I'm a Pundit Too

Monday, April 30, 2007

What do the Generals think?

From ABCNews
Petraeus, who took over as the top U.S. commander in Iraq in February, said he was encouraged by progress in recent months against al-Qaida elements in Anbar, the vast province that stretches west from Baghdad to the borders with Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Violence in Anbar has declined and U.S.-backed Iraqi forces have gained a measure of control in keys cities including Ramadi, the provincial capital.

Petraeus attributed the change in part to tribal leaders becoming fed up with al-Qaida attacks on civilians and in part to the terrorist group's use of hijackings and other tactics that have disrupted tribal smuggling operations.

"Al-Qaida was killing business," Petraeus said, adding that he believes the progress in Anbar will prove lasting.

From UPI
"The irony of the current debate is that is comes at the worst possible time for both Iraq and for us," a senior U.S. military official told UPI Wednesday. "The Iraqi Security Forces are doing well enough. They are developing leaders. Their institutions and systems are beginning -- but only beginning -- to function. Pressing too hard will not simply slow momentum toward transition to their control but drive them back to old and very bad habits."

Gen Martin Dempsey, New Man in Charge of Training the Iraqi Army, Talks with Bill O'Reilly
O'REILLY: The perception in the United States is that this is a loser, that things are not going well for the United States. Is that the reality?
LT. GEN. MARTIN DEMPSEY, U.S. ARMY: No, I don't think so at all. There's a great deal of progress. And the mission's extraordinarily important, not only for the region, but really for the rest of the world.
And so, the idea that somehow it's being lost is -- has to be understood in the context of the stakes.
O'REILLY: But 3,000 American dead, and you know, what, 15,000 wounded or something. You know, Americans are saying, not worth it.
DEMPSEY: It is absolutely worth it. Left unchecked, we would have been doing this in 2025 or so, but it would have been a far more horrific experience for all of us and I think far more casualties.

We are winning on the battlefield. We only lose if we follow the democrats.

I couldn't have said it better Sen Lieberman

Statement by Senator Lieberman on Iraq Withdrawal Provision in Supplemental Appropriations Bill
WASHINGTON - Senator Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) today addressed the Iraq withdrawal provision in the supplemental appropriations bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Below is the full text of Senator Lieberman's speech, as prepared for delivery:

"Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill we are debating today contains language that would have Congress take control of the direction of our military strategy in Iraq.

Earlier this week the Senate Majority Leader spoke at the Woodrow Wilson Center and laid out the case for why he believes we must do this—why the bill now before this chamber, in his view, offers a viable alternative strategy for Iraq.

I have great respect for my friend from Nevada. I believe he has offered this proposal in good faith, and therefore want to take it up in good faith, and examine its arguments and ideas carefully and in depth, for this is a very serious discussion for our country.

In his speech Monday, the Majority Leader described the several steps that this new strategy for Iraq would entail. Its first step, he said, is to "transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war—to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counter-terror operations."

I ask my colleagues to take a step back for a moment and consider this plan.

When we say that U.S. troops shouldn't be "policing a civil war," that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean?

To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them—no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.

In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians—men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.

This makes no moral sense at all.

It also makes no strategic or military sense either.

Al Qaeda's own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are trying to kill as many people as possible today, precisely in the hope of igniting sectarian violence, because they know that this is their best way to collapse Iraq's political center, overthrow Iraq's elected government, radicalize its population, and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base.

That is why Al Qaeda blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year. And that is why we are seeing mass casualty suicide bombings by Al Qaeda in Baghdad now.

The sectarian violence that the Majority Leader says he wants to order American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence that Al Qaeda hopes to ride to victory. The suggestion that we can draw a bright legislative line between stopping terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil war in Iraq flies in the face of this reality.

I do not know how to say it more plainly: it is Al Qaeda that is trying to cause a full-fledged civil war in Iraq.

The Majority Leader said on Monday that he believes U.S. troops will still be able to conduct "targeted counter-terror operations" under his plan. Even if we stop trying to protect civilians in Iraq, in other words, we can still go after the bad guys.

But again, I ask my colleagues, how would this translate into military reality on the ground? How would we find these terrorists, who do not gather on conventional military bases or fight in conventional formations?

By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know where, when, and against whom to strike—and that in turn requires accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence.

This is the kind of intelligence that can only come from ordinary Iraqis, the sea of people among whom the terrorists hide. And that, in turn, requires interacting with the Iraqi people on a close, personal, daily basis. It requires winning individual Iraqis to our side, gaining their trust, convincing them that they can count on us to keep them safe from the terrorists if they share valuable information about them. This is no great secret. This is at the heart of the new strategy that General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out.

And yet, if we pass this legislation, according to the Majority Leader, U.S. forces will no longer be permitted to patrol Iraq's neighborhoods or protect Iraqi civilians. They won't, in his words, be "interjecting themselves between warring factions" or "trying to sort friend from foe."

Therefore, I ask the supporters of this legislation: How, exactly, are U.S. forces to gather intelligence about where, when, and against whom to strike, after you have ordered them walled off from the Iraqi population? How, exactly, are U.S. forces to carry out targeted counter-terror operations, after you have ordered them cut off from the very source of intelligence that drives these operations?

This is precisely why the congressional micromanagement of life-and-death decisions about how, where, and when our troops can fight is such a bad idea, especially on a complex and changing battlefield.

In sum, you can't have it both ways. You can't withdraw combat troops from Iraq and still fight Al Qaeda there. If you believe there is no hope of winning in Iraq, or that the costs of victory there are not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.

There is another irony here as well.

For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids—in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.

That strategy failed—and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.

For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and—for that matter—a new secretary of defense.

And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around—just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq—now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn't so bad after all.

What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?

The second element in the plan outlined by the Majority Leader on Monday is "the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007."

Let us be absolutely clear what this means. This legislation would impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating from Iraq. This withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, in short regardless of reality on October 1, 2007.

As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date—what strategic or military significance this holds. Why not September 1? Or January 1? This is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible—a deadline for defeat.

How do proponents of this deadline defend it? On Monday, Senator Reid gave several reasons. First, he said, a date for withdrawal puts "pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political compromises."

But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the withdrawal will happen regardless of what the Iraqi government does.

How, then, if you are an Iraqi government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices?

On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its Senate sponsors intend.

This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq predicted. A withdrawal of U.S. troops in the months ahead, it said, would "almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance, and have adverse effects on national reconciliation."

Second, the Majority Leader said that withdrawing our troops, and again I quote, will "reduce the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the insurgency."

My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.

But I ask my colleagues—where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel'Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?

On the contrary—in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.

So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?

Consider the words of Sheikh Abdul Sattar, one of the leading Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who is now fighting on our side against Al Qaeda. This is what he told the New York Times when asked last month what would happen if U.S. troops withdraw. "In my personal opinion, and in the opinion of most of the wise men of Anbar," he said, "if the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos."

This is a man whose father was killed by Al Qaeda, who is risking his life every day to work with us—a man who was described by one Army officer as "the most effective local leader in Ramadi I believe the coalition has worked with... in Anbar [since] 2003."

In his remarks earlier this week, the Majority Leader observed that there is "a large and growing population of millions—who sit precariously on the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to terrorism in the years ahead. We must convince them of the goodness of America and Americans. We must win them over."

On this, I completely agree with my friend from Nevada. My question to him, however, and to the supporters of this legislation, is this: how does the strategy you propose in this bill possibly help win over this population of millions in Iraq, who sit precariously on the fence?

