The Independent Elephant

First Republican Debate

2011-05-08T00:04:00.003-06:00

I watched the Republican debate on Thursday with great interest. There were complaints among many people that the debate did not have any of the big names. But I looked at it as a good opportunity to get more familiar with lesser known candidates. Participating in the debate on Thursday was Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson.

A top issue for me in determining which presidential candidate to vote for will be national security. I view national security as the most important issue that a president faces. This is because of the tremendous amount of power that the president has in national security. As Commander-in-Chief, he often needs to make decisions quickly. With domestic issues the decisions made are more deliberate with a greater amount of consultation with Congress. That is not to say that domestic issues are not an important factor in choosing a president, the president still has great influence in determining many domestic issues. But his impact on foreign policy is even greater.

After watching the debate, here is my rankings of the Republican presidential candidates. These rankings will only include those candidates who participated in the debate:

1. Tim Pawlenty
2. Rick Santorum
3. Herman Cain
4. Ron Paul
5. Gary Johnson

Tim Pawlenty

Tim Pawlenty showed that he has a good understanding of the threat that jihadism is towards to United States. For a president to have an effective national security policies, he needs to have a good understanding of the ideology of our enemies. To “know thy enemy” has always been an essential part of achieving a long term military victory. The following quote from the debate shows that Pawlenty understands our enemy:

“There is a group of individuals who are radical jihadists we need to call them by name. They believe it is okay to kill people in the name of their religion. It is not all of Islam. It is not all Muslims. But there is a subgroup who believe it is okay. In fact it is their plan and design to kill people. The first order of business of the United States federal government is to protect this country and the American people. The people and the mindset that killed 3,000 of our fellow citizens on September 11th, 2001 would have kill not 3,000, but 300,000 if they could have or three million or 30 million. We need to do everything we can to make sure that doesn't happen. I support enhanced interrogation techniques under limited circumstances.”

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum also has a good understanding of the necessity to know the ideology of our enemies. Chris Wallace asked Santorum a question about some comments he made about Muslims being predisposed to fundamentalism and if it would be a problem for a president to be perceived as anti-Islam. I do agree with Santorum’s answer. It is important for us to be honest about the ideology that we face. But at the same time the president needs to be careful about how he says things to not needlessly offend people. Santorum hasn’t always been that careful, but he had a good answer today:

“Well I am not anti-Islam. First, what I’m doing is just recognizing the reality and the reality is that the version of Islam that is practiced in the Middle East that is growing and spreading is one that is not going to be one that we can deal with very easily, it’s one that requires…reformation. It requires some sort of introspection within the Islamic world…It’s time for us to engage those in the Muslim world and there are many in the Muslim world who want to abandon these radical principles and want to fight those who are advocating those…We need to be a government that talks about those problems, we cannot continue to put the ideological battle in the closet and not bring it out and talk about it and deal with it.”

Santorum also voiced opposition to military efforts in Libya. I believe that it is good policy for our country to support the people of the Middle East who are trying to free themselves from dictators. In the long term, people need to be free if we want to hope to lessen the appeal of terrorism. The United States should always be on the right side, we should not support dictators. The current military action in Libya is an opportunity to help the Libyan people to gain their freedom. We should not pass up this opportunity.

Herman Cain

While Herman Cain seemed to have a good understanding of some domestic issues, his understanding of foreign policy appeared to be lacking. His answer to foreign policy questions seemed to be an exercise in avoiding answering the question. Bret Baier mentioned that Cain about something he said which was that if the generals said they had a plan in Afghanistan in which they could win, he would follow that plan. But if they said that we couldn’t win than we should leave. Baier asked Cain, “You’re running for president, after ten years in Afghanistan, you don’t have your own plan yet about what you would do in Afghanistan? Cain’s answer was a justification about how he didn’t have an answer. I understand a candidate doesn’t have as much information as the president does, but he still should be able to come to an informed opinion about Afghanistan with publicly available information.

“No because it’s not clear what the mission is, that’s the bigger problem. It’s not clear what the mission is, it’s not real clear to the American people what our interests are and then thirdly it’s not clear what the roadmap to victory is.” Baier had a follow up question asking Cain about what he thinks winning is. Cain responded with, “My point is, the experts and their advice and their input would be the basis for me making that decision. I’m not privy to a lot of confidential information since I am not in government and I’m not in administration. One of the things that I have always prided myself on, is making an informed decision based on knowing all of the facts.”

Ron Paul

Ron Paul was predictably anti-war in the debate. I could not vote for Paul because of his extreme positions of abandoning the world. Bret Baier asked him if we would have caught bin Laden if we had left Afghanistan earlier as Paul has been calling for. Paul’s answer downplays the role of troops in Afghanistan in capturing bin Laden. If we followed the policy of Ron Paul we would not have been putting pressure on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He also said that we went to Afghanistan to get bin Laden. Which is true, but that was never the only mission in Afghanistan. It is a broader mission. Paul said:

“Absolutely not, I mean he wasn’t caught in Afghanistan. Nation building in Afghanistan and telling those people how to live and getting involved in running their country hardly had anything to do with finding the information where he was being held in a country that we give billions of dollars of foreign aid to, at the same time we are bombing that country. So it’s the policy that is at fault. No, not having the troops in Afghanistan wouldn’t have hurt. But we went to Afghanistan to get him and he hasn’t been there. Now that he’s killed, boy it is a wonderful time for this country now to reassess it and get the troops out of Afghanistan and end that war that hasn’t helped us and hasn’t helped anybody in the Middle East.

Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson is very similar to Ron Paul. They are both anti-war libertarians. I agree with both of them on many domestic issues. But the difference is that Johnson is not a social conservative, he is in favor of legal abortion. Bret Baier asked Johnson about a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Johnson answered:

“First of all, I’m not in favor of a timetable, I’m in belief that that timetable should be tomorrow and I realize that tomorrow may involve several months.”

