A GOP Debate Starring the Geriatric Fred Thompson

click image to enlarge

Yes, once again I sat through the two hour debate the other day, so I thought I would post my observations. I missed a little of it, because I was trying to help my daughter for an English exam, and that of course, was infinitely more important than watching nine buffoons vying for attention to see who can get in the most memorable sound bite. Helping my daughter with her homework also prevented me from falling asleep.

Statistics were thrown around by the candidates and moderators alike. I wonder how many of these statistics are actually true. I would venture a guess that probably a good portion of the statistics is just wrong, but who would know? There should be a fact check site where we could check the accuracy of these statistics.

So on to the candidates ---

Ron Paul,

If anything, you have to admit Ron Paul is entertaining. One wonders how this dolt ever made it to public office. He actually said something with which I agreed. When other candidates were saying the government should continue paying for farming subsidies including ethanol, Ron Paul was against it. I guess he does understand the concept of a free market.

In one part of the debate, Ron Paul started flailing his arms about yelling that the United States needed congressional approval before launching an attack against Iran. He then said, In 220 years Americas has never been under imminent attack. Guliani chimed in and retorted that there were 23 plots against the United States since 9/11. I am betting that 23 figure is correct since Guliani was probably just waiting to use it. There was no response from the other candidates. Somewhat puzzling.

Okay – I am going to give all the candidates help with this one – Pearl Harbor!!!! Can you believe it? Not one of the candidates mentioned it. They should have watched the recently aired PBS special The War by Ken Burns.

Fred Thompson,

Needless to say, I am not enamored of Fred Thompson like so many of my fellow conservatives seem to be. Here are a few adjectives that I would use to describe good ole Fred during the debate: laconic, lackluster, lethargic, uninspiring, humdrum, insipid, geriatric, and torpid. I think I have adequately described Fred – Reagan, he is not. I don’t think a moribund candidate who appears excessively tired can ever win the presidency especially against Hillary. Remember the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon Debate?

Chris Matthew did try to stump him with a gotcha question, “Who was the Prime Minister of Canada?" and Thompson retorted, “Harper.” – That was good. I actually forget what the original question was, since I was so impressed with him knowing who the Canadian Prime Minister was. He nailed it – so there Chris Matthew!!. Now Matthew should have asked the other candidates some additional “Are you smarter than a 5th grader questions.” Come on, let’s be fair.

Mitt Romney,

The poster boy for Mattel’s Ken (Barbie’s friend), in my opinion, was never electable anyway. For too many evangelicals, Mormonism is a cult, and without the evangelical vote, you can’t win the Republican nomination.

In any event, Mitt made his biggest guffaw when he said he would consult with his attorneys before he goes to war with Iran.

Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee

What’s the point of talking about them, they aren’t going to even be a blimp on the radar screen come election time, and they have no money anyway.

Rudy Guliani,

There is so much about Guliani I do not like, but I believe he is the only viable candidate who has a chance at beating Hillary, and Hillary must be beaten at all cost.

Guliani is fiscally conservative, and he will be a good warrior in the war against radical Islam.

There is a movement afoot led by Doctor James Dobson and other evangelical leaders to bring in a 3rd party candidate. If this happens, Hillary will win by a landslide as predicted by a recent Ramussen poll. This will be a huge mistake.

I agree with Dr Dobson on most everything, but I disagree with him on this. As a Christian and a conservative republican, I believe we can only further our cause if we can prevent the Democrats from regaining power. A vote for a third party candidate or a vote not cast at all is a vote for Hillary.

I understand the frustration with Guliani, but I am not willing to hand over the presidency to Hillary without a fight. Four years of Hillary can devastate this country and this economy.

Because of Guliani’s position on abortion, many pro-lifers will not vote for him. I look at this as an absurd position. Would it have been better for him to change positions as so many politicians do for political expediency, or is it better for him to maintain his honesty? He has said he will put strict constructionists on the bench, judges who interpret the constitution rather than legislate. If we had strict constructionists on the bench during Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade would never have become law, because there is nothing in the constitution that gives a woman a right to an abortion. If Roe v Wade is overturned, the issue of abortion will just revert back to the states anyway.

