amused folks with guns. Further proof that there are two standards for conduct in this country and one of them exhibits an appalling lack of principled opposition let alone decency.

Saturday, April 09, 2005

Clinton Nostalgia II


Yet another walk down memory lane as I recall the last days of the Clinton Administration.... Everything that wasn't nailed down was packed up and shipped off as souvenirs of those wonderful 8 years made possible by the insertion of third party candidate Ross Perot into the Presidential Race.... And you thought there was looting after Baghdad fell. Say... isn't that National Security Advisor Sandy Berger stuffing some silverware into his pants?

Why the Left Fears the Religious Right?

Why does the left fear the so called "religious right?" It's easy to understand. For decades the left has used their near total control over academia, Hollywood, the news media and government bureaucracy to enforce a liberal theocracy that has been successful in defining how Americans think about government, the economy, the environment all the while limiting how conservatives and especially Christian conservatives would participate.

Sure, some leftie will point out that there is a Bob Jones University, a Fox News and "Passion of the Christ" in movie theaters. But for every Christian college there are a dozen Duke universities where conservatives are actively discriminated against on the faculty and where Palestinian homicide bombers killing babies on buses are praised openly as Freedom fighters. For every Fox News there are a dozen New York Times. For every film like "Passion" there are a HUNDRED Hollywood productions celebrating liberal values. Do I even need to mention "Fahrenheit 9/11?"

And yet... in the face of that overwhelming lefty advantage... Republicans win more and more at the ballot box.

As I said in an earlier post: Affirmative Action... I'm For It! It's time to realize the full power of repeated Republican election victories and demand that all the above institutions demonstrate a commitment to intellectual and political diversity as well as the basic fairness that lefties screech about more often than they squawk "Halliburton."

I'm a conservative, not a "bible thumper" by any means... but not at all afraid of the participation of the religious right in American politics. Christian conservatives deserve a place at the table just as much as every whacko leftie organization.

What lefties fear, more than any Christian domination of government is the balancing of power and resources that naturally occur as conservatives continue to institutionalize their election mandated government authority. A purview that was previously under the exclusive control of the left... That's the real reason lefties fear the right... We won... We're tired of putting up with leftie garbage and being asked to pay for it... Time for some diversity pal!

Why Sandy Berger Committed Crime

Not so big news this week was the slap on the wrist that Clinton National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, got for illegally removing and destroying some of the governments most secret documents relating to terrorist threats and then lying about it. It is still not clear if the copies he destroyed had handwritten notes or comments by President Clinton or others that were not contained on other copies.

We can just yawn this one off as another example of how completely one sided the rules are for official behavior in Washington with Republicans always being held to a higher standard.... But if we do that we miss the important lesson here and it is one that Dick Morris, a man in the know, can help us understand.

The lesson isn't much of a surprise to most readers, but just in case: The Clinton's have shown a propensity to say and do anything to hold or attain power and they are not through. Lying about classified documents or the terrorist threat is just another example.

Oh... and just a note to the lefties out there with more bile than brains who will chant: "When Clinton Lied, no one died." REALLY? Ignoring the true nature of the terror threat LED TO THE ATTACK OF SEPTEMBER 11th WHERE OVER THREE THOUSAND AMERICANDS DIED... So stuff your mindless slogans and grow a brain before you push your jingo garbage here.


New York Post Online Edition:: "FORMER National Security Adviser Sandy Berger has now joined the pantheon of those who, in the im mortal words of Webb Hubbell, have chosen to 'roll over one more time' to protect Bill and Hillary Clinton.
This Hall of Ill-Fame includes Susan McDougal, Vince Foster, Monica Lewinsky, Johnnie Chung, former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and old Webb himself. What they each have in common is their silence and willingness to take the fall to protect the Clintons.
Berger has admitted that he stuffed top-secret documents into his pockets, shirt and pants, and why he sliced some up with scissors, destroyed them and then lied about it. Until he gives a credible explanation for this behavior, we are all entitled to make the logical inference that he was hiding something to protect himself and his old bosses.
...

