31
Jan
Joe Biden, who has threatened for a couple of years to run, is in.
Well, no sooner than I had even posted his entrance, a lot of people are speculating Biden is out, again. Mainly, because of this comment:
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that’s a storybook, man."
To which his spkesman offered this translation:
"What Senator Biden meant is exactly what he said to Diane Sawyer," said Biden campaign spokesman Larry Rasky. "He’s fresh and he’s new and he’s got great ideas. I don’t see how his comments could be interpreted otherwise, but this is politics. Obviously there are people who are people trying to make something of it today, but not anybody who knows Joe."
The part his spokesman is trying to get everyone to forget immediately is "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy ." Just sort of implies that all the rest were stupid, dirty, and ugly. I’m sure Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Charlie Rangel will forgive him, being a Democrat and all, but I doubt the average voter would. Good thing Joe’s not Republican, those guys would have crucified him. And deservedly so.
Joe’s done. He’s toast. Every time he goes for the national stage, something dirty comes from it. This is just the icing. I really didn’t think he ever had a chance given Nancy Pelosi’s concern with the culture of corruption and Joe’s plagiarism problem in his last major shot at the White House. Luckily for her, he shot himself out of the saddle before she had to address the issue of his ethics in the past. As if……
31
Jan
Iraq has been providing weapons and soldiers to kill our people in Iraq. And, they’ve been doing pretty much the same thing wherever they can. So, imagine their surprise and probable disgust when they got this news today:
Pentagon stops F-14 parts sales to Iran
I feel so much better now. I’m sure our people in Iraq do as well.
Now, before I let this get TOO far out of hand, here’s the entire story:
The Pentagons move followed a report by The Associated Press this month on the F-14 surplus sales plans. An AP investigation found buyers for Iran, China and other countries had exploited gaps in sales security to get their hands on sensitive military equipment. The purchases included parts for the F-14 and other aircraft and missile components. Law enforcement officials say that in at least one case the contraband made it to Iran.
John Kerry, who’s been on security commissions since the dawn of man, had this to contribute:
The Pentagons decision to suspend sales of surplus F-14 parts is welcome news, said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who had requested a Senate inquiry into surplus security following the AP report. In this era of instability, we can hardly afford to be sloppy about something as sensitive as our national security.
In the time it takes to finish one of his Senate inquiries, the "Struggle" in the Middle East will be over. Senator Ron Wyden is more my kind of guy. This is what he had to say:
The only way to ensure that America doesnt arm Iran is for the U.S. to permanently stop selling these weapons parts, Wyden said. This review does not do that and I am going to press on until it happens.
There’s a huge difference between the path Kerry wants to take and the path Wyden wants to take. I’m on Wyden’s side. Stop this silliness now. As time goes by, if the Pentagon can assure these parts don’t wind up in the wrong hands, THEN resume sales. Kerry’s plan just assures more of these parts will wind up in the wrong hands while his inquiries go where they almost always go. Nowhere. Contact your representative and tell them to support S. 387.
The families of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Campean are in need of financial and emotional support due to their incarceration. I’m still a bit at a loss as to why these guys are even in prison, much less why President Bush has allowed this situation to continue. Grassfire.org is coordinating a fundraiser for the Ramos and Campeans so that their families need not suffer any more than they already are. Please help them out by going here and contributing.
30
Jan
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m all for this. However, I think things need to be balanced a little better in regards to the underlying issue here. Namely, the Senate voted 87-0 to strip former legislators of their pensions if they have been convicted of a felony. Now, a lot of the media has been quick to cite a couple of recent Republicans and their troubles with the law.
The Democrats return to power in both the House and Senate came after a campaign in which they stressed the culture of corruption under GOP rule.