There was a point when I would never have voted for a pro-choice candidate, but after 9/11 that changed. We can choose to stay home and let Hillary win. We can choose to vote for a 3rd party and let Hillary win, or we can choose to be apathetic and let Hillary win. The war against radical Islam is now paramount in my mind.

There is no other Republican candidate that can beat Hillary!!! None!!

Judges under a Hillary presidency will be much worse than anyone Guliani would appoint to the bench.

We have people in Islamic countries actively pursuing our demise. The Democrats have attempted to dismantle every measure put forth to keep us safer. Most Democrats don’t even believe there are people trying to kill us. Democrats believe We can just talk to our malevolent dictators and hope they will listen (you know like Stalin and Chamberlain did during World War ll with Hitler) and then invite them to our universities. If there is a nuclear bomb dropped, it won’t matter whether or not we have choice on anything.

If Hillary is elected, she will dismantle much of what the Republicans have put in place to fight the war on terror. She will head towards a far-left socialist agenda leaning towards a more centrally planned economy. It will be easy to pass her leftist agenda since both houses will be controlled by the Democrats.

The Economy

I surmised early on in this morass of a debate that these candidates fail to understand the basics of economics. Two books I suggest they read are Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations published in the 1700s, the first written account in the defense of a free market system. The second book I recommend was just published by Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence.

Chris Matthew asked McCain if Bernanke (he should have first asked him if he knew who the Fed chairman was.) should have lowered interest rates, McCain actually said, “He didn’t know. He was not an expert.” At least it was refreshing to see an honest politician. But then McCain continued, “it would be nice if interest rates were zero.” Huh? He should have stopped at the point where he said he wasn’t an expert, because saying it would be nice if interest rates were zero not only showed he wasn’t an expert, but it just showed he was stupid.

Interest rates control the liquidity in a free market. Rates are lowered if you need more liquidity in the market such as you needed in the subprime mortgage debacle. Rates are increased to decrease liquidity. You decrease liquidity if the economy is growing too fast, and you want to prevent inflation. It is a delicate balance.

I have a follow-up question for senator McCain, "If interest rates went to -0-, who would purchase our treasury bonds to finance our national debt?"

Continuing with the economy, Thompson adds that protectionism is a bad idea, but never expounds on why. Most of the electorate probably does not understand what these terms even mean, so the candidate needs to be able to explain why something is bad if he brings it up. Protectionism has always proven to be a failure. Protectionist policies or the idea of adding tariff barriers to prevent imports from entering into a country inhibits a free market and the free flow of capital. Countries were very protectionist before World War ll. These protectionist policies led to a decrease in international trade and eventually contributed to the collapse of world economic activity. Alan Greenspan writes is his book The Age of Turbulence, “The postwar liberalization of trade helped open up new low-cost sources of supply…it facilitated the foreword thrust toward global market capitalism even during the years of the cold war.” In essence, countries are wealthier because of non-protectionist policies.

I know the Democrats don’t understand the economy, but I thought the Republicans had a better grasp. I guess I was wrong. but how can you run for president if you do not understand how the economy works? Am I missing something?

Energy

I get so tired of hearing about ethanol. Ethanol won’t work, and all the candidates keep talking about it as the panacea to our energy crisis.

Guliani said France is using Nuclear Power – why aren’t we? Yeah!!! One of the first intelligent comments I have heard in the entire debate. But no one mentioned ANWAR.

This is what I think we should do to become energy independent. first, we should build nuclear power plants, second start drilling for oil. We have an abundant supply of oil, but we somehow would rather send our petrodollars to people who want to kill us, and third look for feasible alternative energy sources. But nuclear power and oil should be first on the agenda, because we already know they work, and then we can look for alternative energy sources. We should then do what Kennedy did when he made a vow to go to the moon in ten years. We need a vow to become energy independent within some time frame (what a concept!), but not by schemes like ethanol, but by using common sense and what we already know works first.

Instead of the global warming fraud, why don’t the candidates come out and say why global warming is pseudo science. There is sure plenty of evidence. But they not only jump on the band wagon, they want to subsidize alternative forms of energy. This is just plain not conservative, and it belongs on the Democratic aisle.