Picture the fevered atmosphere in the months after 9/11. Any indication by the commission investigating the attack that the Clinton administration hadn't taken terrorism seriously would badly damage the former president's reputation and the former first lady's chances. Any loyal adviser would have worked to mitigate the possible damage. The measure of how serious the damage may have been is how far Berger risked falling to prevent it — and how far he did fall rather than reveal why.

Friday, April 08, 2005

Ethically Challenged Democrats Demand Higher GOP Standards: Target Delay

Readers will recall that Hillary Clinton lamented what she called "the politics of personal destruction." This statement coming from the master of that low art who ran the war rooms during her husbands travails and gave specific instructions to publicly undermine the reputation of anyone who dared bring forward any charge of misconduct.
The tactic worked, sometimes to raise doubt about those who came forward. Just ask Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers, Juanita Broadderick, Kathleen Willey how they felt after getting the full treatment. In a more spectacular display, the left even caused Speaker Gingrich to resign after it was learned he had some hanky panky skeletons of his own. Of course, resignation as an honorable alternative never occurred to Bill Clinton.

The left practices the politics of personal destruction because it works. Create a bogeyman like Newt Gingrich or John Ashcroft and watch the fundraising dollars roll in. Better yet if you can force them from office, removing one more skilled hand at the Republican wheel of government.

Well folks, they are at it again. Target number one has become Tom Delay, Republican of Texas and Majority Leader in the House of Representatives. The drip, drip, drip of charges alleging impropriety and ethical violations. The latest includes charges that Congressman Delay's political campaign committee paid his wife and daughter to work on his political campaigns and that this is somehow improper. (story here, link requires registration).

Having worked on more than a few campaigns at that level I can tell you that there is nothing unusual with family members working for your campaign. It would be unusual if they did not. Paying them for their services in line with compensation of other professionals can only be judged wise if they produce good election results and of course Delay's campaigns have been successful.

Meanwhile, Harry Reid, MINORITY (I like the sound of that) Leader of Senate Democrats continues to get nothing more than a wink and a nod for basically selling the power of his office to promote the business interests of his sons. A Los Angeles Times story was titled: "In Nevada, Reid Is the Name to Know," with the subhead: "Members of one lawmaker's family represent nearly every major industry in their home state. And their clients rely on his goodwill." See the PDF chart of Reid family corruption here.
At least 17 senators and 11 members of the House have children, spouses or other close relatives who lobby or work as consultants, most in Washington, according to lobbyist reports, financial-disclosure forms and other state and federal records. Many are paid by clients who count on the related lawmaker for support.

But Harry Reid is in a class by himself. One of his sons and his son-in-law lobby in Washington for companies, trade groups and municipalities seeking Reid's help in the Senate. A second son has lobbied in Nevada for some of those same interests, and a third has represented a couple of them as a litigator.

In the last four years alone, their firms have collected more than $2 million in lobbying fees from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington.


Don't expect the GOP to take on Senator Reid with the malevolence of the Democrat funded hit squad out to get Delay. But isn't the hypocrisy of these folks just stunning?

My advice to Delay and to the rest of the GOP leadership is to hang tough. We've thrown enough good men overboard and for what? Trying to demonstrate a sense of ethics and honor to Democrats will never bring about a similar reaction on their part when worse outrages are uncovered.

We'll just have to work this problem out the old fashioned way... defeat them at the ballot box and slowly but surely make their status in the minority a permanent fixture of the political landscape.

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Political Realignment Towards GOP

You know the old saying: "all politics is local." Well here's further confirmation of a political realignment cementing the Republican Party's hold on power taken from data collected by congressional district.

The one element missing here is that these new voters flocking to the GOP tend to be less conservative than the traditional GOP base. Support for Republicans might be a mile wide, but only inches deep. Thus, should conservatives become angered at the continuing compromise with shrill partisan Democrats in Washington they may choose to sit out the next election or go for some third party candidate... in which case... how does PRESIDENT HILLARY sound?