What message, I ask, does this legislation announce to those people in Iraq? How will they respond when we tell them that we will no longer make any effort to protect them against insurgents and death squads? How will they respond when we declare that we will be withdrawing our forces—regardless of whether they make progress in the next six months towards political reconciliation? Where will their hopes for a better life be when we withdraw the troops that are the necessary precondition for the security and stability they yearn for?

Do my friends really believe that this is the way to convince Iraqis, and the world, of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in this chamber really believe that, by announcing a date certain for withdrawal, we will empower Iraqi moderates, or enable Iraq's reconstruction, or open more schools for their children, or more hospitals for their families, or freedom for everyone?

Mr. President, with all due respect, this is fantasy.

The third step the Majority Leader proposes is to impose "tangible, measurable, and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government."

I am all for such benchmarks. In fact, Senator McCain and I were among the first to propose legislation to apply such benchmarks on the Iraqi government.

But I don't see how this plan will encourage Iraqis to meet these or any other benchmarks, given its ironclad commitment to abandon them—regardless of how they behave.

We should of course be making every effort to encourage reconciliation in Iraq and the development of a decent political order that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds can agree on.

But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot rationally think that our terrorist enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq will simply vanish.

Al Qaeda is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table.

It wants to blow up the table—along with everyone seated at it. Al Qaeda wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no redeployment from this reality.

The fourth step that the Majority Leader proposed on Monday is a "diplomatic, economic, and political offensive... starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region."

I understand why we are tempted by these ideas. All of us are aware of the justified frustration, fatigue, and disappointment of the American people. And all of us would like to believe that there is a quick and easy solution to the challenges we face in Iraq.

But none of this gives us an excuse to paper over hard truths. We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between Al Qaeda terrorism and sectarian violence, or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving, or that sweet reason alone will suddenly convince Iran and Syria to stop destabilizing Iraq.

Mr. President, what we need now is a sober assessment of the progress we have made and a recognition of the challenges we face. There are still many uncertainties before us, many complexities. Barely half of the new troops that General Petraeus has requested have even arrived in Iraq, and, as we heard from him yesterday, it will still be months before we will know just how effective his new strategy is.

In following General Petraeus' path, there is no guarantee of success—but there is hope, and a new plan, for success.

The plan embedded in this legislation, on the other hand, contains no such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.

Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost—but if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.

How Green of the democratic candidates

According to an AP report by Jim Kuhnhenn, the DNC went green for their first debate of the political season. And when I say they went green, I mean they spent a ton of cash.
They all took separate flights, none of which were commercial. They didn’t pool, they didn’t share.

Now Jim goes on to discuss the different rules regarding how much of the money has to be paid by the candidates when they charter. But I’m more concerned about the emissions.

One of the raving issues amongst these raving candidates is Global Warming. Yet they all flew separately, no one went commercial. They chartered their flights, I’m guessing they wanted to be alone to write up their answers to possible questions. Not that this makes much sense really. I mean, how different were their statements? Bush is bad. War is bad. I’ll end this war. Bush can end the way with a stroke of his pen. Global warming is, uh, bad too which is why everyone should sacrifice expect me. I mean, the anti-Bush mantra worked so well in 2004, might as well try it again. I’m sure they all talked about universal health care too. By the way, did you guys know that Kucinich owns a gun? Isn’t owning a gun a pretext to shooting someone Mr. Kucinich?

So how do we explain this? How is it that the candidates from the party doing all the talk about global warming can’t even fly commercial or maybe just share a chartered jet? Better yet, why not just have all the debate in D.C.? That would save all sorts of emission!

I do need to make one correction. I am wrong on one point and I do apologize. Not everyone chartered a private flight to the debate. Biden refused to charter a flight. He has his own jet and doesn’t need to charter.



Looks like fire can cause steel to collapse. Someone please tell Rosie and the other idiots.

EMERYVILLE, California (Reuters) - A stretch of vital highway for San Francisco Bay-area commuters collapsed on Sunday after a gas tanker truck crashed and ignited flames that shot more than 200 feet high, officials said

Flames on a lower ramp melted the upper deck of a highway on the Oakland/Emeryville side leading to the double-decker Bay Bridge that connects the heavily populated East Bay to San Francisco. As the steel structure weakened, a concrete slab fell onto the ramp below.

Here is the story
And here is the pic

The links will work until yahoo.com removes them.

Friday, April 27, 2007


In 22 days, I've had almost 200 hits to this blog. So I've decided to add some feeds on the left side over that way ------>. Subscribe, check me out, come back later to complain about something I said that you don't like. Whatever.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Have you been called a Traitor?

Are you a traitor because you object to the war? Are you a traitor because you disagree with the President? Are you a traitor because you question the strategy or the tactics used in the war?

The answer is simple, the answer is no. And guess what, no one, not one person, has ever said otherwise.

No one who supports the mission of the war in Iraq has ever called someone a traitor simply because they have a difference of opinion. Not one person who supports the mission has ever questioned the patriotism of anyone who thinks we should not be in Iraq. It simply has not happened. Have we called people traitors? Of course we have. Have we questioned the patriotism of the anti-war crowd? You bet we have. But we have not done so for the above reasons. And it is now time to set the record straight.

Debate is healthy. No one denies this. If we don’t debate, we make bad decisions. But there is something missing from the overwhelming majority of the objections to this war. That something is honesty. If you would all band together and honestly debate the issue, we could all get along. We could even figure out how to quickly end this war. But I don’t think that ending the war is the actual objective of most. I don’t think it is the objective based upon the accusations I have seen and heard.

Before I go on, I have to clear something. I have to clear up the WMD issue, and whether or not lies were told regarding WMDs to start a war. First, intelligence agencies from multiple countries were claiming that Saddam was in clear violation of UN sanctions regarding chemical and biological weapons. There is no doubt at all that various intelligence agencies were making this claim. They were making this claim long before Bush was sworn into office. US lawmakers from the Democratic Party were repeating these claims as late as 2002. The website snopes.com has a list of the various statements made by many of them. Since the invasion, the Duelfer reports demonstrated that Saddam was making every effort to use the Oil for Food program to buy his way out of the UN sanctions so that he could reinstate his weapons programs without issue. Saddam was consistently tossing UN inspectors from his country as though he had something to hide. Iraqi General Georges Sada has told the US that Saddam was able to fly much of the material out of the country to Syria in the weeks prior to the invasion. There are also reports speculating that some materials were looted due to lax supervision during the invasion.

All this means one very important thing. Bush did NOT lie to start this war. It is possible that every intelligence agency in the world was dead wrong. It is also very possible, and much more likely, that Saddam was able to move much of the evidence before we attacked.

Now I can move back to the topic of debate. With the above knowledge, you cannot expect anyone who supports the mission to consider you to be serious when you spout the statement, “Bush lied, soldiers died.” You cannot expect this because it simply is not true. If the first thing out of your mouth is “Bush is a liar” then the first thing out of my mouth will be to accuse you of supporting the enemy. See how that works? You make a stupid statement, I respond with something that actually has some bearing. My statement has bearing because your statement is actually being repeated by the likes of Al Jazeera and other propaganda sites used by the enemy.

I will now give a list of other lies that are constantly being called “debate” by those who oppose Bush.

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the, of, the historical customs, religious customs."
Ok, there really is not reason for US troops to be terrorizing kids, that part is true. What is the lie here is the accusation. US troops were not terrorizing kids. But John Kerry would never let facts get in his way.

"Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, U.S. management."
Ted Kennedy accuses US Troops of putting innocent civilians through meat grinders.

"There was no firefight. There was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed those innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That is what the report is going to tell."
That was John Murtha falsely accusing US Marines of murder. We now know that there is evidence coming to light that there was indeed a firefight and that the Marines did exactly what they were supposed to do.

Reid not only said the war was lost, he falsely accused General Petraeus of claiming the war was a lost cause. Multiple congress members have falsely accused the President of lying to start the war. Multiple congress members have falsely said we are losing.

Here are the other lies that I hear constantly:
The troops are spread too thin.
The troops don’t want to be there.
It’s worse in Iraq than it was with Saddam.
The people of Iraq were happier under Saddam.
There was no clear cut mission.

It goes on for a while. We do have the ability to use the military to deal with other countries. There are thousands of blogs online right now written by Marines and Soldiers who know that they are fighting for freedom. Poll after poll says that Iraqis feel their lives are better now than under Saddam. They don’t want US forces in their country, but they don’t want the forces to leave until the insurgents are killed. We have always had a clear cut mission in Iraq; the President has repeated this message so many times I couldn’t possibly keep track.

I’m not asking for much here, just honesty. I already know the responses that I will get to this article. I will be called a sheep. I will be told that Bush lied. I will get some stupid statements about being part of the Rush and Coulter cult. What I won’t get much of will be honesty. In fact, many of the arguments I have already shot down will simply be repeated by people who cannot be convinced of the truth.

Back to the traitor thing. There are multiple counts of the terrorists who are killing our troops and killing children claiming that they don’t expect to beat the US military in a fight. They know they can’t win. They have no delusions of grandeur. They have said over and over again that what keeps them going is the knowledge that the US will not have the stomach to endure. They know that they can effectively use the media’s coverage of suicide attacks upon school children to destroy the will of the American people. This is their goal. They have repeated the same lies I have mentioned above in this effort. The people fighting on the ground have told us time and time again that the words of surrender by people like Harry Reid are killing them. They are begging Washington to stop using them as pawns in their political struggle.
The now infamous Marine, Corporal Tyler Rock said it well, “i am a marine in iraq that isnt getting the support from a senator that should support his fellow americans. when was the last time he was here. what does he know about us “losing” besides what he wants to believe. the truth is that we are pushing al qaeda out and we are pushing the insurgency out. we are here to support a nation.”
And 1stLt Matthew McGirr USMC: “The pundits and politicians on both sides do not fully grasp the conditions on the ground here. They are arrogantly and irresponsibly using this war and the troops who fight in it for political gain and election currency. They manipulate the truth or do not care enough to seek it out. At least I know where I stand with the citizens of Ar Ramadi.”

This is why we use words like “treason” and “traitor” when we talk of Kennedy, Pelosi and others. This is why we continue to tell you that we want debate, but we want honest debate. We don’t want propaganda. Not only is this propaganda being used to gain power in Washington, it is being used to kill our men and women.


Cpl Rock is freaking famous -- OOH RAH!!

“the truth is that we have done much more for the people in iraq than is posted to the people. ramadi was a terrible place in the beginning of this deployment (september). now the police in ramadi are doing patrols everyday and coming back with many, many IED’s and other explosive ordinance. the civilians are coming to us and telling us where the insurgents are. that should scream to the people back home that the iraqi’s want our help. they dont want insurgents in the area. all the insurgents are, are thugs and gangs. just in larger scale and more weapons. they terrorize the people to get what they want and the people are fed up with it. we dont “just blow things up”. we care about the people here. we want these people to live as free as we do back home. thats why we are here. if we didnt care then why would we be working so hard to rebuild what is destroyed. we give them water. we give them food. and we respect their way of living.

with the other topic. my opinion is what i already stated in the email to pat. i am a marine in iraq that isnt getting the support from a senator that should support his fellow americans. when was the last time he was here. what does he know about us “losing” besides what he wants to believe. the truth is that we are pushing al qaeda out and we are pushing the insurgency out. we are here to support a nation.”

Please check out Pat Dollards Site.

They aren't soldiers, they are federal agents.

"Soldiers bombarded our neighborhood," Baltazar Enriquez told the Chicago Sun-Times. "It looked like they were marching into Iraq."

This was the reaction when FEDERAL OFFICERS raided a strip mall near Chicago and arrested sellers of fake Social Security cards and fake green cards. The raids were then blamed for sparking a protest of about 300 people. What really triggered the protest was complete disregard for federal law and complete disregard for our borders and complete disregard for the safety of the United States of America.

Not only were these people breaking the law, but they were breaking laws that help keep our country safe. The people arrested were selling FAKE IDENTIFICATION cards that allow people to roam around our country illegally. I’m wondering if those arrested were taking precautions to ensure that the cards they were selling weren’t falling into the hands of terrorists.

Some local activists, and when I say activists here I mean people who condone criminal activity, are planning a rally in May to protest recent federal raids across the country. Yet another rally to protest the enforcement of the law. Another rally to protest the sanctity of our borders. Another rally to protest the fact that we are a country.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

From leatherneck.com

Here is an interesting piece of wisdom from a Marine who served in Iraq.


20 things the liberal trolls have taught me.


20. Being a supporter of an unpopular war makes you a sheep.

19. Copy/Pasting makes one look smart.

18. Growing up in Harlem means you arent a quitter with no heart.

17. As a vet of this war, and current active duty Marine, I know nothing about how much rest is enough even though I have lived it. Doctors have gone to college, and therefore can be trusted to make the politically correct desisions. I am too dumb to know if I am tired.

16. I am supposed to be afraid of jetdawg because he will hand my head over to me. He knows **** because he heard from some one who heard from someone that it sucks in Iraq.

15. Personal experience is no match for what you read on the internet, or what John Stewart talked about last night on the daily show.

14. If you agree with this war you are an idiot. You must have not gone to college. those who agree must report to political re-education camps i.e. any college campus.

13. There is no Al Qaeda in iraq because it doesnt fit the anti war agenda. Never mind that I personally detained High level Al Qaeda operatives while there.

12. Honor Courage and Commitment are optional for former Marines.

11. Marines are not capable of winning against Islamic insurgents.

10. Hazing on par with the Abu Ghraib scandal happens in every squadbays in both MCRDPI nad SD, and on into the fleet, but that is just Marine Corps tradition. When it happens to someone who killed a Marine It is a war crime.

9. Making someone strip naked and play pyramid is on par with the atrocities of the Bataan death march, Dachau and Auschwitz

8. Beheading non combatants is OUR fault.

7. Suicide bombers... OUR fault.

6. Never question the patriotisim of those who give hope to the islamists. Thats not nice. Beligerance is what your first amendment is about.

5. The evil republicans want to continue the war in Iraq to line the pockets of KBR/haliburton despite the fact that they are losing money.

4. Bush is both blundering idiot, and a genius capable of carring out huge conspiracies.

3. Old washed up ****bag Marines here on this site know more about our training and op-tempo than I do because its on the internet.

2. America is evil.

1. There are no EX Marines, only former Marines. But some are much more "FORMER" than others.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Update on General Petraeus

It seems that if you publicly embarrass this woman enough, you can get her to talk to the most important man in Iraq for an entire half hour. Nancy, the House Speaker, has decided that she will still NOT attend the meeting with General Petraeus this week. She did however cave in to pressure from republicans and give him the honor of a 30 minute phone call. This is interesting coming from the party that wants open door meetings given under oath all the time. What happens when the republicans want to investigate her for treason? How will they be able to use this against her if they don’t have a recording of the phone call? What about e-mails? WHAT ABOUT THE E-MAILS!!!!????? Oh wait, I forget, the democrats are allowed to have privileged conversations. It’s just the republicans who don’t get to do that.