At the end of the debate, there was some repartee between Thompson and Romney. I guess Thomson still had some comebacks left over that he wanted to use. Needless to say, I didn’t think the exchange was funny. There was laughter, so others may have thought he was funny.

Democrats are winning because conservatives are forgetting why they are conservatives.

After this debate, I could only think to myself, we better start getting used to a Leftist, Socialist (Pinko-Commie) President Hillary and first man, Bill.

If Hillary is elected get used to hearing this:



A little bit of forced cackle

Gore and Thompson together

I think the truth about Gore's movie is finally coming out:

CNN Meteorologist Rob Marciano clapped his hands and exclaimed, "Finally," in response to a report that a British judge might ban the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" from UK schools because, according to "American Morning," "it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies."

And Fred Thompson is not the white Knight we Republicans hoped for.

Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson acknowledged Wednesday that he's reversed his position on ethanol subsidies, saying his new stand is based on changes in energy prices and security issues.

Thompson spoke about the issue after touring an ethanol plant, one of dozens in Iowa, which leads the nation in ethanol production. The actor and former Tennessee senator was finishing a five-day trip to the state, where precinct caucuses begin the presidential nominating process

Fred needs only to tour an ethanol plant to reverse his position. Hmmm - not bad. It might help him if he did a little research on the subject. I wonder how Fred Thompson does when he needs to buy a new car? Does he actually believe what the salesmen tell him without checking out the car himself. Maybe he does. Corn ethanol is subsidized by the government, is corrosive, and economically not feasible. Remember the MTBE fiasco. Ethanol is not the answer.

Maybe, he only needs to visit planned parenthood to see a crying teenager to reverse his position on abortion.

I think Rudy Guliani is our last great hope - don't blow it

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

I thought I would answer one of the comments from a previous post from my favorite liberal blogger Sims. You can read his comment in the post, “America’s love fest with Ahmadinejad.”

His answer to my post "America's love fest with Ahmadinejad" is why I always say, “you can be friends with a Democrat, but never give him/her the reigns of power.” Sims like most Democrats fail to understand the difference between the Cold War and the war with Radical Islam. Bush calls it a war on terror. I say that is dishonest. We are not fighting a war on terror, we are fighting a war with Radical Islam. The Cold War was a dangerous period in history, but I believe we are in a much more perilous situation now than we ever were during the Cold War (except for maybe the Cuban missile crisis.).

I always hear the Democrats or the liberals say I don't fear the terrorists. Of course, how can one fear that which he/she does not believe? The Democrats do not believe there is a war on terror. They do not believe Islam's goal is to take over the world even when there have been reams of books written on the subject by people who have lived it, but then again Democrats do not even believe evil exists. They believe we can have a dialogue with any malevolent dictator that comes along. Of course, how can one believe terrorism is a threat when he/she believes that global warming is the greater threat? It is like an alcoholic who is in a continuous state of denial.

I don’t believe the Democrats or liberals understand what would happen if a nuclear bomb were ever detonated or some other WMD were released on United States Soil. Either they don’t understand, or they are just being intellectually dishonest. First, terrorists will try to release a WMD in several major cities. The economy will come to a screeching halt. Life as we know it will change forever. Immediately, there will be a 50% unemployment rate, panic will set in, the stock market will crash, and the global economy will fall making the depression in the 30s look like a recession. Everyone will be asking themselves why the government didn't do anything. The liberals will start screaming why we weren't wiretapping, etc just like they do now with the war. Well, if the government had trouble handling a minor situation like hurricane Katrina, how do you think they will handle a WMD? It will be every man for himself. Radical Islam understands this better than most Westerners. We will not recover from this scenario in our lifetime.

Intel, a fortune 500 company, was a manufacturer of computer chips. But in the early 1980's Intel was on the verge of bankruptcy, The Japanese began to produce these same computer chips at a much cheaper price. Andrew Grove, the former CEO and holocaust survivor coined a new term "inflection point" in his book, Only the Paranoid Survive. An inflection point is a turning point in a company's life. Either change with the times or fail. Intel's time came when the Japanese were able to manufacture computer chips at much cheaper prices. Grove had to revamp Intel from manufacturing computer chips to manufacturing microprocessors, a huge endeavor. Intel created the first microprocessor. Intel once again began to thrive. I love that phrase, and I use it often - Only the paranoid survive. In other words, if we are not careful, we, as a nation will not survive.

