Tag: Conservative

Memo to the G.O.P.: The Iraq War is NOT to be used a Political Point!

Posted on

Now this here, does piss me the hell off, and I’ve never even served in the armed forces! Grrrrr! Angry

Senator Barack Obama said today that he is considering visiting American troops and commanders in Iraq this summer. He declined an invitation from Senator John McCain to take a joint trip to Iraq, saying, “I just don’t want to be involved in a political stunt.”

In a brief interview here, Mr. Obama said his campaign was considering taking a foreign trip after he secures the Democratic presidential nomination. No details have been set, he said, but added: “Iraq would obviously be at the top of the list of stops.”

Mr. Obama visited Iraq in January 2006 as part of a Congressional delegation to the Middle East, but he has not returned since he became a presidential candidate. Mr. McCain and the Republican National Committee have sought to use that singular trip to highlight a lack of foreign policy experience.

For weeks, aides to Mr. Obama have been quietly discussing a foreign trip, but the long Democratic nominating fight has delayed making any concrete plans. Now, with only five months remaining until the general election, it remains unclear whether there will be time to take such a trip.

Mr. Obama suggested today that any foreign itinerary would include a stop in Iraq.

“I think that if I’m going to Iraq, then I’m there to talk to troops and talk to commanders, I’m not there to try to score political points or perform,” Mr. Obama said. “The work they’re doing there is too important.” – Obama Says He Is Considering Iraq Trip – (Via The Caucus)

You know, I do not even like Barack Obama, nor do I agree with 90% of his Politics, but I do have a bit more respect for him. Unlike John "I served in the Armed Forces and I am going to use it to score political points!" McCain, Obama has shown himself to have a bit more integrity then McCain will ever have.

Let me be absolutely clear here, This War and the service performed by the brave men who volunteered to give their lives to their Country are worth more, than to be used for a cheap political point. If John McCain uses this misguided war in Iraq, the one that was started using bad intelligence, the one that has taken the lives of 4000+ young people, all so George W. Bush could achieve his rather warped goal, as some sort of cheap political stunt or point, it will be the death knell of his Presidential Campaign. The American people, present company included, do not appreciate being exploited.

I can only imagine how the parents and families of those who have been killed in Iraq feel right now, the blood and lives of their loved ones, are now going to be used by the G.O.P for exploitation, so that a Man, who was, in all reality, a failure as a fighter pilot, can achieve his selfish dream of becoming President of the United States. It gives the world, a glimpse into the warped mind and intellect of the Republican Party. My heart grieves for them, My the Lord Jesus be with them through this hard time. Praying

My friends, this is your poisoned Republican Party, poisoned by the Neo-Conservative mentality, that a war is political fodder, that the death and blood of our American soldiers are nothing more, than mere political points to be used, as ammo against the opposing party. 

This what I have just described, is why I am voting for Chuck Baldwin, and is why I will never, ever, vote for a Republican, ever!

Others: Commentary, The Carpetbagger Report, TIME.com, FOX Embeds, Hot Air, Redstate, Gateway Pundit, GOP.com, Comments from Left Field, Atlas Shrugs, Spin Cycle, Top of the Ticket, Sister Toldjah, Needlenose, Fox News, Stop The ACLU and Wake up America

 

Breaking News: John McCain’s Consultant’s Wife has ties Libyan Government

Posted on

This could be bad for McCain…. 

A top consultant to Senator John McCain is married to a lobbyist who has worked in recent years for the Libyan regime of Muammar Khaddafi, UltimateJohnMcCain.com has learned.  

She began working for the Khaddafi government at a time when it was officially designated by the U.S. State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Under Khaddafi’s rule, the Libyan government supported terrorism in countries as far afield as Spain, the U.K., and the Philippines, and was responsible for the 1988 downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which 270 people died.   The Lockerbie bombing was considered the largest terrorist attack on Americans prior to 9/11.

The McCain consultant, Mike Hudome, is one of the media advisors who took over for Mark McKinnon when McKinnon left the campaign rather than work against Obama. Mr. Hudome previously worked with McCain media advisor Michael Murphy in the 2000 primary campaign. (via McCain consultant’s wife worked for Libya’s terrorist regime (Via Ultimate John McCain))

This could be seriously bad. Especially if the Main Stream Media gets it. You know, I have always suspected that McCain was dishonest. This simply proves it.

What this will do to John McCain’s Presidential Campaign, is anyone’s guess. But it will be interesting to see if the Blogging World and the Main Stream Media bothers to cover it.

So much for the policy of kicking out the Lobbyists out of his Campaign. Frustrated

You know, I will just say what the Republicans will not say, because of their loyalty to their candidate. This is the very large distinction between the Paleo-Conservatives and the Constitution Party and the New or Neo-Conservatives and Republicans. The Neo-Con’s know no integrity, if they smell money, they will go against the very fabric of the Principles of the United States of America to make a buck, even it means working for a Nation that was regarded as a Terrorist Nation.

It is a sad commentary of the present state of the Republican Party. One that makes me wretch in disgust. Angry

Editorial: Objective Journalism or hit piece on Michelle Malkin?

Posted on

I never thought in a million years that I would be defending the knuckle-headed woman. However, here I am, once again, defending someone, of whom my political beliefs are a bit similar. Michelle, being a staunch Republican and Conservative, and me a former “Left of Center” type and more of a Libertarian and very much a Constitutionalist.

In the interest of full disclosure, there are times, when I read what Michelle Malkin writes and I just roll my eyes and think to myself, “My God in Heaven, why do they let that women near a Computer?” However, there are other times, when I would like to whack her upside the head with an aluminum baseball bat, to knock some sense into her head, for some of the things that she has written. But then again, there has been quite a few times, that I would loved to kiss her soundly on the lips and give a nice squeeze on the butt, for some of the good stuff that she has written as well.