Always a silver lining though, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be attending the meeting. This should go well, I’m certain that he won’t take any type of bias into the meeting. I’m certain that just because he has already declared Iraq a loss, he will still go into the meeting with open ears. (REID: "No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening. All you have to do is look at the facts." When asked if he will believe Gen Petraeus)

Let me be blunt. This pathetic bitch is the House Speaker. She is heading the effort to create a time line for the peace keeping effort in Iraq. But she has to be pressured into giving the commander of the US forces in Iraq 30 entire minutes of one day out of her life? If you are reading this, and you voted democrat last year, thanks.

Why won't the dems talk to Gen Petraeus?

I know that the democrats hate the military, but this is rediculous.
Earlier this year, top Democrats in both houses of Congress refused to attend a bipartisan briefing offered by General David Petraeus to discuss the challenges in Iraq. Next week they’ll have another chance when the General comes to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers in the House and Senate on our progress in the Global War on Terror.
General Petraeus was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate to be the U.S. commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. He has a clear track record as a straight-shooter and as someone who gets things done. So one has to wonder why next week’s important briefing almost didn’t happen. According to Roll Call, when the Pentagon tried to schedule the briefing through House Democrats they were declined – twice – because Democrats were originally “too busy” to schedule anything.

Read the rest of this fine example of democratic treason here


All Active Duty Military!

Please email this link to all Active Duty Military. There is an email link underneath this message.

As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.

If you are active duty, reservist or national guard, please Sign this Appeal.

This Appeal will be delivered to members of Congress.
We are currently working with members of Congress to make a presentation.

Most service members fully support the war in Iraq and feel calls to retreat by Congress and emphasis by some in the media on negative aspects while ignoring positive ones acts to motivate our enemy while demoralizing our support at home, directly increasing the threat we face and resulting in greater American casualties.

Clarification: 'Actively oppose media attacks' is asking for verbal support of our mission, not legislation of any kind.

Loser Reid

BREAKING: Marine Officer In Ramadi Demands A Halt To “Irresponsibly Using This War And The Troops For Political Gain”

To echo the sentiments of my fellow Marine in 1/6, the reality of what is
happening on the ground in places like Ramadi is not being reported to the
American public. The pundits and politicians on both sides do not fully grasp
the conditions on the ground here. They are arrogantly and irresponsibly using
this war and the troops who fight in it for political gain and election
currency. They manipulate the truth or do not care enough to seek it out. At
least I know where I stand with the citizens of Ar Ramadi.
If you decide to come this way again, find 2/5. There are Marines out here who
will remember you and who will give you their own opinions. I do not speak for
them, but I know that they recognize the change in this place.

Marine Corporal From A Bunker In Ramadi: “I Got A Message For That Douche Harry Reid”

yeah and i got a qoute for that douche harry reid. these families need us here. obviously he has never been in iraq. or atleast the area worth seeing. the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces. we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then why do we have IP’s voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities. and working directly with us too. same with the IA’s. it sucks that iraqi’s have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete shit more than the people in america who drink starbucks everyday. we could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. and then we could wait for 3,000 more american civilians to die before we say “hey thats not nice” again. and the sad thing is after we WIN this war. people like him will say he was there for us the whole time.
and for messages back home. i have a wife back home who is going through a tough time. i just cant wait to be back home and see everyone. haha and i cant wait to go back home and get some starbucks. i love it when those people serve me. hahaha”

Monday, April 23, 2007

Another Liberal who hates the law

Another liberal mayor has decided that his town is a sanctuary for illegal aliens. Federal law be damned.

It's all here.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Letter to Senator, I want to be an Illegal Alien too!

The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
309 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington DC, 20510

Dear Senator Sarbanes,

As a native Marylander and excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding of this bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out. Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me
and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as "in-state" tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent,
Pete McGlaughlin

Friday, April 20, 2007

Punks on Capitol Hill

I have no more respect for Alberto Gonzales. I have no respect for the republicans who rebuked him. And Pat Leahy, who runs the Judiciary Committee, has no respect for the law.

In what appeared to be a WWE pay-per-view, white trash protesters armed with signs and low IQs were allowed to scream and yell during a hearing on Capitol Hill. Granted, the fact that this hearing was even taking place is a direct violation of the Constitution. So I guess I'm not that surprised to find out that a bunch of pathetic morons were allowed to roam around the room while the hearing took place.

A number of accusations were tossed at Gonzales, yet not one person had the ability to produce evidence of any kind of violation. Not one. The fact that there was no evidence of any kind of violation leads any intelligent person to believe that this is yet another in a long list of treasonous attacks upon the President during a time of war. Treason is punishable by death. Gonzales is required by the Constitution of the United States to arrest everyone of those idiotic punks who questioned him. They are to be tried for treason. The fact that he refuses to carry out this duty angers every person in the US who actually cares for their country.

At the very least, he should have limited his answers to one brief statement. "Members of the Committee, under the law, U.S. attorneys are hired and fired by the president; no public or private explanation is needed. You can all go fuck yourselves"

Labels: ,

An Inconvenient Memory

According to a report from redstate, Sen. Leahy has flipflopped on the issue of confidentiality.

Leahy used to believe that advice from staff was confidential. He believed this when it was his butt on the line. But now that it is the Bush appointed AG, he doesn't believe this any longer.

Check it out here.

Troops in Iraq Slam the Democrats -- Again

Michelle Malkin has a few messages from our brave troops to the likes of Harry Reid. Harry Reid has claimed that our troops have lost the war in Iraq. If you know anyone serving who would like to send him a message, forward this to them. This is the link to message Reid directly.

Thursday, April 19, 2007

Is the Toyota Prius bad for the environment?

Ruh Roh Shaggy.

You may want to reconsider the hybrids. IBD has some info on how the technology of the Prius may be less green than the evil Hummer.
Check it out here.

More on Pelosi's future indictment

It was brought to my attention that Nancy's violation of the Logan Act may not be the only problem. Someone who took a look at my petition to have her investigated for violation of the Logan Act pointed out a few other things. She may have also violated two sections of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.

Article. II.
Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Article III.
Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Fourteenth Amendment
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Religion of Peace kills only three people in this attack

Three people working at a publishing house that distributed Bibles were murdered by muslims in Turkey. The Jerusalem Post has the report.

The good news is that no one will get carried away over the attacks because the MSM has basically ignored the incident. It is important that we not let this get in the way of important issues like deleting the 2nd Amendment or surrendering to the terrorists in Iraq.

How do we improve economic data?

Is it possible that many of the methods used to determine economic data are too old to work in today's marketplace? Is it possible that this data is causing people and corporations to make bad decision?

This guy says yes.

Taxpayer Groups Urge President to Veto War Spending Bill

Washington, D.C. -- Six leading fiscally conservative groups today urged Congress to deliver a pork-free emergency supplemental appropriations bill to President George W. Bush. The U.S. Readiness, Veterans’ Health and Iraq Accountability Act of 2007 currently costs $123 billion, or $20 billion more than the $103 billion requested by the President for the War on Terror and hurricane relief. House and Senate negotiators plan to deliver a bill to the President by the end of next week.

Click Here

Death and taxes, and cheating on one of them.