I mentor a nursing student. She is 25 years old, and she is always afraid the nursing program will drop her, because it is tough program even though she consistently performs above average. But, if she ever fell below 70%, the program would drop her without batting an eye. It is also very difficult to even get into the nursing programs because nursing schools are so impacted. I tell her, remember the phrase, “Only the paranoid survive.” If she becomes lackadaisical, she will suffer and the nursing staff could drop her from the program. She always has to be on her toes.

Islam has always had as its goal the domination of the world. You can see that in history where it conquered and controlled nations for centuries. You can see that when Islam slowly took over Lebanon, and you can see that in Europe as the Muslims continue to Islamize Europe. Islam spreads its ideology in several ways; by brute force, by immigration and by birthrate. The birthrate in Europe for Muslims is 7 to 1, and for Europeans it is less than 2 to 1. You need a birthrate of at least 2.1 to just maintain a society. After awhile there will be a point where there are so many, it will be almost impossible to control.

In the last French elections, pro-American Nicolas Sarkozy was elected over France’s Hillary Clinton, Ségolène Royale. Since the inception of France’s fifth republic and its first president Charles De Gaulle, France has moved further and further to the left. France like much of Europe had very liberal immigration policies because they wanted to help the indigent immigrants. This was not unlike Lebanon. Islamic immigrants began pouring in with no intention of ever assimilating into French society. The Muslim population currently represents about 45% of the people on France’s social welfare system. The French for years have been uneasy with the immigration problem. Most French however ignored the problem for fear of being called racists or bigots. After the Muslim youth rioted throughout France, French citizens had enough, and Sarkozy won a mandate. Like the United States, and most of the Western world, we do not heed the warning signs until it is too late.

It is interesting to note that Britain, Germany and France have ratcheted up the rhetoric that military force may be necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining the bomb.

The Democrats carp about our civil liberties, they carp about the patriot act, they carp about wiretapping and they carp about anything that will help against the war with Radical Islam. I would rather have my civil liberties a bit curtailed for a little bit of safety. Of course, No liberal can ever point to anything different that has prevented them from doing what they did before 9/11. In other words, big brother is not watching anymore now than it was then. Google keeps records of anyone who enters anything into its search engine with the corresponding ISP address. You visit porn sites, Google will know about it. You visit hate sites, Google will know about it, Google knows what you look at and its advertisement is target specific. By knowing the sites you visit, Google can target its advertising to specific markets. The majority of sites you visit will generate small software programs in your computer called cookies. Most are innocuous, but some track sites you visits. In effect anyone who uses the Internet is being monitored by third party entities more than any government entity, but liberals continue to use the Internet, and you never hear them carp about their civil liberties being abused by Google or any other third party. If ever there were a nuclear bomb dropped, civil liberties would no longer be a matter of importance. Survival would be paramount in people’s minds, and the blame game would begin (irrespective of the president's party affiliation) everyone will ask the question why wasn’t enough done? “Remember Katrina!” will be the battle cry.

During the American Civil war, on April 27, 1861 Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus. This was a necessary evil, but a necessary tool to effectively prosecute the war against the Confederacy. The writ of Habeas Corpus requires that a person be charged with a crime or let go. Just today fourteen "high value" terrorism suspects at Guatanamo Bay have been offered attorneys - another victory for the liberals. Have we gone completely insane? Democrats even want to close Gitmo. We have actually recaptured or killed former detainees on the battlefield that we have previously released. That is Hillary's "suspension of disbelief."

Every leading Democrat believed Sadaam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction Now the Democrats are in backpedal mode. This is no longer an American war, it is Bush’s war. Since when did any war become the president’s war? The reason is simple – it’s Bush derangement syndrome, the Democrats hate Bush so much, they will do anything to try and destroy him. They want power back so much.

