By Kyle Hampton
From the results of the Florida primary, there appears to be two distinct mistakes being made by supporters of John McCain:
The first mistake is that voters have mistaken McCain for General Petraeus. McCain is correct in identifying himself as one of the chief advocates for a change in military strategy. It is one thing, though, to have been an advocate for change and the actual accomplishment of it.
It is not McCain that has been implementing strategic and tactical decisions. That post has been occupied by David Petraeus. To equate or conflate the two is to seriously misunderstand McCain’s role in the success in Iraq. McCain was an important voice, but that is all we can credit him for. McCain would have us not distinguish between the advisory role that he has played for the last 25 years in the Senate and the executives (Petraeus, Reagan, etc.) who have actually brought about the real changes McCain has only talked about.
The second mistake being made is the diminution of the role that the economy plays in our individual and national liberty. The principle and lasting accomplishment of Reagan’s tenure was a rethinking of the economy. Through the reorientation of the economy, Reagan was able to not only end the stagflation of the 1970’s, but was able to win the Cold War.
It was through economic dominance that the United States beat the Soviets. It was not the result of superior battle strategies (given that there weren't any military engagements as such), but through prosperity brought about through a strong economy.
Likewise, today our ability to defeat our foes (i.e., al Qaeda) abroad and compete with rivals (i.e., China) depends on the health of our economy. Reagan’s use of the economy to defeat the Soviets is one of the underappreciated truths of our time.
Milton Friedman’s book, Capitalism and Freedom, notes the relationship between a free and prosperous economy and individual freedom:
On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.
The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention. For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom.
A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So is the man who would like to exchange some of his goods with, say, a Swiss for a watch but is prevented from doing so by a quota. So also is the Californian who was thrown into jail for selling Alka Seltzer at a price below that set by the manufacturer under so-called "fair trade" laws. So also is the farmer who cannot grow the amount of wheat he wants. And so on.
Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.
Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important because of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.
Thus, our economic freedom has a close relationship to our political freedom. Increasing regulation of our economic freedoms (McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman) are essentially assaults on our political freedom. Our tax burden (votes against the Bush tax cuts) likewise limits our political freedom.
These are not old positions that McCain has learned from, but are currently held positions where McCain seeks to limit our freedom. By doing so he diminishes our political freedom and our ability, as discussed above, to fight our foes and compete with our rivals.
--Posted By Kyle to My Man Mitt at 1/30/2008 07:03:00 PM
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
A McCain Monarchy? Heaven Forbid.
The facts and stats are simple and straight: according to CNN's Election Center 2008, McCain did not win amongst Republicans -- and that loss was by a wide margin.
Despite the urgency of certain issues affecting our country, particularly the present delicateness of our economy, moderates and liberals persist in helping McCain win delegates.
Non-Republicans once again took the win away from Mitt Romney (the only candidate of either party capable of harnessing and controlling our economic instabilities, as well as standing nose to nose to our enemies) and handed it to John McCain, who has little or no experience in the financial arena (proven by his evasive answers to clear and direct questions asked of him at the January 24, 2008 debate in Boca Raton on how he would -- or could -- provide a list, or at least suggestions, of practical remedies and/or solutions).
In a January 30, 2008 Time article, writer Michael Scherer makes clear: "McCain, Huckabee and a nation of disconcerted Republican voters now threaten to reformulate that coalition. Romney is certainly not a lifelong member of the old conservative movement. But as it stands, he may be the only thing left to hold it together. " And this is from a liberal mainstream journalist.
As we all know, Florida is a take-all state with open voting. Fred Thompson dropped out in the middle after absentees were sent out and the Florida governor (who loves McCain's immigration stance) was behind McCain.
Despite all the shmoozy liberal media coverage given to him, McCain still did not get a majority of the state ... and the "conservatives in the know" are betting they were not the majority of conservative votes.
In "McCain: Shifting American Politics to the Left -- MSM Loving It!", the author provides serious information and irrefutable points of view. This is a must read for conservatives who consider McCain's candidacy only fanciful -- and that kind of thinking will only serve to sink the Republican Party.
Which leads me to ask: Are conservatives deaf, dumb and blind? Don't they see what is happening? Yes, McCain is the "chosen" darling of the liberal media (as are all of the other Democrat candidates). But if McCain gets the nomination -- with the help, of course, of the mainstream media -- then the only candidates left standing will be two liberal Democrats (Clinton, Obama) and one liberal Republican (McCain). And then it wouldn't matter which of those three would succeed to the Presidency, because their dynamics would shift the entire United States of America to the left, away from conservatism, possibly for the next 20 years.
Columnists such as John LeBoutillier and Ronald Kessler are in agreement about John McCain, and are unafraid to state the truth, that McCain is not the man best able to control the White House on the basis that he is psychologically unsound. Think about this: Remember the Iranian speed boats confronting our naval task force? If it were President McCain in that moment, he, with his uncontrollable temper, probably would've given our Navy commanders the order to shred the speed boats and hence initiate World War III. And then the U.S. economy would take a death dive (as it nearly did directly after 9/11, from which we're still trying to recover).
Florida's gift to McCain is a hard pill to swallow, but remember: the RNC still has a large number of votes that they pulled back from states that moved their primaries -- and McCain has ticked off many members of the RNC.
Mitt Romney is still in this race, and he's made it clear he won't quit. In light of his determination, no true conservative should rest his or her efforts on Mitt's behalf, because, as Yogi Berra said: "It ain't over 'til it's over."
Thereafter, the new conservative motto will be: "It ain't over 'til WE say it's over."
Despite the urgency of certain issues affecting our country, particularly the present delicateness of our economy, moderates and liberals persist in helping McCain win delegates.
Non-Republicans once again took the win away from Mitt Romney (the only candidate of either party capable of harnessing and controlling our economic instabilities, as well as standing nose to nose to our enemies) and handed it to John McCain, who has little or no experience in the financial arena (proven by his evasive answers to clear and direct questions asked of him at the January 24, 2008 debate in Boca Raton on how he would -- or could -- provide a list, or at least suggestions, of practical remedies and/or solutions).
In a January 30, 2008 Time article, writer Michael Scherer makes clear: "McCain, Huckabee and a nation of disconcerted Republican voters now threaten to reformulate that coalition. Romney is certainly not a lifelong member of the old conservative movement. But as it stands, he may be the only thing left to hold it together. " And this is from a liberal mainstream journalist.
As we all know, Florida is a take-all state with open voting. Fred Thompson dropped out in the middle after absentees were sent out and the Florida governor (who loves McCain's immigration stance) was behind McCain.
Despite all the shmoozy liberal media coverage given to him, McCain still did not get a majority of the state ... and the "conservatives in the know" are betting they were not the majority of conservative votes.
In "McCain: Shifting American Politics to the Left -- MSM Loving It!", the author provides serious information and irrefutable points of view. This is a must read for conservatives who consider McCain's candidacy only fanciful -- and that kind of thinking will only serve to sink the Republican Party.
Which leads me to ask: Are conservatives deaf, dumb and blind? Don't they see what is happening? Yes, McCain is the "chosen" darling of the liberal media (as are all of the other Democrat candidates). But if McCain gets the nomination -- with the help, of course, of the mainstream media -- then the only candidates left standing will be two liberal Democrats (Clinton, Obama) and one liberal Republican (McCain). And then it wouldn't matter which of those three would succeed to the Presidency, because their dynamics would shift the entire United States of America to the left, away from conservatism, possibly for the next 20 years.
Columnists such as John LeBoutillier and Ronald Kessler are in agreement about John McCain, and are unafraid to state the truth, that McCain is not the man best able to control the White House on the basis that he is psychologically unsound. Think about this: Remember the Iranian speed boats confronting our naval task force? If it were President McCain in that moment, he, with his uncontrollable temper, probably would've given our Navy commanders the order to shred the speed boats and hence initiate World War III. And then the U.S. economy would take a death dive (as it nearly did directly after 9/11, from which we're still trying to recover).
Florida's gift to McCain is a hard pill to swallow, but remember: the RNC still has a large number of votes that they pulled back from states that moved their primaries -- and McCain has ticked off many members of the RNC.
Mitt Romney is still in this race, and he's made it clear he won't quit. In light of his determination, no true conservative should rest his or her efforts on Mitt's behalf, because, as Yogi Berra said: "It ain't over 'til it's over."
Thereafter, the new conservative motto will be: "It ain't over 'til WE say it's over."
McCain to Kerry: "I want to join the 2004 Democratic Ticket"
If you thought you knew the real John McCain -- foul mouth and all -- then you're mistaken.