There is discussion between the Treasury and the Senate on the issue of the Tax Gap. The gap is the difference between taxes owed and taxes actually paid. The IRS estimated that the difference in 2001 was $345 billion, mostly due to underreported income.

Now, when I say taxes owed, I am of course using the definition put forth by law. I am not going to tell you that you owe the government a certain amount of money simply because the government says so. I certainly don’t feel that I owe what I pay each year considering the amount that is wasted on Alaskan bridges. I also don’t think I owe the government any money for health care since I pay a good amount of money to provide health insurance for my family. I realize that some people don’t have insurance, but to date no one has explained to me how this means I owe them something.
To clarify, when I say taxes owed, I’m talking about what the government claims is owed. It is a significant amount each year that is estimated at over $2 trillion since 2001. In fact, the amounts each year are very similar to the federal budget deficit and would probably cover that gap.

There are two thoughts coming from up above. U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said "I have come to the conclusion that there is a big part of the tax gap we simply won't be able to reach without adding draconian and painful requirements on all taxpayers." One idea he was given was to actually require individuals to report transactions with service providers like doctors and mechanics who may not properly report their fees. He believes that this and other ideas are bad ones that cause undue strain of the people who do pay their tax requirements. The IRS claims that this is about 84% of us.

What does the senate say? Senate Finance Committee chairman Sen. Max Baucus of Montana said failing to collect taxes that are owed "breeds disrespect for the law" and needs to be dealt with quickly.

Both men may be correct. It may be too costly to fill the gap. At the same time, if nothing is done the gap would grow and the revenues would not be collected. This would put a horrible strain on the Senators who rely on your tax dollars to fund their pork projects that help them get re-elected. It also hurts things like military readiness and the intelligence agencies that are working to prevent another 9-11.

Paulson did make a radical suggestion to help close the gap, so radical and extreme that I have to assume it will never see the light of day. He suggested a simplification of the tax code. I know, I laughed too. He claims that this would help to reduce honest mistakes and would help give cheats fewer places to hide.


Monday, April 16, 2007

We are still waiting Ms Pelosi

It seems like only yesterday that President Bush was pushing his ideas on reforming Social Security. He was accused of course of pushing these ideas because he is a backwards hick looking to use Social Security reform to somehow line the pockets of his corporate buddies. Please pay no attention whatsoever to the absolute fact that his real reason was the decades of begging by the Social Security administration to reform the system. While doing research for a Financial Planning firm back in 1999, I had the chance to read several reports that the SS admin had been sending to Congress on an annual basis. These reports all had the same conclusion. They concluded that without serious reform, the SS system would start running a deficit sometime between 2015 and 2020 and would be in serious debt by the middle of the century.

When Bush first took office, he assembled a bi-partisan group to head over to the SS office and do some investigating. You would be shocked at what they discovered and soon told the President. They told him that according to the math, the SS system would start running a deficit sometime between 2015 and 2020 and would be in serious debt by the middle of the century. In an act of great stupidity, Tom Daschle went before the world decrying the report and accused Bush of trying to scare the country. He of course made no mention of the fact that the report was identical to the same report he had received from the SS admin every year for at least a decade.

After being re-elected, Bush made SS reform a goal. He put forth a variety of ideas and mentioned his desire to help maintain solvency in his SOTU address. There were two points of interest in his address. First, his concerns regarding the future of the system and his idea to use the stock market sounded very similar to Bill Clinton in his 1999 SOTU address. To quote: “Today, Social Security is strong, but by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. By 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted and Social Security will be unable to pay the full benefits older Americans have been promised. The best way to keep Social Security a rock solid guarantee is not to make drastic cuts in benefits; not to raise payroll tax rates; not to drain resources from Social Security in the name of saving it. Instead, I propose that we make the historic decision to invest the surplus to save Social Security. Specifically, I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector just as any private or state government pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years.”

The second thing I find interesting about the Bush SOTU address was that the same democrats who cheered Bill Clinton’s words, actually booed Bush. That’s right, two presidents said the same thing, the democrats cheered one and booed the other.

Don’t worry, it gets worse. Nancy Pelosi, the current House speaker and pretty much the most powerful democrat in DC at the moment, took to the streets decrying Bush and his want for reform. She and Reid stood united to oppose the President. It wasn’t long before we even saw attack ads on the television from the AARP telling us not to fix something that isn’t broken and that his plan was too risky for seniors. By the way, this is the same AARP that makes tens of millions every year by investing the insurance premiums of seniors into stocks and bonds. Pelosi was asked time after time when the democrats would be putting forth their plan to fix Social Security. She of course answered each time by telling us that the plan would be revealed soon enough and that her main focus was making sure Bush didn’t ruin things by creating private accounts. She of course knew that private accounts would ruin everything if the private accounts were set up the way the democrats described them. Never mind the fact that the description given by the democrats was the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the President was calling for. Bush was calling for accounts that mimicked Thrift Accounts that are used by federal employees. They are a mix of low risk stocks and bonds that have outpaced inflation and actually made gains despite market corrections and recessions. But let’s not get into the technical aspects here as it just makes the entire thing more confusing. Let’s continue moving forward, shall we?

Let’s fast forward to 2006. Bush is delivering another SOTU address. Here is a portion of the transcript. “Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security -- (applause) -- yet the rising cost of entitlements is a problem that is not going away. (applause) And every year we fail to act, the situation gets worse.”

The democrats stood to applaud their refusal to even try to help this failing system. Hillary Clinton was the focus of the camera, applauding with a huge smile on her face. I had no idea she was so happy that the country was heading to financial ruin.

Anyways. Here we are, 2007, the Democrats are in control of Congress. Pelosi, who back in 2005 assured us that her plan to help Social Security was soon to be revealed, still hasn’t revealed her plan to help save Social Security. I might add that I have not heard any ideas from Reid or Clinton either. Obama, are you there? Any ideas sir?

What makes me curious is that not only did they oppose his ideas to help, they never offered their own. In fact, Bush asked on more than one occasion for help from the democrats, and they simply refused. Now, if one has an IQ higher than say, 8, one might think that their refusal was politically motivated. One might think that they used this as an opportunity to scare people into believing that Bush was trying to ruin their sacred retirement fund. One might even think that it started a process that helped them take control of the Congress and may help them take back the White House. Of course, they wont do anything to help fix the broken system, but at least they will be in charge.


It turns out Americans WILL do this type of work

Interesting bit in the St Petersburg Times about the President's misguided guest worker program. They referred back to a WSJ piece in January regarding a chicken processing plant that was raided and all the illegals were rounded up. Turns out that when they went looking for actual Americans to fill the void, the African-American community lined up.
The company had to raise pay by an entire dollar an hour. Given the fact that this takes a few hundred people off the payroll of Social Services, I'm guessing our economy can handle the increased price of the chickens, if it even raised the prices.

The article goes on to point out that the US has a huge supply of unskilled workers who need jobs like this without having to import additional poverty from Mexico.

Click Here

Thursday, April 12, 2007

Lawmakers Propose Aid for Subprime Borrowers

We all knew that this was coming. Time to bail out subprime lenders because they were too busy acting like idiots to conduct good business. Good old Chuck Schumer, who sits on economic committees despite not knowing anything about economics, has decided that the feds need to use your tax bucks to bail these guys out.