Deadly violence and sexual fantasies aside, when I see stuff like this piece in the Boston Globe, I find myself in a position of saying, “Hey, wait a minute here!”

What strikes me about this article is the glaring bias, could it be any clearer that this was written by some idiotic liberal who has a axe to grind with the Conservatives?

I mean, yes, when I read the article on Malkin’s Blog I just laughed and thought, “Well, maybe it is a slow news day, and she is looking for content.” It happens, I as a Blogger have the problem, some days, there just is not much write about in Politics. This is especially painfully true with the Democrats. I mean, can we just chose the candidate and move on please?

Nevertheless, what bothered me about this piece was this little quote here:

Some observers, including ultra-conservative Fox News commentator Michelle Malkin, were so incensed by the ad that there was even talk of a Dunkin’ Donuts boycott.

‘‘The keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad,’’ Malkin yowls in her syndicated column.

‘‘Popularized by Yasser Arafat and a regular adornment of Muslim terrorists appearing in beheading and hostage-taking videos, the apparel has been mainstreamed by both ignorant and not-so-ignorant fashion designers, celebrities, and left-wing icons.’’

The company at first pooh-poohed the complaints, claiming the black-and-white wrap was not a keffiyeh. But the right-wing drumbeat on the blogosphere continued and by yesterday, Dunkin’ Donuts decided it’d be easier just to yank the ad.

Said the suits in a statement: ‘‘In a recent online ad, Rachael Ray is wearing a black-and-white silk scarf with a paisley design. It was selected by her stylist for the advertising shoot. Absolutely no symbolism was intended. However, given the possibility of misperception, we are no longer using the commercial.’

Yowls? I mean, can you get any more biased than to reduce a woman of great writing skills and awesome Conservative values to a word like “yowls?” This is, by the way, an underhanded way of basically calling Michelle Malkin a crybaby.

I mean, I can understand the idea that some people find Michelle Malkin’s writing a bit screechy at times, but to basically slam her for her Conservative values in a article and disguise it as objective journalism is just pathetic. As far as I am concerned the editors at the Boston Globe owes Michelle Malkin and people like me, who share her values a big apology, and should terminate the employment of the writer who produced this story.

Trust me, this is only the beginning of the Books whacking Bush and his White House

Posted on

Shocking Yes. Surprising? Not hardly. Not talking

Quote:

Among the most explosive revelations in the 341-page book, titled “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception” (Public Affairs, $27.95):

• McClellan charges that Bush relied on “propaganda” to sell the war.

• He says the White House press corps was too easy on the administration during the run-up to the war.

• He admits that some of his own assertions from the briefing room podium turned out to be “badly misguided.” 

• The longtime Bush loyalist also suggests that two top aides held a secret West Wing meeting to get their story straight about the CIA leak case at a time when federal prosecutors were after them — and McClellan was continuing to defend them despite mounting evidence they had not given him all the facts.

• McClellan asserts that the aides — Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser, and I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff — “had at best misled” him about their role in the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. -  McClellan whacks Bush, White House (Via Politico.com)

Other Interesting tibits:

Among other notable passages:

• Steve Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, said about the erroneous assertion about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium, included in the State of the Union address of 2003: “Signing off on these facts is my responsibility. … And in this case, I blew it. I think the only solution is for me to resign.” The offer “was rejected almost out of hand by others present,” McClellan writes.

• Bush was “clearly irritated, … steamed,” when McClellan informed him that chief economic adviser Larry Lindsey had told The Wall Street Journal that a possible war in Iraq could cost from $100 billion to $200 billion: “‘It’s unacceptable,’ Bush continued, his voice rising. ‘He shouldn’t be talking about that.’”

• “As press secretary, I spent countless hours defending the administration from the podium in the White House briefing room. Although the things I said then were sincere, I have since come to realize that some of them were badly misguided.”

• “History appears poised to confirm what most Americans today have decided: that the decision to invade Iraq was a serious strategic blunder. No one, including me, can know with absolute certainty how the war will be viewed decades from now when we can more fully understand its impact. What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary.”

• McClellan describes his preparation for briefing reporters during the Plame frenzy: “I could feel the adrenaline flowing as I gave the go-ahead for Josh Deckard, one of my hard-working, underpaid press office staff, … to give the two-minute warning so the networks could prepare to switch to live coverage the moment I stepped into the briefing room.”

• “‘Matrix’ was the code name the Secret Service used for the White House press secretary."

Unlike Jack Moss, who totally trashed Scott and his book, and even goes as far to say that Scott is lying about Bush in his book. I will say this, it is a good chance that Scott is actually telling the truth about Bush in his book. I think Jack Moss thinks that unless someone is praising Bush and saying he is 100 percent right and Iraq was a great idea, and Katrina was not his fault, they’re lying in their books. In other words, if they do not toe the party line, (of B.S.) they are just lying liberals out to discredit Bush. You see how screwed up the mind set is of the Bush apologists and Neo Conservatives?

The truth is, this book is most likely going to be one of the more stunning books, seeing that it is from an insider, someone who was in his inner circle. I personally would like to get a copy of it.

You can pre-order yours at:

Like I said in the title of this post, this is only the tip of the iceberg. I believe that torrent, a flood, if you will, of books will come out, after Bush leaves office, by former staffers, and friends of his, some glowing and some will be glaring. Bush might lose some friends over it too. You cannot stifle truth and it will prevail in the end.  It shall be interesting, to say the least.

Update: The White House responds:

The White House is panning a new book by former presidential spokesman Scott McClellan.

"Scott, we now know, is disgruntled about his experience at the White House. For those of us who fully supported him, before, during and after he was press secretary, we are puzzled. It is sad – this is not the Scott we knew," Dana Perino, one of his successors at the podium, says in a statement to reporters.