Below is a video of the debate in it's entirety.

"Your Pro-choice for abortion,... but You're Really Anti-choice On Any Other Consumer Item"

2011-03-11T22:01:00.000-07:00

Rand Paul is awesome. Below is a clip of him questioning someone from the Department of Energy. His main question is essentially, how can you be pro-choice for abortion, but don't respect the choice of consumers?

I've talked about my frustration with toilets for a while. I first noticed it when my family moved to a new house, and suddenly, we had to flush our new toilets like 5 times to get the same job that one flush accomplished in the old house.

There was even an episode of "Unhappily Ever After" dedicated to this problem. The family went around stealing old toilets, that could actually flush stuff, from various places and installing them in the homes of their "clients" for a small fee. It was brilliant -- the episode, not the show, although anytime you have a puppet voiced by Bobcat Goldthwait, you have yourself a winning formula in my book.

I've always wondered if these liberal "busybodies" ever realize that their well intentioned policies can have worse unintended consequences than the original problem.

I'm sure the logic behind using only 1.6 gallons of water per flush was that it would save more water than the 3.4 older toilets used. So the government just mandated it, meaning us consumers no longer had a choice.

The irony, without getting too graphic, is that what used to take one flush will now take me 3 or 4, thus using more water than the original toilets used to.
Enjoy the show:

Do we really live in a free society if the government can't even stay out of our bathrooms?

Orrin Hatch

2011-02-21T23:10:00.004-07:00

Orrin Hatch is a pro life Republican. He is a social conservative, but he has not been as good on economic issues.

Economic Responsibility

Orrin Hatch voted against Obama’s stimulus bill and supports a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. He has shown that he is a fiscal conservative when there is a Democrat in the White House. The balanced budget amendment is a good long term solution to force Congress to make tough decisions about spending. But Constitutional amendments are difficult to pass. I want my senator to be able to show self restraint in the event that the balanced budget amendment does not pass. I want my senator to be fiscally responsible when the Republicans are in power. Senator Hatch has shown that he is willing to support corporate welfare with his vote in support of the Wall Street bailout in 2008. This bailout laid the foundation for the future bailouts of the Obama administration.

Senator Hatch in his efforts to get reelected has said that his vote in favor of the Wall Street bailout was probably a mistake. But he still says that without the bailout “we would have gone into a depression.” So according to Hatch his vote to avoid a depression was a mistake. This shows that he is wrong on two counts. First, we don’t need the government to bailout private banks to save the economy. There is no such thing as too big to fail. The government should not be picking winners and losers in the economy, instead economic prosperity should be determined by the free market. Secondly, according to Hatch’s logic he should vote according to what will best help him to get reelected. If his vote was a mistake, yet it avoided a depression, that means he believes his reelection is more important than the state of the economy.

Supports 10th amendment

Senator Hatch has not been a strong supporter of the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment is important in limiting the power of the federal government. Senator Hatch voted for No Child Left Behind. This law increased the involvement of the federal government in education. Education is not a federal responsibility, it is a responsibility best left to the states.

Senator Hatch has been a vocal opponent of Obamacare, specifically the individual mandate. After a federal judge in Florida ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, Hatch voiced his support. From his press release:

“Today’s ruling affirms that the Constitution is not in the eye of the congressional beholder, that the Constitution set real limits that the federal government must obey,” Hatch said after Vinson’s decision. “If Congress had taken the Constitution seriously two years ago, we would already have in place commonsense solutions to our healthcare problems that did not undermine the Constitution or individual liberty.
“Simply put, Congress does not have the legal authority to tell Utahns and other Americans that they must buy health insurance or else,” Hatch added. “The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, but not to tell the American people what they must buy.”

But Hatch wasn’t always against the individual mandate. In 1993 Hatch supported a bill that would require an individual mandate. Hatch has shown that he is willing to ignore the constitution, when it is a Republican idea. I want a senator who supports the constitution regardless of the party affiliation of those who seek to violate it.

Foreign policy

Senator Hatch has been a supporter of the counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan. He has said, “The Taliban insurgency is fighting to overthrow the current government, threatening to return Afghanistan to a lawless state where vast areas would serve as a safe have to international terrorist networks like al Qaeda. We cannot allow that to happen,” Senator Hatch understands the foolishness of setting a timetable fro withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Energy independence

Orrin Hatch has supported bills that remove restrictions on drilling for oil and voted against bills that add restrictions to drilling for oil. Hatch also supports nuclear energy.

Border Security

Senator Hatch is sponsoring a bill that would create an exit program for people who are in the United States on visas. Overstaying visas is a huge problem in the United States. I tend to look with suspicion anything that Hatch is doing this year and next year. His biggest commitment seems to be to his reelection. But his bill does seem to have some positive things in it.

In 2003, Orrin Hatch co-sponsored the DREAM Act whereby children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship. The problem with this is that it creates an incentive for people to come into the country illegally. That is the opposite of border security. Hatch now opposes the current DREAM Act. I’m sure he has some reason that he gives, some change that has been made. But he does seem to have a pattern of changing many positions ever since Bennett got defeated in the last election. I think that the best way to determine how he would vote when his job is not in danger is to look at how he voted when his job was not in danger.

I would like to see somebody challenge Hatch for his job who supports a smaller federal government.

Barack Obama

2011-02-13T21:38:00.005-07:00

In this blog I am going to be writing about how I am deciding who to vote for in the 2012 elections. Barack Obama will be the first one to run through my vote deciding machine. Clearly, I won’t vote for Obama, but just for fun I put him through the machine.

Republican

Barack Obama is not a Republican. Shocking I know. Barack Obama is the reason why it will be important to find a good Republican candidate to face him in 2012. The reason why I even put Republican as a category is that I don't want to waste time investigating the records of libertarian type candidates, who I may agree with on many things, but have no chance at winning. I accept the reality that we live in a two party system, but that does not mean we only have two choices. There will be many choices in the Republican primary.