A few other media felt compelled to list the ENTIRE story. When they do, the "culture of corruption" that Nancy Pelosi rode to power on becomes a lot more clear. Here’s who has been collecting those pensions they are purging, the actually proven culture of corruption:
| REPUBLICANS | DEMOCRATS | |||
| Bob Ney | 2016 | Austin J. Murphy | 78,000 | |
| Duke Cunningham | 64,000 | Mary Rose Oakar | 54,000 | |
| John Rowland | 2019 | Dan Rostenkowski | 126,000 | |
| David Durenberger | 86,000 | Joe Kolter | 47,000 | |
| Carroll Hubbard | 61,500 | |||
| Carl Perkins | 24,000 | |||
| Larry Smith | 30,000 | |||
| Albert Bustamante | 23,000 | |||
| Mario Biaggi | 60,000 | |||
| Michael Myers | 8,000 | |||
| Frederick Richmond | 29,000 | |||
| John Murphy | 79,000 | |||
| Count: 2 | 150,000 | Count 12 | 619,500 | |
For some reason, most media isn’t reporting that aspect of the story. And, although Duke Cunningham stands to possibly collect now, those 12 Democrats have been collecting for as long as 20 years. The entire time, not once did Nancy Pelosi complain about the Democrat culture of corruption. Not one, single time. And so far, not one single media source has called her on it.
30
Jan
During the 2006 races, the Democrat National Committee ran advertisements criticizing the Republican Party for allowing annual cost of living adjustments to take effect. When in fact, most of the Democrats cherised, and voted for, COLA as well. Payback time. The Republicans blocked a vote to allow COLA to take effect for 2007. Since it was an automatic adjustment, the Democrats would have had to vote against the Republican motion to not accept COLA this year.
Next time you see that issue raised, ask your own Congressman whether they supported it or not. Since it’s a procedural vote, there’s no record of who voted how. That alone should tell ya something about how honest the DNCC was with voters in 2006.
29
Jan
Was browsing posts over at Dean Esmay‘s and he made a real fun post. What he did was agree to watch a "documentary". Now, Dean is kind of like an intelligent conservative. "Why We Fight" is kind of like ultra-liberal propoganda. It’s one of those things you just have to ignore facts and nod your head in agreement whenever they tell you something ludicrous, like how the US invaded Vietnam, and stuff like that. He then live-blogs his reactions as he watches it. For chucks and giggles, here it is.
Now, I’m not the sort to deprive myself of 90 minutes of time otherwise spent with my four year old just to insult myself or get upset by wasting 90 minutes watching something I know I’ll get upset by. So, if you all want to, you can watch it. I’d like to know exactly how many BLATANTLY obvious "mistakes" are made like "forgetting" the French started the Vietnam War and drug US into it, the first "Democracy" was the Roman Empire, and that the Japanese tried to surrender during WWII and Truman nuked them anyway. Little things like that.
All this really tells me is Eugene Jarecki never attended school. That’s all. ( Actually, from reading other sources, what it tells me is Jarecki knows how to make a quick buck and knows exactly which suckers pay the most. The wilder, more outlandish the claims, the more likely Robert Redford will LOVE you at Sundance. )
26
Jan
I saw this on the news, and now I’m seeing it from those affected:
The supporters make all kinds of "logical" claims:
- "And if you never hit a cat," Lieber said, "you should never hit a kid."
- "Why do we allow parents to hit a little child and not someone their own size?" asked Nazario, a professor at the University of San Francisco Law School. "Everyone in the state is protected from physical violence, so where do you draw the line? To take a child and spank his little butt until he starts crying, some people would define that as physical violence."
- "I think it’s pretty hard to argue you need to beat a child 3 years old or younger,” Lieber said. "Is it OK to whip a 1-year-old or a 6-month-old or a newborn?”
Ms. Liber has no children. So, it’s obvious she has no clue. Has her poltiically correct cat ever pooped in their pants, started grabbing at grocery store items, kicked her in the nuts, while screaming at the top of their lungs while she was trying to check out of the grocery store so that she could get her out-of-control cat out of the store so it wouldn’t disturb the entire store? Just one time? Every now and then people might spank a small child out of some degree of anger, but more often it’s frustration. You’ve done everything you know to get them to calm down, and they refuse. So, you keep working up the ladder to get their full attention. You don’t "fight" with them like you do an adult, you’re not aiming to hurt them ( which IS the aim in "beating" someone ), you’re aiming to simply get their full attention and let them know that a certain amount of discomfort accompanies the behavior you have been attempting to discourage otherwise. More often than not, this activity is done NOT out of anger, but out of concern that this behavior will manifest itself in a permanent way in the child you are raising. So, Ms. Lieber, not having a clue, comes to THIS conclusion:
Assemblywoman Lieber believes that spanking is responsible for the wave of violence that is currently in evidence in our culture, according to an interview that Ms. Lieber gave on the Sean Hannity radio show.
