Hillary Cracks at First Tough Question

AFP reports on the aftermath of last night's debate:

For the first time, Hillary Clinton woke after a 2008 presidential debate Wednesday roughed up by rivals finally showing the capacity to draw blood in the Democratic race for the White House.

Clinton's top foes John Edwards and Barack Obama painted her as unelectable, facilitating war with Iran, untrustworthy, and claimed to have caught her in a political flip-flop on immigration during the campaign clash in Philadelphia.

Volley after volley of attacks rained in on Clinton, offering the first hints of potential political vulnerabilities, just 65 days before Iowa holds the 2008 race's first party nominating contests.

Was it "attacks" by Edwards and Obama? Or rather was it simply the first time tough questions were able to squeak through to Hillary. If a media interviewer of Hillary is not already favorable toward her, the interview climate is carefully controlled. We have seen with the GQ story suppression how the Clintons crack down on the media in order to get their way.

We have all seen how the GOP candidates get grilled with tough questions and multiple follow-ups if the answer isn't considered complete. With Hillary it has been powder puff softballs or shameless fawning. Then in the debate, the unthinkable happened. A tough question got through. The question about giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants is pretty tough to give a middle ground. She tried pretty hard though. She can see how Governor Spitzer thinks it is necessary because Congress won't pass comprehensive immigration reform. Huh? Of course when Chris "Bread Slice" Dodd called her on supporting it, she snaps back that she didn't say she supported it. So does she or doesn't she? She is not saying and she wants the right to not say anything.

When combined with her weak answer on releasing documents from when she was First Lady, it is obvious that Hillary is not used to tough questions. The other candidates smelled blood in the water and tried to capitalize on it. However, they were very weak in their attacks. They left some points on the table. Obama, made a few points picturing Hillary as an ambiguous waffler; but then fell flat on his face by claiming clear support for giving illegals drivers licenses. He slit his political wrist on that one. No way he can win the general election with that one statement hanging out there. He will be beaten mercilessly over the head with it if he wins the nomination.

So while the others lost a full opportunity, the media for whatever reason has decided to grant the public a glimpse of the real Hillary by actually covering this. She is cold, calculating, unwilling to take clear positions, and folds at the first tough questions to ever hit her. The nomination is hers to lose. If there was another Democrat candidate with any promise, Hillary would sink fast after her stumbles in the last month. On the other hand, Democrat voters seem to like corruption and flaws. Remember William Jefferson? I think in this debate, Hillary rose like Smaug the dragon and exposed the flawed patch in her armor. The question is which of the GOP candidates is going to be Bard the Bowman?

Either You Are With Us or You Are With the Terrorists

President Bush has taken a lot of flak for making the claim that other countries are either with us or with the terrorists. The liberals try to expand that statement into a claim that other counties must agree with us and follow the US on every foreign policy position or they are our enemy. I did not come away with that interpretation when he said it, and thought it was very clear. The paragraph of the speech this was in is the following:

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. 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. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Liberals have chafed and complained about that clear statement for several years now; morphing the meaning into something it is not. The recent developments in Yemen remind us of the reason and meaning behind those words. We all remember:

On October 12, 2000, USS Cole, under the command of Commander Kirk Lippold, set in to Aden harbor for a routine fuel stop. Cole completed mooring at 09:30. Refueling started at 10:30. Around 11:18 local time (08:18 UTC), a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 35-by-36-foot gash in the ship's port side. The blast hit the ship's galley, where crew were lining up for lunch.[1] The crew fought flooding in the engineering spaces and had the damage under control by the evening. Divers inspected the hull and determined the keel was not damaged.

The Bomb Monkey behind the plot was captured and imprisoned. According to this World Tribune story:

In 2004, Al Badawi was convicted of plotting and conducting the bombing of the USS Cole. A Yemeni court condemned Al Badawi to death, but the sentence was reduced to 15 years in prison.

As if the sentence reduction were not bad enough, there are reports that the Yemeni government has released the Bomb Monkey and the National Security Council has responded angrily to the report:

The Bush administration expressed disappointment with Yemen's decision to release the man regarded as the mastermind [sic] of the Al Qaida attack on the USS Cole in Aden in 2000.

"The United States is dismayed and deeply disappointed in the government of Yemen's decision not to imprison [Al] Badawi," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said. "This action is inconsistent with a deepening of our bilateral counterterrorism cooperation."

Two daysafter Johnroe made these statements, the Yemeni government responded that he "...was still in detention. But the Yemeni Interior Ministry would not elaborate." There were reports that Badawi was home and receiving guests.

A follow-up story by CNN now states that the US Embassy confirmed yesterday that the bomb monkey is in a jail cell. According to CNN:

Additionally, an official from the U.S. Embassy in Yemen reported seeing al-Badawi in his jail cell Monday, another official with the State Department told CNN.

The Interior Ministry official said that when Al-Badawi surrendered earlier this month, he asked to meet with his family before going back to prison.

So either the bomb monkey was released temporarily (some kind of house arrest?) and the Yemeni government changed their mind after the US blasted them, or they allowed this scumbag time to visit his family in his home before reporting back to prison after escaping and being recaptured.

The reduction in sentence and later playing footsie with this terrorist leaves the Yemeni government in a position where they might claim to be "with us", yet have a lustful eye toward the "against us" column. The sentence reduction is a slap in the face to our country and the loved ones of our fallen sailors of the USS Cole. I have serious doubts this bomb monkey will even serve the full 15 years. Regardless, the day they let this creep go is the day Yemen will clearly go into the "against us" camp. He has no right to take another breath, much less a free one. We can only hope that the US will have a sniper ready to take him out upon release.

Condi Rice and the Bloody Hands Woman Video

Here is the video from the picture in the previous post. It shows Condi Rice walking into the hearing and this woman seemingly coming completely out of nowhere. She has full access to Condi for a few seconds before Condi's security team see her and has to run around people to get to her. The angle of the video shows that they get to the crazed woman before anybody on the open free side of Condi arrives. It was one of the slowest responses I have seen. The question is: you have a hearing about to start and an administration official is coming in. Wouldn't a trained security officer be fully attuned to somebody walking around in close proximity? It would be like a flight attendant honing in on a passenger walking around just before take-off.

I would also point out the context of the photo in the last post. When you watch the video, you see that the photo does not at all represent how Condi reacted to the incident. However, the photo is the only moment she is giving the woman any attention whatsoever. She does not give the disdainful look shown in the photo, but how her face looks in turning. Funny how one slice of time can fail to capture the context of a situation.

The video then ends with all the Code Pinkos being dragged out of the room. Of course they are dragged kicking and screaming. The first one seems to give a lot more trouble. I have a feeling that with the second one, the security guy has a handlock on her that will cause quite a lot of pain if she tries to drop on the ground like the first one. The first one screams repeatedly "What are you doing! What are you doing!". A telling sign of the intelligence level of the group. It will be interesting to see if they let them back into hearings in the future.

Effectiveness Killing Photos

So they know the media is watching, cameras are rolling and they want their message to the public to be in the best light, right? Apparently not. The radical anti-war left always seems to send a message of lunacy and seems to beg people to latch onto the opposing view. The wild eyed woman in this picture will no doubt draw thousands to her cause. The photo also speaks volumes on what is more important on Capital Hill: security of high ranking officials or pacification of the radical left.

Mitt Romney Promises a Top to Bottom Audit of the Government

In this video, Mitt Romney talks about his experience in the business world and as Governor. His message is simple - the government shouldn't spend more than it receives. Mitt promises when President to do a complete audit of the government from Top to Bottom! Sounds like a great plan. I'd like to see him get in just to see the results of that audit.