Partial birth abortion

According to my machine, I should not vote for any person who supports partial birth abortion. Barack Obama, of course, goes even further then just supporting partial birth abortion, to supporting infanticide. Here is Barack Obama's pro-abortion record since he has become president.

Economic Responsibility

Obama has been amazingly irresponsible. When Bush was president he argued against raising the debt ceiling. But now that he is president with debt over $14 trillion, he argues that the debt ceiling must be raised. When Bush was president he said: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better." Now it would be a catastrophe if the debt ceiling was not raised.

Obama is a proud supporter of his stimulus package whereby jobs are created by such things as building tunnels for turtles to cross under a road. He has also shown his financial irresponsibility by his support of his unconstitutional health care bill. According to Obama, repealing his health care law will add to the deficit. Not spending as much money will add to the deficit. Classic liberal logic. Obama was also supportive of the bailout that started it all. He voted for the bank bailout when he was a senator.

10th amendment

Obama is a fierce opponent of the 10th amendment. The health care law is a prime example. The most obvious violation of the Constitution in the health care law is the individual mandate. I see nowhere in the Constitution where Congress is granted the authority to force individuals to buy health insurance. A federal judge in Florida agrees that Obamacare is unconstitutional. He wrote: "If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain... and we would have a Constitution in name only." Judge Vinson on Obama's unconstitutional health care law. This law isn't about health care, it's about Obama's indifference to constitutional limitations on his power.

Foreign Policy

Obama did increase the amount of troops sent to Afghanistan, but he did not send as many troops as were requested by Gen. Petraeus. This makes it difficult to hold areas that are captured, this is an essential part of fighting a counterinsurgency. His timetable that he set up to begin withdrawing troops beginning in July 2011 makes it almost impossible for the United States to succeed. To succeed in a counterinsurgency effort it is necessary to win over the population. The population is more likely to side with the Taliban than the United States when the United States announces that it will withdraw at a certain date. This would make it very scary for an Afghani to side with the U.S., just to face the wrath of the Taliban after withdrawal. A date for withdrawal also gives a boost to the morale of the Taliban. Obama has shown that he does not have the commitment that a Commander-in-Chief should have for victory in Afghanistan.

Obama is also part of the politically correct culture in which reality is hidden to avoid hurt feelings. The Obama administration still refuses to admit that Nidal Hasan, the man who murdered soldiers at Fort Hood, was motivated by religious reasons. This despite the fact that Hasan publicly stated his radical views in support of suicide bombings. Also, Hasan was communicating with Anwar al-Awlawki, a member of al Qaeda in Yemen. The fact that Hasan screamed “Allah Akbar” as he went on his murderous rampage was also not enough evidence to conclude that he was religiously motivated. A recent report has discovered that political correctness was responsible for the Fort Hood murders. Obama has banned the words jihad and Islam from a National Security Strategy document. When fighting a war it is always helpful to stay in the land of reality. Not saying the word jihad doesn’t make the jihad go away. It just makes it more difficult to understand the motivation of our enemies.

Energy Independence

Obama has shown that he is not serious about energy independence. He would rather have us get our oil from Saudi Arabia then to drill it ourselves. He has banned offshore drilling in the Atlantic for seven years. Obama has shown that he is an opponent of drilling for oil. Then there is Obama’s support of cap and trade, which he says will bankrupt the coal industry. Sorry Obama, our economy is not capable of being ran completely by the wind and the sun. His opposition to domestic energy production makes our country increasingly dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia.

Border Security

Governor Rick Perry of Texas wrote a four page letter to President Obama detailing the failure of the Obama administration to secure the border and requesting additional resources to secure the border. The Obama administration has sued the state of Arizona over Arizona’s efforts to secure the border. The state of Arizona has sued the federal government for its failure to secure the border. It is clear that Obama has not done enough to secure the border. Perhaps if the federal government would not be doing so many things that it is not supposed to do it would have the time and resources to do the things that it is supposed to do.

After much investigation I have concluded that I won't vote for Obama for president. I put in the data and my voting machine says that Obama would be a horrible president. Of course this was already obvious because I have witnessed him be a horrible president already.

How I will vote

2011-02-01T19:30:00.002-07:00

The last post that I wrote was July 28, 2010. I am going to try to start updating my political blog more regularly than every six months. Getting involved early in the process is important to select the best candidates. Barack Obama announced that he would run for president in February 2007, so I suspect that candidates will be announcing their bids for the presidency shortly. In this blog I am going to be writing about the process that I will take in choosing who I think should be President, my Senator, and my Representative in 2012.

I came up with a list that I am going to use to help me decide who the best presidential candidate will be. This list can change as I think of other important issues, it should not be considered as a legally binding contract. The list is as follows:

Republican

I am only looking at candidates who run as Republicans. Often times I agree with candidates who run in third parties such as the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party, but I live in the world of reality. It would not be a good thing for these third parties to become stronger to compete with the Republican Party. If we were to live in a three party system with the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Democrat Party, the Democrats would have the advantage. There is no reason why any serious conservative candidate should not run as a Republican.

Against Partial Birth Abortion

I view any candidate who would support this practice as having a lack of morals. I will not vote for any person who believes that it should be legal to halfhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif way deliver a baby so that it’s legs are out of the mother, then have a “doctor” puncture the babies skull and suck its brains out. High standards indeed. Of course it doesn’t need to be mentioned that I will not support any candidate who thinks it should be legal to kill the baby after birth. Of course no mainstream politician could take such an obviously evil position.