"The book, as reported by the press, has been described to the president. I do not expect a comment from him on it – he has more pressing matters than to spend time commenting on books by former staffers," she says.

How prissy. Rolling Eyes

More Opinions @ Memeorandum

Bob Barr, Another Opinion….

Posted on

This is very interesting….

via Alexander Brunk:

Quote:

As of Saturday, Bob Barr is now the official Libertarian party nominee for President of the United States. Some conservatives, dissatisfied with John McCain as the GOP’s standard bearer, seem to think that here is a candidate ripe to receive the protest votes of thousands of movement conservatives dissatisfied with the direction that McCain is taking our party.

I wasn’t shocked that the libertarian party picked Barr – they are desperate for a candidate who more than a tiny fraction of the country has actually heard of. He’s a compelling speaker and will gain publicity for the party. But I’m surprised at how willing they are to ignore much of Barr’s history in doing so.

Certainly, it seems ironic that the man who was once congress’s greatest champion of the “War on Drugs” is now the leader of a fringe party devoted to opposing it. A man who rails against overspending in Washington himself voted for No Child Left Behind, which libertarians hate. A man who was one of the main movers and shakers in the impeachment trial of President Clinton, which most libertarians opposed. A man who voted for the Patriot Act, but has now spent the last five years speaking out against it.

The bottom line is that when he was in congress, Barr was a loyal Republican footsoldier, not a movement conservative or libertarian who just happened to have an R next to his name.

His criticism of big government Republicanism, and then his movement toward the libertarian party and his rejection of Republicans altogether only occurred after Republicans rejected him – tossing him out of his congressional district in a 2002 primary, and failing to support an attempted return to congress the following year.

When Bob Barr was in congress, when he had the opportunity to stand up for the principles he now claims to champion, he didn’t. He is not the principled leader he claims to be. And conservatives and libertarians alike looking to cast a protest vote should look past him.

You know I kind of had a feeling that this was true. I just was not sure. It is what I suspected. I noticed that during the voting process at the Libertarian convention, that were were a few who spoke out against Bob Barr. Now I see why.

I’m contributing at another Conservative Blog….God help us all…

Posted on

Well, it can’t be that bad. I haven’t been tossed yet, but then again, I did just sign up about 5 minutes ago.

I am contributing to "The Next Right". I am bringing my Paleo-Conservative/Libertarian/Constitutionalist voice to the joint. Hopefully, I won’t tick anyone off, well, maybe just a little. TongueHee hee

Anyhow, so, if you see my name over there, yes, that is really me. Big Grin

Obama’s lead strategist has lobbyist ties….Media Buries it.

Posted on

Now this is quite interesting…

Why wasn’t Michael Isikoff’s investigative piece outlining the lobbying connections of Barack Obama’s lead strategist, David Axelrod, promoted in Newsweek’s Sunday e-mail to subscribers?

I’ve cropped the article descriptions from this list for purposes of formatting this post, but I have not removed any of the articles. Although Isikoff’s report appears in the same June 2 issue of Newsweek as the stories at right, it is nowhere to be found here. And it should be, especially considering that the first four articles listed are all generally pro-Obama in their tilt and three are explicitly framed as advice for candidate Obama. The other four articles cover minor issues such as Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy and John McCain.

What happened? One slim possibility is that the article is online-only and thus not eligible for inclusion in a round-up of magazine stories. But this seems not to be the case, as the screen capture above indicates, Newsweek says it’s in the print edition. – Via Blog PI

I must say, I’ve suspected that the liberal media was in the tank for Obama, and this just confirms what I’ve thought all along.

It is pretty stinking bad, when Newsweek, which is owned by MSNBC, buries a story, so the Bloggers won’t get grab the story and run with it. This is the SAME network that allowed their resident liberal attack dog, Keith Olbermann to attack the damned President for trying to control the media, but yet, they do the same damn thing themselves. The hypocrisy of the Left is so vast, you could park the Pentagon, The White House AND the Capital Building in Washington DC in it.   

Now maybe I will get lucky Keith Olbermann will name me worst person in the World for saying that about him, one can only hope, God knows I need the traffic for this Blog. Of course, if I honestly gave two flips what that lapdog for Media Matters for America and the DailyKos thought, I wouldn’t be writing this Blog, now would I? Winking

Seriously, I shouldn’t talk about Keith like that, DohI don’t disagree with everything Keith says. Some stuff I do agree with, especially the things about Bush and the Iraq War, and the Kool-Air drinking right. Some of the stuff, like him ripping on Armed Forces staff at the Pentagon, who are ALSO Soldiers. I don’t agree with. But for the most part, I know he means well. I just wish he’d learn to train the damn fire of that flame thrower at the right people, that’s all. Big Grin (Which he does do, 95% of the time. It’s just that 5% that he gets wrong that annoys me. At wits end)

More at Memeorandum

Bob Barr gets the Nomination of the Libertarian Party.

Posted on

News from the  Libertarian National Committee:

The Libertarian Party has nominated former Congressman Bob Barr as its candidate for president for the 2008 election.

"I’m sure we will emerge here with the strongest ticket in the history of the Libertarian Party," Barr stated in his victory speech shortly after being selected as the Party’s nominee. "I want everybody to remember that we only have 163 days to win this election.  We cannot waste one single day."

More than 650 Libertarian delegates met in Denver from May 22 till the 26 for the 2008 Libertarian National Convention.  After six rounds of voting Sunday afternoon, Barr was selected as the Party’s presidential nominee. 

"We’re proud to present to the American voters Bob Barr as our presidential nominee," says Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis. "While Republicans and Democrats will fight for their own power in November, Libertarians will fight for Americans.  Bob Barr is one of the strongest candidates in the Party’s 37-year history, and we look for him to have an enormous impact in the 2008 race.  Republicans and Democrats have good reason to fear a candidate like Barr, who refuses to accept the ‘business-as-usual’ attitude of the current political establishment.  Americans want and need another choice, and that choice is Bob Barr."

