Yesterday Bush vetoed the Iraqi pullout bill. In that bill, it had emergency spending for the military as well. That was both expected politically, and I expected it for bigger reasons. Spending will be done one way or another until a proper funding bill is presented. The war won’t stop just because a few loonies sabotaged it. The bigger issue in my opinion is Bush kept Congress from meddling in a military operation. The very last thing this country needs is 535 people with no real military experience or commitment trying to micromanage our troops in harm’s way. They have the right to examine what’s going on, to give guidance to the President, and pass laws affecting it’s funding etc.. What they do not have the right, per the Constitution, is to usurp the authority of the Commander and Chief as defined by the Constitution they promised to uphold. Every single person that voted for that bill IMO has voted to violate the US Constitution and should be forced to explain how it does NOT violate the separation of powers. Here’s the list of people who felt compelled to totally toss the Constitution aside and take over the military:
|
|
|
Now, I am curious, although I KNOW they would all flip completely out if I question the patriotism, which I’m not, I think they think they’re doing what’s best for the US, but, they’re letting their politics outweigh their logic. Now, treason is defined as aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States. If these people feel it’s best to surrender and walk away at a very defined date, then they have made the enemy’s job profoundly simple. Just hide and wait it out. That folks, is aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States. It’s a harsh word to use, but it’s a fact. I don’t question their patriotism, but I do question their priorities. Before I wrap it all up, think about the plight of another gallant US citizen from way back when:
….distinguished himself as a hero of revolution early in the war through acts of cunning and bravery in the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga, the Invasion of Canada (1775), the Battle of Valcour Island in Lake Champlain in 1776, the battles of Danbury and Ridgefield in Connecticut (after which he was promoted to Major General), and the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. He was wounded several times.
At the time, this guy was one of the most heralded patriots in the United States. No one would DARE question his patriotism. However, due to later commitments to other issues (namely a loyalist wife and bitterness over a missed promotion), Benedict Arnold would set a defined timeline for the US to withdraw troops from a contested location.
The only difference between what he did and what these people did is the location.
Additionally, what disturbs me about this vote is three of the people who voted for it are running for President. I really think people need to think twice about a potential President who does not understand, respect, or honor the very basic philosophy of the United States Constitution. That being the separation of powers. If they don’t respect it now, you can’t make the argument they’ll suddenly respect it if elected.
|
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
Opinion Polls & Market Research |
Apparently “the Dems” picked up the endorsement of MSNBC, who claims unequivocally that Americans are siding with Dems. The headline leaves no room for error. It’s not “most”, “a majority”, or “some”. It’s all. Every single American. Mexican, Canadien, Brazillian, it’s all of them. That’s a pretty powerful block of people to be supporting “Dem”. That’s a good thing for the “Dems” I suppose. They are already extremely popular with Al Qaeda I would suppose.
However, I think the truth is much more likely that more people in MSNBC’s poll supported the “Dems”. Let’s test that theory wording the situation a little more realistically, shall we?
Now, you can assume I am a little over the top in my summary judgment. But, to support the “Dems”, you HAVE TO ASSUME that Al Qaeda will just quit their war against the US simply because we are not fighting them IN the Middle East.
And everyone knows what happens when you assume. Only this time, it’s a lot more serious.
The report then goes on to add:
Many demographers associate shrinking populations with economic problems, typically poor job markets or prohibitive housing prices.
"A lot of cities rely on immigration to prop up their housing market and prop up their economies," said William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
And:
"Maybe those metro areas should think about what it would take to make Americans want to live there," Camarota said.
Now, it’s been my contention that in this day and age, we don’t need massive cities. They completely destroy the environment, alter the climate in and around, and generate human cesspools that generate generation after generation of unproductive people that sap resources for the rest of the country. With the advent of modern communications, a person can be as productive sitting in the middle of Kansas as they are sitting in a huge skyscraper in New York City or Los Angeles. So, I say tighten the borders as is needed and let the huge cities shrink some. Sure, it’ll hurt their housing market, but I think that would only be for a short time as those affected cities could start shutting down ghettos and moving those people into abandoned houses. Ownership would generate a lot more self esteem than living in the ghettos of Detroit. Secondly, when the purpose of a city’s largesse is no longer applicable, the people will go where the purpose goes as well. Propping them up by artificial temporary means such as illigeal immigrants doesn’t solve the problem, it just replaces traditional tax-generating revenues with non-traditional non-tax-generating revenues. And, that is very bad. So, let em shrink. Tell me what you all think. If you dare.
1
Apr
A funny thing happened on the way to the polls for Nancy Pelosi. When she ran the races, set the agenda, and got the Democrats the majority in Congress, it was on a wave of negative publicity against President Bush. After she took over, with her kinder, gentler, less corrupt rule, we get this:
As compared to this:
Which means in less than three months, Nancy Pelosi has returned Congress to the point where the only person less UNpopular in politics right now is President Bush.
I really didn’t think she could pull that off this quick. I gave her until the next presidential election. I gotta hand it to her, she thumped me good on this one.
According to CNN, 58% of "Americans" want to see US troups to leave Iraq by 2008 or sooner.
It then goes on to state that 1,027 took the poll and it has a margin of error of +-3 percent.
I’m here to tell ya folks, and I have before, that’s complete BS.
1,000 people polled represents "America"?
Which 1,00 were they?
Tuesday’s poll found most Americans support a withdrawal from Iraq…..
"Most Americans" would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500,501 people. In their poll, it is 514.
There are 514 kids in one small school here.
But the latest survey finds Americans more receptive to having Congress take the lead, with 47 percent saying the lawmakers should be "primarily responsible" for setting war policy. Thirty-three percent said the president should be primarily responsible for setting the country’s course.
47 percent of 1,027 is even less than 500 people. That is what Nancy Pelosi is using now to attack Bush and our troops.
Who were those 500 people and why should they be allowed to speak for me, or you?
CNN won’t tell you that part, but I bet they weren’t in Kansas.
Where these people take their polls is MORE IMPORTANT than how many people they cite. Citing 500 kindergarden kids in Berkeley California or citing 500 senior citizens in Nebraska will give you completely different results. We don’t have a clue where CNN got those numbers. You can assume more scenarios than the number of people that actually responded to their poll that they claim respresents "most Americans".
It doesn’t represent me.
And, just to prove my point, according to my "official" poll, most Americans have slept with Anna Nicole Smith:
I’m still waiting on the exit polls to figure out "what went wrong".
6
Mar
Earlier this year, several reports started circulating once again about the end of the world as we know it. This time via an asteroid that has an incredibly remote chance of hitting Earth somewhere around 2036. This was fairly immediately after Congress told NASA in 2005 it needed to spend more time finding what is going to hit Earth and do something about it.
Today, NASA gave their response to Congress’s directive. It was a simple answer. Something to the effect of, “we won’t do it until you pay for it”. Now, this is where it gets fun to me.
- IF Congress balks, and an asteroid does end the world as we know it, Congress will look pretty bad. Granted, that would be for a farely short period of time since people probably wouldn’t be haggling too much over the politics of what happened AFTER the world ended as we know it.
- IF Congress does fund it, and nothing happens in 29 years, Congress will get blamed for blowing a billion dollars on pork-barrel pie-in-the-sky projects that benefit only one Congressman and two Senators.
What to do? If I were in Congress, I’d nix the funding since facing the consequences of Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and CAGW would be a lot shorter. We don’t want to waste any more money than we have to. Right?
( Of course, we could ask other countries to chip in and help with this. )
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?
23
Jan
And, not to be omitted intentionally, Mitt Romney’s in as well.