Economic Responsibility

I am opposed to the big spenders, those who take the position that we should spend more money than we have. This includes any person who supported the Obama stimulus bill. I will not vote for any supporters of corporate welfare. Those who make taxpayers pay to fix the mistakes made by private businesses. Businesses need to be free to fail. “Too big to fail” is repeatedly justified for bailing out different companies. I will not vote for supporters of bailouts of companies, banks, or states. I am looking for candidates who support a balanced budget amendment or have some other long term solution to our economic problems. I am looking for candidates who are willing to make the tough decisions regarding entitlement reform.

Supports 10th Amendment

I am looking for candidates who support the entire Constitution, but my mahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifin focus is on the 10th Amendment. This is because this is the most neglected Amendment of the Constitution. It has almost no supporters in all of Congress. The 10th Amendment is as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This means if it’s not in the Constitution, it is left to the states or the people. It’s pretty straight forward.

Foreign Policy

I am looking for candidates who support using all of the military effort that is necessary to win the war in Afghanistan. This means I want a candidate who supports fighting the Taliban and al Qaeda. I want to see a candidate that understands counterinsurgency strategy. There is no purpose in defeating the jihadists in Afghanistan if they just take over the government when we leave. I want a candidate who supports actively fighting jihadists abroad. I am looking for someone who understands that the fight against the jihadists is more than a simple law enforcement matter, it is war. This is a war that takes place wherever the jihadists are. If they are Pakistan we fight them there, if they are in Yemen we fight them there. We should support the actions of government’s that are fighting the jihadists. When necessary we should use drone attacks or other means to kill the jihadists. I want a candidate who is willing to accurately describe our enemy. Who isn’t afraid to say “jihadist” or “Islamic extremist.” Our politically correct culture has prevented many people from getting an accurate understanding of our enemies.

Energy Independence

I am looking for a candidate who seeks to get the United States off of foreign oil. Our dependence of foreign oil has caused us to be depended on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia spreads the most intolerant form of Islam around the world. Energy independence is a national security issue. I am looking for a candidate who supports policies that will help the United States move closer to energy independence. This includes drilling for oil, supporting nuclear energy, supporting coal as well as supporting alternative energy.

Border Security

I am looking for candidates who view are weak border security as a serious problem. Border security is a national security issue. If an illegal immigrant looking for work can cross the border so can a terrorist.

Is all of this too much to ask for? Maybe. I hope that there will be more than one candidate to meet my qualifications. Then I would have some additional things I can look at. I suspect that I might have to choose between which candidate is least crappy. But hopefully not.

"A Pretty Dirty Trick"

2010-11-20T10:54:00.000-07:00

That was what Johnny Anderson, my state house rep., called a $10 billion federal aid package to help states with education.
Where that money is going to come from is anyone's guess.
Only two weeks after the voters had clearly told politicians to stop spending so much money, Utah legislators decided to accept the $101 million dollars from the feds anyway.
Their reasoning was that they had to do it. The feds forced them to... just like my little sister used to "force" me to hit her by doing something annoying.
The way the feds wrote the law, if the individual state legislatures were to reject the funding, the Department of Education could still give the money directly to the school districts.
The Republicans are all upset that if they reject the money, the districts will still get it and then they (the legislature) won't be able to say what happens with the money.
Hey Republicans -- Yes, it sucks that you won't be able to get your grubby little mitts on this money if you don't "hold your nose and accept it". And yes, the current clowns we have in Washington right now are trying to bankrupt this country. And yes, Mr. Anderson, it was a "dirty trick".
So why didn't you just reject the money? Who cares if it's still going to get spent? At least you did what the people of Utah elected you to do. You could have at least had some moral high ground. If you just accept the money, what is the difference between you guys and the Democrats?
This is another example of why I think fiscal conservatism is dying. People like to talk about the government being more careful with money... as long as they still get all those cool entitlements from the feds.
Want more proof? How could a write in candidate win a Senate race in Alaska? Because voters know she'll bring home the bacon. To many voters, fiscal conservatism sounds good until it effects them.

Hopefully I'm wrong. There may come a point where people really do want to scale back spending... hopefully that happens before we're forced to.

Wikileaks helps Taliban to murder Afghans

2010-07-28T12:33:00.003-06:00

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange does not care how many innocent people die in his efforts to help the United States lose in Afghanistan. There is no doubt that the Taliban will use this information to crack down on Afghans who ally with the United States. The recent leaked documents contained hundreds of names of Afghan informants. Read about it here. Whoever leaked this information needs to be found out and arrested for treason. Nothing could be more destructive to our counterinsurgency efforts than having any Afghan who sides with the United States exposed to the Taliban by people who work in the government.

Obama Helps Free the Lockerbie Bomber

2010-07-26T10:14:00.007-06:00

December 21, 1988, an airplane exploded of Lockerbie, Scotland. 259 people were on bored, all of them were killed. 11 more people were killed on the ground. 179 of those who were killed were Americans. The plane was taken down by a bomb. Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi was the only person who was convicted in this terrorist attack. Megrahi was freed in August of last year by Scottish officials under “compassionate release” because he had terminal cancer. He was sent back to Libya where he received a heroes welcome. His doctors say that he may now live more than ten years. Documents have recently been released showing that Obama supported the release of the Lockerbie bomber instead of sending the bomber to a prison in Libya. Richard LeBaron, deputy head of US embassy in London, at the time said that the U.S. did not want Megrahi released. Scottish officials said that they believed U.S. opposition to the release of the Lockerbie bomber was “half hearted.” LeBaron also wrote, “Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the US position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose." Why would the Obama administration strongly oppose prisoner transfer while being more accepting of releasing Megrahi who murdered 270 people. Read about Obama's role in this here.

An Unsightly Mess

2010-07-17T15:10:00.000-06:00

Saw this at Hot Air. I know a few people who could use this.

My school parking lot is littered with cars that have an Obama bumper sticker. I'm not sure if the drivers are smart enough to be embarrased.