I happened to watch the Libertarian convention, well, half of it anyhow… I did notice that there are some within the Libertarian Party that do not like Bob Barr, at all. I can see their point, Barr has been painted as a flip-flopper by some in the party, as he did change many of his positions after leaving congress.

Personally, I will not be voting for Barr, because I am voting for Chuck Baldwin, who is the Constitution Party’s Nominee for President of the United States. While I support about 95% of the positions of the Libertarian Party, I do not know Barr that well, and I am more closely aligned with the Constitution Party’s Platform.

However, out of respect of the Libertarian Party, I have placed a banner in my sidebar, promoting their candidate.  

I wish Bob Barr the best in this election.

Update: There’s always a smart aleck liberal in the bunch.

(snark) Doesn’t this guy have some corn to pick or some shoes to shine? Just sayin’…  (/snark)

Liz Trotta on Fox News jokes about Obama Being Assassinated

Posted on

Just as it was totally unacceptable for Hillary Clinton to make a flippant remark about Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in 1968 and to suggest that she was running in case it happened to Obama, Just as it was totally unacceptable for Michael Savage to play the "Dead Kennedy’s" on his radio show, in a lame attempt to mock the health crisis of Ted Kennedy, It was totally unacceptable what this woman did on Fox News.

The Short Clip:

The Quote:

"and now we have what … uh…some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama …uh..um..Obama [after being prompted by the FNC anchor]….well both if we could [laughing]"

What this woman did was not only distasteful, socially unacceptable, and totally disgusting, it was also against the law. Making a statement of this nature is against the law, for anyone under the protection of secret service. Now whether they will enforce it or not, is another matter.

You can also contact FOX:

Contact FOX:
Teri Everett, Senior Vice President
Corporate Affairs & Communications
Phone: 212-852-7070
E-Mail: teverett@newscorp.com

jhorner@newscorp.com

In case anyone thinks that she was taken out of context, here is the full clip:

This not to say, that all Republicans think like this, I am personally a Constitutionalist and Libertarian and I do not feel this way, I cherish my right to free speech, but with that Right comes a responsibility, and this stupid woman, totally shot that responsibility all to hell.

I also notice that none of the Conservative Blogs are even talking about this. Because they are cowardly bastards, all of them, they should hang their heads in shame, because talking about, even jokingly, killing someone that is running for President of the United States of America, is about the most low class, ignorant thing that one could ever want to do.

The very idea that Rupert Murdoch would even remotely tolerate this sort of reprehensible sort of talk on his own network, speaks volumes about him, his thought process and the status of this man’s very dark soul. It also speak volumes as to the reason why I will never, ever, watch Fox News Channel.

There is a great deal of outrage in the blogging world and rightly so, you can see it all, at Memeorandum

Update: Spied over at HotAir, an apology from Liz, I guess the DailyKos people got through to the Secret Service or to Murdoch:

Exit Question: If she did not mean it, then why the hell say it for in the first place? Humor my ass. Dumb bitch. AngryLoserTalk to the handRolling Eyes

Chuck Baldwin officially launches his campaign website….

Posted on

I received some great news this morning in my e-mail inbox. Dancing

Pastor Chuck Baldwin has officially launched his Campaign website.  

I am voting for Chuck Baldwin because he more represents the American values that I, as a Christian, as a Libertarian and as a Constitutionalist, hold very dear.

He might not win, but I will know that my vote went for someone who still believes in the old Paleo-conservative values that I hold dear. I will also know, that my vote did not go to a third term of George W. Bush, a Neo-Conservative, Globalist, Shill or a Socialist, Marxist, Liberal. 

This notion that if you don’t vote for John McCain, that your vote is a vote for Hillary or Obama is the biggest lie and the great travesty ever heaped upon this Nation. Heaped upon it by warmongering bastards who want to send this Nation into a pit that it will never get itself out of.

I ask you today, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, Conservative, Republican, wake up and realize that this Nations only hope, is found in this man.

Check out his Website, Forum  and go to his "Money Bomb" page.

Let’s get American back on the right track, vote for Chuck Baldwin

The Smartest thing John McCain ever did

Posted on

John McCain yesterday did the smartest thing that he possibly could have. He rejected the endorsements of John Hagee and Rod Parsley. I happen to know a bit about these two, they have been flying under the radar for many years.

Here is the truth about these two:

Neither John Hagee nor Rod Parsley stands for mainstream Christianity. John Hagee is a Non-Denominational preacher, he is considered amongst Fundamentalist Christians, like me, as a snake oil salesman. He says the things that he does for one reason and one reason only, to sell books. He is, as far as I am concerned, the Christian world’s version of Ann Coulter.

Rod Parsley on the other hand is a certified kook, I know quite a bit about this guy, as I used to be involved in the group Christians that he is associated. Rod Parsley is a Pentecostal Christian; Pentecostalism is one of the most misguided versions of Christianity ever. Pentecostals believe that the “signs and wonders,” that existed during the time of the Apostles of the book of Acts in the Bible, still exist today. This movement got its start in 1907, at the Azusa Street “Revivals” in California. It would be safe to say that the majority of Main-stream Christians reject the doctrines of these Christians, and truthfully, Pentecostal Christianity was not even remotely in the mainstream until after the late 1960’s. Pentecostalism essentially is nothing more than a very large mind-controlling cult. I know, I spent 21 years in it and came out in 2004, after waking up and realizing how deceived these people are.