Due to the fact that the federal government is busy putting really stupid corporate regulations in place all over the US, they missed something that they should actually regulate. The Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM). It needs to be regulated because 99 percent of the people who get an ARM have no idea how it works. They don't understand that when the fed rates are sitting at all time lows, they will eventually be raised again. And I don't expect most people to understand how this works. Very few people have any real grasp of economic policy, they just want to buy house for the family. They are thinking about buying a house, not about what Bernanke will do at the next fed meeting.

Mortgage brokers don't care about the financial stability of the buyer or the lender. So they wow the buyer by showing them how to get their hands on the overpriced house at a low monthly payment. They gloss over the fact that the rates WILL rise and that the monthly payment could more than double within 5 years or so.

So this is what we will be dealing with. Our tax dollars will be used to finance companies that used bad ethics and bad business practices, which of course is right on par for the federal government. This will undoubtedly lead to very ridiculous mortgage regulations that will be passed in the name of protecting the “little guy”. The reality is that long ago we should have had regulation that forces the lender to detail in writing the risks associated with the Adjustable Rate Mortgage. It could easily be an attached document that spells out the fact that the rates will very likely force the monthly payments to increase severely. It should also be disclosed in all advertisements for those super low payments. And there should have been very close scrutiny over this document to prevent the slick broker from getting a signature without the buyer actually reading it. Yes, this would have prevented a lot of people from signing. That would have been a good thing. It would have kept the housing market on a more even path. Instead, we had an overblown housing market that blew up in our faces and may cause a recession. Very similar to the tech and stock market boom of the 90s. We let every Tom Dick and Harry log into his computer and buy tech stocks online. This sent the stock of perfectly useless companies soaring. Companies that didn’t even have realistic, profit focused business plans had incredibly high IPOs.

I hope that cooler heads will prevail here, but I know the way our government acts when faced with these things. Another problem we get when we put lawyers in charge of economics.

CAGW Releases Prime Cuts 2007 in Anticipation of Tax Day

Washington, D.C. -- Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today released Prime Cuts 2007, a comprehensive look at the depth and breadth of waste throughout the federal government. Just in time for Tax Day, the report catalogues 750 recommendations throughout the government which, if enacted, could save taxpayers $280 billion over the next year and $2 trillion over the next five years.
“As Americans reluctantly finish filing their tax forms, it is important to call attention to where all that money is going. Unfortunately, as Prime Cuts proves, much of it goes toward inefficient and wasteful government programs,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz.
Prime Cuts includes examples of agencies, programs, and policies that are plagued by fraud or negligence, serve political or parochial interests rather than the general good, do not demonstrate results, duplicate efforts in the private sector, circumvent procedural checks for transparency and accountability, or exceed their original mandate.
Prime Cuts features some long-standing proposals to terminate specific programs, such as the White House’s National Youth Anti-drug Media Campaign (saving $512 million over five years), sugar subsidies (saving $800 million over five years), and the Advanced Technology Program (saving $721 million over five years). New recommendations include eliminating the Historic Whaling and Trading Partners Program and the Denali Commission, which together would save $80 million over five years.
During fiscal 2007, 14 Prime Cuts recommendations were enacted which will collectively save taxpayers almost $3 billion in the first year and $46.5 billion over five years.
“As Prime Cuts shows, Congress has no excuse for failing to identify and eliminate wasteful spending other than its own indifference,” Schatz concluded.
Citizens Against Government Waste is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.

The ACLU attacking Bibles at a school

The ACLU is again attacking free speech and freedom of religion. According to the Liberty Counsel, the ACLU is seeking legal action to prevent a group from distributing literature at a public school in St. Louis, MO. The School District has had a long-standing open access policy that allows many groups to present literature and information to students at District schools. Groups that pass out literature include the Army Corps of Engineers, Red Cross, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Iron County Health Department, Missouri Water Patrol, Missouri Highland Healthcare, and Union Pacific Railroad. But now that a group of Gideons has decided to pass out Bibles, the ACLU has suddenly decided that the policy is flawed. Once again, their twisted version of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution is freedom FROM religion instead of freedom OF religion.
Read all about it here.
And sign the petition against the ACLU here.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

I'm starting to like this guy

Mitt Romney:
"And then the Speaker of the House helped dignify a state sponsor of terror. At this time of war, her action stands as one of the most partisan, divisive and ill-considered of any national leader in this decade."

He forgot to mention illegal, but I will let it slide. Maybe he didn't read that article.

"Running away from Iraq now would embolden our enemies, giving them the sanctuary they need to plan more devastating attacks against our country. In this difficult time, some in Congress are trying to deny our troops the resources they need. This is a grave error. We need to rally behind the effort, and support our men and women in uniform in this time of war."

Romney also pointed out the fact that the U.S. military had declined during the Clinton administration, and he called for expanding the military by 100,000 troops.

And Now, The News For The Idiots

Apparently, Imus talks too much.


We can finally rest easy now that we all know who fathered Anna's baby.

I just want to be sure that everyone reading this is aware that these are the two most important stories of the week.

Monday, April 9, 2007

Petition to investigate Nancy Pelosi for violation of the Logan Act

To: Office of the Attorney General
Resolution to the Office of the Attorney General to investigate the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi for violation of the Logan Act.

The Logan Act initiated by President John Adams in 1798 states the following:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

In two separate instances, the USSC has stated that this power of influence belongs to the President of the United States alone.

WHEREAS, Syria is known to be one of the world’s leading sponsors of international terrorism

WHEREAS, Syria is suspected of aiding the enemy of the US Forces currently fighting in Iraq

WHEREAS, Speaker Pelosi has gone to Syria to influence the government in defiance of the President of the United States

WHEREAS, Speaker Pelosi conducted this trip before the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill for the troops was completed

WHEREAS, Speaker Pelosi violated federal law in her efforts to usurp the power of the Secretary of State which is appointed by the President of the United States

We the undersigned call upon the Office of the Attorney General to investigate the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi for violation of the Logan Act and to determine if she is in fact guilty of this crime.


The Undersigned

Sign the petition here


Target don't need no Marines

Target is at it again. It seems that if you are in uniform, you can't shop there.

Click Here

Great Quotes

Some great quotes from The Patriot Post
Check out their site and show your support


“Excessive taxation... will carry reason and reflection to every man’s door, and particularly in the hour of election.” —Thomas Jefferson


“It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expence, either by sumptuary laws, or by prohibiting the importation of foreign luxuries. They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expence, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will.” —Adam Smith


“Some Americans devoted to free enterprise and lower taxes actually push policies and lead lives that push this country toward big government. Leftists who want a centralization of power bear sizeable responsibility for governmental growth. But conservatives who don’t understand the importance of religious and community institutions are also part of the problem. That’s because a majority of Americans want to do something through common action to help those who are needy. That something can be either governmental, in which case tax bills and government bulk up, or it can be through religious and community institutions, in which case government can shrink. We should not complain about the taxes that fuel governmental action if we neglect volunteer work outside of government. The politics of this are simple: If Americans have a choice between big government and small government, and if Americans think big government helps the poor and small government doesn’t, a crucial mass will often vote for big government. If Americans think the only way to work together on social problems is through government, most will prefer government to giving up.” —Marvin Olasky


“There is a new term being used in Washington these days, tax expenditures. If you and I used that term we would be talking about things upon which the government spent our tax dollars. That, however, is not what government means. Tax expenditures is the new name government has for the share of our earnings it allows us to keep. You and I call them deductions.” —Ronald Reagan