OpinionJournal - John Fund on the Trail: A treasure trove of data on the meaning of the 2004 presidential election has just been released, and you can bet that if reporters don't look at it carefully, strategists for potential candidates will. The 2004 election numbers may explain why Hillary Clinton is taking care to present herself as a centrist.
While we vote for president in local precincts and then see the election results reported by state and county, the way to get a feeling for the underlying trends of an election is to wait for the results to be broken down into the nation's 435 congressional districts.
...
In 2000, Mr. Bush carried 228 congressional districts to Al Gore's 207 on his way to one of the closest victories in American history. This year Mr. Bush carried 255 congressional districts, nearly six in 10. The number of "turnover" districts--those voting for a House member of one party and a presidential candidate of the other--continues to shrink, mostly due to the growth of straight-ticket voting and gerrymandering. There were only 59 such districts in 2004, compared with 86 in 2000 and 110 when Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole in 1996.

The best chances for Democrats to gain the 15 seats they need to take control of the House in 2006 are in these districts held by "Kerry Republicans." The problem is that there are so few of them. John Kerry carried just 18 GOP House members' districts, while Mr. Bush carried 41 Democratic ones.

Only five Republican House members currently sit in districts where Mr. Bush won less than 47% of the presidential vote last year: two in Connecticut, two in Iowa and one in Delaware. But 31 House Democrats represent districts where John Kerry won less than 47%. That means Republicans have many more opportunities to pick up seats in favorable political terrain as Democratic members leave the House.

More Rotten Luck for Prince Charles and Camilla


What rotten luck for the wedding of bonny Prince Charles and his longtime mistress Camilla Parker Bowles. The Pope's funeral is set for Friday and all the VIP's including the groom are expected to attend. The commerative medallions from Britain's Royal Mint had already been printed along with all the other preparations...The wedding will go on the next day, Saturday, but you have to wonder if this isn't just one more troubling omen in the house of Windsor saga.

Stupid Quotes

OpinionJournal - Best of the Web Today: Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) said at an abortion rally last April, "I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion."

Sunday, April 03, 2005

Thank You John Paul II, Rest in Peace


One of the last lions of the 20th Century left this world for a better place on Saturday. Pope John Paul II came to the world in 1978 at a very difficult time. His leadership and in later partnership with President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher brought together a confluence of political and moral power that changed the world for the better. I join all persons of goodwill in mourning his passing.

Friday, April 01, 2005

Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce, Special Orders DO Upset Us

OK... so much for the serious stuff... Found this nugget at daily read: Opinion Journal Best of the Web Today (and if you ever want to upset a moonbat liberal, tell them you read that just before watching Brit Hume on Fox News).

Towards the bottom of Thursday's Best of was this item entitled: 'You're Supposed to Be Here to Protect Me." A woman, apparently the product of public education (see post below) went to a Burger King and they gave her the wrong hamburger. She tried in vain to get the order corrected and then called 911 t0 request officer assistance.

A tape of that 911 call is here. The following are a few excerpts from the transcript which is contained in the Best of post:

Caller: OK, she gave me another hamburger. It's wrong. I said four times, I said, "I want it." She goes, "Can you go out and park in front?" I said, "No. I want my hamburger right." So then the lady came to the manager, or whoever she
is--she came up and she said, um, "Did you want your money back?" And I said, "No. I want my hamburger. My kids are hungry, and I have to jump on the toll
freeway [sic]." I said, "I am not leaving this spot," and I said I will call the police, because I want my Western Burger done right. Now is that so hard?
Dispatcher: OK, what exactly is it you want us to do for you?

Caller: Send an officer down here. I want them to make me the right--

Dispatcher: Ma'am, we're not going to go down there and enforce your Western Bacon Cheeseburger.
...
Dispatcher: Ma'am, then I suggest you get your money back and go somewhere else. This is not a criminal issue. We can't go out there and make them make you a cheeseburger the way you want it.

Caller: Well, that is, that--you're supposed to be here to protect me.

Dispatcher: Well, what are we protecting you from, a wrong cheeseburger?
I recommend the woman call Principal Richardson at McKay High in Salem Oregon and ask "what message this sends."