Another Democrat Machine Going Down?

The people of Louisiana have taken a big step in the dismantling of another Democrat Machine. I predicted over a year ago that the Democrats of Louisiana would be facing trouble in the next Governor's election. GOP Bobby Jindal has made history by being the first man of Indian descent to become governor of one of the United States. He is the first non-white LA Governor since the Reconstruction. He is the youngest governor at 36 and has overcome the Louisiana Democrat machine to do it. During his campaign, Jindal was clear about the nest of corruption the Democrats had built in the state. According to the Washington Post:

"We've got a government that's out of control," he said in his stump speech. "We've got a government that spends our money without any regard. We're in the top five in having the most crooked politicians in America. We're going to change that."

Jindal is for lower taxes and against corruption. It will be fun to watch the rest of the Democrat machine in the state get dismantled. In my May 2006 post I stated:

We saw the overthrow of the Democrat machine in neighboring Georgia a few years ago. I think the LA. Dems should be quaking in their boots about now.

I have a feeling they are. Congratulations to Bobby Jindal on his win. Now if only we could dismantle the Democrat Machine in Chicago at the city level and Illinois at the state level.

Presidency Killing Photos

We all remember the Dukakis Tank picture. Some say, that after this photo he began to drop in the polls.


Then there was John Kerry in the cute powder blue jumpsuit. Is there negative power in bad photos when it comes to Presidential elections?


If so, this picture of Hillary (as Sum Ting Wong according to Texas Rainmaker) may be the deal killer. It not only looks goofy, it underscores her ties to China. As such, it can be used as a prop photo again and again. Of course, if bad pictures of Hillary is your cup of tea, click on over to this site and see a bunch of 'em. Warning! Do not go right after a meal. I cannot be help responsible for your wasting good food that way.

AICS TV Critic-Journeyman aGood Idea a Good Plot a Bad Script

When I saw the lineup of NBC this year I thought it was pretty good. On top of one of my favorite shows last year, Heroes, they added Chuck, Journeyman, Bionic Woman and Life. Of these, the one that had me most excited was Journeyman. Since I was a kid and read The Time Machine by H.G. Wells, time travel has been one of my favorite subjects in a book, movie or show. In addition to getting to see the past or future, the notion of changing either is fascinating. Journeyman began well and I was eager to see the next episode. By the second episode, I was still liking the show but getting pretty irritated with the guy's wife and brother.

The Journeyman is another flawed hero (which I tend to like, 'cause there's nothing worse than a perfect hero). He was addicted to gambling and somehow became married to his brother's ex-wife (yuck). During his gambling spell, they almost divorced but he was able to overcome it and the marriage survived but remains rocky. He had a girlfriend, Olivia, before he married his wife and everybody seems to know Olivia was the love of his life. She died in a plane crash, but her body was never found.

If things were not exciting enough, he suddenly starts uncontrollably leaping through time. Ok, it is nearly a rip-off of Quantum Leap but he leaps to the past and back home. He finds that where he leaps to, he is to help somebody. He sometimes leaps at the worst possible moment: when on an airplane, when he is fixing the plumming and the water is running, before the biggest night of the year for his wife. That is where the bad scripting comes in. The reaction of the wife is completely unrealistic. First, she thought he was just going places (maybe gambling?) until he proves he is leaping. She gets mad at him like he can control it. She is a walking bomb of "issues" and a complete nag. She completely lacks any curiosity about his adventures in time and in general acts like it is "all about her". The viewer is tempted to throw things at the screen and call her the same thing most are tempted to call Hillary Clinton.

At the lowest point, he goes back to the past and sees Olivia. He finds out she did not die and is a time traveler like him. He had a chance to, you know, but he was honorable. Now he keeps seeing her. Bad news, though. The harpy found out when Olivia loaned him her watch - the watch he had given to Olivia. The one inscribed "With Love Forever" or something like that. So basically every time he is home, his wife is a nagging witch and when he is in the past things are so nice with Olivia. Can we predict where this is going? And in spite of the moral side of things, can we guess who the audience is cheering for?

There are some funny scenes. The funniest is when he goes back to the early '80s and meets a guy talking on one of those old and BIG early cellphones. He has a bluetooth in his ear and the guy with the big phone is laughing about it. I am going to keep watching it, but I risk a splitting migraine when the wife is on. My wife "Olive Oyl" would be so into my time traveling. She would be jumping up and down on the bed asking me to tell her what happened this time. She would be begging me to try and pick her up and take her with. She would be giving advice on how to help the person and helping me do research. In short, the show could be written so much better. Maybe he will go back in time and smooth things over with his wife and brother and they will stay together. We can only hope.

Another China Toy Recall

I saw this over at Blonde Sagacity blog and had the best laugh in days. Hopefully you all will enjoy it too.

Cool Marine Video

Here is a cool Marine Video. As many of you know my oldest son is a new Marine and we are so proud of him. Seeing videos like this is meaningful as a United States citizen, but as the father of a Marine it is hard not to bust my buttons.

Will China Buy an American President?

The United States currently has a Congress where the majority is bought and paid for by George Soros and MoveOn.Oink. Are we soon to have a president who was bought and paid for by China, our biggest economic and military rival? If Hillary Clinton becomes President, my opinion is the answer is Yes. The circumstantial evidence is nearing a level that should be undeniable that China is funneling money to Hillary Clinton using a variety of methods. Below are four key areas that point strongly to the heavy Chinese cloud that hangs over Hillary Clinton. A key theme in all four is the continued lack of media curiosity when it comes to Hillary Clinton. The surface is always barely scratched and then with a big yawn the media goes lumbering off like a bear going back to the woods to do what bears do in the woods.

The Ties to China Under the William Jefferson Blythe Clinton Administration

The readers should avail themselves of one of my favorite links in the list to the right of this page. This link shows why Bill Clinton's Administration is the Gold Standard of Corruption. During the Clinton Administration we saw one Asian fund raising scandal after another. There was John Huang, who was investigated for violating campaign finance laws. In 1999 he obtained a plea deal that only gave him 1 year of probation, a $10,000 fine and 500 hours of community service. According to this Washington Post Campaign Finance Special Report on Huang:

Huang organized the fund-raiser at the Hsi Lai Temple outside Los Angeles, where Vice President Al Gore helped collect $140,000 – most of which has since been returned.

Investigators are also exploring whether Huang may have served as an "agent of influence" of the People's Republic of China, perhaps funneling money from Beijing into American political campaigns.

The temple fund raising flap was only a brief embarrassment for Al Gore instead of the criminal scandal it should have developed into. In another WP report on the event:

Gore suffered considerable embarrassment from the temple visit. He initially said it wasn't a fund-raising event, but memos prepared by the DNC for his staff clearly show that those joining him for lunch at the temple had to contribute $2,500 per person to the party.

What early on appeared to be a mystery – how monks and nuns living on $40 monthly stipends could afford to make hefty campaign contributions – was at least partly solved by reports that the temple repaid individuals who donated.

It is illegal to finance a political donation officially listed in the name of another.

Gore was allowed to apologize and move on. Thank you Janet Reno for holding the Guinness Record for turning a blind eye. Though the media briefly touched on the unlikely ability of the monks to raise that kind of money on their $40 a week stipend, they never seemed curious about where the money actually did come from. Gore's apology and the money being returned was good enough to move on.