What’s more, Ron Parsley is a world class phony, Rod Parsley was thrown out of a Bible college for punching a student in the face for supposedly flirting with his now wife. He was also tossed because of the Corvette that he drove around, he was seen on this college campus as a “playboy” and not a serious candidate for the Ministry. Parsley also preaches what is known in Christian circles as the “Prosperity Gospel.” This is the biggest and grossest distortion of the Biblical doctrine of tithing ever.

Therefore, to be blunt, John McCain did one of the smartest things that he could have ever done. He has gotten rid of some of the more fringe people within Christianity.

Chuck Baldwin Says: OPEN BORDERS PROVE "WAR ON TERROR" IS SUPERFICIAL

Posted on

Taken from Here:

The American people were led to believe that America’s fine men and women in uniform were sent halfway around the world to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight a "war on terror." Of course, everyone now knows that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on September 11, 2001. I am sure that most everyone also remembers that the vast majority of the terrorists who participated in those attacks were from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. Yet, Saudi leaders continue to enjoy the coziest of relationships–and, dare I say, friendships–with President George W. Bush.

Does anyone besides me remember when Bush said that countries had to decide whether they would be friends with either terrorists or the United States, but that they could not be friends with both? Well, Saudi Arabia has probably financed, supported, and befriended more terrorists in the Middle East than any other nation in the world (except perhaps Red China), yet they continue to be "friends" with the United States.

Another glaring inconsistency regarding the "war on terror" is the fact that for some seven years since the 9/11 attacks, our nation’s borders and ports are as open and porous as ever. These open borders make the argument that "we are fighting them over there, so we won’t have to fight them over here" look absolutely disingenuous–even laughable.

If foreign terrorists want to bring the fight to America’s streets again, they still have plenty of opportunity to do so. In fact, we have no idea how many potential terrorists have already slipped across our borders and are right now living among us. Furthermore, we have no idea how many potential terrorists continue to pour through these wide open sieves that we call borders.

How can this administration look the American people in the eye with a straight face and claim that it is fighting a "war on terror," while it does almost nothing to secure our borders and ports? As Marcellus said in Shakespeare’s Act 1 of Hamlet, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." Amen. Something is also rotten in Washington, D.C.

Besides, why should al Qaeda attack us now? The U.S. occupation of Iraq is the best recruiting tool they ever had. Do the American people not realize (I think most of them actually do) that, thanks to our protracted occupation of Iraq, al Qaeda might actually be stronger now than it was when we invaded that country in 2003.

f the Bush administration was serious about fighting a war on terror, it would absolutely, resolutely, and immediately seal our borders and ports. It is nothing short of lunacy to send our National Guard forces to Iraq for the purpose of protecting that country’s borders, while leaving America’s borders wide open!

Not only does the Bush administration not secure our borders and ports, it wants to provide a "path to citizenship" for illegal aliens. It allows tax dollars to be used to pay for illegal aliens’ education, social services, and medical care. It offers birthright citizenship for illegal aliens. And it prosecutes and imprisons Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean for shooting (but not seriously enough to prevent his escape back into Mexico) a known illegal alien and drug trafficker.

No wonder the flood of illegal aliens has skyrocketed since George W. Bush became President of the United States.

And is there anyone who does not understand that a John McCain Presidency will be more of the McSame? A McCain White House promises a 100-year occupation of Iraq along with continued open borders and ports. Plus, McCain will also push forward with his plans to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

In addition, when it comes to illegal immigration, amnesty, etc., there will be no relief from an Obama White House. Both Barack Obama and John McCain are pro-open borders, pro-amnesty twins.

Instead of fighting a "war on terror," the Bush administration (and numerous administrations before it) is allowing our troops to be used as the personal militia of the United Nations and for the commercial benefit of international corporations.

Remember, soon after our troops invaded Iraq, President Bush explicitly reported that the reason for the invasion was to defend "the credibility of the United Nations." But this has been the pattern of White House behavior ever since the U.N. was created back in 1945. Presidents from both parties have repeatedly injected U.S. troops into copious conflicts and wars, all for the purpose of enforcing and augmenting the policies of the United Nations.

In fact, the last constitutional conflict that the U.S. military fought was World War II. Virtually every war since has been a U.N. manufactured and manipulated conflict. The war in Iraq is no different.

I ask the reader, If you were President, and you sincerely believed that you were fighting a war on terror, and that you had to take the drastic action of sending other men’s sons and daughters to fight and die in order to wage this war (not to mention the prospect of potentially bankrupting the country to fight it), would you be so careless or indifferent as to not close the borders to the threat of terrorists who might actually decide to attack us? I doubt that there is a reader who would not agree that anyone who took such a task seriously would–at the very minimum–do this.

So, I repeat: the fact that George W. Bush refuses to seal our borders and ports proves that whatever else he thinks he is accomplishing in Iraq, he is disingenuous when he proclaims that he is fighting a "war on terror." (Again, the country that had the closest connections to the 9/11 terrorists was Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. If fighting the terrorists was the focus, why did Bush not attack Saudi Arabia?)

And that means John McCain is disingenuous when he says he wants U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for 100 years so "we won’t have to fight the terrorists over here" while, at the same time, promoting amnesty for illegal aliens (which does nothing but promote even more illegal immigration).

No, my friends. The real war is not a "war on terror." The real war is a war against constitutional government, personal liberty, and national sovereignty. It is a war against the fundamental principles of America’s Founding Fathers, that America should be a friend and trader with all, but engaged in entangling alliances with none. It is a war against the Bill of Rights. It is a war against the Spirit of ’76, the spirit that says America is a free and independent country, subservient to no international entity or interest. It is a war against the principle that would put America first. It is a war against the very heart and soul of everything this country has stood for ever since our patriot forebears stood on Lexington Green and Concord Bridge. And this war is not being waged from Baghdad or Tehran. It is being waged from Washington, D.C.

Chuck Baldwin’s Website

Elect Pastor Chuck Balwin to be President of the United States of America.