The Fearless Neda Agha Soltan

2010-06-06T00:12:00.003-06:00

I just watched this excellent documentary about Neda Agha Soltan and the rigged elections in Iran last year. Neda was a courageous woman who was willing to stand up to the government of Iran knowing full well that doing so would put her life in jeopardy. She criticized the oppressive Iranian government saying, "Women in this country cannot live like human beings. As a woman I can't even go outside without being covered up." She criticized the religious teachings at the university that she attended in Iran saying that the God they teach at the university is not the God that I believe in. They teach a vengeful God, I believe in a compassionate God. She was described as rebelling against the Islamic authorities from a very young age. She was described as a "fearless child." She was very angry with the rigged elections. Her mom begged her to not go to the protest the day that she died. Neda said, "I have to go, I have to go, if I don't go out who will?" She felt that she had the responsibility to protest for the sake of her country.

Contrast the situation that Neda was in at the time with President Obama during the same period. Neda was unarmed, powerless against the forces of the government, armed with nothing but her courage. She risked her life to speak out against the corrupt Iranian government. President Obama is the most powerful political leader in the most powerful country in the world. He was sure to emphasize that the United States was not taking sides. We didn't want to "meddle." He says that the challenger to Ahmadinjad probably has similar policies anyways. He minimized the resistance and showed a complete lack of courage. He refused to say who was right, those who are murdering or those who are being murdered. If Obama had Neda's courage our nation would be stronger.

Here is the documentary. It does have violent images.

We Con the World

2010-06-04T19:46:00.000-06:00

Let me be clear

2010-06-02T23:28:00.003-06:00

In a recent speech, John Brennan made a promising statement in that the Obama administration was beginning to reach an understanding about the threat we face. He said, "The president’s strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is but a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind and, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear." It was with great relief that I heard Brennan state that the president is clear about the threat we face. It's true terrorism is a tactic, to truly have success in this war we need to acknowledge the ideas that inspire this tactic. Ideas need to be confronted. Jihad is the motivation for Islamic extremists. Surely, this is a perfect time for Brennan to acknowledge the threat of jihad and outline the president's strategy in this war of ideas. The very next sentence John Brennan reaffirmed to the world that this administration will continue to have the policy of refusing to understand our enemies. He said, "Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself of one’s community. And there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children. Indeed, characterizing our adversaries this way would actually be counterproductive. It would play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause when in fact, they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims." Apparently, it is now the policy of the United States to define the religious terms of Islam. I can't wait to hear what the United States government's official position on the trinity is. Never mind that violent jihad has continually be a part of Islamic history. This administration believes that it can just say that it is illegitimate and then Muslims will consider it illegitimate. I guess the best way to persuade Muslims that a tenet of their religion is illegitimate is by a declaration coming from the great Satan. Who is the enemy if it's not jihadists? Brennan continues to describe the enemy as "al Qaeda and its affiliates." What ideology motivates al Qaeda? We know its not jihad, Brennan will surely define the ideology of our enemy after saying that it's not jihad. He goes on to say that al Qaeda's ideology is a "murderous ideology." That sounds scary, although it doesn't really say what al Qaeda's ideology is. We know it's murderous, maybe al Qaeda is motivated by the same things that the motivated the Columbine shooters. That was a murderous ideology. He warns of a growing number of Americans who are captivated by "extremist ideologies or causes." He points out that individuals have plotted to kill because of "al Qaeda's ideology."

He speaks of the great improvements that have been made to prevent future attacks. In response to the Fort Hood attack "we have taken numerous steps, including improving communication between the Department of Defense and Justice regarding disaffected individuals in our armed forces." I am glad the government is on the look out for "disaffected individuals." Maybe they should look for individuals that have the same extremist, murderous ideology as Nidal Hasan, whatever ideology that is. Maybe they should look for someone who has al Qaeda's ideology. He says, "And we must be honest with ourselves. No nation, no matter how powerful, can prevent every threat from coming to fruition. And in America, a free and open society of 300 million people, the task becomes even more difficult as our adversaries increasingly rely on individual terrorists and lone individuals inspired by al-Qaida’s hateful ideology." I am glad that Brennan tells us that we should be honest with ourselves, it's not ever good to just hide the truth behind political correctness. We wouldn't want to fail to understand our enemy because we didn't want to state the plain truth. Here Brennan describes al Qaeda's ideology once again, apparently it is hateful. Just like those Columbine shooters.

To summarize, our enemy is not the jihadists, it is al Qaeda. Al Qaeda has a hateful, murderous ideology that has nothing to do with Islam. People are motivated to attack the United States by extremist ideologies. I am glad to hear that the president's strategy is absolutely clear about the threat we face. I'd hate to hear a speech that refused to state the ideology of the enemy. An essential part in winning war is to understand your enemy. Our enemy is motivated by an extremist, murderous, and hateful ideology. That much is absolutely clear.

These aren't your father's humanitarians

2010-06-01T12:31:00.000-06:00

One of life's greatest mysteries is why people of Jewish decent continually vote Democrat when the average Democrat shows nothing but contempt for Isreal.

All over the press lately, the liberals that control it have been carrying on about the barbaric slaughter of "humanitarians" that were just trying to bring relief to folks that live in the Gaza Strip.

Mona Charen is one of my favorite commentators, she wrote an article about this so called massacre. It's worth a read of you have time, but I'll summarize here.

Isreal apparently has gotten tired of people in the Gaza Strip launching missles at them. In an effort to defend their homeland, they have set up a blockade. They will let anyone through as long as they can inspect the ship first for weapons. The reason they have to do this is because these so called humanitarians are known to smuggle in weapons on their relief crusades. Isreal provides aid to the folks in Gaza, and wants to make sure that any other aid provided doesn't include aid to wipe out Isrealis.

They were forced to board a ship that wouldn't heed their request to turn away or go to a port to get inspected. Upon boarding Isrelis were beaten by metal poles and baseball bats. Several Isrealis were reportedly thrown from a top deck to a bottom deck.