Back in the 2004 Presidential race, McCain approached John Kerry and told him he wanted to cross over to the Democrats, because he wanted the Vice Presidency.
If you doubt this, here is the interview, print and audio.
THIS IS NOT ALTERNATE HISTORY:
John Kerry: McCain Approached Me About Joining Dem Ticket in 2004
by Jonathan Singer
Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:30:45 AM EST
Note: You can now read the rest of the interview with Senator Kerry here.
On Monday afternoon I had the chance to speak with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic Party's nominee for President in 2004. During the interview, which covers a range of topics and which I will be posting later this afternoon, an item of particular interest jumped out at me: According to Sen. Kerry, it was John McCain's staff who approached his campaign about potentially filling the Vice President slot on the Democratic ticket in 2004. Take a listen to and a look at the interchange...
If you're having trouble with the Odeo player you can download the .mp3 file here.
Jonathan Singer: There's a story in The Hill, I think on Tuesday, by Bob Cusack on the front page of the paper talking about how John McCain's people -- John Weaver -- had approached Tom Daschle and a New York Congressman, I don't remember his name, about switching parties. And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your discussions were with him in 2004, how far it went, who approached whom... if there was any "there" there.
John Kerry: I don't know all the details of it. I know that Tom, from a conversation with him, was in conversation with a number of Republicans back then. It doesn't surprise me completely because his people similarly approached me to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President. So his people were active -- let's put it that way.
Singer: Okay. And just to confirm, you said it, but this is something they approached you rather than...
Kerry: Absolutely correct. John Weaver of his shop... [JK aswers phone]
As you might know from reading my posts in the past, I don't usually addend my own thoughts to my interviews. I like to think they speak for themselves. But in light of the fact that I have written about a closely-related subject and I think this item is particularly newsworthy, if you'll oblige me I'd like to write a few words here.
For many Republicans, it has been bad enough that John McCain has voted and worked with Democrats against the majority of Republican Senators on a number of occasions in recent years. For Republicans, I would imagine that reports that he approached the Democrats about leaving the Senate GOP caucus in 2001 represent a borderline unpardonable offense.
But it seems that reaching out to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to talk about running on that party's ticket would be tantamount to the highest form of political treason to Republicans.
Certainly, I would assume that McCain's campaign will deny Kerry's account of their interactions. In fact I would be surprised if they didn't push back on this story, as they did to the story in The Hill last week. (A call for comment to the McCain campaign was not returned before the time this story was published.)
That said, at least from my vantage this story could hardly come at a worse time for McCain, whose campaign for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination is already noticeably foundering.
Back in the 2004 Presidential race, McCain approached John Kerry and told him he wanted to cross over to the Democrats, because he wanted the Vice Presidency.
If you doubt this, here is the interview, print and audio.
THIS IS NOT ALTERNATE HISTORY:
John Kerry: McCain Approached Me About Joining Dem Ticket in 2004
by Jonathan Singer
Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:30:45 AM EST
Note: You can now read the rest of the interview with Senator Kerry here.
On Monday afternoon I had the chance to speak with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic Party's nominee for President in 2004. During the interview, which covers a range of topics and which I will be posting later this afternoon, an item of particular interest jumped out at me: According to Sen. Kerry, it was John McCain's staff who approached his campaign about potentially filling the Vice President slot on the Democratic ticket in 2004. Take a listen to and a look at the interchange...
If you're having trouble with the Odeo player you can download the .mp3 file here.
Jonathan Singer: There's a story in The Hill, I think on Tuesday, by Bob Cusack on the front page of the paper talking about how John McCain's people -- John Weaver -- had approached Tom Daschle and a New York Congressman, I don't remember his name, about switching parties. And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your discussions were with him in 2004, how far it went, who approached whom... if there was any "there" there.
John Kerry: I don't know all the details of it. I know that Tom, from a conversation with him, was in conversation with a number of Republicans back then. It doesn't surprise me completely because his people similarly approached me to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President. So his people were active -- let's put it that way.
Singer: Okay. And just to confirm, you said it, but this is something they approached you rather than...
Kerry: Absolutely correct. John Weaver of his shop... [JK aswers phone]
As you might know from reading my posts in the past, I don't usually addend my own thoughts to my interviews. I like to think they speak for themselves. But in light of the fact that I have written about a closely-related subject and I think this item is particularly newsworthy, if you'll oblige me I'd like to write a few words here.
For many Republicans, it has been bad enough that John McCain has voted and worked with Democrats against the majority of Republican Senators on a number of occasions in recent years. For Republicans, I would imagine that reports that he approached the Democrats about leaving the Senate GOP caucus in 2001 represent a borderline unpardonable offense.
But it seems that reaching out to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to talk about running on that party's ticket would be tantamount to the highest form of political treason to Republicans.
Certainly, I would assume that McCain's campaign will deny Kerry's account of their interactions. In fact I would be surprised if they didn't push back on this story, as they did to the story in The Hill last week. (A call for comment to the McCain campaign was not returned before the time this story was published.)
That said, at least from my vantage this story could hardly come at a worse time for McCain, whose campaign for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination is already noticeably foundering.
Monday, January 28, 2008
McCain's Desperate Dishonesty
Originally posted by Kyle Hampton at http://www.mymanmitt.com/:
There's a lot out today about McCain's continued dishonest portrayal of Romney's Iraq position and I thought I would do a run down:
Paul Mirengoff: In doing so, he relies on a statement, which cannot fairly be construed as advocating withdrawal. This is the conclusion of virtually everyone who has looked at the issue, except for some of McCain’s supporters. McCain, in short, has smeared Romney.
Quin Hillyer: John McCain today flat-out lied about Gov. Romney's position on the troop "surge," etc. This is no surprise. McCain's "straight talk express" has been anything but straight for quite some time now. He has been making false claims about what his position on immigration was just last summer. He has been making false claims about why he opposed Bush's tax cuts. He has been making false claims about Romney's stance on "torture." He has made misleading (not exactly false, but certainly misleading) representations about Giuliani's position on the line item veto. He has misrepresented his helpfulness on judicial nominations. And I know I am forgetting some of the other things he has not been exactly straight about.
Mark Levin: Since McCain and his surrogates insist on making this a big issue, let's engage them. They are dissembling about what Romney said. I have provided quotes below. We have now heard from Woolsey, who is repeating the disinformation. And we have now viewed the video-tape, which clears Romney of the allegation, i.e., he did not call for a specific time to withdraw our troops. Now, if this is the big bombshell the McCain campaign is using in the days before the Florida vote (albeit people are casting votes throughout via absentee ballots), it's pretty disgraceful stuff.
Allahpundit: Yeah, pretty egregious. He never said he “wanted” to withdraw or that he wanted a date set, and it’s patently clear he doesn’t want any timetables publicly announced.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: It’s a reminder — like the McCain campaign’s dishonest line of attack this weekend — that as admirable McCain is as both a hero and a politician, he is not irreproachable even on national-security issues. McCain is fond of saying he’d rather lose a political campaign than a war; he now seems to be swimming close to using the war to win a political campaign in the most dishonest of ways. It’s conduct unbecoming a man we all respect.
Marc Ambinder: Then he was asked to justify his contention that Romney once supported a withdrawal timetable for Iraq . (I wrote this morning that McCain "stretched" history with the remark, and a few moments before this particular question received a stern talking to by two McCain aides and one reporter.)
Ed Morrissey: This is a fundamentally dishonest attack. One of the reasons why some Republicans who have opposed McCain over issues like the BCRA and immigration have tried to keep a civil tongue in discussing McCain is because of the respect he has earned as a stalwart on the war. He deserves that respect; he has been an indispensable voice for the effort and has the right to hold himself up as that. However, he should be showing that respect to others who have supported the war and the troops.
David Freddoso: McCain’s unfair stab at Romney this weekend may not cost him anything. The endorsement from Florida ’s popular governor, Charles Crist, came at just the right time to bury the item in the local news. And if he does win the nomination, this moment may not even be remembered. Unfortunately, the truth is always too complicated for a quick explanation.
Additionally:
John Fund says that John McCain didn't like the nomination of Justice Alito:
“Mr. McCain bruised his standing with conservatives on the issue when in 2005 he became a key player in the so-called gang of 14, which derailed an effort to end Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve."”
Therein lies the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain. It is the nagging feeling that after all of his years of chummily bonding with liberal reporters and garnering favorable media coverage from them that the Arizona senator is embarrassed to be seen as too much of a conservative.”
Couldn't have said it better myself. McCain should just come out and say it "I'm a moderate." For all his "straight talk" McCain has left out the most important piece of the puzzle: humself. If McCain were being honest with himself he would come out and tell the world that he is no conservative.