A perfect example of the far left loon delusional movement

Posted on

Can be found right here.

This Blog entry is a perfect example of the Left’s attempt to paint people, like myself, who care about the problem of Illegal Immigration as racist, lunatic conspiracy theorists.

The fact of the matter is, that illegal immigration is real and not an imagined problem, and yes, Illegal immigration is a very common source of infectious diseases, and is a BIG MAJOR cause of crime in this country. 

One of my favorite Blogs that covers this problem in the greatest detail is Freedom Folks. Freedom folks is the home of Blogs for Borders, which is a Video Podcast or Blogburst as it is called, that carefully documents the crimes and other illegal immigration news that affects our country every day.

So, don’t buy the lie of the Homosexual Communist Liberals, Illegal Immigration IS a problem and unless we, the American people STAND UP for our land and demand that our feckless Government do something about it. We will be in deep trouble.

So, join Blogs 4 Borders and put the Liberal Lie machine, out of Business.

Some other organizations that are on the leading edge of this fight are Save our State, NewsWithViews, The Republic Broadcasting Network, and The Constitution Party. 

Remember folks, unless we stand now, we will serve on our knees later.

What the Jews in Florida think of Obama….

Posted on

It seems that older Jews in Florida do not care for Obama… The New York Times explains why… 

Because of a dispute over moving the date of the state’s primary, Mr. Obama and the other Democratic candidates did not campaign in Florida. In his absence, novel and exotic rumors about Mr. Obama have flourished. Among many older Jews, and some younger ones, as well, he has become a conduit for Jewish anxiety about Israel, Iran, anti-Semitism and race.

Mr. Obama is Arab, Jack Stern’s friends told him in Aventura. (He’s not.)

He is a part of Chicago’s large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.)

Mr. Wright is the godfather of Mr. Obama’s children, asserted Violet Darling in Boca Raton. (No, he’s not.)

Al Qaeda is backing him, said Helena Lefkowicz of Fort Lauderdale (Incorrect.)

Michelle Obama has proven so hostile and argumentative that the campaign is keeping her silent, said Joyce Rozen of Pompano Beach. (Mrs. Obama campaigns frequently, drawing crowds in her own right.)

Mr. Obama might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan, worried Sherry Ziegler. (Extremely unlikely, given his denunciation of Mr. Farrakhan.)

However, there are some things that cannot be explained away, Soccer Dad explains them quite well:

Of course if she’d chosen a different list of faults it wouldn’t have been as easy to dismiss.

He has only two years of experience in the Senate.

He has no record of bipartisanship in his career.

He is friends with Rashid Khalidi.

He is the choice of Hamas.

One of his advisers until recently is the only American at Camp David who blamed Barak, not Arafat for the summit’s failure.

He saw nothing wrong with Rev. Wright’s sermons for twenty years until they became an issue.

Of course, if anyone brings the following points up, the Liberals heads collectively explode and they go into a full bodied orgasm and scream "RACIST!". Which is the whole problem with Liberals, Identity Politics, it is what they’re infamous for.

Unless Obama can come up with a good retort or prove to American, including these Jews that he can lead America, the Democrats will lose and lose hard.

Let us not forget our United States Servicemen

Posted on

While I have been a very vocal critic of the Bush Administration’s Handling of the war in Iraq. I will always stand in honor for our United States Military.

Here is a video that I think everyone, Liberal, Conservative and everything in between, needs to watch: (H/T to Army Wife Toddler Mom and Tammi)

Please, support Military Ministry or Soldiers’ Angels

Let’s not forget those, who choose to serve our Nation, so that Bloggers, like me, can write and be free.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blogs 4 Borders Video Blogburst

Posted on

In this weeks show:

Chris Simcox At Depaul University in Chicago! The leftists! The Commie Kids! The character assassination! All this and more in this weeks edition…

This has been the Blogs For Borders Video Blogburst. The Blogs For Borders Blogroll is dedicated to American sovereignty, border security and a sane immigration policy. If you’d like to join find out how right here. To sponsor a show send us an email here.

Tags: chris simcox, depaul university, the minutemen, illegal immigration, open borders, deportation, the rule of law, catholic, corruption, communist, socialist, leftist, lowlife, violence, teh crazy

Cross-Posted @ The American Nationalist News Service

From the "Ya Think?" File…

Posted on

Unbelievable! A Right Winger that actually has a brain, stop the presses, call the media! This is a rarity! Surprise

Okay, that was a little overblown, but this is remarkable, someone on the right actually sees that John McCain is losing the Iran Debate. 

Of course, this is not the only debate he is losing, especially the debate on the economy, on Jobs and about everything else, that middle class America cares about. Including the quagmire in Iraq, that is spending this nation into a economic recession that will far surpass the one in the 1980’s and could possibly lead this Nation into a depression that could last for many years.

I think if the Conservatives and Republicans look really hard, they would see quite a good number of things that they are very wrong on.

Memo to the Conservatives, get your head out of your anal cavity, Please…

Posted on

The following might actually qualify as the lamest spin on a news story, ever…. 

The Kool-Aid Drinking, Knee Jerk Right is now dismissing Barack Obama’s 75.000+ turn out in Oregon as bogus.

These tone deaf, torture apologists, are saying that the ONLY reason that these people turned out, was to see a group called "The Decemberists". An independent rock group.

I mean, I have been around quite a while, and I have heard quite the deal of spin in my day, Hillary Clinton’s latest being a perfect example as of late. But this stuff here is about the stupidest, that I have heard in a long while.

I mean, this is what the Democrats have to run against, people that cannot provide a reasoned answer to Barack Obama’s message of change and hope and so, the conservatives will stoop to smears and lies and outright stupidity?

If this is what they’re planning for the General, they deserve to get their preverbal asses handed to them in November.

A Perfect example of what is wrong with the modern day Republican Party.