There was another Chinese fund raiser during the Clinton Administration, Johnny Chung. Chung visited the White House 49 times, but the Clintons falsified this info only reported a fraction of those visits. We later found out why. Chung admitted to investigators that some of the campaign money came from China's Military Intelligence.

There was also the giving away of missile technology to China under the Clinton Administration. According to Salon.com:

The Clinton administration between 1993 and 1996 allowed numerous exports of potential ballistic-missile technology to the Chinese government despite China's refusal, in some instances, to allow inspections to assure that the technology was only being used for civilian purposes, according to classified documents and four U.S. government officials.

We all derided Jimmy Carter for giving away the Panama Canal, but thanks to Bill Clinton the Chinese obtained the technology to start aiming Nuclear warheads at us. No wonder we see so much Asian money coming to the Clintons.

The Speeches of Bill Clinton

I posted some time back on how the paid speeches of Bill Clinton while his wife is a sitting Senator is the biggest loophole imaginable. This vehicle, if used as such, could be compared to the "perfect murder". Instead of murder it could be used as the perfect bribe an money laundering scheme in politics. Somebody wants something. The Clintons are approached. All they have to do to obtain favors for money is hire Bill to give a speech for big bucks. He has raised millions in speeches, yet nobody has even raised an eyebrow over the possibility of impropriety. Here is an interesting site that maps out the locations of Clinton's speeches. Drill down and you will see over $1 million in speeches in China alone. Of course money can come from China while he gives speeches anywhere in the world. No, there is no proof here but once again the media seems to be asleep at the wheel on this one.


The Felonious Fundraiser - Norman Hsu

Since this is so fresh and already hashed over, I will not go into detail. The important point is that the media once again seems to lack interest over where the money from Hsu comes from. There were several examples of large donations coming from individuals that were not likely able to afford such sacrificial donations.

When the Hsu flap surfaced, Hillary returned a whopping $850,000 of the money bundled and given to her campaign. The media fawned over her integrity, but feigned deafness when a short time after Hillary sent a not so subtle message to the original donors (whoever they are) to re-donate the money directly. A brazen act that only a media darling could get away with.

Money keeps coming in. Asian principal characters are involved. However, the media yawns.

The Chinatown Army of the Impoverished

The newest link to the Clintons and China is (surprisingly)being reported by the LA Times. A surprising number of large donations are coming from some of the lowest wage earners from New York's Chinatown. According to the Times:

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.

Also:

Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.

The $1000-$2000 donations are coming from from tenants of dilapidated homes, from low income workers, under pressure from local associations and some listed donors cannot be found. Some donors are denying they gave at all even though their name appears on the list. I wonder where the money from those are coming from?

In conclusion, I would point to the tale of two Hillaries. When you see Hillary Clinton making her rounds on The View and other morning shows, the news shows; when you hear reports from all of the media outlets you get a picture of an intelligent triumphant woman. Every scrap of evidence that can be twisted or amplified into the appearance of humanity in Hillary is highlighted. Even though it is difficult to point to any one thing that Hillary has actually accomplished in her political life, her record is given the appearance of success and the appearance that she has done a lot to help people. Contrast that tale to the constant leaks of reality that show Hillary to be a phony, conniving, iron lady that is hounded by a cloud of corruption ready to break into scandal at any given moment. Add the Marxist element that oozes out of her pores and the almost daily announcement of a new way to expand government and spend our hard earned money.

As I have stated before, I have yet to see anyone give a clear supported offensive declaration of why Hillary Clinton should be the next President of the United States. Instead we see one after another leaping to her defense. Tell us why people should vote for her. Don't just argue against those who state why people should not vote for her. Yet that is just it. It is tough to come up with a scrap of a list of reasons to make her President.

No One Mourns the Wicked - Except the Liberal Media

Last year about this time I went to see the musical Wicked and absolutely loved it. One of the songs in Wicked is No One Mourns the Wicked. It is after they announce to the crowd that the Wicked witch is dead and nobody seems to grieved over it. In real life that is likely so, except when it comes to the media. When evil people die, you can get some really weird reactions from the media. Pay attention next time when somebody like Yassar Arafat or Saddam Hussein dies. While I guess they cannot get on their desks and dance a gig, their glumness is quite noticeable. There was even the reporter that broke down crying for Arafat, the father of modern terrorism. When a death row inmate gets his final justice, once again we see the surreal glumness. Contrast that to the time I heard local WLS talk show host Don Wade declare gleefully, "Today is the day John Wayne Gacy wakes up in Hell!"

Perhaps the most obvious time the media seems to mourn the wicked is when a law abiding citizen is forced to defend his life with a gun and shoots an intruder. You almost expect them to start breaking down like the professional wailing woman of Lebanon. Then they get angry. Captains Quarters has a post and a video of a reporter hounding a 70 year old man because he has been forced to shoot 2 intruders within weeks. The video shows the man walking to his car with a long box and the reporter leaping up to him demanding "What's in the box!" as she aggressively taps on it. He tells her it is a shotgun and she starts grilling him asking if he is "trigger happy". It is obvious from the video that the man wishes he did not have to do this, but has no qualms about doing it again if necessary.

The man lives in a residence that is part of his business. He has a huge tall fence surrounding him. He had called the police on intrusions 41 times and when he had to shoot they had broken into the residence portion of the property. So it is obvious that counting on the police to save your life in this situation is not the answer. I guess the media thinks he should lift up his chin and let the intruder slit his throat.

I always hate when there is a reported shooting and the reporter states there are no charges or leaves the matter open about charges. This snippy reporter does the same thing stating the police said "No laws have been broken" but that it would be turned over to the Grand Jury to determine. I would love to see the reporter state, "Of course having defended his life, there will be no charges against him. He has rid the world of one of its problems."

So while those of us with two feet in reality feel a sense of relief and justice when the wicked die, in a world of liberal journalism gone wild we must try to stomach when they mourn the deaths of those most deserving.

Control Freak Targets Six Year Old Cutie Pie

In a recent post I spoke about Control Freaks; how much trouble they cause me and how much they annoy me. In that post among other things I stated:

The funny part is that the desire for control usually does not center around anything really important. It usually is focused on petty details.

There is a story in the Brooklyn Paper about such a control freak. His target? A six year old girl drawing with chalk on the sidewalk near her home. The control freak called 311 to report the incident and another bureaucratic control freak at city hall sends what amounts to a "cease and desist" letter.

The girl gets the last laugh, though. As you can see she is a cutie pie and that her mother dressed her up for the photos the newspaper took. I'm hopeful the neighborhood control freak gets his share of dirty looks and / or verbal grief about this. Sheesh.

Presidential Election October 16, 2007 Snapshot

It has only been two weeks since my last snapshot. However, some very interesting events are unfolding that interest me. The last snapshot, I predicted that Mitt Romney will likely encounter some problems in the South. While I still think he has some rough territory there due to some bias against his Mormon faith, some key changes in the wind are beginning to blow. The most important changes are taking place in South Carolina. Hugh Hewitt is posting on Mitt's lead in key early states:

The mayor is betting the political farm on taking a number of losses in the early states but rising again on 2/5
...
Romney leads in the first three contests in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan, and some polls have him ahead in Nevada and South Carolina as well.

If the primaries are like the play-offs, losing the early games isn't a great way to set up getting to the big show.

He also is posting on a huge South Carolina endorsement - Robert Taylor of Bob Jones University. The University carries a lot of weight among a large Christian Conservative group in the state and around the country. There is also an endorsement from the school's Chancellor, Bob Jones III. However, I see his support as more than just an endorsement. Bob Jones III is sucking up his religious differences to show even someone as conservative as him can vote for a Mormon for President. His political qualifications carry greater weight than worrying about his faith. That is the angle that will carry the most punch.