So lethal force was used. I don't know why anyone would be suprised. If you beat soldiers who are carrying guns within an inch of their lives, you're likely going to get shot at.

Of course, the knee jerk reaction is for the press to condemn Isreal. When Isreal gets launched on, these same people are silent.

The White House says they are waiting until all the facts come in before they make an official statement. Good for them, but I won't be surprised if Obama defends the "humanitarians" rights to assist in the obliteration of Isreal.

It's clear the press has already made up their mind as to where to lay the blame.

Geniuses at Homeland Security Seek to Deport Son of Hamas

2010-05-28T18:16:00.002-06:00

I recently finished reading Son of Hamas by Mosab Hassan Yousef. Yousef’s father is one of the founders of Hamas and a leader in the organization. The book is about his disillusionment with Hamas, his secret conversion to Christianity and how he spied for Israel. He is now living in the United States. Yousef wrote recently on his blog about efforts to have him deported out of the United States as a threat to national security. He has a hearing on June 30th to determine whether he can stay in the country. Homeland Security senior attorney Kerri Calcador uses Yousef’s book in an attempt to prove that he was a danger to national security. She writes, “In the book, the respondent discusses his extensive involvement with Hamas in great detail. For example, in one portion of the book, a member of Shin Bet shows the respondent a list of suspects implicated in a March 2001 suicide bombing and asks the respondent whether he knows the individuals. The respondent indicates that he does know five of the people on the list and states that he previously drove them to safe houses.” She concludes, “At a bare minimum, evidence of the respondent’s transport of Hamas members to safe houses—discussed above in the Statement of the Case as but one example of the respondent’s involvement with Hamas.” Youseff writes in his blog a reaction to this “evidence.” He writes, “Is she kidding? Either Homeland Security’s chief attorney has zero reading comprehension, or else she intentionally took the passage out of context. And I am not sure which is worse. Even a child reading the book can see that, during that time, I was working as a secret agent for the Shin Bet (Israeli’s internal security service, comparable to our FBI). My job required me to do anything I could to be involved with my father’s activities. So when he asked me to go with him to pick up these guys when they were released from the Palestinian Authority prison, I went.”

It is scary to have Homeland Security not understand what a spy is. There is a huge difference between being a terrorist and fighting terrorism. Good to see the government has its priorities in order. If only Yousef was in the Army, in contact with Anwar Alwaki and publicly advocated jihad then he would not only be able to stay in the country but also be a Major in the Army. But instead Yousef is one who condemns jihad and has saved many lives in the fight against terrorism. That is someone worthy to be deported. You can read his entire blog post about the situation here.

Jihadists Crossing Mexican Border

2010-05-25T23:51:00.004-06:00

It's not just Mexicans who want to do the work that Americans won't do who are sneaking across the border, but it is also jihadists who want to kill the Americans that Americans won't kill. Here is a good news story about jihadists sneaking into the United States through the Mexican border. It should not be a surprise to anyone that thousands of miles of unsecured border would be appealing to jihadists who want nothing more than to get into the country to enable them to attack.

Video is here.

President Obama has ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to help secure the border. That is a step in the right direction, but I do suspect that this is just a political move. It seems to be a repeat of when Bush pretended like he wanted to secure the border in during the immigration controversy of 2006. He will deserve credit if he is serious. Time will tell.

Lonely Democrats

2010-05-13T18:36:00.000-06:00

Democrats and Oblahblahbama have tried to cast supporters of the new Arizona law on Immigration has some sort of nutty group that few would pay attention to.
Unfortunately for the President and his band of merry men, a new poll from Pew Research suggests that he and like minded ideologues are the nutty group of people that few should pay attention to.

Behold, the numbers:

Fully 73% say they approve of requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them. Two-thirds (67%) approve of allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status, while 62% approve of allowing police to question people they think may be in the country illegally.

Those are amazing numbers considering that the President and his cronies have spent two weeks misrepresenting the bill. Either he has not read the bill (entirely possible, since this group of Democrats don't seem to like to read bills.), or he's just lying to us.

The bill is here, the ammended version here for those who care to read... both bills together are only 28 pages long.

Unfortunately, Obama misrepresenting the bill has caused all sorts of people to believe that Arizona has just codified racial profiling. Many people don't have the time or interest to read bills, and they trust their elected officials.

Luckily, most see through the rhetoric and support this bill which essentially says that Arizona now supports the federal law on illegal immigration. Obama and his ilk have once again found themselves on the short side of public opinion.

UPDATE: Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has been bagging on this law for a while now. Today, he admitted to not having read the bill. This really is unbelieveable. Relevant article here.

2010-04-29T16:37:00.000-06:00

Obama in his own words via the Mark Levin show: (h/t Hot Air)

Ok, so let me be clear. You, Mr. President, think that "at a certain point [a person] has made enough money"? So when is that point? Do you get to decide that too? What do we do with someone else's "extra" money? Who gets to decide how that's spent? Is there a "certain point" when the government has spent enough money?

Just another reason why this guy should always stay on TelePrompTer.

(Hot Air story here.)

In an unrelated story, Oprah just signed a $100 million deal with Procter and Gamble.
By my calculations, that should give Obama another $999,750,000 to "spread around".

Free Speech vs. Islam

2010-04-22T10:14:00.003-06:00

The creators of South Park are currently in a battle for free speech against Islamic extremists. South Park aired an episode in which Tom Cruise and other celebrities were threatening to sue the city of South Park unless they delivered the Prophet Muhammad to the celebrities. The celebrities wanted Muhammad to gain his superpower of being immune from criticism and being mocked. They showed a part from an episode that aired in 2001 that showed Muhammad uncensored, this time he had a censored box covering his entire body. A stick figure drawing of Muhammad was shown on the episode causing people in the town to look each at each other in fear and ask "Is that okay to show?" The people in the town decided to deliver Muhammad to the celebrities from the back of a U-haul. Muhammad's voice was heard, causing the townspeople to fear. They put Muhammad in a bear costume when he got out of the U-haul so he couldn't be seen.