Posted on4 Comments

I mean, I can understand people not liking what Keith Olbermann said, but it is really necessary to be that damned nasty about it?

I mean, after all, he did clarify what he meant.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in free speech, but this sort of nonsense is uncalled for.

Update: As such as I thought, Cannot answer my question, so, they resort to personal attacks. So typical for your ilk. You see folks, this is what happens when you allow intellectually dishonest people near a computer. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid guys, and I’ll keep pointing you out to the Blogging world. 

Keith Olbermann defends himself

Posted on

It was in my opinion the apology and correction that Keith Olbermann did not have to give. However, in hindsight it mostly likely best that he did.

Last Wednesday Keith Olbermann gave, what I felt was the best Special Comment, that he has given, since I have been watching his show.

It seems however, that a use of a few words that were not edited well enough by Keith caused a major dust up within the Right Wing world.

I first saw this story today over on HotAir.com. “Allah Pundit”, one of the more sane writers within the Right Wing Blogging world, and believe me, that is saying quite a bit, gave Keith the benefit of the doubt, as did myself. However, it seems that some of the bedwetting, knee jerk, and Kool-Aid drinkers in out midst came unglued and began accusing Keith Olbermann of insulting our troops.

Many people have e-mailed me and wondered, sometimes with great vulgarity, why I even bother to include Keith’s segments on this Blog, since I am a Constitutionalist and Libertarian. Ladies and Gentleman, I will answer this question as best I possibly can.

Because I Love America, and yes, as much as it is hard for the Kool-Aid drinking right wing fascists to believe, So does Keith Olbermann. No, I do not agree with all of Keith Olbermann’s Political Positions, but I do agree with Keith Olbermann on one main point, this war in Iraq was one of the biggest mistakes that this country ever made, I make no apologies for that feeling. There were never, ever, ANY operational ties with Iraq and Al-Qaeda, Ever.

Anyone who believes anything other than that, is listening to, and believing the ignorant spin and lies of this fascist Presidential Administration, or are still drinking the poisonous “Kool-Aid”, of this Presidential Administration and the political party that he represents, Which by the way has not stood for the classic conservatives, which I grew up admiring as a child. Rather a toxic form of Conservatism called “Neo-Conservatism.”

As much as I would like to believe that Keith Olbermann would see this, I highly doubt it, but I will just say this, anyhow. Keith, you did a good job, once again, silencing the right wing morons, who seem to think that they, and they alone hold court of true patriotism in America.  

Keep up the good work.

Ouch!

Posted on

via Brave New Films:

 

If this is any preview of what’s going to happen in the general election… It’s going to be tough of the G.O.P. and McCain.

Others: MyDD, Booman Tribune, The Real McCain, Daily Kos, Balloon Juice, Group News Blog and Attackerman

The White House cannot control the media and whines about it.

Posted on

This is too damn funny….

The Article: White House takes swipe at NBC News (Via The Hill)

Steve Capus

President, NBC News

30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10112

Mr. Capus:

This e-mail is to formally request that NBC Nightly News and The Today Show air for their viewers President Bush’s actual answer to correspondent Richard Engel’s question about Iran policy and "appeasement," rather than the deceptively edited version of the President’s answer that was aired last night on the Nightly News and this morning on The Today Show.
In the interview, Engel asked the President: "You said that negotiating with Iran is pointless, and then you went further. You said that it was appeasement. Were you referring to Senator Barack Obama?"

The President responded: "You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently the political calendar has. People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right, either. What I said was is that we need to take the words of people seriously. And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously. And if you don’t take them seriously, then it harkens back to a day when we didn’t take other words seriously. It was fitting that I talked about not taking the words of Adolf Hitler seriously on the floor of the Knesset. But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon."

This answer makes clear: (1). The President’s remarks before the Knesset were not different from past policy statements, but are now being looked at through a political prism, (2). Corrects the inaccurate premise of Engel’s question by putting the "appeasement" line in the proper context of taking the words of leaders seriously, not "negotiating with Iran," (3). Restates the U.S.’s long-standing policy positions against negotiating with al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas, and not allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Engel’s immediate follow-up question was, "Repeatedly you’ve talked about Iran and that you don’t want to see Iran develop a nuclear weapon. How far away do you think Iran is from developing a nuclear capability?"

The President replied, "You know, Richard, I don’t want to speculate – and there’s a lot of speculation. But one thing is for certain – we need to prevent them from learning how to enrich uranium. And I have made it clear to the Iranians that there is a seat at the table for them if they would verifiably suspend their enrichment. And if not, we’ll continue to rally the world to isolate them."

This response reiterates another long-standing policy, which is that if Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment program the U.S. government would engage in talks with the Iranian government.

NBC’s selective editing of the President’s response is clearly intended to give viewers the impression that he agreed with Engel’s characterization of his remarks when he explicitly challenged it. Furthermore, it omitted the references to al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas and ignored the clarifying point in the President’s follow-up response that U.S. policy is to require Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment program before coming to the table, not that "negotiating with Iran is pointless" and amounts to "appeasement."

This deceitful editing to further a media-manufactured storyline is utterly misleading and irresponsible and I hereby request in the interest of fairness and accuracy that the network air the President’s responses to both initial questions in full on the two programs that used the excerpts.
As long as I am making this formal request, please allow me to take this opportunity to ask if your network has reconsidered its position that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, especially in light of the fact that the unity government in Baghdad recently rooted out illegal, extremist groups in Basra and reclaimed the port there for the people of Iraq, among other significant signs of progress.

On November 27, 2006, NBC News made a decision to no longer just cover the news in Iraq, but to make an analytical and editorial judgment that Iraq was in a civil war. As you know, both the United States government and the Government of Iraq disputed your account at that time. As Matt Lauer said that morning on The Today Show: "We should mention, we didn’t just wake up on a Monday morning and say, ‘Let’s call this a civil war.’ This took careful deliberation.’"