Another presidential candidate, John McCain seems to be sensing what is happening and seeing South Carolina as the Waterloo of the GOP front runner. However, McCain is seeing it for Rudy Giuliani instead of himself. McCain must by now realize he has no chance of winning. It seems he would prefer Giuliani. Perhaps he is even thinking VP. He rejected it in the past when he thought he had enough capital to go for the top. Now that he is irrevocably beyond that, he might settle to be Rudy's VP. If such is the case, it would make sense why he and Giuliani are suddenly ganging up on Romney. This Politico article covers the attacks, but starts out wrong with the first two words: "Sensing weakness...". It should be "Sensing strength..."

Since my last snapshot I have begun sensing something really off about Fred Thompson. I have not put my finger on it until today. I think Thompson has been vying for VP all along and that he will be Mitt Romney's running partner if Mitt wins the nomination. I may be sticking my neck out a bit on that one, but it just does not feel like he is in it to win the gold.

The best developments are against Hillary. Obama has a large amount of money he can use to weaken Hillary. He has been a gentleman so far, but the gloves are going to have to come off some time. Giuliani is already going on the attack against Hillary stating (courtesy Drudge):

"Honestly, in most respects, I don't know Hillary's experience. She's never run a city, she's never run a state. She's never run a business. She has never met a payroll. She has never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less even hundreds of people.

"So I'm trying to figure out where the experience is here. It would seem to me that in a time of difficult problems and war we don't want on the job training for an executive. The reality is that these areas in which - maybe there are some areas in which she has experience but the areas of having the responsibility of the safety and security of millions of people on your shoulders is not something Hillary has ever had any experience with."

Running against Hillary is a popular thing to do among conservatives, so I expect to see all the GOP candidates joining the fun. Since she is a media darling, they will attempt to circle the wagons around her, and will succeed until she gets the nomination. It will be too late to prevent. There is so much ammunition against Shrillary, it will be fun to watch. Texas Rainmaker has embedded a video in a post about her and the "Largest Election Law Fraud in History". Click on over there an view it. You will be fascinated.

Finally, to make clear these snapshots are not predictions. They are slices of the campaign history for the 2008 election as I see them. Momentum may come and go. Candidates may rise and fall. Right now it looks like the momentum is going back to Mitt Romney.

Dr William Gray Gives Eye Opening Lecture Bound to Keep You Awake

Anybody who knows me, knows that when it comes to meetings and lectures I can either get the wiggles of a school boy or struggle not to fall asleep. I think if I were at a recent lecture by Dr. William Gray, a foremost meteorologist, I would have been on the edge of my seat and wide awake. Dr. Gray pummeled the recent awarding of the Nobel Puke Prize to Al Gore and took swipes at the Global Warming Theory itself. According to the Sydney Morning Herald (does the best US news come from outside the country?) Dr. Gray "...told a packed lecture hall at the University of North Carolina that humans were not responsible for the warming of the earth" and called the theory that humans are responsible "ridiculous". He accused Al Gore's movie of "brainwashing our children".

Dr. Gray gives his theory on the warming temperatures (of one degree). According to the article:

But Dr Gray, whose annual forecasts of the number of tropical storms and hurricanes are widely publicised, said a natural cycle of ocean water temperatures - related to the amount of salt in ocean water - was responsible for the global warming that he acknowledges has taken place.

However, he said, that same cycle meant a period of cooling would begin soon and last for several years.

"We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

I have stated in a recent post my desire to live long enough to see when the foolishness of the Global Warming theory is apparent to all. Even though with the rise of the economy of China and India we are burning more fossil fuels and producing more CO2 gases than ever, we have not seen a rise in temperatures since 1998. If people like Al Gore do succeed in some reduction in greenhouse gases somewhere, they will never succeed in the next 20 years in reducing below late 20th century levels with the growth of the developing countries. They may fool Europe, Canada and the US into some reduction (probably just a reduction in growth to boot). This small reduction cannot in the mind of any reasoning person be enough to account for the cooling that Dr. Gray predicts. The question is, will the left allow the modicum of reduction to take the credit for saving us from Global Warming in order to save face from their alarmist propaganda machine? Or will the masses actually realize the truth? I hope to be here to find out.

As Troops Build Momentum Dems Stick Foot Out To Trip Them

As I write this post it is all I can do to contain the righteous wrath against a group of losers that continue to blow gleefully beyond the line at warp speeds. Nearly every day I read about yet another outrageous action by American Leftists that is so ridiculous, deceitful or angering that all support or credibility will be permanently erased from them. Of course the majority of people would need to know about these actions in order to react to them and the media only has time for stories about bathroom signals.

I wonder what the media would do it were discovered that the Dems were diverting funds to Al Queada and the insurgency. Or if they were revealing classified information to the enemy. Or if they were making deals with Iran and Syria to fight against our troops. Since they are Dems and the media is what it is, perhaps my point is weaker than I intend. In any case, the Dems are in the process of doing something equivalent to the things listed above. Whether or not it began purposefully, there has been plenty of warning and time to convey to the Dems the harmful effects on our troops by voting at this time to pass a resolution on the Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman Empire. Instead of waiting for a better time to consider this over 90 year old matter, the Dems are pressing ahead in spite of the likely effects on our troops if Turkey prevents us from using their country for crucial supply lines. According to AFP:

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said possible reprisals affecting Turkey's cooperation with the US military were "hypothetical" and would not derail the resolution.

What Nancy "The Stumbler" Pelosi fails to recognize in her irresponsible offhanded reference to the "hypothetical" is what happens to her and her friends when this hypothetical situation becomes a reality. She was clearly warned that this action could get some of our troops killed. What will she say when troops do get killed when the Turkish government stops key supplies like Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles? The better question is what will the media allow her to get away with saying when troops get killed because of this irresponsible political ploy?

While there is no doubt this awful mass murder of Armenians is a serious breach against humanity, the question is why they are bringing up this action that occurred during WWI. Note, I did not say WWII - there is only one 'I' - WWI. This action has been denounced before. Ronald Reagan publicly labeled it a genocide. The Democrats, however, feel the need at this time to anger an ally in our war in Iraq.

Instead of setting aside this business until a time when our troops are not in harms way, Pelosi makes matters worse by bringing up other genocides:

"Genocide still exists, and we saw it in Rwanda; we see it now in Darfur," Pelosi said.

Interesting that she wants to pass a resolution against a nearly century old dispute while invoking the names of two genocides that Democrats have failed to aid: Bill Clinton and his NATO general Wesley Clark stood by and watched the genocide in Rwanda. The Democrat Congress is standing by and watching the China funded genocide in Darfur. Pelosi also says:

"Some of the things that are harmful to our troops relate to values -- Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture. All of those issues (are) about who we are as a country," she added.

So the Stumbler embarrasses herself again by equating Abu Ghraib with genocide by speaking of them in the same breath. She also forwards the unproven allegations about Guantanamo and torture by the US. She stupidly forgets that her party has won the election and as the Majority, she is in a much better position to expose any torture that is occurring at Gitmo. If she knows something and refuses to act upon it as Speaker of the House, is she not culpable? Instead she is allowed to refer to it freely without any responsibility to act - if it is true.