“[D]espite their ringing perorations on gender equality, many of the [Equal Rights Amendment’s] supporters are pursuing a much broader, pernicious agenda. In an effort to force the restructuring of American society at a fundamental level, they’re seeking to use the heavy hand of government to eradicate even natural, wholesome and appropriate distinctions between the sexes. Indeed, many amendment supporters are loath to admit that even the most obvious differences exist, or that they’re worthy of recognition. At the moment, the newly revived Equal Rights Amendment—now renamed the Women’s Equality Amendment—has 194 House cosponsors, with 10 in the Senate. Unlike its hoary predecessor, it contains no deadline for ratification. It will be interesting to see whether feminists will succeed in their newest efforts to impose unnecessary and largely unwanted gender-equity measures on the rest of the country or whether Americans will drive a stake through the heart of the ERA once and for all, rejecting it as a bad idea whose time will never come.” —Carol Platt Liebau


“Renowned metallurgist Rosie O’Donnell proclaimed on TV last Thursday that Sept. 11, 2001, was a more significant date than most of us realized. It was, in her words, ‘the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel.’ This, of course, came as news to steelworkers, blacksmiths, firefighters, manufacturers of samurai swords, and other fools who hadn’t realized that steel is forged in magic furnaces using dragon breath and pixie dust...O’Donnell focused on World Trade Center Building 7, which has become the grassy knoll for 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Asked if the government was responsible for its collapse, she coyly replied that she didn’t know. All she knows is that it’s ‘impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved’ and that, for the ‘first time in history, steel was melted by fire.’ Wink, wink. For the record, fire can melt steel, and buildings also collapse when heat weakens steel. But that misses the point. The point is we shouldn’t have to argue with crazy people. Regardless, it appears that not even the heat of ridicule can weaken O’Donnell’s steely resolve to make an idiot of herself.” —Jonah Goldberg


“Just last week, I was arguing the [illegal immigration] issue with a friend. I pointed out that every other country in the world guards its borders, and that definitely includes Mexico, which protects its own southern border while violating our own on a daily basis. He said he didn’t care what other countries did. He believed that America, being America, should have a welcome mat out for anyone who wants to enter. He didn’t want to slam the door in the face of poor people. I told him he was a hypocrite. After all, I knew for a fact that he had locks on the windows and doors of his home. Why shouldn’t poor people be allowed to enter his dwelling and set up housekeeping in his living room?” —Bert Prelutsky


“Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer—a Martian—and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources and no industrial or technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later years of Saddam Hussein’s rule, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.” —Charles Krauthammer


“If anyone was under the impression that congressional Democrats actually considered their actions with regard to the ‘troop withdrawal bills’ —beyond achieving victory over the Bush Administration—they would be playing the part of the uninformed, Kool-Aid drinking fool. While Democrats Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the rest of their anti-war, pro-genocide, hate-Bush contingent revel in the fact that they have succeeded in passing a bill that opposes the President, al-Qa’ida operatives in Iraq are preparing to set their alarm clocks for ‘half-past redeployment’ so the slaughter of those who braved Iraq’s polling places can begin.” —Frank Salvato


“Until Nancy Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and—like him or not—he alone had the Constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime. All that Pelosi’s trip [to Syria] can accomplish is to advertise American disunity to a terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East while we are in a war there. That in turn can only embolden the Syrians to exploit the lack of unified resolve in Washington by stepping up their efforts to destabilize Iraq and the Middle East in general... Once it becomes accepted that it is all right to violate both the laws and the traditions of this nation, and to undermine the ability of the United States to speak to other nations of the world with one voice, we will have taken another fateful step downward into the degeneration of this society. Such a drastic and irresponsible step should remove any lingering doubt that the Democrats’ political strategy is to ensure that there is an American defeat in Iraq, in order to ensure their own political victory in 2008.” —Thomas Sowell


“Ask most Americans if they were aware that Iraqis, by almost a 2-to-1 margin, believe that life today is better than it was under Saddam Hussein, and you’d most likely elicit incredulousness, blank stares or outright laughter. Not because it isn’t true, though. It is. The mainstream media just forgot to mention it. In the past month, two surveys that involved face-to-face interviews with thousands of ordinary Iraqis have been released. While each contained significantly different results, both provided substantial evidence that Iraqis are not nearly as gloomy as Americans have been told to believe... Considering the daily drumbeat of dim news from the cradle of civilization, any reasonable person would expect that ordinary Iraqis rued the day we liberated them. Mainstream media execs defend the tenor of the coverage, reminding us that the news business must report what is new... Reporting news events without context, however, can easily create dangerously false perceptions. The context we do have, though, has been fashioned by the mainstream media to fit journalists’ views of the reality in Iraq. This massaging of the news has had consequences. Following year after year of almost exclusively grim news out of Iraq—even when positive stories such as the 2005 poll were readily available to cover—Americans have now soured on a war they once strongly supported.” —Joel Mowbray

Sunday, April 8, 2007

Remember what Bush said about earmarks?

The Bush administration has set up a database of all earmarks for your viewing pleasure. Earmarks were mentioned in the 2007 SOTU address. Ridding the Federal Budget of these earmarks will save the US Taxpayers billions. They are a pet peve of Citizens Against Government Waste. Not only are they a waste a dollars, they are usually put into the budget as a way for politicians to pay back those who voted them into power. Getting rid of them helps to put a knife into DC corruption.

From whitehouse.gov
What is an Earmark?

Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents the merit-based or competitive allocation process, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to properly allocate funds. Congress includes earmarks in appropriation bills - the annual spending bills that Congress enacts to allocate discretionary spending - and also in authorization bills.

Why did OMB Collect Information on Earmarks from Federal Agencies?

On January 3, 2007 President Bush called on Congress to cut the number and cost of earmarks by at least half [view excerpt from State of the Union]. To establish a benchmark for accurately measuring the President's goal, OMB requested agencies provide data on the earmarks for FY2005. The earmarks database establishes the needed benchmark and is consistent with the Administration's overall effort to encourage and inform the debate over how taxpayers' money is spent and what they get in return.

What does this Website do?

This database provides more information on earmarks in one place than has ever been available through the Federal Government. It is part of an effort to bring greater transparency and accountability to federal spending. This step is consistent with recent changes in the House Rules and Senate legislation, which require more disclosure for future earmarks. The database includes aggregate data on the number and cost of earmarks and displays that information by agency and State. In addition, the database provides details on individual earmarks. This database remains a work in progress. New features will be added in the weeks and months ahead.

Limitations of the Earmarks Database:

This database is not designed, and cannot accurately be used, to identify the individual congressional sponsors of earmarks. In addition, the recipient listed in the database may not in all cases represent the ultimate beneficiary of the earmark. For example, if the Federal Government provides funds to a specific recipient (e.g., a City), that recipient may then provide the funds or benefits to another entity and may not be required to identify the ultimate beneficiary to the Federal Government.

Search Features of the Website:

Browse appropriation earmarks by Agency
Browse appropriation earmarks by State
Browse authorization earmarks (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)
Search Website full text (UNDER CONSTRUCTION)


Download a CSV (comma space delimited) zip file of all data available on this site for data analysis purposes.

Conservative Voters, It's Time to Give In to Your Inner Rebel

Is Newt the dangerous vote for republicans in 2008?

Matt Lewis tell us here

4% for Freedom Solution

Jim Talent gives some great info on the problems with our ever shrinking military readiness. His Article at NRO shows that the military might we developed under Reagan is in dire needs of, well, Reagan.

Why isn't this in the news?