I got news for Ms. Lieber, she’s as wrong as wrong can possibly get. It’s kids and people growing up NOT realizing there is discomfort and sacrifice associated with bad behaviors that get into the most trouble. My kid already is balancing his decisions by how much he wants something with the potential discomfort associated with that action that he has received in the past. That’s called discipline. DIscipline is not something a parent can inflict on a child forever, it’s something the kid has to learn and do themself. What Ms. Lieber is thinking is the kid will grow up thinking it’s OK to spank anyone that makes them mad. The reality is that kid, if spanked properly, will grow up knowing that fighting and hurting other people is bad and makes them feel bad, just like they did when they got spanked. IF you’ve done your job as a parent, and the kid is semi-normal, they won’t want to make others feel like they did when they got spanked. It hurts.
It just never ceases to amaze me how people who don’t have a clue what they are talking about are usually the ones quickest to judge others. Once Ms. Lieber has raised the perfect child, then she can tell us how she did it. Until then, she needs to keep her un-educated opinions to herself. Spanking looks ugly, feels uglier to the parent, and it’s a no-win situation for everyone involved at the moment. However, it’s an invaluable tool in raising a child.
I’d love to see her make that proposal here. We’d laugh her out of the state, all the way to California! I am somewhat encouraged that most of the opinions I have seen from California echo my sentiment as well.
- However, just as I would not require parents to spank, I would also not bar them from using a method I do not consider abusive, certainly not with the enforcement of the government.
- This is the most ridiculous piece of legislation I have ever heard of.
Secondly, I’d LOVE to know who told Ms. Lieber that filing this legislation was a good idea.
And, lastly, I’d like to let Ms. Lieber know that "beating" a child IS ALREADY illegal. Patting a child is not only legal, but the entire world thinks it’s one of the most beautiful things a human can do. What would be the legal difference, physically, from patting a child really firmly on the butt versus spanking? And, more importantly, WHO determines the difference? Surely she can see the completely wide-open potential for abuse here. Surely.
Sally Lieber strikes me as being a very, very, dangerous person! She needs a good spanking right now in the worst possible way for being so incredibly stupid.
25
Jan
This is just funny as hell!
25
Jan
Duncan Hunter from California is in. I think he’s a long-shot at best. I really get the feeling he’s just using 2008 to get his feet wet for a ’12 shot.
What do you all think?
24
Jan
The candidates are jumping on board for the 2008 Presidential race as fast as they can. So far, I count about 100 or so, or so it seems. One power broker in DC so far has remained steadfast in their refusal to run, Condoleeza Rice. Now, there is a site pushing Condi to run. I’m going to just list all their reasons. I know it’s some sort of plagiarism thing, but some things are so perfect it just needs to be repeated with attribution. Here, from draftcondi.us, is THEIR reasons she should run:
1. She actually knows what she is doing, a rare attribute in a candidate these days. A person doesn’t get to be Provost of Stanford University by goofing off. Rather than spending her adult life running for office, she’s actually … well, gone out and worked hard. To be a “professional politician” has never been a mark of competence, energy, or skill.
2. She’d flatten the two remaining Democratic strongholds: women and African-American voters. In fact, it might just end the Democratic Party as an institution, leaving it to join the Whigs and the Federalists as subjects for American History 101. (Hit them while they’re still trying to figure out how, with the backing of the mass media, celebrities, and Soros’ millions, they still couldn’t beat the fellow they called a smirking chimp).
3. We’d have the first woman President (and her name wouldn’t be Hillary),
4. and the first African-American President,
5. and the first President who has proclaimed herself “a Second Amendment absolutist,” repudiating everything including registration. Her father didn’t hunt ducks — he hunted Klansmen. (No proof that he got one, but Kerry never proved he got that duck, either).