In summary the timing, the repercussions and the willful ignoring of consequences point to a very ugly picture of the Democrat's motives in this action. Since the surge began to take hold and the report by General Petreaus, we are seeing the situation in Iraq looking more promising. The Dems took a PR beating over their treatment of Petreaus. They have been lashing out like children throwing a tantrum ever since. They supported the twisting of the words of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to try and manufacture scandals of high profile conservatives. Now as the troops continue to build momentum, the Dems are sticking out their foot to try and trip them as they run by. The real story of the year is how the Dems continue their scandalous behavior without creating any scandals. Such is the way things are when the media carries their water in tanker trucks.

Global Warming Alarmists Equate Base Hit With Home Run

The Global Warming Alarmists and their sycophants in the media continue to play their shell game when it comes to climate change. When one reads about or views media exchanges like a recent one with Miles O'Brien, you do not know whether to laugh at the lameness of their efforts or cry that such lameness is taken seriously by too many. If you look at this in terms of baseball, you see that the alarmist are treating a base hit with a Home Run. Anyone familiar with baseball knows this is ridiculous. Why do I draw an analogy to Baseball? It is clear when you review my five questions on global warming. These questions are:

1) Has it been proven that Global Warming is actually happening?
2) Has it been proven that Global Warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases?
3) Has it been proven that Global Warming will cause catastrophic conditions that will result in massive human casualties?
4) Has it been proven that if 1-3 are correct that it is possible for man to prevent #3 by reducing or eliminating their output in greenhouse gases?
5) Just because 2-4 are unproven and likely a crock, does this excuse man's irresponsible polluting of the earth?

I created these five questions when formulating the most time consuming post I have ever created which dealt with the fact that Global Warming is NOT a settled science. The first four questions are designed to tear the thinking person away from the shell game that Al Gore and his followers try to play with us. All four questions must be provably answered before we should even think of sinking trillions of dollars into "fixing". Yet those who play the shell game keep pointing to the only question close to being proven (yes the earth appears to have warmed ONE degree).

So if these first four questions are treated as bases in a baseball field, the best scientists have been able to do is get to first base and they maybe are rounding the corner toward second. Yet the alarmists are ready to change the scoreboard and add a point as if a Home Run has been scored. Instead, the Skeptics have a guy on first and another near second ready to trap and tag the runner between the two bases.

To illustrate my point, here are some quotes from Miles O'Brien (from transcript courtesy of Newsbusters):

"If you go through all of those statements, they, in sum, do not actually go after the central thesis of the film itself, which is that global warming is real and there is a human connection there."

Translation: So what if Gore got sloppy and had 9 major inaccuracies in his film. You can still trust the rest of it.

"So, clearly what we're talking about here is, there isn't much debate in the science. The judge didn't even say that."

Translation: According to Miles since the judge did not spoon-feed us by saying these 9 inaccuracies undermine the GW theory, it doesn't. We can still bury our head in the sand and claim the science is settled.

"And now 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by human beings. So there really isn't a scientific debate anymore on this, Heidi."

Translation: You can get tagged out 5 feet away from home, but it is still a Home Run in my book.

"Really, if you look at those inaccuracies and go through them point by point, they really boil down to exaggerations."

Translation: Exaggerations, but we can still trust our friend Al Gore.

"He [the judge] does say that in some cases Al Gore may have connected some dots that scientists are not ready to connect."

Translation: We are still at the level of unconnected dots, but the science is settled because a base hit equals a Home Run in my book.

Do these people actually listen to themselves? Do they actually think through this before they get on the air? Or do they simply go under the assumption that Al Gore has unquestionable moral authority because they think he should have won in 2000? If he had won in 2000, I do not think the Alarmists would have gained such a foothold that they have. In a final analogy, those of us who have had children know how doting a parent can be. During the baby stage, everything your baby does is cute, amazing, worthy of applause, etc. The same is with Al Gore. Because much of the world views Al Gore in terms of a clash between himself and Bush, they are choosing to dote upon Al Gore like they would a baby. Everything he does or says is wonderful. When he burps, they clap. When he messes his pants, they are spellbound. When trying to walk and he falls, they cheer and help him back up again. Kool-Aid drinking at its finest.

Another Fixed Award for Having the Same Agenda as the Awarding Committee

Yawn. Al Gore won the Nobel Politics Prize. This prize like Academy and Grammy Awards seems to orbit toward those with "approved" views and the vocalization of these views. What is difficult to stomach is the media's reaction to the news of winning as if the end result were ever in doubt. Ever since his nomination, it was a given that they would grant it to Al Gore. During the entertainment awards, while the conservative community goes to bed early knowing who will win, the rest of the gullible world watches with bated breath. Upon revelation, the "surprise" is celebrated with full vigor and the winner is crowned with both the award and "vindication" of their outspoken views.

So either the Nobel committee has either been sucked into the Global Warming illusion or they are part of the instigating group to begin with. Setting aside all concerns that global warming has nothing to do with world peace, this activist committee has selected their agenda du jour as the winning criteria. While the sheeple of this country are reacting to the news with discussion of launching another presidential run (and loss), the informed conservatives yawn.

The Artistic Expression of Ann Coulter

I will state right off the bat that this post is not a defense of Ann Coulter. She is a big girl and can defend herself. Having said that, I find the the reaction of liberals to Ann Coulter vividly shows the inability of the liberal mind to have a mindset of consistency. To support that before getting to Ann, consider the liberal's complete schizophrenia when it comes to gender and race. The liberal is very quick to brand and tarnish anybody that identifies the differences among the human genders, races and cultures. Point out that men and women are different and you are branded a sexist. Discuss the differences between a black person and a white person and you are labeled a racist. Yet when the liberal "Sybil" morphs into another personality, they are celebrating and leading the charge on the great benefits of diversity. Diversity makes us stronger. Diversity is the secret to our greatness. Diversity is the holy grail of political correctness. Yet, what does diversity mean? According to dictionary.com diversity means:

1.	the state or fact of being diverse; difference; unlikeness.

2.	variety; multiformity.

3.	a point of difference.

In short, diversity means different. How can we be better off or stronger from diversity if every race and both genders are really the same? Liberals are addicted to such inconsistency. They are always crying about getting more money from taxpayers to help the poor. Tax cuts always generate more tax revenue, but liberals are ferociously opposed to them. Liberals in the media are quick to highlight the drives for modesty and morality by conservative Christians with great derision and venom; yet they are slow to spend any significant time on the Iranian crackdown on public dress that has affected 122000 people, stoning of adulterers in Islamic countries, or honor killings of the promiscuous by Islamic family members. Liberals will honor the most offensive people by giving them speaking engagements in the name of free speech, yet they scream like a stuck pig if somebody tells the truth about them and they try to deny them free speech. Everybody is inconsistent to a degree, but liberals are Subject Matter Experts on contradictory positions.

When it comes to Ann Coulter, liberals again abandon consistency. Ann Coulter goes beyond pointing out the ugly truth of liberals. Ann Coulter is like the artist that has a message but thinks that in order to effectively get the message across they must make their art so controversial it is extremely offensive. The best examples are religious objects submerged in urine. The artist has a message and presents the message offensively in a work of art. Having followed Ann Coulter for some time, I have come to the conclusion that Ann approaches the political discourse with artistic expression. Anybody can be verbally offensive, but to offend using verbal artistic expressions of simile and hyperbole can take talent. At this point we can all agree Ann is full of it. I am referring to talent, others will refer to something else. After a full review of a broad sample of Ann's public discourse, it simply cannot be denied that her technique is on par with artists like Serrano and Mapplethorpe. (funny the Google spell check highlights Coulter, but yet has no problem with those names. hmmm.) While conservatives have only moved to ban public funds from supporting their art, none have ever advocated suppression or criminal prosecution for their art. The liberals, however, are constantly attempting to demand censorship of Ann Coulter and other conservatives.