In Walid Shoebat’s book, “Why we want to kill you,” Walid describes an Islamic term “Hudna.” Hudna is simply a “ceasefire” in Islam, but not as we westerners would think of a “ceasefire.”. “Hudna is meant to produce a period of calm with an enemy in order to gain concessions, regroup, rearm, and re-attack at an appropriate time.”

If Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the prophet made a truce with the Quraysh for that long as is related by Abu Dawud (‘Umdat as-salik, 09,16) .

This is exactly what happened with Hamas and Israel. Israel was made to look like the villain and Hamas the victim. Condoleeza Rice arranged a ceasefire with the maladroit Olmert without ever retrieving the soldiers for whom the country went to war. This was about the most inane outcome that could have ever transpired with Hamas and Israel. Iran saw how weak we were, and we fell right into Hamas’ hand. They just went into “Hudna.”

Why is Islam so strong? It is because of all the petrodollars we send to them. We have become so reliant on Middle Eastern oil, that now it is hard to extricate ourselves from it. At a time when more oil is being found in Mexico, Australia, the Soviet Union, and the list goes on, we sit on our hands while the Democrats prevent us from drilling in a cold pinprick of a wasteland in Alaska. We have oil throughout the United States, but the Democrats block us from getting it. We send our nuclear technology to France while the Democrats block us from building nuclear plants here. Only recently, Texas applied for two new nuclear reactors. The nuclear reactors may get built, not because of energy independence, however but because of another fraud perpetrated by the Democrats to which many Republicans have now succumbed, global warming. Of course, I don’t care what the reason; nuclear reactors need to be built. Research in alternative fuels is fine, but why don’t we use what we know works first?

Sims then points out that Iran doesn’t want us to leave Iraq. That is a new one on me. Not sure where he gets that from. I didn't even think liberals even thought that. Ahmadinejad is sending in insurgents to kill Americans and conducting proxy wars whereever he can in order to keep us there. Doesn't quite make sense to kill Americans if you want them to stay. Does it? Ahmadinejad wants to be the power in the Middle East just like Sadaam Hussein wanted to be, and the oil fields in Iraq will help a long way in that endeavor When we left Vietnam, Pol Pot slaughtered millions, and millions more were enslaved in forced labor camps. We paid no attention. There would be no difference with Iran and Iraq. We don’t learn the lessons from the past, but Ahmadinejad does. His economy is in shambles, and getting control of the oil fields would mollify the Iranian population.

Remember Sadaam Hussein? When we left after the first gulf war, the opposition tried to overthrow him, and Sadaam Hussein crushed it. Why would it be any different with Iran?

We already know now what happened when Ahmadinejad returned to Iran after speaking at Columbia University. The Iranian people heard the applauses from the “useful idiots”, and they walked away with the conclusion that the Iranian press is not bad, because we agreed with Ahmadinejad. Mark another win for Ahmadinejad and another loss for the United States.

It's no wonder Islam believes it is winning. It's 1939 once again.

This will bring a tear to your eyes.

This is a story about a 22 year old Israeli women murdered by a suicide bomber as she was going to work. Make sure you watch the video.

Cut and paste this link http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/26/keeping-the-memory-of-shiri-negari-alive/

America's love fest with Ahmadinejad

Schwarzenegger’s embrace of the dubious scientific evidence for global warming to his intent on revitalizing California’s health care system to a socialized health care system has alienated most of his Republican base in California including me. However, I give Arnold kudos for his latest move on signing a bill which will in his words, “give a powerful blow to terrorism.” This latest move has received little press, but Schwarzenegger has pledged to sign on Monday a bill to require the state’s two giant public pension funds to disinvest billions of dollars in Iran-related investments. This is exactly what needs to be done. Individual investors, Mutual Funds and other states should follow suit. Remember the outcry that brought down apartheid in South Africa? Where is that same outcry when it comes to Iran?