As a result of this episode, the creators of South Park lives have been threatened. Radical Muslims have asked if the South Park creators remember Theo Van Gogh, who was murdered for criticizing Islam. They also post the addresses of the creators on the website.

CNN has a good story about the issue. CNN even had the guts to show the Danish Muhammad cartoons in this video below. It's not obvious, but it's there.

UPDATE: Comedy Central heavily censored the most recently aired episode of South Park. They bleeped out Muhammad's name, making Muhammad the equivalent of a cuss word. Is that offensive to Muslims? When I attempted to watch the most recent episode the words, "We apologize that South Park Studios cannot stream episode 201 at this time. After we delivered the show, and prior to broadcast, comedy central placed numerous additional audio bleeps throughout the episode. We do not have network approval to show our original version of the show. We will bring you a version of 201 as soon as we can." Congrats to the cowards at Comedy Central for giving in to intimidation.

Let them eat cake!

2010-04-16T15:03:00.001-06:00

Remember the good ol' days when Obama just talked about bitter Pennsylvanians clinging to guns and religion as a way of expressing frustration for a bygone era?

*Sigh*

Now he just shows outright contempt...

"I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies. (Pause for laughter.) About taxes, taxes. (More pausing for effect.) You would think they'd be saying 'thank you'" - President Obama

I never thought I'd see a president so comfortable mocking his own people that are just expressing their right of free speech. Remember when disagreeing with the president was patriotic?

Liberals don't seem to understand what the TEA party movement is all about. Obama assumes that TEA partyers are protesting higher taxes, but a majority that identify with the TEA party think taxes are fair right now.

People don't go to TEA party events to protest high taxes. What they are protesting is the massive expansion of government and the associated national debt. In order to pay for this debt, hidden taxes(such as inflation) and/or real taxes will have to be raised in the near future.

Other interesting things about people that identify with the TEA party from the above cited poll:

1. A majority think Social Security and Medicare programs are worth it. (The article points out that those polled in support of the TEA party were older, thus showing that self-interest trumps ideology.)

2. They are less likely to want a 3rd party.

I need to throw this in too, Pat Caddell, former Carter aide, and now a democratic pollster has a good article here about how the Democrats could avoid a November bloodbath if they just start supporting TEA party principles.

Finally, as noted here, The One has raised taxes, despite what he said on the campaign trail, and claimed later after the above video ended.

Oh, and by the way... TEA partiers aren't violent, racist, homophobic etc. They're just worried about the direction of our country.

Democrat Incompetence

2010-04-13T15:40:00.001-06:00

Thanks to Obamacare, now every person in the U.S. can have healthcare.... well, um, except congressmen and their staffers.
Democrat lawmakers should have read the Obamacare bill before they passed it. Since they didn't, they've unintentionally removed themselves from their health care plan without any other options.

From the New York Times:

"[Obamacare] apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.

But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.

The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible “drafting error,” the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.

Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago."

Democrats have already shown they'll break rules to get whatever they want, so I wouldn't worry too much about them.
I guess this comes with the territory when you pass laws in order to find out what's in them, right Pelosi?

Luckily, they can always blame this on Bush.

One of Many Lefty Contradictions

2010-04-12T16:29:00.000-06:00

This is from an article I read today by Michael Barone. It asks an interesting question:
"[To] Democrats who have lauded Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade for creating a right to privacy that includes contraception and abortion. "How can the freedom to make such choices with your doctor be protected and not freedom to choose a hip replacement or a Caesarean section?" asks former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey in The Wall Street Journal. "Either your body is protected from government interference or it's not."

So which is it liberals? Is your body protected from the government or isn't it? Us conservatives aren't 'smart' enough to be able to figure out contradictions. That's why we rely on logic and common sense.

Nuclear Issues

2010-04-09T22:21:00.000-06:00

As painful as it is, check out how Obama manages to swing and miss at this softball lobbed by George Stephanopoulos:

So Sarah Palin isn't much of an expert on Nuclear Issues huh? I hate to break it to you big guy, but niether are you.

Last I checked, being a law professor, ACORN attorney, and a sleezy Chicago Politician doesn't qualify one as being an expert on nuclear issues.

Now, I am willing to admit that you have likely hung out with more bomb makers than Palin, but I'm willing to bet that hanging out with Bill Ayers is the extent of your bomb issue expertise.

Palin's position isn't really that absurd. She stands with every single administration since World War II. Even Democrats have understood that you don't take the threat of nuclear retaliation off the table.

But Obama isn't simply a Democrat, he's a radical... a radical that can make a good speech when reading off a TelePrompTer.

It's not enough for him to try to destroy the health care system in this country. It isn't enough to try to further damage the economy by passing a cap and trade bill. It isn't enough to force the "spreading of wealth", this guy seems intent on weakening our defenses.

This is probably why Ahmadinejad is calling Obama "an inexperienced amateur"
Elections sure do have consequences.

On the Campain Trial

2010-03-30T23:29:00.000-06:00

As mentioned in a previous post, I was elected as a state delegate. I send out an email to my precinct, the email is reproduced below:

Hello precinct members, in an effort to keep you informed, and to give you input, I'll be sending a few emails your way. If you don't want me to email you again, you won't hurt my feelings... just reply and tell me to stop sending you emails. (Can't wait for someone to "remove" themselves in the comments below)
U.S. Senate

I won't go over all the activities of the last week, but I have been contacted in one form or another by 4 of the candidates for U.S. Senate. I have asked them the same three questions that I need clarification on.

1. What is your policy regarding Iraq and Afganistan?
2. What is your policy regarding term limits?
3. What would you be willing to do as a U.S. Senator if the president should nominate a judge that you don't belive adheres to the constitution?