As for the judges, this is truly disturbing. Alito is no Ann Coulter, a provocative figure that takes pleasure in deriding McCain's friends across the isle. He is a thoughtful and intelligent jurist whose measured approach has been a model of restraint. To say that Alito wears his conservatism on his sleeve is just patently false. If Alito's conservatism is worn on his sleave, there are few conservatives that do not.
Moreover, this issue gets at the question of McCain's ability to judge the judicial philosophy of judicial nominees. If Alito's conservatism is too provacative, principled jurists like Scalia and Thomas would certainly be excluded. We have had many Republican presidents who have been unable to distinguish between conservative and liberal jurists. President Eisenhower nominated two of the most liberal judges (Warren and Brennan) the court has ever had. Gerald Ford nominated Justice Stevens. Bush 41 famously got "Soutered" by one of his picks to the Supreme Court. All of these misteps have further entrenched liberal ideology and seriously hindered true conservative change.
John McCain, whose conservatism begins and ends with the War in Iraq, would be an absolute disaster for America domestically and especially with the courts. His disdain for "agents of intollerance" and other advocates on issues of life, gay marriage, and other social issues is barely contained. He has tried at every point to undermine their ability to advocate (i.e. McCain-Feingold) and now would avoid nominating judges who supposedly wear their conservatism on their sleeves. The contempt for social conservatives could hardly be more.
There's a lot out today about McCain's continued dishonest portrayal of Romney's Iraq position and I thought I would do a run down:
Paul Mirengoff: In doing so, he relies on a statement, which cannot fairly be construed as advocating withdrawal. This is the conclusion of virtually everyone who has looked at the issue, except for some of McCain’s supporters. McCain, in short, has smeared Romney.
Quin Hillyer: John McCain today flat-out lied about Gov. Romney's position on the troop "surge," etc. This is no surprise. McCain's "straight talk express" has been anything but straight for quite some time now. He has been making false claims about what his position on immigration was just last summer. He has been making false claims about why he opposed Bush's tax cuts. He has been making false claims about Romney's stance on "torture." He has made misleading (not exactly false, but certainly misleading) representations about Giuliani's position on the line item veto. He has misrepresented his helpfulness on judicial nominations. And I know I am forgetting some of the other things he has not been exactly straight about.
Mark Levin: Since McCain and his surrogates insist on making this a big issue, let's engage them. They are dissembling about what Romney said. I have provided quotes below. We have now heard from Woolsey, who is repeating the disinformation. And we have now viewed the video-tape, which clears Romney of the allegation, i.e., he did not call for a specific time to withdraw our troops. Now, if this is the big bombshell the McCain campaign is using in the days before the Florida vote (albeit people are casting votes throughout via absentee ballots), it's pretty disgraceful stuff.
Allahpundit: Yeah, pretty egregious. He never said he “wanted” to withdraw or that he wanted a date set, and it’s patently clear he doesn’t want any timetables publicly announced.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: It’s a reminder — like the McCain campaign’s dishonest line of attack this weekend — that as admirable McCain is as both a hero and a politician, he is not irreproachable even on national-security issues. McCain is fond of saying he’d rather lose a political campaign than a war; he now seems to be swimming close to using the war to win a political campaign in the most dishonest of ways. It’s conduct unbecoming a man we all respect.
Marc Ambinder: Then he was asked to justify his contention that Romney once supported a withdrawal timetable for Iraq . (I wrote this morning that McCain "stretched" history with the remark, and a few moments before this particular question received a stern talking to by two McCain aides and one reporter.)
Ed Morrissey: This is a fundamentally dishonest attack. One of the reasons why some Republicans who have opposed McCain over issues like the BCRA and immigration have tried to keep a civil tongue in discussing McCain is because of the respect he has earned as a stalwart on the war. He deserves that respect; he has been an indispensable voice for the effort and has the right to hold himself up as that. However, he should be showing that respect to others who have supported the war and the troops.
David Freddoso: McCain’s unfair stab at Romney this weekend may not cost him anything. The endorsement from Florida ’s popular governor, Charles Crist, came at just the right time to bury the item in the local news. And if he does win the nomination, this moment may not even be remembered. Unfortunately, the truth is always too complicated for a quick explanation.
Additionally:
John Fund says that John McCain didn't like the nomination of Justice Alito:
“Mr. McCain bruised his standing with conservatives on the issue when in 2005 he became a key player in the so-called gang of 14, which derailed an effort to end Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve."”
Therein lies the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain. It is the nagging feeling that after all of his years of chummily bonding with liberal reporters and garnering favorable media coverage from them that the Arizona senator is embarrassed to be seen as too much of a conservative.”
Couldn't have said it better myself. McCain should just come out and say it "I'm a moderate." For all his "straight talk" McCain has left out the most important piece of the puzzle: humself. If McCain were being honest with himself he would come out and tell the world that he is no conservative.
As for the judges, this is truly disturbing. Alito is no Ann Coulter, a provocative figure that takes pleasure in deriding McCain's friends across the isle. He is a thoughtful and intelligent jurist whose measured approach has been a model of restraint. To say that Alito wears his conservatism on his sleeve is just patently false. If Alito's conservatism is worn on his sleave, there are few conservatives that do not.
Moreover, this issue gets at the question of McCain's ability to judge the judicial philosophy of judicial nominees. If Alito's conservatism is too provacative, principled jurists like Scalia and Thomas would certainly be excluded. We have had many Republican presidents who have been unable to distinguish between conservative and liberal jurists. President Eisenhower nominated two of the most liberal judges (Warren and Brennan) the court has ever had. Gerald Ford nominated Justice Stevens. Bush 41 famously got "Soutered" by one of his picks to the Supreme Court. All of these misteps have further entrenched liberal ideology and seriously hindered true conservative change.
John McCain, whose conservatism begins and ends with the War in Iraq, would be an absolute disaster for America domestically and especially with the courts. His disdain for "agents of intollerance" and other advocates on issues of life, gay marriage, and other social issues is barely contained. He has tried at every point to undermine their ability to advocate (i.e. McCain-Feingold) and now would avoid nominating judges who supposedly wear their conservatism on their sleeves. The contempt for social conservatives could hardly be more.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Media's Calculated Contrivances
We're all familiar with the fact that the mainstream media makes a pig's breakfast out of Presidential Primaries. They deliberately pick and choose which candidate or candidates should be favored over others when it comes to press coverage.
Searching Google News for the winner of each primary or caucus, we used the following specific terms to gather data:
The first number inside the parentheses is the approximate number of results found. For comparison, the second figure is the number of delegates won by the candidate (according to CNN).
Huckabee won in Iowa (2,365 - 17)
Romney won in Wyoming (270 - 8)
McCain won in New Hampshire (5,145 - 7)
Romney won in Michigan (1,239 - 24)
Romney won in Nevada (1,173 - 18)
McCain won in South Carolina (3,806 - 19)
Of the three states he was declared the winner, Mitt Romney received the most coverage for his win in Michigan, about 1,239 stories, where he earned 24 delegates.
By contrast, John McCain earned only 7 delegates in his New Hampshire win but enjoyed the publicity from 5,145 news stories.
To look at this another way, the most stories written about any of Romney's three wins was 1,239 for Michigan while the fewest stories written about any of his opponents' wins was 2,365 for Huckabee's win in Iowa.
If Mitt Romney, who has gained more delegates than any other Republican candidate, were to receive the same coverage for his primary/caucus wins, it's reasonable to believe he might be enjoying the frontrunner status that too many in the myopic mainstream press are giving to McCain today.
This is just another example of the MSM reporting only what they want "We, the People" to see, hear, and know.
What's worse, if voters accept everything the press delivers and swallow it whole and elect the wrong man, the People will end up choking on it ... and by that time it will be too late.
Searching Google News for the winner of each primary or caucus, we used the following specific terms to gather data:
The first number inside the parentheses is the approximate number of results found. For comparison, the second figure is the number of delegates won by the candidate (according to CNN).
Huckabee won in Iowa (2,365 - 17)
Romney won in Wyoming (270 - 8)
McCain won in New Hampshire (5,145 - 7)
Romney won in Michigan (1,239 - 24)
Romney won in Nevada (1,173 - 18)
McCain won in South Carolina (3,806 - 19)
Of the three states he was declared the winner, Mitt Romney received the most coverage for his win in Michigan, about 1,239 stories, where he earned 24 delegates.
By contrast, John McCain earned only 7 delegates in his New Hampshire win but enjoyed the publicity from 5,145 news stories.