Job Creation Continues:
Job Growth: 180,000 new jobs created in March. In addition, employment estimates for January and February were revised up, adding 32,000 jobs. Nearly 2 million new jobs have been created over the past 12 months. Since August 2003, 7.8 million jobs have been created – more jobs than all the other major industrialized countries combined. Our economy has added jobs for 43 straight months. Employment has increased in 47 states within the past year. (Last updated: April 6, 2007)

Low Unemployment: 4.4% unemployment rate – among lowest readings in 6 years. Unemployment rates have decreased or held steady in 40 states over the past year. (Last updated: April 6, 2007)

The U.S. Economy Remains Healthy and Continues to Grow:
Economic Growth: 2.5% GDP growth in the 4th quarter. Our economy has grown a solid 3.1% over the past 4 quarters. (Last updated: March 29, 2007)

Business Investment: Capital investment increased a strong 6.1% over the 4 quarters of 2006. (Last updated: March 29, 2007)

Tax Revenues: Tax receipts up 11.8% in fiscal year 2006 (FY06) on top of FY05’s 14.6% increase. Receipts have grown another 9% percent so far in FY07. (Last updated: March 12, 2007)

Steady Productivity: Labor productivity has grown at an annual rate of 2.8% over the past five years. (Last updated: March 6, 2007)

Americans are Keeping More of Their Hard-Earned Money:
Real Wages Increased 1.8% Over the Past 12 Months (ending in February). This translates into an additional $600 above inflation for the average full-time production worker.

Real After-Tax Income Per Person has Risen 10% - an extra $2,950 per person – since the President took office.

Pro-Growth Policies will Enhance Long-Term U.S. Economic Strength:

The Administration proposed a budget that reaches a small surplus in 2012. Economic growth has generated increased tax receipts and dramatically improved the budget outlook. The budget holds the line on spending. The budget reduces the deficit as a percentage of GDP-the most meaningful measure of its size-every year through 2012. The time has come for both political parties to work together on comprehensive earmark reform that produces greater transparency and accountability to the congressional budget process, including full disclosure for each earmark and cutting the number and cost of all earmarks by half.

The MSM treated Bill Clinton like a god because of the economic record during his terms. They then blamed Bush for the recession that began the last quarter of 2000. Why is it that none of the above is mentioned in the MSM today?

Someone call Pat Fitzgerald

Tell him that we have an actual crime for him to investigate. But then again, since this crime was committed by the most powerful democrat in the land and it actually sits right up there with treason, I'm certain Pat won't be interested.

Turns out Nancy violated the Logan Act by trying to influence Syria against the will of President Bush.

Full story at WND.

Beggin' for a Bombin'

National Review has a couple of good pieces on the war crimes comitted by Iran recently.

Victor Davis Hanson: "It’s probably a good rule to do the opposite of anything the Iranian theocracy wants. Apparently, this government is now doing its darnedest to be bombed. So, for the time being, we should not grant them this wish."

If you read the article, he actually gives good reason for NOT attacking Iran right now, and it isn't because of what it would do to oil. Click Here.

And David Pryce-Jones tells what Iran accomplished. "By means of breaking international law and disregarding civilized behavior, Iran has won a famous victory.
Ahmadinejad can now ratchet up the nuclear program without fear of a strong response." Read the rest Here.

Is this guy going to Run?

Take a look at what Fred Thompson has to say about the act of war by Iran. He posted recently at redstate.com

“To misrepresent unpunished piracy as a victory is as Orwellian as the congressional mandate banning use of the term "the global war on terror." What are we — Reuters?”

Many are waiting for Thompson to announce. And if history is an indicator, maybe the Republican party needs an actor to run for president. The last time this happened, we kicked the commies out of several countries and did wonders for the world economy.
Could Fred Thompson be the next Reagan?

Thursday, April 5, 2007

Congress and Israel to Pelosi - "Shut Up!"

The historical train wreck that is the House Speaker. Historical because Pelosi is the first woman to serve as Speaker of the House. A train wreck because she is trying to negotiate with terrorists by lying to them.

While talking to one of the world's biggest terrorists, Pelosi communicated a message from Prime Minister [Ehmud] Olmert to one of the world's biggest terrorists that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks.

There was one tiny little issue. Olmert never said anything like this to Pelosi. His office issued a statement that seemed to carry a different tune.
Before conducting peace negotiations, the statement said, "Syria must cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbollah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."

Back home, a GOP aide was accused of saying that he wished Nancy Pelosi would stay in Washington.

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is a terrorist. The White House refuses to talk to him because he is a terrorist and will not talk to him until he refrains from acting like a terrorist. Whether this is a sound strategy or not can be debated forever. What cannot be debated is that Pelosi has no business putting a monkey wrench in the foreign policy strategy put forth by the White House. Congress doesn't make foreign policy, the President gets to do that. Negotiating with terrorist nations is not good policy. Telling the planet that the Speaker of the House doesn't care what the President thinks about foreign policy is a horrible idea. She has told the world this week that the United States is not united in its stand against terrorism. Telling a terrorist that the country he is terrorizing is willing to hold peace talks is, well, to be honest, it is exactly what I expected from someone like Nancy Pelosi.

Just for fun, click here and take a look at this wonderful snapshot. Reminds me of the picture of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands back in the 80s. Well, except of course for the fact that Iraq was not on the terrorist list at that time.


Don't call out Al Gore

"I was accused several times of being a 'stupid, redneck bitch,'" recalls Nicole Williams, who fielded numerous calls. "I repeatedly was called a 'whore' and asked 'Whose whore are you?' for three days straight, almost as if those were talking points ... I was shocked by these sexist insults _ basically attacking my gender."

It gets better, click here to check it out.


What Would Real Marines Do?

Click the link to find out

Firing of US attorneys and voter fraud

Ok, first things first. Someone please point out the section of the US Constitution that authorizes Congress to investigate the US Attorney General for firing the people he hires. Go look it up, I'll give you a minute.

Done? Great. I'm sure that while you were looking it up, you probably also found the section that says you can't post the Ten Commandments on state property.

US attorneys are hired and fired for their politics as well as their job skills. You may not like it, but this is the way it is. Hillary Clinton discussed this fact while also denying it. "This is a great difference," she said. "When a new president comes in, a new president gets to clean house. It is not done on case-by-case basis where you didn't do something that some senator or member of Congress told you to do in terms of investigation into opponents. It is 'Let's start afresh.' Every president has done that."
The new president cleans house to put people into that house that fit his politics. But the senator didn't mention that part.

Now the claim coming from the mouths of people who incorrectly think that this is a scandal is that these people were fired for lack of loyalty to the administration. Yes, this must be it. Let's get rid of all those people who may be investigating loyal republicans. This would easily explain why Scooter Libby was found guilty of forgetting but Sandy Berger goes free after stealing top-secret national security documents. It would explain why Delay was indicted for something that was not illegal when it happened. It would also explain why a republican war hero named Cunningham sits in prison, while William Jefferson sits on the Homeland Security Committee. For those who aren't keeping score, Jefferson is the guy who had about a hundred grand stashed in his freezer.

By now you are probably wondering what this has to do with voter fraud. Well, according to the Justice Department, at least two of the eight fired attorneys were fired for not pursuing voter fraud with the wanted vigor. Remember voter fraud? It's the issue that the democrats were up in arms over when Gore lost to Bush. They were up in arms yet again when Kerry lost to Bush. Of course, now that they have the majority in the House and Senate, it seems that voter fraud has been cured.

For more on the "scandal" take a look at this article which covers a few more reasons these people were fired. Pay close attention to the change in tone by Dianne Feinstein.