When it comes to freedom of speech and expression, the left has so much hatred for the conservative or anti-PC message that they cannot help but get their claws out and make demands of suppression and censorship. They demand the head of Don Imus. They demand Rush Limbaugh be removed from Armed Forces Radio. They demand Ann Coulter be removed from this or that syndication. When I read something that offends me, I ponder the message and perhaps consider responding in some way. I never think in the arena of forced censorship. I may express my lack of desire for my tax dollars to support such a message. I may choose to stop watching, reading or subscribing to something - preventing myself from exposure to more of the same. If enough people do not want to be exposed to the message of somebody, the market will take care of it. The liberal cannot wait that long. So they march down their well-trodden road of inconsistency and push to suppress free speech. I am sure with the new offensive speech recently expressed by Ann, we will see the liberal censors in action once again.

We Cannot Say Hillary Did Not Warn Us

One thing about Hillary is that she constantly reveals her true self. The problem is that our spoon-fed society does not see the media highlight these revelations. The only ones that draw attention to them is conservative talk radio and bloggers. Those who most need to see these self-exposures in an easy to digest sound-byte do not frequent these sources.

In my last post I highlighted some quotes summarized by Neal Boortz that leave no doubt about the hardcore leftist ideology of Hillary Clinton. Today we read that she again gave us an honest moment by stating:

"I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."

This simple statement tells us multiple things. First, none of her ideas involve reducing the size and cost of government. We can certainly afford spending cuts and a reduction in bureaucracy. I guess she has no ideas in this area. This is a major problem with liberals. The average person would admit to some areas of government that could be reduced or eliminated. Not the hardcore liberals (unless it is to reduce our ability to defend ourselves or to reduce border security). What a dangerous thing to elect somebody who can only envision government expansion.

We also see that Hillary again underscores her hard left socialist agenda. Every idea is about wealth transfers and dependence upon government. Conservatives often appear hard-hearted when it comes to government aid. This is simply not true for many of us. I for one realize that some people can get in a financial predicament where temporary help is required. My first preference is for people to avail themselves of help from family and friends. I had to avail myself of that one time in a crisis in my life. I am thankful for the help I received from a number of people. Of course, not all have that option. The next preference is through private charities. Then as a last resort I do not oppose some temporary help programs from the government. Socialists like Hillary Clinton are not interested in temporary and last resort programs. They want long term first-line cradle to grave government expansion.

Hillary does so much speaking that we will continue to get these nuggets of exposure. We know from her words and actions exactly what she is, but only if we are paying attention. The media is not going to spoon feed the truth about Hillary to the mind numb masses. Everybody is responsible to pay attention and be responsible citizens when it comes to voting. Far too few take this responsibility seriously. So if Hillary gets in office, we can look back on all the things she clearly told us and realize that we were warned by her own words.

---

Are You Seriously Considering Pulling the Lever for Hillary?

Has the joke gone far enough yet? I continue to be amazed that Hillary Clinton is the Democrat front runner in the Presidential race. We have heard a lot on the GOP side about people feeling like they don't have much of a choice. I keep wondering why we are not hearing some Dems saying "You think you have it bad, look at our slate". Yet, where there should be disgust and hand-wringing over the lack of a decent choice; there is an actual front-runner and it is Hillary. I can only come to the conclusion that the other candidates are so bad that Hillary looks good to them. I can only imagine that they collectively think they have to fake it until they make it to avoid another GOP president.

I think some are looking into the wrong end of the telescope here. Instead of thinking that the other Dem candidates are so bad that Hillary looks good, they should be looking at Hillary and shuddering at how bad the rest are if she the "best" of the lot.

Why do I fear for the country if Hillary becomes President? The words and actions of Hillary Clinton should be enough to make every potential voter run for the hills.

Her words

Neal Boortz had an eyeopening quiz on his website yesterday. It was a list of quotes with multiple choice answers of who said them. The list contained dubious characters like Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Mao Zse Dung, Hugo Chavez, Castro, Kim Jong Il and others. Each question had a "none of the above" option. The quotes did not at all tip his hand to where he was leading this and I dutifully made my guesses as I moved down the list. Here are the quotes:
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."
5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

As politically jaded as I am, I was blown away when I saw at the end that these were all quotes by Hillary Clinton. We have seen the failure of Communism and Socialism around the world. We have seen the rise of the United States to become the greatest economic power on the earth under capitalism. Yet Hillary wants take a success story and tear it down to failure. Why? Because of the sin that some are rich and others are poor.

A list of quotes would not be complete without her thoughts on privatization:

"When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything."

Can there be any other interpretation to these words than that Hillary thinks Government is the answer to everything?

Her actions:

Every action by Hillary Clinton is completely choreographed from exposing some cleavage to 'I'm your girl', to phony laughing. This is but an extension of the phony baloney we saw under Bill: dancing without music for the cameras, importing rocks to the beach at Normandy so he could form a cross, going from laughter to somber in a nanosecond at a funeral when he saw the cameras on him. When the choreography is somehow lacking and Hillary departs from the script we get some very interesting results like accusing an audience member of being planted by a conservative group.

Her actions back her words on government expansion and control. She moves from one hair-brain government program to the next, be it government run health care , or paying people to have babies, or giving out 401Ks.

Hillary was willing to sign her name to a letter condemning Rush Limbaugh for something he did not say and she had to know he did not say. It is not so much that Limbaugh needs defending, but it shows a willingness to cheapen her Senate seat to score a few cheap political points by using dishonesty.

Hillary seems to surround herself with criminals as best evidenced by the Norman Hsu episode. Now we hear about her complete breakdown in judgment by bringing on Sandy Berger, the former National Security Adviser that stole classified papers during the 9/11 commission.

We cannot forget her many scandals of the past with Travelgate, the FBI files, the futures trading and the fundraising scandal of her senate campaign.

I would like to hear somebody name one reason why Hillary would be good for the country. I think anyone seriously considering voting for her has some serious judgment problems.

The Punishment Gluttons

The word 'gluttony' can only be truly appreciated by either viewing it or receiving a vivid description of it. The mildest form of gluttony can be simple overeating. From there advanced gluttons make eating a Olympic feat, gorging themselves with a constant flow of food. In the very worst form, the glutton is never satisfied with eating even after the capacity to take in more food ends. When the glutton can eat no more without bursting, vomiting is induced to make more room and the marathon continues. A glutton for punishment accomplishes the same thing with actions that cause others to saddle them with painful consequences to their words or actions. They find creative ways to continue encouraging others to deal their blows (physical or symbolic) long after their capacity to endure it ends. They simply cannot help themselves.

In a string of missteps the Dems keep handing conservatives one thing after another to beat them over the head with. As the Dems continue to reel from the Betray-Us ad fiasco and subsequent fallout, they jumped on a distortion of Rush Limbaugh's words spinning that he disparaged some of the troops. Now with a track record of undermining the troops at every possible turn, making the Limbaugh charge laughable, David Obey has found another way to undermine the troops. He has signaled initiating another round of games when it comes to supporting the troops with funding. He wants to try to attach two stinking red herrings to any funding bills: a withdrawal timetable and a tax hike.