To look at this another way, the most stories written about any of Romney's three wins was 1,239 for Michigan while the fewest stories written about any of his opponents' wins was 2,365 for Huckabee's win in Iowa.
If Mitt Romney, who has gained more delegates than any other Republican candidate, were to receive the same coverage for his primary/caucus wins, it's reasonable to believe he might be enjoying the frontrunner status that too many in the myopic mainstream press are giving to McCain today.
This is just another example of the MSM reporting only what they want "We, the People" to see, hear, and know.
What's worse, if voters accept everything the press delivers and swallow it whole and elect the wrong man, the People will end up choking on it ... and by that time it will be too late.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Chinese Navy Confronted USS Kitty Hawk
Newsmax.com
Chinese Navy Confronted USS Kitty Hawk Wednesday
January 16, 2008 9:07 AM
By: Newsmax Staff
A Chinese attack submarine and destroyer confronted the U.S. carrier Kitty Hawk and its battle group in the Taiwan Strait, sparking a tense 28-hour standoff that brought both sides to a battle-ready position.
The American ships were heading to Japan following China’s sudden cancellation of a scheduled Thanksgiving port call in Hong Kong when they encountered the Chinese vessels, according to the Navy Times, which cited a report in a Chinese-language newspaper in Taiwan.
The Times reported that the encounter caused the carrier group “to halt and ready for battle, as the Chinese vessels also stopped amid the 28-hour confrontation.”
The encounter ended without incident, however, and the U.S. ships continued on to Japan. The two Chinese vessels were also headed for a port call in Japan.
The Chinese destroyer, Shenzhen, is armed with anti-ship missiles, while the Song-class attack sub is equipped with anti-ship missiles and a variety of torpedoes.
China has expressed “grave concern” to the U.S. over the Kitty Hawk’s transit through the Taiwan Strait, the Times notes. Beijing claims Taiwan is Chinese territory.
But Admiral Timothy Keating, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, told reporters Tuesday: “We don’t need China’s permission to go through the Taiwan Strait. We will exercise our free right of passage whenever and wherever we choose.”
Shortly before the Kitty Hawk battle group was denied entry to Hong Kong, China had refused safe harbor for two U.S. Navy minesweepers seeking refuge from a storm.
As Newsmax has reported, some U.S. politicians have rung alarm bells about China's increased military spending and technological revamping of its armed forces.
China’s military budget had an average annual growth rate of nearly 16 percent from 1994 to 2004, and China's reported 2006 military budget is about $35 billion, according to Beijing.
But Pentagon sources have said these numbers fail to demonstrate the true scope of the growth, and the real 2006 figure could be as much as $105 billion.
In recent years China has upgraded its nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles; bought state-of-the-art warships, fighter planes and submarines from Russia; and begun development of a number of so-called "asymmetrical" weapons, including informational warfare and anti-satellite systems.
In November, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda warned that China’s continuing military buildup could eventually pose a “major threat” if the Chinese government decides to exercise its power.
Chinese Navy Confronted USS Kitty Hawk Wednesday
January 16, 2008 9:07 AM
By: Newsmax Staff
A Chinese attack submarine and destroyer confronted the U.S. carrier Kitty Hawk and its battle group in the Taiwan Strait, sparking a tense 28-hour standoff that brought both sides to a battle-ready position.
The American ships were heading to Japan following China’s sudden cancellation of a scheduled Thanksgiving port call in Hong Kong when they encountered the Chinese vessels, according to the Navy Times, which cited a report in a Chinese-language newspaper in Taiwan.
The Times reported that the encounter caused the carrier group “to halt and ready for battle, as the Chinese vessels also stopped amid the 28-hour confrontation.”
The encounter ended without incident, however, and the U.S. ships continued on to Japan. The two Chinese vessels were also headed for a port call in Japan.
The Chinese destroyer, Shenzhen, is armed with anti-ship missiles, while the Song-class attack sub is equipped with anti-ship missiles and a variety of torpedoes.
China has expressed “grave concern” to the U.S. over the Kitty Hawk’s transit through the Taiwan Strait, the Times notes. Beijing claims Taiwan is Chinese territory.
But Admiral Timothy Keating, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, told reporters Tuesday: “We don’t need China’s permission to go through the Taiwan Strait. We will exercise our free right of passage whenever and wherever we choose.”
Shortly before the Kitty Hawk battle group was denied entry to Hong Kong, China had refused safe harbor for two U.S. Navy minesweepers seeking refuge from a storm.
As Newsmax has reported, some U.S. politicians have rung alarm bells about China's increased military spending and technological revamping of its armed forces.
China’s military budget had an average annual growth rate of nearly 16 percent from 1994 to 2004, and China's reported 2006 military budget is about $35 billion, according to Beijing.
But Pentagon sources have said these numbers fail to demonstrate the true scope of the growth, and the real 2006 figure could be as much as $105 billion.
In recent years China has upgraded its nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles; bought state-of-the-art warships, fighter planes and submarines from Russia; and begun development of a number of so-called "asymmetrical" weapons, including informational warfare and anti-satellite systems.
In November, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda warned that China’s continuing military buildup could eventually pose a “major threat” if the Chinese government decides to exercise its power.
Monday, December 17, 2007
A message from one angry mom
This has been going around for a while, but it's worth repeating.
*******************
By "Anonymous"
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?
Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I’m supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the holy bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for chopping off nick berg's head while berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their first amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the united states constitution's bill of rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." well, jimmy crack corn and-you guessed it: I don't care!!
If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!
If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country! And may I add:
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the marines don't have that problem" -- Ronald Reagan
I have another quote that I would like to add and I hope you forward all this.
"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" – Also by Ronald Reagan.
One last thought for the day:
In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he said:
"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in, and how many want out."
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ.
2. The American G.I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
You might want to pass this on, as many seem to forget both.
And God Bless America!!
*******************
By "Anonymous"
"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?
Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?
Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?
And I’m supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.
I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the holy bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.
I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for chopping off nick berg's head while berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide.
I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their first amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the united states constitution's bill of rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.
And oh, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." well, jimmy crack corn and-you guessed it: I don't care!!
If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!
If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country! And may I add:
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the marines don't have that problem" -- Ronald Reagan
I have another quote that I would like to add and I hope you forward all this.
"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" – Also by Ronald Reagan.
One last thought for the day:
In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he said:
"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in, and how many want out."
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
1. Jesus Christ.
2. The American G.I.
One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
You might want to pass this on, as many seem to forget both.
And God Bless America!!
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Guess Who's Writing The Ballot Argument Against Villaraigosa's Tax Hike Proposition?
By Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles, http://www.waltermooreformayor.com/
Mayor Villaraigosa hopes to dupe voters into approving an unnecessary tax hike in a special election in February 2008. That's the bad news.
The good news is that your favorite candidate for mayor was officially selected yesterday to write the ballot argument against the proposed tax hike, which will be called "Proposition S."
This is terrific news, because it means our fellow voters will receive up to 300 words of truth about Proposition S. It should also translate into some great publicity for my campaign, insofar as I will be the "point man" for the opposition to Villaraigosa's tax hike. Plus, if we can stop Villaraigosa's well-funded political machine from passing this tax hike in February 2008, it will be that much easier to win the Mayoral election in March 2009.
Villaraigosa calls his tax hike, "The REDUCTION of Tax Rate and Modernization of Communications Users Tax ballot measure." In fact, however, Proposition S would INCREASE our taxes two ways:
First, Proposition S would restore an illegal phone tax hike the City imposed in 2003. The Superior Court struck down that tax hike in 2005 because the City imposed it without getting voters' approval, which is required under the State Constitution. Rather than comply with the law and the Superior Court's order, Villaraigosa kept collecting the illegal tax and spending the proceeds, and appealed the ruling. In May 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's decision. Voting "yes" would thus restore the illegal tax hike that the courts struck down.
Second, Proposition S would impose NEW taxes on Internet usage, wireless communications and any other telecommunications not already taxed. That's what they mean by "modernization:" tax you for using the Internet. So when you "fire up" that laptop at Starbucks, or you download that file from your work computer to your home computer, get out your checkbook, because Villaraigosa wants you to pay him for the privilege.
The City, by the way, does not need the money. Revenues have skyrocketed for each of the past several years. We don't need a new tax. We need a new mayor -- one who won't squander your money. More about that later.
The good news is that your favorite candidate for mayor was officially selected yesterday to write the ballot argument against the proposed tax hike, which will be called "Proposition S."
This is terrific news, because it means our fellow voters will receive up to 300 words of truth about Proposition S. It should also translate into some great publicity for my campaign, insofar as I will be the "point man" for the opposition to Villaraigosa's tax hike. Plus, if we can stop Villaraigosa's well-funded political machine from passing this tax hike in February 2008, it will be that much easier to win the Mayoral election in March 2009.