Schwarzenegger’s move came at a time when we seem to be coddling the worst terrorist in the world, a little twerp of a man, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad under the guise of free speech. When Ahmadinejad began speaking at Columbia University, he began with a harangue invoking the return of Mahdi. Mahdi, according to Islam, will return just before the advent of the Day of Judgment, the apocalypse. Mahdi will be the 12th Iman who will bring about the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate and a world in which Islam reigns as the world’s only religion under Sharia law. This can only happen with the violent overthrow of anything non-Muslim. So in Ahmadinejad’s opening statement, he was calling for the violent overthrow of America. Neither the audience nor Bollinger even took notice. The reference to Mahdi just went completely over the heads of the erudite academics or as Lenin coined “useful idiots.” Their $50,000 educations seem to have been for naught. This is because very few people in the West understand Islam. Ahmadinejad continued with an incoherent, puerile and boorish introduction mixed with pseudo-science and other nonsensical information.

Of course, to put things in perspective, Bollinger says he would have invited Hitler too given the chance. Well, Mein Kampf is one of the best selling books in the Middle East. Germany has free speech too but Mein Kamp is banned in that country. There is a limit to free speech. Giving Ahmadinejad a public forum would fall under that category.

In fact, it seemed Ahmadinejad received more deferential treatment when he spoke then when the minutemen spoke at Columbia University. The minutemen have been doing what the president refuses to do, guarding our borders.

Anne Applebaum states in the Washington Post the only time we should give Ahmadinejad a public forum in which to speak:

Instead, the university should have demanded genuine reciprocity. If the president and dean of Columbia truly believed in an open exchange of ideas, they should have presented a debate between Ahmadinejad and an Iranian dissident or human rights activist — someone from his own culture who could argue with him in his own language — instead of allowing him to be filmed on a podium with important-looking Americans. Perhaps Columbia could even have insisted on an appropriate exchange: .... Christopher Hitchens or, better still, Ayaan Hirsi Ali — to Qom, the Shiite holy city, to debate the mullahs on their own ground.

These are people who understand Islam and its culture.

We can now expect the Iranian propaganda machine to go into overdrive. Bollinger began his tough rhetoric with a draconian introduction that some have said even insulted the Iranian leader. But regardless, if Bollinger used this rhetoric under pressure or for some other reason, does it really make any difference? When he posed pointed questions such as questions on the holocaust, Bollinger neglected to drill down to get to the root of the situation like any experienced interviewer would do. Instead Bollinger would just proceed to the next question. Of course, it doesn't really matter one way or the other, because just Ahmadinejad's presence served the Iranian leader's purpose. What do you think the Iranians will hear? They won’t hear the boos or the laughter from the homosexual question, but they will hear the applause from the “useful idiots” that seemed to resonate through the auditorium at various intervals, and the questions and answers the Iranians deem appropriate.

Anyone who thinks Ahmadinejad was here for America's benefit is deluded. He was here for the benefit of his propaganda machine period. Free speech or not Ahmadinejad got what he wanted.

The audience applauded both Ahmadinejad and statements or questions from the audience.

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," one person chided. But what will the Iranians hear? They might hear the applause, but it won’t be from a statement the audience says, it will be applause approvingly of Ahmadinejad. The Iranians will walk away believing the Americans are in love with Ahmadinejad, but in reality the audience at the prestigious Columbia University will look like the useful idiots they are.

On Hugh Hewitt's site, he writes:

Iran is smuggling advanced weapons, including surface-to-air missiles, into Iraq to be used by extremists against American troops, the US military charged on Sunday.
US military spokesman Rear Admiral Mark Fox told reporters in Baghdad that Iran was shifting sophisticated arms such as "RPG-29s, explosively-formed penetrators (EFPs), 240 mm rockets and Misagh-1 surface-to-air missiles" across its borders into Iraq.

An EFP is a feared roadside bomb which when it explodes emits a white-hot slug of molten copper that can cut through the armoured skins of US military vehicles.
Fox reiterated that Iranian national Mahmudi Farhadi, detained on Thursday in the northern province of Sulaimaniyah, is one of the kingpins in the bomb smuggling operations.

"He is a member of the Ramazan Corps, the Quds Force department responsible for all operations in Iraq," Fox said.

And we grant this tyrant a podium in which to speak. What appalls me even further is Bush’s apathy on the entire affair. What happened with Bush’s address to the nation on September 20th 2001 when he said,

We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime?

Instead, we let the terrorist walk among us. Who would have thunk?