Zero Tolerance Brings Zero Clarity in Oregon School


Officials at Salem Oregon McKay High School rejected this photo from inclusion in a class display of McKay graduates at work (graduate Riecke is pictured on the right) due to the school's zero tolerance policy for weapons. The school offered to digitally remove the guns and allow the photo to be posted. Later, the school changed their position and claimed that it would be inappropriate to show a shirtless man with tattoos.... Wouldn't it be nice if liberal thought police could at least get their stories straight?

See Full Post on Subject Below

Here's the compromise photo provided by the Riecke family. Corporal Bill Riecke on the right poses with his weapon, but a child is smiling and no shirtless tatooed Marines in sight. Makes all the difference doesn't it?

Oregon School's Zero Tolerance Dishonors War Vets

In January, I reported on a Kuwaiti student at Foothill's College in California, who received a failing grade on his final exam for objecting to the following question on the test:

Analyze the U.S. Constitution...and show how its formulation excluded the majority of people living in America at that time, and how it was dominated by America's elite interests.

The young man, whose family was tortured when Saddam Hussein's troops invaded his country in 1990 was later told by the professor that his views are "irrational" and he was "naive for believing in the greatness of this country ...America is not God's gift to the world.... You need regular psychotherapy."

You can bet I had some sharp words to share with the President of Foothill's College via email:President Bernadine Chuck Fong: fongbernadine@foothill.edu.

Here We Go Again
Just in case there is one person remaining in this country who hasn't yet seen through the idiocy and blatant liberal censorship of political correctness in our nations schools and universities, here's another example:

At Dick McKay High School in Salem Oregon, Social Studies teacher Rick Costa displays photographs of McKay graduates at work. Shea Riecke, a freshman in Mr. Costa's class brought in a photograph of her brother Bill, a decorated Marine Corps veteran who has completed two tours of duty in Iraq and anticipates a third this summer. Bill, a McKay grad and four year letterman on the Royal Scotsmen football team was shown posing with his fellow Marines in Iraq, carrying their weapons.

School Principal Cynthia Richardson (email address: richardson_cynthia@salkeiz.k12.or.us) objected to the photo on the grounds of the school's zero tolerance policy for weapons, even though the policy does not prohibit photographs of weapons. Connie Riecke, mother of student Shea and Corporal Riecke, , is a poster at a blog named Marine Corps Moms. The story got out from there, even reaching Rush Limbaugh's radio audience.

The school had initially offered to digitally alter the photo and remove the weapons. The Riecke family thought this would be dishonest and wanted students to know the serious and deadly nature of war. The school then claimed their objection was NOT to the weapons but the gentleman shown in the left of the photograph who was not wearing a shirt and had "tattoos."

Now the school has permitted another photo of Corporal Riecke, still with his weapon, but also posing with an Iraqi boy and no shirtless Marines with tattoos are visible.

What gives here?

When first questioned by KATU Television in Salem, Principal Richardson asks: "What message am I sending to my students if I post that picture?" In a later interview Ms. Richardson claims to be "a very strong advocate of the military" and denies that her initial decision was based on any political correctness.

I decided to answer Richardson's original question and emailed her the following:

Principal Richardson:

I'm heartened to learn from subsequent KATU reports that you are "a very strong advocate of the military" and that your decision to disallow the earlier photo of Corporal Riecke was not based on political correctness.

You're quoted in the earlier KATU report as saying: "What message am I sending to my students if I post that picture." I'd like to answer that if I may:

I need not remind you that the brave and willing sacrifice of men and women willing to bear arms is the foundation for our nation's freedom and the prosperity we currently enjoy. I'm sure I also do not need to remind you, an African-American ,of the sacrifice during our nation's civil war that allowed President Lincoln to free the slaves.

The message your students need to understand here is that the freedom they enjoy is not easy to maintain. Graduates of McKay, such as Corporal Riecke, are doing dangerous, serious and often very unpleasant work to assure your students will have brighter futures in a more peaceful world.

Without the brave service of men like Bill Riecke the horror of September 11 might be a more frequent occurrence in the lives of your students.

That is the message they should be receiving. Unfortunately, your actions have created confusion where clarity is most needed.

Michael Miller
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina
fsg053d4.txt Free xml sitemap generator