I noticed that around September of 2007, your network quietly stopped referring to conditions in Iraq as a "civil war." Is it still NBC News’s carefully deliberated opinion that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war? If not, will the network publicly declare that the civil war has ended, or that it was wrong to declare it in the first place?

Lastly, when the Commerce Department on April 30 released the GDP numbers for the first quarter of 2007, Brian Williams reported it this way: "If you go by the government number, the figure that came out today stops just short of the official declaration of a recession."

The GDP estimate was a positive 0.6% for the first quarter. Slow growth, but growth nonetheless. This followed a slow but growing fourth quarter in 2007. Consequently, even if the first quarter GDP estimate had been negative, it still would not have signaled a recession – neither by the unofficial rule-of-thumb of two consecutive quarters of negative growth, nor the more robust definition by the National Bureau of Economic Research (the group that officially marks the beginnings and ends of business cycles).

Furthermore, never in our nation’s history have we characterized economic conditions as a "recession" with unemployment so low – in fact, when this rate of unemployment was eventually reached in the 1990s, it was hailed as the sign of a strong economy. This rate of unemployment is lower than the average of the past three decades.

Are there numbers besides the "government number" to go by? Is there reason to believe "the government number" is suspect? How does the release of positive economic growth for two consecutive quarters, albeit limited, stop "just short of the official declaration of a recession"?

Mr. Capus, I’m sure you don’t want people to conclude that there is really no distinction between the "news" as reported on NBC and the "opinion" as reported on MSNBC, despite the increasing blurring of those lines. I welcome your response to this letter, and hope it is one that reassures your broadcast network’s viewers that blatantly partisan talk show hosts like Christopher Matthews and Keith Olbermann at MSNBC don’t hold editorial sway over the NBC network news division.

Sincerely,

Ed Gillespie

Counselor to the President

So, they cannot control the media, like they do over at Fox News and so, they write NBC whining about it. Crying

How immature, stupid, and terribly lame, can you be? Rolling EyesLoser

November cannot come fast enough.

Others agree: JustOneMinute, Marc Ambinder, The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room and Gawker

The Obamasssiah says "Lay off my wife"

Posted on

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Crying

The Article: Obama Warns GOP ‘Lay Off My Wife’ (Via ABCNEWS)

The Republicans seem to have come to the same conclusion and a GOP Internet campaign in Tennessee has an ad featuring Michelle Obama’s comments during the long Democratic campaign that "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country."

Michelle Obama was asked about the ad on "GMA," but her husband said, "Let me just interject on this."

"The GOP, should I be the nominee, I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record," Obama said. "I’ve been in public life for 20 years. I expect them to pore through everything that I’ve said, every utterance, every statement. And to paint it in the most undesirable light possible. That’s what they do."

"But I do want to say this to the GOP. If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful. Because that I find unacceptable," he said.

Obama praised his wife’s patriotism and said that for Republicans "to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is just low class … and especially for people who purport to be promoters of family values, who claim that they are protectors of the values and ideals and the decency of the American people to start attacking my wife in a political campaign I think is detestable."

Here’s a wake up call for you, Barry.

You don’t like your BITCH being talked about, then keep your damn BITCH at home! Angry

When are people going to wake up and see what this Marxist tool for what he really is?

Barack Obama says Iran is not a threat…..Say What?

Posted on2 Comments

Seen over at Commentary Magazine online:

 

Is this man Serious? I mean Seriously….

My Reply…:

 

Like I said, It is to wonder…

Others agree: Click Here

Again?

Posted on

I saw this Yesterday, but didn’t blog on it, because I ran out of time.

This comes via Politico:

Former Rep. Thomas G. Loeffler, a Texan who is among the McCain campaign’s most important advisers and fundraisers, has resigned as a national co-chair over lobbying entanglements, a Republican source told Politico on Sunday.

It’s at least the fifth lobbying-related departure from the campaign in a week.

The McCain campaign, already facing the prospect of being badly outgunned in the general election, now also must cope with the disruption of the lobbying shakeout.

The McCain campaign’s stringent approach to the issue is provoking a bit of grumbling from some of its Washington allies, who point out that a lobbyist’s function is enshrined in the Constitution.

“No one in real America cares,” said one key Republican. “But McCain cares.”

The senator, whose appeal to independent voters rests in part on his reformist image, recognizes that he will be held to a high standard in the coming campaign and wants to clean house before the general election formally kicks off, sources say.

The McCain campaign last week announced a restrictive “McCain Campaign Conflict Policy” that included a questionnaire to be returned to the campaign’s legal department as part of a re-vetting of all staff.

“No person working for the Campaign may be a registered lobbyist or foreign agent, or receive compensation for any such activity,” the policy says.
Officials say Loeffler’s resignation shows that McCain and his campaign is going to be serious about enforcing the policy, which was implemented following revelations about the lobbying ties of several campaign officials.

I hate to break it to John McCain, But this is nothing more than red meat for the Democrats, who will use this as a campaign strategy. I am sure that John McCain’s camp has some of their own, but it is going to be quite hard to convince people to ignore this sort of thing.

Also, the assumption that "No one in real America cares", is a real dangerous attitude to have. I believe Americans do care, not all, but a great of them do. I know I do, and I would be less inclined to vote for someone, who has had to fire staffers over lobbyist ties.

Also, John McCain is going to have quite the uphill battle, with economy like it is, fuel prices sky high, and the job market like it is. It is going to be tough for him, and I just believe people are smarter and much more well informed, then they were, say in Ronald Reagan’s era. Plus, times have changed as well. Things are much different than they were in Reagan’s era.

Hopefully McCain can shake this off, but I just don’t see it happening.

More via Memeorandum