And now, we have Buah and this little twerp going to the inept United Nations. Bush instead of talking about Iran and Syria, the two greatest threats in the world talks about Burma huh? And then he talks about how the Palestinian people had Democratic elections. Does he forget they elected Hamas, a terrorist organization? In Bush’s zeal to spread Democracy throughout the world, it seems to matter not who is elected. An Islamic Democracy is an oxymoron. It doesn’t exist in Islamic tradition.

A few hours later, it was Ahmadinejad’s turn to speak. His discourse once again included the invocation of Mahdi’s return, and he accused the west of hindering his progress with his nuclear ambitions, of course for peaceful purposes. And we all know Ahmadinejad only wants peace.

Until we learn who our enemy really is, we will all be in danger.

The past couple of days has produced only one good thing I can see – I no longer had to watch anymore of OJ Simpson. Ahmadinejad seems to have taken precedence.

Note: Just because I am down on Bush in this piece in no way makes me lean towards the Democratic isle – The Democrats are worse. The Republicans don't get it, and the Democrats get it even less. There is one party dumber than the Republican party – the Democratic party. When are we going to get someone in the Reagan tradition who works for the good of the country instead of what is politically expedient or politically correct. (it's not Hillary.)

May I have this dance Ahmadinejad?

Has the Bush administration gone mad???? Why is Ahmadinejad coming to the United States? Did the administration forget we are at war with radical Islam?

Since 9/11, the patriot act has allowed for the denial of Visas of foreigners with ties to terrorism. That is a good thing, but instead of denying Ahmadinejad’s visa, a sworn enemy, we have invited him to sup with us. This administration still doesn’t get it. (of course, the Democrats get it even less.)

Below are but a few examples of visa denials since 9/11. It is right that the administration deny these visas:

March 4, 2005 Dora María Tellez denied visa. She was granted a position at Harvard. She was tied to the 1979 Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua and the overthrow of the Somoza regime. She has been labeled a “terrorist” Nicaraguan professor.

Many other Nicaraguan prominent officials had their visas denied both from the Left and the Right for either corruption charges (commonplace in Nicaragua) or for terrorist links. Sandinistas were automatically denied.

Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss Muslim considered one of the foremost scholars of Islam in the West was denied a visa in 2004.

Waskar Ari, a Bolivian scholar of history, and scholar of Islam was denied a visa when he was offered a position to teach at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln.

Ahmadinejad has definite links to terrorism. He was involved in the 1979 kidnapping of the American hostages. He was responsible for supplying the arms to Hezbollah with the recent war in Israel. He continues his rhetoric on destroying Israel while at the same time denying the holocaust. He continues to send in insurgents into Iraq killing Americans. He continues his quest for a nuclear bomb. We have been at war with Ahmadinjad since the 1970s even if we seem to be in denial. This would have been like giving Hitler a Visa in the midst of World War ll.

Why has Senator Clinton not said anything? Is she not the Senator of New York? and what about the other Democratic candidates. Why do the Democrats seem to be silent only when it counts?

So now we have to wonder whether or not Ahmadinejad is going to visit ground zero. And, groups have to organize to protest his speaking at Columbia University. Only in an insane and delusional world can this happen.

I think the only person who really gets it is Ahmadinejad.

Summons for Jury Service

We recieved in the mail today a Summons for Jury Service for the Superior Court of California for my father-in-law. My father-in-law, a native of Nicaragua, and a Naturalized Citizen lived with us for several years. So the government did get the address right. But, there is only one slight little problem. He died a couple years ago. He received SSI while he was alive, and we notified SSI that he was deceased and all the other proper authorities. This is our government at work. The government sends notices to deceased people. I wonder if we had not notified the Social Security Administration if his SSI checks would have continued without any followup. My guess is "yes."

The Democrats still love the government, from cradle to grave, even with such egregious errors like sending notices for Jury Duty to dead people. And now get ready for Hillarycare round two, another government bureaucracy that will add billions of dollars to government entitlements. Hillary plans to pay for it by removing the Bush tax cuts (in other words increasing taxes). I am going to make a prediction. When this happens, you will see this economy go into recession. Any wagers?