Villaraigosa calls his tax hike, "The REDUCTION of Tax Rate and Modernization of Communications Users Tax ballot measure." In fact, however, Proposition S would INCREASE our taxes two ways:
First, Proposition S would restore an illegal phone tax hike the City imposed in 2003. The Superior Court struck down that tax hike in 2005 because the City imposed it without getting voters' approval, which is required under the State Constitution. Rather than comply with the law and the Superior Court's order, Villaraigosa kept collecting the illegal tax and spending the proceeds, and appealed the ruling. In May 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's decision. Voting "yes" would thus restore the illegal tax hike that the courts struck down.
Second, Proposition S would impose NEW taxes on Internet usage, wireless communications and any other telecommunications not already taxed. That's what they mean by "modernization:" tax you for using the Internet. So when you "fire up" that laptop at Starbucks, or you download that file from your work computer to your home computer, get out your checkbook, because Villaraigosa wants you to pay him for the privilege.
The City, by the way, does not need the money. Revenues have skyrocketed for each of the past several years. We don't need a new tax. We need a new mayor -- one who won't squander your money. More about that later.
For now, we can chalk this up as a big victory. Without having to spend a dime of your generous contributions, we will be able to reach every single registered voter in the City of Los Angeles. That almost -- but doesn't quite -- make up for Villaraigosa's having spent $5 million of your tax money to add Proposition S to the special presidential primary election in February, rather than waiting for the next regular election in November.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
"Liberal" Animal Control
By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon
They are now coming after our four-legged companions.
Blue state after blue state is now engaged in mandating forced neutering and spaying of our pets -- and with a Dr. Strangelove fanaticism that should instead be directed at improving school systems or providing clinics with the necessary means for lessons on birth control for illegal aliens and unwed pregnant teenagers.
It began quietly in 1990 in San Mateo County, in Northern California. The Board of Supervisors approved the nation’s first law requiring all pets in that region ‘go under the knife.’
“We took a first step toward solving the animal overpopulation problem,” said Supervisor Tom Nolan, the instigator of the San Mateo ordinance. It grants authority to impose a $500 fine on violators who fail to neuter and spay their dogs.
Similar laws passed in New York, New Hampshire and Washington State. While the majority of states fund spay/neuter clinics through license fees, the blue states make it “mandatory” for dog and cat owners to neuter their pets. Nowhere in these proposals are there substantial fines or misdemeanors solely for irresponsible pet owners.
The most recent proposal blossomed the week of April 9, 2007 in Southern California: the “California Healthy Pets Act” (AB1634), which is a thin disguise to exterminate pets. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- the illegal alien’s best friend and leader of the largest Sanctuary City in the country -- has, to no one’s surprise, jumped like a bean with both feet into the fray as a partner to the legislation. He is the new king of finding ways to increase revenues without calling it a tax.
Proponents claim that this ordinance will raise proceeds via license/registration fees and fines to defray the cost of euthanasia, including other animal control services. The only accomplishment this new law will offer is the halving of registration and licensing compliance by pet owners who will go underground to protect their natural rights.
Doctors of Veterinary Medicine are not held to the same doctor/patient confidentiality agreements with a dog or cat, as is the ruling with human beings. Under AB1634, however, DVMs will be placed in the unappealing position of informant: to turn in pet owners whose un-neutered or un-spayed pet has been brought in for treatment.
How is this different from Hitler’s Eisantzgruppen? Will physicians become the states’ Gestapo-like task enforcers so that man’s best friends can be sterilized against their owners’ will (and ultimately vanish ‘for the greater good’)? Will this be the ‘Final Solution’ for some of God’s perfect creations whose only crime is that they were not born human?
On the one hand, curbing the birthrate of cats and dogs to 50% or less is, in and of itself, not a bad idea (unless you own shares in companies like Friskies, Science Diet, or Alpo). On the other hand, demanding without recourse that conscientious pet owners have their pets mutilated, particularly expensive purebred dogs and cats, is another example of the outrageous ideas that bounce up like a Pop Tart from the Liberal Think Tank toaster, such as with their exploitation of late-term abortions as a “progressive” idea.
Like so many other ideas that begin with seeds of sensibility, this one has grown into a morass of liberal logic. The people who dream up these foolish ideas are the same mindless obstructionists who don’t lose a minute’s sleep over the insurmountable problems imposed on society by, as a salient example, illegal immigrants: They overcrowd our hospitals giving birth to anchor babies; their offspring crowd our schools and run roughshod in gangs. They represent an inordinate number of the prison population, and too many, of late, have been caught driving drunk, without a license or documentation, after they killed innocent men, women and children. One of these illegals has been deported 17 times. How many animals are captured and set free 17 times?
We digress to make a specific point, which follows in a side-by-side comparison that shows what is sensible and what is preposterous:
Dogs and cats are not, and were never, a threat to our social infrastructure.
Illegal aliens are a problem that is straining to the breaking point American taxpayer resources, our legal system, our safety and our patience.
Dogs and cats do not purposefully cross state lines to steal, maim or kill for pleasure or gain.
Criminal illegal immigrants commit these offenses every hour of every day.
Dogs and cats expect nothing except a good rub behind the ears, a $3 toy, and one square meal a day.
Arrogant illegal immigrants demand immediate amnesty and equal rights of legal citizens, and offer nothing in return except a cheaper Big Mac.
Dogs and cats don’t roam avenues and boulevards in packs numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
Illegal immigrants force the lock-down of city streets to protest en masse American policies while waving their home countries’ flags, or American flags in faux patriotism at the behest of Spanish talking heads.
Dogs and cats are loyal and trustworthy.
Non-English speaking, rule-busting and intoxicated illegal immigrants are neither willing nor capable of being either.
Dogs and cats provide joy and unconditional love.
Self-seeking illegal immigrants bleed the American taxpayer unconditionally, and without conscience.
So, why are liberal politicians persistently pressing forward like Rommel’s panzer divisions to force pet owners to bring in their canines and felines to be anesthetized and sterilized, and at no later than four months of age? It’s a question that demands sober, logical, and credible answers. It presents the slippery slope of a liberal agenda that has quietly infiltrated American thought via educators and the media.
In the end, as always, the real victims are those who cannot speak for or defend themselves. They are being threatened with arbitrary rules composed by out-of-control liberals and their equally uncontrollable agendas. Clearly it seems that the ‘unborn’ are a menace to liberals: human fetuses and late-term babies allowed to be aborted with impunity, and now the attempt to eliminate conception amongst dogs and cats -- to wipe them out.
The Lefties of the 60s that scared everyone with the idea of over-population are still at it. It is not enough that we are faced with an extremist foreign agenda whose aim is to exterminate westerners. We are systematically being reduced in number, both human and animal inside our own borders. Imagine if the whole of America was placed into the efficient hands of the liberals: In less than two generations there would be no one remaining, except, of course, illegal aliens.
The question is, who will get there to finish the job first?
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
"A Time to Reap," by William Rivers Pitt
William Rivers Pitt writes:
"There is something happening today in America. With the right kind of ears, you can hear it in the sound of millions of brows slowly furrowing in anger and disgust..."
Read the full article at the link, below.
Be amazed. Be a proud American.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
I am Loyal Democrat
I went to Townhall.com this morning to read Michelle Malkin's superb commentary, titled "I am John Doe."
In the comments section, the first one came from an unknown individual, who I hope will forgive my posting their response here.
This is not my writing, so I take no credit whatsoever for it.
* * * * * * *
I am Loyal Democrat.
I will take the side of any entity that declares itself to be an enemy of the United States. I will consider any action taken by my government to be improper, and defend the position of any nation that opposes my own. I will not stand by while the concepts of freedom and liberty are allowed to infect the thoughts of repressed peoples. Rather, I will combat such efforts and convince the slaves of dictatorships that they have it better than anyone else.
I am Loyal Democrat.
I will tell all Americans that they had 9/11 coming as retribution for all of our evil deeds inflicted upon members of the most peaceful religion on earth. I will work to undermine any effort to destroy the Islamic tidal wave of terror that has vowed to wash onto our beaches. I will strive to weaken our military as it attempts to carry out its mission overseas. I shall encourage total surrender to any foe that threatens us.
I am Loyal Democrat.
I shall stir up domestic unrest by separating my fellow citizens into groups, and then I will encourage each group to distrust the next, and convince each that I am their one true friend. Through this magnificent deception, I will rule them all. I will convince minorities that they are inferior, and that they need my special help to succeed in life. Once I have them suspicious of others and fully demoralized, I will keep them down, and make their every gain dependent on what I decide to let them do. I shall oppress minorites worse than any avowed racist could ever hope to.