The sheer hypocrisy of their feigned outrage over distorted comments by Limbaugh and others should be obvious to all. If not, it becomes yet another payload of ammunition to distribute during campaigns and public commentary. Ever since David Obey was assaulted by his own anti-war friends in a now famous video, he has probably been waiting for an opportunity to prove his loyalty and prevent another incident. Unfortunately for him, he branched out on his own with this step. It is unusual for Dems to see when they are overplaying their hands, but it seems Nancy Pelosi sees the damage this can incur and has soundly rejected the tax hike. Too late. Instead of sparing the Dems of any punishment, this gave conservatives the opportunity to poke fun at Pelosi for finally meeting a tax she did not like. So the punishment continues.

Presidential Election October 3, 2007 Snapshot

It has been a few months since I have written a snapshot on the Presidential election. Since there are only a few months before the primary voting starts, I think it is prudent to add a couple of snapshots beforehand. Things have been unusually slow regarding the primary election coverage of GOP candidates. This could be for several reasons - my first choice of course is the favoritism by the media bestowed on Hillary and Barack. The other reason could be the lack of exceptionalism in the slate of GOP candidates. Not that there are not good qualities in these candidates, but that it is difficult without an MSM PR campaign (unlikely to happen) that to find traits to latch onto with strong passion.

Since the last snapshot, Fred Thompson has officially entered the race, Newt Gingrich has given official word he is going to pass this time and surprisingly John McCain is still in the race contrary to my prediction. McCain has admitted his poor standing to be directly related to his co-sponsorship to the comprehensive immigration bill and has even taken some steps of reversal in his position. It is far too little and too late. He also is still living down his part in the Campaign Finance Reform bill that was passed and gave rise to groups like MoveOn.Oink and other 527s entities. McCain was also one of the Senators that prevented the nuclear option that would allow simple up or down votes for court nominees without the harassment of a filibuster. Finally, McCain will continue to have trouble living down his MSM granted label "Maverick" which is a code word for spineless compromiser with Democrats. His campaign is now carrying a heavy debt. I know he has assets he can liquidate in order to continue the pain. It seems he is determined to make it to the first primaries, so we will need to see him a little longer.

Gauging the rest of the GOP field is very difficult. I think it is more a matter of momentum and direction each campaign is progressing rather than actual standing in the polls. I have seen any recent polls anyway. Giuliani and Romney have either been static or slightly falling in their standing. I still think Romney has a good shot in Iowa. That may jump-start his momentum again, but it is not likely to be enough to get past the South unless he makes significant progress in the next few months.

I know there is a recent flap about some Christian conservative groups threatening to form a third party if Giuliani is the nominee. I don't intend to spend much time on it because I do not think he will be the nominee. It was a premature and foolish statement that will really only result in leaving a bad taste in people's mouths against the favorite target of the media. I will say that I think the whole notion of groups that tell their members who to vote for is ridiculous. This goes for Dobson's group, unions and AARP. Just give people information and let them make up their own minds. On a somewhat related topic, I heard on the radio today that Monica Lewinsky has decided to vote GOP because the Dems left a bad taste in her mouth. (rimshot)

The long shot with some current promise is Mike Huckabee. He came in second in the Iowa Straw Poll, but he and Romney were the only ones seriously contending for it. Regardless, Huckabee's momentum is in a positive direction and he is definitely a prime choice for the more conservative wing of the party. Should his candidacy reach a point of perceived viability, he would have a strong shot. He would do exceptionally well in the South in that case.

My current prediction for the South, however, goes to Fred Thompson. Thompson is another candidate with momentum in the right direction. This is to be expected after announcing. I think it is not as strong as he had hoped. Of the top tier candidates, Thompson is the least likely to suffer from fatigue - people getting tired of him. This leaves him in the best position to continue a positive trend. Every time Thompson makes a significant commentary on a current topic (such as his videos) it comes across very well. He should not over-do it but it is a very sharp tool in his arsenal.

If I had to put money on it today, I would say Thompson will get the nomination. That victory is less than half way, though. We will need to hope that the Dems keep shooting themselves in the foot and that the GOP nominee doesn't.

Irony of Phony Soldier Tom Harkin

Everybody has this clip from Stolen Valor, but I wanted my blog to have it too. It recounts how Tom Harkin was caught exaggerating his war service. Just like the phony soldiers like Jesse MacBeth, Harkin is a phony. To be clear, until he opened his mouth his war service was honorable albeit routine. It was when he falsely boasted of risky and exiting flight missions in Vietnam that he is now named among the phonies.

In a moment of supreme irony, Tom Harkin's was one of the nastiest commentaries against Rush Limbaugh. It is not certain how Harkin thought his wounds from being exposed as a fraud would not be publicly ripped open again when he opened his mouth in this phony soldier fraud. He has embarrassed himself, his family, his state and his party by being the absolute worst person to take the stage and perform his diatribe. I wonder how many Dems were actually thinking at the time and were shaking their heads knowing the coming punishment that would fall. Probably none as they were all whipped up in the orgy of once again overplaying their hand. It is the Wellstone Memorial all over again.

Top Dem Presidential Contenders Sign Onto Limbaugh Lie

In a desperate bid to pander to the far left, owners of today's Democrat Party, the top two Dem Presidential contenders and sitting Senators have signed their names to a known lie. The Senate Democrats have officially condemned Rush Limbaugh for a distorted version and interpretation of what he said about phony soldiers.

The fact is that a number of people have stepped forward, blatantly misrepresented their military service in order to gain a platform among easy believing lefties to trash the rest of the troops. Under any interpretation these people can without doubt be labeled as "phony soldiers". They are phony soldiers because of the lies they told about themselves and honorable troops. To distort this fact as a claim that they are phony because they oppose the war is a blatant and undeniable lie.

It is bad enough that 41 senators are willing to engage in this lie. It is far worse that the two leading Democrat Presidential contenders are among this list. While the offices of Representative and Senator are high, the office of President is the highest in the land and represents the most powerful person in the world today. It is unthinkable that a person so willing to throw truth out the window in such a high profile and reckless manner should even be considered for this honorable position. It seriously calls into question their judgment and one wonders how cheaply they will sell themselves if they ever achieved the office (and to whom).

I wrote about the coming blowback from this stunt by the Dems. The longer this goes on the more opportunities Limbaugh and other conservatives can beat them over the head again and again for their sorry record on supporting the troops, for their ultimate disparaging of the troops by calling their General a liar before he even said anything, for their track-record of eagerly jumping on the bandwagon of the phony soldiers that Rush was talking about, and for how foolish and dishonorable they are making themselves look by this distortion.

I doubt if anybody who has a favorable opinion of Rush Limbaugh will change to having an unfavorable opinion of him. In fact there will likely be some to give him a listen or another try and change to a favorable position of him. There is no doubt that this lying smear will turn off quite a number of Independents who will have a strong unfavorable opinion of the Democrats involved. These are the kind of missteps that steal defeat from the jaws of victory. A few more at the "right" time and the Dems will be panicking wondering what went wrong.

Laugh of the Day - Read and Expel Some CO2

According to Reuters, Quebec has fallen for the scam and instituted a carbon tax with the goal of raising C$200 Million to use to reduce emissions. The carbon tax is going to be on fossil fuels gasoline, diesel fuel, heating oil and coal. It will be collected from the energy companies that provide these fuels.

While one may think so, I have not yet gotten to the funny part. WARNING: Please empty your mouth of liquids before proceeding. The laugh of the day goes to this quote embedded in the story:

It wasn't immediately known whether the oil companies, including Petro-Canada (PCA.TO: Quote, Profile , Research) and Imperial Oil (IMO.TO: Quote, Profile , Research), would pass along the cost to consumers.