I have decided not to call the Superior Court and let them know about my father-in-law. Maybe the court will put a warrant out for his arrest. I can tell the court where he can be found. He is buried in Nicaragua. Maybe I should sell his social security number to an illegal immigrant. I could probably make money on that one too, but I won't. But I can guarantee, people are selling social security numbers of deceased individuals to illegal immigrants every day.

If we leave

I could not have said it any better. Michelle Malkin describes what will happen if the Moonbats force us to leave Iraq.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/16/moonbats-on-the-march-its-bigger-than-iraq/

The Petraeus Report . . . What now?

"The greatest argument against a Democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." - Churchill

Moveon.org’s new advertisement against General Petraeus in the New York Times, and the Democrat party’s reticence to speak out against it demonstrate two things 1) The far left is now part of the mainstream within the Democratic party and 2) The Democrat’s have but one interest - to lose the war in Iraq. Their silence speaks volumes. With no proof to the contrary, the left’s attack on General Petraeus is unremitting.
Whatever the cost, whatever the price, the left will do whatever it takes to remove Bush from power. There can only be two reasons why the Democrats have not publicly condemned the ad, either because they fear Moveon.org (Moveon.org has become a major power house among the Democratic party) or they agree with the ad. The left’s vitriol has grown to such extremes that like usual, it puts our nation in peril.

The New York Times stock price has hit a new 52 week low. Today’s price is $20.78. Moveon.org received an ad which retails at just under $170,000 for under $70,000. The New York Time’s bread and butter, its advertising revenue has been sharply declining for years. Investors are the best gauge as to what’s happening at the newspaper. Investors understand that the New York Times has been complicit in trying to cause the downfall of Bush regardless of the cost to the American people. I think this latest move in allowing the printing of this advertisement by moveon.org will have a deleterious effect on the newspaper.

General Petraeus, a four star general, is probably the most credible source of the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus . This is a man of integrity and principle. In an interview with Fox News yesterday, the interviewer asked about moveon.org’s ad, and as the straightforward man Petraeus is, he explained that no one but he and other principals involved in the surge knew what was on the report. He had to go through the chain of command for collaboration and statistics, but the White House had not seen any part of the report. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Three can keep a secret only if two are dead,” and that would certainly be true with Petraeus’ report with all the collaborative efforts needed from his chain of command. But then again, with the left everything is a conspiracy.

It was the left who said we needed a change of course in Iraq. Bush’s one error is his reluctance to fire incompetence. General Petraeus should have been in charge from the beginning. We changed course in Iraq, and when there is success, (even I doubted if the surge would have any impact), the left goes insane. The Democrats cannot stand any success, and now their true colors are showing.

Not only that, General Petraeus was confirmed by 81 votes in the Senate. 18 cowards just did not bother to show up and vote. 18 of them who are so concerned with the war could just not be bothered. But, General Petraeus was confirmed by the Democrats in the Senate, and now these same Democrats do not support his actions, because they know if they lose this battle, they may lose the White House. I still think Hillary Clinton will be the next president (God forbid!), but they may overplay their hand.

So what is left? (note: that is not a pun on words) The political situation is still a mess. The government is corrupt. But, it is evident from all sources that the surge is working. Islam’s goal, as a political entity, is to grow its hegemony over the entire world where Sharia law is the law of the land. This must not happen. If we lose in Iraq. The consequences will be disastrous. If the Democrats succeed in their push to lose the war, Iran, its surrogates and Al-Queda will grow in ferocity and become the power in the Middle East. Bush’s legacy will ultimately rise or fall on the success or failure in Iraq. There have been a lot with which I disagree in Bush’s handling of the war. I don’t necessarily agree that Democracy will work in Iraq, because Democracy as a political system is anathema to Islam. If, however, Iraq becomes a stable force and an ally in the Middle East, the benefits to the United States will be enormous. So, as Americans, we should unite and hope this experiment works, because there is a lot at stake.

Just a side note: When Cindy Sheehan says she is going to retire, why doesn't she keep her word and do just that - retire preferably to Venezuela.

Larry Craig - Enough Already!!!

So, Larry Craig decides to resign anyway if his arrest cannot be overturned. It doesn't take a genius to figure you can't just nilly willy turn over an arrest record. That one will go down in the annals of the U.S. Senate as "No Duh!!!"