I am Loyal Democrat.
I will make every effort to criticize people that achieve, to hinder those that aspire, and ridicule those that display self-worth. In spite of my lack of personal merit, I will elevate myself in the eyes of others by bringing people with actual character down. I will prey on people's envy of others' success, and I will gain undeserved power as a result. I will take from those that earn until they lose the motivation to build up mankind any longer.
I am Loyal Democrat.
I will promote the tyranny of socialism, and crush the only economic system that has advanced mankind. And when we are all financially destitute and controlled by an omnipotent government, I shall laugh at the destruction I have wrought, for I truly hate mankind.
I am Loyal Democrat.
I will take the side of any entity that declares itself to be an enemy of the United States. I will consider any action taken by my government to be improper, and defend the position of any nation that opposes my own. I will not stand by while the concepts of freedom and liberty are allowed to infect the thoughts of repressed peoples. Rather, I will combat such efforts and convince the slaves of dictatorships that they have it better than anyone else.
I am Loyal Democrat.
I will tell all Americans that they had 9/11 coming as retribution for all of our evil deeds inflicted upon members of the most peaceful religion on earth. I will work to undermine any effort to destroy the Islamic tidal wave of terror that has vowed to wash onto our beaches. I will strive to weaken our military as it attempts to carry out its mission overseas. I shall encourage total surrender to any foe that threatens us.
I am Loyal Democrat.
I shall stir up domestic unrest by separating my fellow citizens into groups, and then I will encourage each group to distrust the next, and convince each that I am their one true friend. Through this magnificent deception, I will rule them all. I will convince minorities that they are inferior, and that they need my special help to succeed in life. Once I have them suspicious of others and fully demoralized, I will keep them down, and make their every gain dependent on what I decide to let them do. I shall oppress minorites worse than any avowed racist could ever hope to.
I am Loyal Democrat.
I will make every effort to criticize people that achieve, to hinder those that aspire, and ridicule those that display self-worth. In spite of my lack of personal merit, I will elevate myself in the eyes of others by bringing people with actual character down. I will prey on people's envy of others' success, and I will gain undeserved power as a result. I will take from those that earn until they lose the motivation to build up mankind any longer.
I am Loyal Democrat.
I will promote the tyranny of socialism, and crush the only economic system that has advanced mankind. And when we are all financially destitute and controlled by an omnipotent government, I shall laugh at the destruction I have wrought, for I truly hate mankind.
I am Loyal Democrat.
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Give the Iraqi Police a Chance
By Tim Kilbride
Special to American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2007 - Despite ongoing violence and intimidation around the country, Iraq's police forces are steadily growing in numbers and professionalism, the U.S. Army general who oversees Iraqi police training said today.
U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Kenneth Hunzeker, who previously served on the Joint Staff and commanded the 1st Infantry Division as it returned to the United States from Germany, assumed control of Multinational Security Transition Command Iraq's Civilian Police Assistance Training Team in October.
During a telephone question-and-answer session with bloggers and online journalists today, Hunzeker explained that his organization is working to help the Iraqi government, specifically the Ministry of Interior, assume sole control of the Iraqi National Police, the Department of Border Enforcement, and the chiefs of police and forces of Iraq's 18 provinces.
"We've trained and equipped them, and now we're trying to go to the next level with different training programs and different initiatives," Hunzeker said. "What I see on a daily basis is great leaders, great 'shertas' (police officers), putting their lives on the line and truly becoming a more professional force."
Recruitment figures among police forces have climbed throughout most of the country, Hunzeker said. In a televised briefing earlier in the day he noted, "We have trained more than 200,000 policemen and women, more than 19,000 above our target goal." However, he said, the effort is affected by underlying stability in each province.
"In the troubled areas -- it's those six provinces you hear about all the time where there's a lot of violence and the like -- that's truly your challenge as you go through this. Recruiting there is not at the numbers we would like," he told the online journalists, but, he noted, "we're still fairly successful."
Recruitment numbers in Anbar province have jumped recently, a change Hunzeker credited to increased rallying efforts by Marine expeditionary forces in the region and provincial sheiks, whose attitudes by way of insurgent violence he described as "I'm not going to take it any more."
Hunzeker said coalition forces are working with Anbar police chiefs to rapidly build the capacity to support and utilize the new strength, with results quickly becoming manifest.
"I think you're seeing the effects of it on the ground," he said. "I think we have turned the corner in al Anbar in many ways."
In Iraq's 12 mostly peaceful provinces, the general pointed to steady progress in institutionalizing law and order. "We're beginning to establish the rule of law, and the prisons and the courts are catching up, and the policemen are the action arm there," he said.
Enabling an effective, loyal and independent police force at the provincial level is essential to standing up the national government, Hunzeker explained.
"When you talk about the 18 different provinces and the 18 different police chiefs that exist out there, ... they clearly are in charge," he said. "They sit as the police chiefs for those provinces based upon the provincial councils that exist, so they have the ability to hire and fire out there. And it becomes their province and their police, which is so powerful when you talk about a unity government and the 18 different provincial governments underneath it."
Hunzeker extended his support for the Iraqi police in his description of Iraqi Interior Minister Jawad Bolani.
"He clearly gets it, and he's part of the solution, and he is the future of Iraq when it comes to what we're doing for Iraqi security forces," Hunzeker said. "He's dedicated; he's honest; and he doesn't take any nonsense when it comes to misbehavior."
Relaying a statement from Bolani about the forces under him, Hunzeker said, "Every day they make sacrifices for their country, where they are on duty serving and protecting their citizens despite all the challenges facing them."
Responding to allegations of militia infiltration within Iraqi police forces, Hunzeker framed the problem more as one of "intimidation" than infiltration, calling it a "gray area." He explained the difference in the Iraqis' perspective between "good militia and the bad militia."
"It's clearly a challenge," he added.
Hunzeker said that militias historically stand up to fill a security void. "Once the security forces are up and the numbers, and they have the faith and confidence of the electorate and the people of Iraq, then those militias will go away," he predicted.
The general admitted the pace in Iraq can be frustrating, likening it to "turning the aircraft carrier into the wind a little bit in some cases," but added, "Change is taking place."
Hunzeker explained that Iraq does not have a culture of immediacy and that the police force is standing up against a history of corruption and neglect under Saddam Hussein. However, he cautioned, "If it's going to be an Iraqi solution, it's got to be their way, and it's got to be their solution."
In spite of the challenges, Hunzeker expressed optimism that the Iraqi police will continue to grow in strength and professionalism.
"They are absolutely so positive, so incredibly upbeat, recognizing that, you know, they are the future of Iraq," he said. "They get it, so we better get it."
(Tim Kilbride is assigned to American Forces Information Service.)
[Web Version: http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=2969]
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
2007 Beer Study
Sad news about beer.You have to hope that this study is flawed, but the evidence seems irrefutable.
Yesterday, scientists suggested that the results of a recent analysis revealed the presence of female hormones in beer, and suggested that men should take a look at their beer consumption.
The theory is that drinking beer makes men turn into women.
To test the theory, 100 men were each fed 6 pints of beer within a one-hour period. It was then observed that 100% of the men:
a. Gained weight.
b. Talked excessively without making sense.
c. Became overly emotional.
d. Couldn't drive.
e. Failed to think rationally.
f. Argued over nothing.
g. Had to sit down while urinating.
h. Showed no interest in sex.
i. Refused to apologize when wrong.
No further testing is planned.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
The Age of Reason Revisited
By Lewis Napper from Mississippi (cir. 1993)
"We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, deluded, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights."
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone ? not just you! You may leave the room, change the channel, or express a different opinion, but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. It would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.
ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. Sure, all of us want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
If you agree, we strongly urge you to forward this to as many people as you can. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you should you not forward it. We just think it is about time common sense is allowed to flourish - call it: "The Age of Reason Revisited."
"We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, deluded, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights."
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone ? not just you! You may leave the room, change the channel, or express a different opinion, but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. It would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.
ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. Sure, all of us want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
If you agree, we strongly urge you to forward this to as many people as you can. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you should you not forward it. We just think it is about time common sense is allowed to flourish - call it: "The Age of Reason Revisited."
Friday, December 22, 2006
'Twas the Night Before Christmas - Legal Version
Author Unknown
Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, there did occur at a certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter "the House") a general lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not limited to a mouse.