When are liberals going to realize that corporations do not pay taxes, people do. Every dollar that comes into a company goes into one of three places: toward a cost / investment, to employees / owners / shareholders, or into temporary holding to go in the future toward one of the first two. Every dollar a corporation must pay comes from one of three places: from an employee / owner / shareholder, from their consumers or from a temporary holding place that in the past came from one of the first two. Corporate money comes from people and goes to people. When a corporation is taxed, people must take a cut in pay / dividends or most likely people must pay more for the goods / services.

Whenever the question of whether a corporation will pass a tax increase along to the consumer (especially in the energy sector), the question of what a bear does in the woods comes to mind. Once again a liberal journalist can't see the obvious. Now go back and read the quote and expel some CO2 into the atmosphere.

Better Stand to the Side to Avoid the Blowback

What happens when the institutions of the MSM and the Senate choose to purposefully hitch their wagon to a known false accusation against an American icon? BLOWBACK! These institutions in their desperation have taken a calculated risk. However, it does not seem they spent much time in the calculation phase. Here is the calculation that should have been made:

*--The left has consistent track record of undermining the troops
- John Kerry accusing the forces in Vietname of ...
- Tainting the entire troops for the actions of a few bad apples at Abu Graibh to score
politically
- Taking the word of terrorists and insurgents to paint the troops running Guantanamo Bay in
a bad light
- Claiming the war is lost while our troops are in harms way continuing the fight you don't have
the stomach for
- Accusing the troops of killing innocent civilians in cold blood in Haditha before an
investigation is complete and before any charges are filed, much less being proven guilty
- Painting our troops as stupid losers with nothing going for them except to get "stuck in Iraq"
- Playing political games with the funding of our troops in harms way before finally, reluctantly
approving the funding to avoid political backlash
- Accepting the word of liars like Scott Beauchamp, Jimmy Massey, Jesse MacBeth, and
Amorita Randall without question and without fact-checking as long as it makes our troops
look bad
- Rejecting the testimony of the decorated and honorable General Petraeus not because he has
ever shown himself worthy of mistrust, but because you do not like his message

*--Rush Limbaugh has an impeccable track record of supporting the troops as outlined in a
House Resolution counter to the pathetic efforts by the Left to smear him:

- His relentless efforts to build and maintain troop morale through worldwide radio broadcasts
and personal visits to conflict regions
- He has consistently used his broadcast time to praise American troops and support them
during their ongoing efforts to secure peace in a troubled world
- He has met with troops in Afghanistan
- He raised and donated millions of dollars to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation,
which provides college scholarships to the children of Marines and veterans of other
branches killed in action
- He features an “Adopt a Soldier” program which provides them with free subscription access
to his online program features
- His desire to see American troops achieve a successful outcome in Iraq, Afghanistan and
wherever soldiers are stationed and his tireless public support for American troops and their
families through radio broadcasts, fundraising and other public support

*--The context of Limbaugh's entire segment is a clear indictment against the liars the left has embraced in order to undermine forces in harms way

*--In spite of these obstacles the plan of the Left is to:
- Extract and twist a few words of that context the left can make a good thing sound bad
- Have an insincere crowd of partisan hacks comment on the distorted claims as if they are true
- Have John Kerry give a Lurch-like speech on how offended he is
- Have Harry Reid call Rush Limbaugh unpatriotic and demand an apology (trying to have a
straight face)
- Try to pass a resolution denouncing the distortion of Rush Limbaugh's comments


There have been times that I have read a portion of what somebody has said and reacted to it according to my interpretation of the partial transcript. I later read or was pointed to the full transcript and realized my error. It is not feasible to think that these clowns do not know the truth of the matter. They are so desperate to take the heat off of their latest bad PR that blatant dishonesty seems to be their only hope. Liberals forget that they no longer have a monopoly on public discourse.

So where does the blowback come in? The public that does see this and see how low the liberals are willing to go will cause more damage than the few that hear the offhanded distortion and believe it. I have a gas grill that does not always start right away. The gas comes and comes as I turn the starter button. Finally, the gas ignites and there is a huge poof. I am lucky to come away without my eyebrows getting singed. The liberals in the MSM and the Senate will be lucky to pass from the coming blowback with only singed eyebrows.

Desperate and Pathetic Libs Try to Dig Out of Bad PR Hole With False Accusations

The recent disintegration of the Left's Iraq momentum and their nearly daily blunder and misstep is creating a level of desperation among their members and their friends in the MSM. It seems as they see control slipping from their grasp, they are trying anything and everything to regain control. Right now they need a big scandal on the Right to happen. They need some conservative with large influence to create a wave of controversy to turn the tide. They are so pathetic and desperate they are willing to manufacture it.

The ultra-left website Media Matters has selected two high profile targets and done just that - attempted to manufacture a scandal. They have run two accusations: one against Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. Their laughable charges are that O'Reilly made racist remarks during an interview with Juan Williams who is black and denies any racism; and that Limbaugh made disparaging remarks against troops who disagree with the war by calling them phony.

Saturday I spent 30 minutes of my valuable time listening to the entire segment in question from Bill O'Reilly's radio show. I also heard the segment from Limbaugh's show and read the transcript as well. Any objective person would see that Media Matters has completely taken these statements out of context to manufacture an issue. When listening to or reading the entire segments, there is not even a shred of a gray area that remotely resembles the accusations. It is nearly the equivalent of taking...a...broad...conversation...or...commentary...
and...using...words...minutes...apart...and...adding...them...together...to...come...up...with...
something...entirely...different...than...what...was...said...like...a...killer's...letter...to...police...
using...clipped...words...from...a...newspaper.

Ok, we would expect Media Matters to pull such a prank. However, when the MSM becomes willing to throw away their credibility by running with the stories completely out of context we see the desperation in their camp as well. Rest assured, these blunders will backfire in the same way that the David Shuster attempted "gotcha" blew up in his face. The MSM continues in their agenda driven journalism to be unconcerned about who they cosy up to: be it leaders of states sympathetic to terrorists, groups firing rockets at innocent Israeli civilians, or sham artists like Media Matters and MoveOn.Oink. It is becoming a soap opera with the title, "As the credibility falls."

How Long Does it Take to Apologize When You Know You Were Wrong

Duke University President Richard Brodhead has issued a long overdue apology to the three falsely accused lacrosse players. These three young men suffered through a false accusation of rape by a stripper they foolishly hired, an out of control prosecutor ready to throw them into prison just to get re-elected, and the racially motivated denouncement by Jesse Jackson and members of the University faculty. While nobody can deny the terrible treatment of blacks by this country, the notion that fairness requires some white people be treated in the same terrible manner is absurd. To determine guilt based on the skin colors of the alleged victim and accused does not balance the scales of justice.

Some Duke faculty members saw:

Accuser is black
Accused is white (and rich to boot)
They must be guilty.

The leaders of the University should have denounced this lynch mob in their midst. They did not. However, the innocence of these young men became quickly apparent as the accusations began to unravel almost immediately. The charges were (finally) dropped last April 11th by Nifong's replacement. Whether you go from the day after the unruly faculty branded the players with guilt before being proven, from the time their innocence became obvious, or when the charge were dropped; the President of Duke University has had many months to issue this apology. Did he wrestle with the political or legal consequences of the apology? If so, the timing of the apology is yet another instance of the university doing what it is now apologizing for: not doing enough to support the players during their ordeal. It is far too little and far too late.