6. She would also be the first unmarried President in over a century. All the supermarket mags could speculate as to whom she’s dating now. (Okay, they could do it with Bill Clinton, too, but this would have a lot more decorum). Stolen glances at Prince Charles? Why did she appoint a 27 year old as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Paparazzi could pursue her as she sneaked away with a Marine guard. The Secret Service could detain the paparazi and “accidentally” drop them off the 14th Street Bridge. This gets better by the minute.
7. If she does get married, we’ll have to figure out what the First Man of the U.S. does. Gets up on the White House roof to adjust the antenna? Trims the grass? Serves as the representative to NASCAR? (Takes out the garbage is a given).
8. Since the election of 2008 would end with her nomination, she would have no need to barter the usual political favors (this group gets a cabinet official, this donor gets a nice ambassadorship) and could run her Administration as she pleased. (Probably first time that’s happened since the election of 1796). The British might actually get a competent ambassador for once. The Democrats would also benefit, since they would save the expenses of a convention, campaign, and inauguration.
9. Bin Laden would lose it, and the Taliban would be terrified. If they crossed us, they’d have their butts kicked by a woman, an American woman no less. Think of them trying to say “The American president, she thinks she can threaten us.” “After the air attacks sent against us by Miss Rice, we have survived and will fight on.”
10. She could break treaties and international agreements at will, because we all know women change their mind. Elizabeth I got away with this racket all the time. On the other hand, she’s studied foreign policy, and women have excellent memories, so any French demands could be met with the rejoinder “so what? You breached the
11. If the Demos behave as they did upon her Cabinet nomination … there’s nothing funnier than a liberal going racist. (It’s only appalling if you had some respect for them to begin with).
However, I see other advantages given the current political climate. Top 10 Moon reasons to run would be:
10. What we have brewing in the Democrat circles is a battle between a white female, and a black male. This could pit white females against black males. Condi running would save us that further division of our country. ( Do it for US Condi! )
9. She seems to have balls that would make any average white male jealous. Average white males aren’t racist or bigots by nature, we just don’t really like whiny emotional types in general. Condi, to say the very least, has never come across as whiny or emotional. We like that. Secondly, average white males generally trend to respect someone we think can kick our ass in a bar. Condi fits that bill as well. She would get a certain amount of average white male votes.
8. She’s conservative as hell, but anyone have a clue what her religion is? It’s not in-your-face. I like that. Your religion is not a calling card to attract voters. Condi seems to respect that.
7. She’s academic, but not liberal. How the hell did she pull that one off? Not only would she be an inspiration to women, and to blacks ( African-Americans ), but she would be to closet conservative academia too afraid to speak their true feelings now.
6. She’s a conservative Republican, but was the Provost of Stanford University in CALIFORNIA? How the hell did she pull THAT off? If she can do that, she convince all the world that the US is really a lot better place to be than they think, and the Taliban and Iraqi “insurgents” should be a lot more like us.
5. She’s an extremely gifted musician. If the rancor gets too bad during negotiations, she can perform another duet with Yo Yo Ma until everyone gets along.
4. Although the previous lists it, it’s worth repeating. The perception I would think the world would have, after about three months, that if put in the same room for fifteen minutes, and the doors closed, Condi could whip Bin Laden’s ass. This is important in the Middle East.
3. The perception I would think the world would have, after about three months, that if put in the same room for fifteen minutes, and the doors closed, Condi could whip Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ass. This is important in the Middle East. Not only that, she could not only say it right, she could spell it too. That’s not terribly important in the Middle East tho. I just find it challenging.
2. The perception I would think the world would have, after about three months, that if put in the same room for fifteen minutes, and the doors closed, Condi could whip Kim Il Jung’s ass. You want true peace in the world? That’s how you get it pronto. The US negotiating policy would no longer rely on the military, the catch-phrase would be “Don’t make me come over there again!”.
And, the #1 reason to draft Condi:
1. Barbara Boxer HATES her.
That tells me all I need to know.
What do you all think?