A variety of foot apparel, e.g. stocking, socks, etc., had been affixed by and around the chimney in said House in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick a/k/a/ St. Nicholas a/k/a/ Santa Claus (hereinafter "Claus") would arrive at sometime thereafter.
The minor residents, i.e. the children, of the aforementioned House, were located in their individual beds and were engaged in nocturnal hallucinations, i.e. dreams, wherein vision of confectionery treats, including, but not limited to, candies, nuts and/or sugar plums, did dance, cavort and otherwise appear in said dreams.
Whereupon the party of the first part (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "I"), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with the party of the second part (hereinafter "Mamma"), and said Mamma had retired for a sustained period of sleep. (At such time, the parties were clad in various forms of headgear, e.g. kerchief and cap.)
Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the unimproved real property adjacent and appurtent to said House, i.e. the lawn, a certain disruption of unknown nature, cause and/or circumstance. The party of the first part did immediately rush to a window in the House to investigate the cause of such disturbance.
At that time, the party of the first part did observe, with some degree of wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleigh (hereinafter the "Vehicle") being pulled and/or drawn very rapidly through the air by approximately eight (8) reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be and in fact was, the previously referenced Claus.
Said Claus was providing specific direction, instruction and guidance to the approximately eight (8) reindeer and specifically identified the animal co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donder and Blitzen (hereinafter the "Deer"). (Upon information and belief, it is further asserted that an additional co-conspirator named Rudolph may have been involved.)
The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle and the Deer intentionally and willfully trespass upon the roofs of several residences located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the Vehicle was heavily laden with packages, toys and other items of unknown origin or nature. Suddenly, without prior invitation or permission, either express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus entered said House via the chimney.
Said Claus was clad in a red fur suit, which was partially covered with residue from the chimney, and he carried a large sack containing a portion of the aforementioned packages, toys, and other unknown items. He was smoking what appeared to be tobacco in a small pipe in blatant violation of local ordinances and health regulations.
Claus did not speak, but immediately began to fill the stockings of the minor children, which hung adjacent to the chimney, with toys and other small gifts. (Said items did not, however, constitute "gifts" to said minor pursuant to the applicable provisions of the U.S. Tax Code.) Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew, rose and/or ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof where the Vehicle and Deer waited and/or served as "lookouts." Claus immediately departed for an unknown destination.
However, prior to the departure of the Vehicle, Deer and Claus from said House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim: "Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!" Or words to that effect.
Respectfully Submitted,
s./ The Grinch
Thursday, November 30, 2006
For My Democratic Friends ...
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishes.
By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for him or her, or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
For My Republican Friends:
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!
[Author Unknown]
Friday, October 20, 2006
Teen Brother and Sister Raise $1 Million For Our Soldiers
By John D. Banusiewicz
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20, 2006 - A brother-and-sister team that has raised more than $1 million to provide pre-paid calling cards for deployed servicemembers shared the spotlight in Baltimore Oct. 17 with fellow recipients of the 2006 National Caring Awards, sponsored by the Caring Institute.
Brittany Bergquist, 15, and her brother, Robbie, 14, were honored for "Cell Phones for Soldiers," an effort they've spearheaded for the last two and a half years from their family's home in Norwell, Mass.
The Caring Institute is a nonprofit organization that promotes the values of caring, integrity, and public service, according to the organization's Web site. Among this year's other National Caring Award winners are the Rev. Billy Graham and baseball great Cal Ripken Jr.
Though the honor is gratifying, Brittany said, the attention it's bringing to Cell Phones for Soldiers is what's really important.
"The fact that we were able to be there at all -- around so many influential people and able to hear the stories of the other recipients -- was just incredible," she said. "It's great to be recognized for what we do, but when that happens, it means more people know about Cell Phones for Soldiers, and that's what matters the most. As more people know about the program, more people donate, and that means more calling cards for the soldiers."
The teenagers said they received a great deal of attention at the gala - Ripken even made a special trip to their table to express his admiration for their work - but they were most surprised at the attention they received the next day as they made their way through Baltimore-Washington International Airport for their flight home.
"We must have been recognized by at least 15 people," Brittany said. "They'd stop and ask us if we were the Cell Phones for Soldiers kids they'd seen at the dinner, and they'd say how much they admire what we do."
Robbie said he's thankful that he and his sister received the National Caring Award, and he echoed Brittany's hope that the honor will mean more deployed servicemembers will be able to receive pre-paid calling cards through their program.
"It was great to be up there getting an award that has gone to so many great people doing such important things," he said. "And it was nice to hear so many people telling us that what we're doing is important."
Cell Phones for Soldiers began in April 2004, when Brittany and Robbie saw a television news story about a deployed soldier who had run up a huge cell phone bill calling his family from Iraq. They pooled their own money, sought donations from friends, and started an account at a local bank, hoping to raise enough money to pay the soldier's phone bill. The bank even kicked in a donation, and the word spread.
Meanwhile, the cell phone company forgave the soldier's bill, so the teenagers decided to keep up the effort and help as many deployed servicemembers as possible stay in touch with their families and friends at home.
With help from their schoolteacher parents, Bob and Gail, and their sister, Courtney, the siblings have built a network of sponsors and partners both large and small, and have distributed more than 80,000 pre-paid calling cards. They fund the program through direct donations and by collecting and recycling used cell phones, other electronic devices and printer cartridges. They've lined up drop-off centers all over the country, which are listed on the program's Web site.
As successful as their program has been, the siblings want to do more. They're working now with military family support organizations to create a spin-off program called Cell Phones for Returning Heroes. The idea is to provide pre-loaded disposable cell phones to the family groups, which in turn would distribute the phones at airports to servicemembers returning from deployment.
"The troops do so much for all of us," Robbie said. "It shouldn't cost them anything to call home."
The teenagers' selection for the National Caring Award comes with induction into the Hall of Fame for Caring Americans at the Frederick Douglass Museum here.
Cell Phones for Soldiers is a member of the Defense Department's America Supports You program, which highlights efforts by the American people and the nation's corporate sector to support the nation's men and women in uniform.
[Web Version: http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=1714]
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20, 2006 - A brother-and-sister team that has raised more than $1 million to provide pre-paid calling cards for deployed servicemembers shared the spotlight in Baltimore Oct. 17 with fellow recipients of the 2006 National Caring Awards, sponsored by the Caring Institute.
Brittany Bergquist, 15, and her brother, Robbie, 14, were honored for "Cell Phones for Soldiers," an effort they've spearheaded for the last two and a half years from their family's home in Norwell, Mass.
The Caring Institute is a nonprofit organization that promotes the values of caring, integrity, and public service, according to the organization's Web site. Among this year's other National Caring Award winners are the Rev. Billy Graham and baseball great Cal Ripken Jr.
Though the honor is gratifying, Brittany said, the attention it's bringing to Cell Phones for Soldiers is what's really important.
"The fact that we were able to be there at all -- around so many influential people and able to hear the stories of the other recipients -- was just incredible," she said. "It's great to be recognized for what we do, but when that happens, it means more people know about Cell Phones for Soldiers, and that's what matters the most. As more people know about the program, more people donate, and that means more calling cards for the soldiers."
The teenagers said they received a great deal of attention at the gala - Ripken even made a special trip to their table to express his admiration for their work - but they were most surprised at the attention they received the next day as they made their way through Baltimore-Washington International Airport for their flight home.
"We must have been recognized by at least 15 people," Brittany said. "They'd stop and ask us if we were the Cell Phones for Soldiers kids they'd seen at the dinner, and they'd say how much they admire what we do."
Robbie said he's thankful that he and his sister received the National Caring Award, and he echoed Brittany's hope that the honor will mean more deployed servicemembers will be able to receive pre-paid calling cards through their program.
"It was great to be up there getting an award that has gone to so many great people doing such important things," he said. "And it was nice to hear so many people telling us that what we're doing is important."
Cell Phones for Soldiers began in April 2004, when Brittany and Robbie saw a television news story about a deployed soldier who had run up a huge cell phone bill calling his family from Iraq. They pooled their own money, sought donations from friends, and started an account at a local bank, hoping to raise enough money to pay the soldier's phone bill. The bank even kicked in a donation, and the word spread.
Meanwhile, the cell phone company forgave the soldier's bill, so the teenagers decided to keep up the effort and help as many deployed servicemembers as possible stay in touch with their families and friends at home.
With help from their schoolteacher parents, Bob and Gail, and their sister, Courtney, the siblings have built a network of sponsors and partners both large and small, and have distributed more than 80,000 pre-paid calling cards. They fund the program through direct donations and by collecting and recycling used cell phones, other electronic devices and printer cartridges. They've lined up drop-off centers all over the country, which are listed on the program's Web site.
As successful as their program has been, the siblings want to do more. They're working now with military family support organizations to create a spin-off program called Cell Phones for Returning Heroes. The idea is to provide pre-loaded disposable cell phones to the family groups, which in turn would distribute the phones at airports to servicemembers returning from deployment.
"The troops do so much for all of us," Robbie said. "It shouldn't cost them anything to call home."
The teenagers' selection for the National Caring Award comes with induction into the Hall of Fame for Caring Americans at the Frederick Douglass Museum here.
Cell Phones for Soldiers is a member of the Defense Department's America Supports You program, which highlights efforts by the American people and the nation's corporate sector to support the nation's men and women in uniform.
[Web Version: http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=1714]
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Margaret Thatcher gives her "A-OK" to Mitt Romney, the next President of the United States
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Sunday, Oct. 15, 2006 10:48 p.m. EDT
Romney Gets Nod From Margaret Thatcher
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney met Baroness Margaret Thatcher at a Washington think tank last month, a visit that the Times of London is describing as "an unmistakable sign to conservatives that he was 'one of us.'"
"Can you imagine? It was such an extraordinary honour to be able to sit down with her person-to-person," Romney said in his first interview with a British newspaper. "We talked about the condition of the world and I said, "I'm optimistic that we'll overcome these problems," and she paused and said, "We always have."
Thatcher, who was Britain's prime minister during President Reagan's time in office, developed a strong and warm relationship with Reagan and was an important ally of America. Romney is hoping the similarities he shares with Reagan as a popular governor with movie-star good looks, the ability to lead as a conservative in a liberal state, and as an appealing candidate to swing voters, will help him connect with conservatives. His meeting with Thatcher is likely to give him momentum in the right direction.
Romney, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, is generating enormous buzz as the conservative with the best chance of beating Sen. John McCain for the 2008 Republican nomination. When his term in office expires in January, Romney is expected to throw himself helter-skelter into the presidential race.
According to the Times, Romney will have to take more risks to lift his candidacy out of the ordinary. Just as the Democrats are searching for a credible alternative to Clinton, so the Republicans want a candidate who can square up to the heavyweight McCain "an "American hero," in Romney's words, who is certainly "one of the leading contenders."
Romney's ascension will be evident if England's Tories invite him to address next year's party conference McCain attended this year's gathering in Bournemouth.
"I'd love to speak to my conservative colleagues in the mother country," Romney laughed.
Sunday, Oct. 15, 2006 10:48 p.m. EDT
Romney Gets Nod From Margaret Thatcher
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney met Baroness Margaret Thatcher at a Washington think tank last month, a visit that the Times of London is describing as "an unmistakable sign to conservatives that he was 'one of us.'"
"Can you imagine? It was such an extraordinary honour to be able to sit down with her person-to-person," Romney said in his first interview with a British newspaper. "We talked about the condition of the world and I said, "I'm optimistic that we'll overcome these problems," and she paused and said, "We always have."
Thatcher, who was Britain's prime minister during President Reagan's time in office, developed a strong and warm relationship with Reagan and was an important ally of America. Romney is hoping the similarities he shares with Reagan as a popular governor with movie-star good looks, the ability to lead as a conservative in a liberal state, and as an appealing candidate to swing voters, will help him connect with conservatives. His meeting with Thatcher is likely to give him momentum in the right direction.
Romney, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, is generating enormous buzz as the conservative with the best chance of beating Sen. John McCain for the 2008 Republican nomination. When his term in office expires in January, Romney is expected to throw himself helter-skelter into the presidential race.
According to the Times, Romney will have to take more risks to lift his candidacy out of the ordinary. Just as the Democrats are searching for a credible alternative to Clinton, so the Republicans want a candidate who can square up to the heavyweight McCain "an "American hero," in Romney's words, who is certainly "one of the leading contenders."
Romney's ascension will be evident if England's Tories invite him to address next year's party conference McCain attended this year's gathering in Bournemouth.
"I'd love to speak to my conservative colleagues in the mother country," Romney laughed.
Friday, October 13, 2006
President Bush Talks About Protecting America
By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13, 2006 - The most solemn responsibility of the federal government is to protect the American people, and the U.S. government has taken many steps to better protect its people since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush said here today.
"Protecting our homeland also requires protecting our seaports," Bush said just before he signed the SAFE Port Act at a Capitol Hill ceremony.
America's seaports are vitally important to the nation's economic health, Bush observed, noting they are the gateways to worldwide trade and commerce.
"Our ports could also be a target of a terrorist attack, and we're determined to protect them," he said.
The new law leverages technology to enhance security at U.S. ports, Bush said. For example, customs inspectors can employ high-tech devices to look inside shipping containers without opening them. The bill also authorizes the use of radiation-detection equipment at 22 of America's busiest ports by the end of 2007, Bush said.
"America has the best technology in the world," Bush said. "And, with this bill, we'll apply that technology to make our ports the safest in the world."
The new legislation also codifies the Container Security Initiative implemented in 2002. That program deploys U.S. customs inspectors to dozens of foreign ports where they screen ship's cargo before it departs for American destinations.
The bill also codified the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, a joint private/public sector initiative designed to bolster cargo security, Bush said. The program requires private shippers to improve their security measures. Participants receive benefits, such as faster clearance through U.S. ports, in return, Bush said.
In addition, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which guards against terrorists smuggling a nuclear device into America, gets added authority under the new law, the president said.
"All these efforts are smart; they're working; and with this bill, they're here to stay," Bush said.
The SAFE Port Act also tasks the Department of Homeland Security to develop a plan to accelerate the resumption of trade in the event of an attack on U.S. ports or waterways.
"This bill makes clear that the federal government has the authority to clear waterways, identify clean-up equipment, and reestablish the flow of commerce following a terrorist attack," Bush explained. "We'll do everything we can to prevent an attack, but if the terrorists succeed in launching an attack, we'll be ready to respond."
The U.S. government has more than tripled spending on homeland security since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Bush said. The Department of Homeland Security was established in November 2002, and hundreds of thousands of emergency first responders have been fielded across the country. Security at airports and aboard commercial airliners has been improved. Security at the U.S. borders has been bolstered, Bush noted, and there's added security for bridges, tunnels and other critical infrastructure across America.
"We have a responsibility to protect the homeland, and we're meeting that responsibility," he said.
[Web Version: http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=1601]
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13, 2006 - The most solemn responsibility of the federal government is to protect the American people, and the U.S. government has taken many steps to better protect its people since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush said here today.
"Protecting our homeland also requires protecting our seaports," Bush said just before he signed the SAFE Port Act at a Capitol Hill ceremony.
America's seaports are vitally important to the nation's economic health, Bush observed, noting they are the gateways to worldwide trade and commerce.
"Our ports could also be a target of a terrorist attack, and we're determined to protect them," he said.
The new law leverages technology to enhance security at U.S. ports, Bush said. For example, customs inspectors can employ high-tech devices to look inside shipping containers without opening them. The bill also authorizes the use of radiation-detection equipment at 22 of America's busiest ports by the end of 2007, Bush said.
"America has the best technology in the world," Bush said. "And, with this bill, we'll apply that technology to make our ports the safest in the world."
The new legislation also codifies the Container Security Initiative implemented in 2002. That program deploys U.S. customs inspectors to dozens of foreign ports where they screen ship's cargo before it departs for American destinations.
The bill also codified the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, a joint private/public sector initiative designed to bolster cargo security, Bush said. The program requires private shippers to improve their security measures. Participants receive benefits, such as faster clearance through U.S. ports, in return, Bush said.
In addition, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which guards against terrorists smuggling a nuclear device into America, gets added authority under the new law, the president said.
"All these efforts are smart; they're working; and with this bill, they're here to stay," Bush said.
The SAFE Port Act also tasks the Department of Homeland Security to develop a plan to accelerate the resumption of trade in the event of an attack on U.S. ports or waterways.
"This bill makes clear that the federal government has the authority to clear waterways, identify clean-up equipment, and reestablish the flow of commerce following a terrorist attack," Bush explained. "We'll do everything we can to prevent an attack, but if the terrorists succeed in launching an attack, we'll be ready to respond."
The U.S. government has more than tripled spending on homeland security since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Bush said. The Department of Homeland Security was established in November 2002, and hundreds of thousands of emergency first responders have been fielded across the country. Security at airports and aboard commercial airliners has been improved. Security at the U.S. borders has been bolstered, Bush noted, and there's added security for bridges, tunnels and other critical infrastructure across America.
"We have a responsibility to protect the homeland, and we're meeting that responsibility," he said.
[Web Version: http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=1601]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