I will be attending the U.S. Senate Candidate debate this Friday at UVU. I'm not sure if I'll get to talk to any of the candidates, but if anyone has any questions they'd like me to ask, please let me know.

Right now, I'm thinking 1. Tim Bridgewater, 2. Mike Lee, 3. Cherilyn Eager. 1 and 2 are neck and neck, 3 is a little further behind.

Governor

I have to admit that Herbert may have weakened himself in my opinion last Saturday when he signed SB 275 into law. The law, as far as I understand, makes it easier to remove your name from petitions for various referendums. From what I understand, you now can remove your signature 30 days after the county clerk delivers the signatures to the Lieutenant Governor. This can cause a few problems, such as people calling you up, harassing you to take your name off a petition, or people that are really against the initiative signing the petition, just to yank thier signature after they've been delivered to the LT, with no chance for proponents to get signatures back. It's hard enough to get initiatives to the ballot in this state, do we really need to make it harder? I have emailed Carl Wimmer, the house sponser for this bill, to tell his side of the story, but haven't gotten a response yet. I will hold off judgement until I get an explaination.
If anyone has opinions about Governor, let me know.
Links

You can see the various candidates info such as webpage, facebook etc at http://www.utgop.org/candidates
KBYU did some you tube interviews of U.S. Senate candidates, here are the interviews from the 3 I'm looking at:

Cherilyn Eager: http://www.youtube.com/user/KBYUEleven#p/u/2/Txk0hdmOmm4

Mike Lee: http://www.youtube.com/user/KBYUEleven#p/u/4/5xjKFOS2woc

Tim Bridgewater: http://www.youtube.com/user/KBYUEleven#p/u/7/nMTma8Khifk

An article about SB 275: http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulJacob/2010/03/28/going_to_utah_to_pay_my_respects?page=full&comments=true
That's all for now, I look forward to hearing from you.

Spencer Millburn

VAT

2010-03-26T17:46:00.000-06:00

This is what change looks like.

"As we approach European levels of entitlements, we will need European levels of taxation."

Great quote by Charles Krauthammer in an article here about the VAT Tax.

The VAT Tax is a nice way of saying national sales tax, and Krauthammer argues that it's going to be necessary now that health care "reform" has passed.

Lucky us.

Who's on First?

2010-03-25T12:18:00.001-06:00

Amusing video of a Congressmen avoiding answering a question that is asked repeatedly for three minutes.

Caucus

2010-03-24T22:10:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, I went to our precinct's caucus. Matt and I have been plotting since last summer to do what we could to remove Bob Bennett from office. Yesterday, was our opportunity to become an elected delegate. Once elected, we get to cast a vote for who we want to run for Senate from the Republican side.

There were 20 people that showed up to our nieghborhood caucus. There were 3 candidates for state delegate. I was one of them and was able to address our precinct for about 5 minutes, and then answer questions. I really felt like I hit a few of the questions out of the park, and as the voting began, felt good about my chances.

The precinct chair was trying to say that we just take the person who gets the most votes. I thought that was unacceptable, because there were 2 anti Bennett candidates, and 1 pro Bennett candidate... I didn't want the anti vote to splinter, so I asked what the exact language was.

She said it was a simple majority. I explained that a simple majority means that you have to recieve more that 50% of the vote, otherwise, the two highest go again to decide who gets elected. A person who recieves the most votes, but not more than 50% won a plurality of votes. My sister in Georgia knows about this. The chairwoman thought I was splitting hairs, but I insisted, and the precinct agreed. Come to find out later, she is leaning toward Bennett, but she carried out her duties well.

Turns out it didn't matter. I recieved 11 of the 20 votes, the exact number I needed to avoid a second run of votes.

I now get to go to the Republican convention in May, and cast votes against Bob Bennett. I am leaning toward Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater... more research is going to be necessary.

From the reports I've heard so far, most of the precincts seem to have sent anti Bennett delegates... hopefully we can get this guy out of Washington. Time for RINO's to step aside and make way for real conservatives.

Failing Fourth Grade

2010-03-13T07:15:00.000-07:00

Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats don't appear to have the votes to pass healthcare. We know this, because she hasn't scheduled a vote on the bill the Senate passed.

Their new ~~brilliant~~ hare-brained idea is to just not vote oi the bill, and send it up to the White House for Obama's signature.

You've heard me right, they are planning right now on not voting on a bill, and "deeming" it passed. This is, of course, unconstitutional. We all learned back in elementary school that in order for a bill to become law, it needs to pass both houses and then be signed by the president. Nancy Pelosi must have been passing notes or working illegal deals for votes for student body officer when they went over that.

Here's a recap:

The cute name assigned to this latest example of Democrats not caring about the Constitution is the "Slaughter Solution", so named for Louise Slaughter, the ranking Democrat on the rules comittee

A few links about this story: here and here.

Again I ask the question, would Republicans, as lousy as they've been before, ever even consider something like this? Think about that next time someone tries to tell you the two parties are the same.

(Please excuse the misspellings, I don't know how to do spell check since I upgraded my wysiwyg editor in blogger.)

2010-03-06T12:35:00.000-07:00

When I heard this nonsense from Harry Reid, I just about drove off the road. Yesterday, the new job numbers came out. Since printing money and calling it a stimulus hasn't saved the economy, more people lost their jobs in January. To Harry Reid, this is a good thing. Luckily, he's going to lose his job next January as well.

I can't even imagine how angry I'd be if I just lost my job and then heard that. These guys only have 10 1/2 more months in office. Lets hope that all the damage they're doing can eventually be reversed.

The Most Embarassing Mormon Award is a no-brainer.

"Rahm"ing through healthcare

2010-02-26T14:45:00.001-07:00

The election of Senator Brown now makes it impossible for Democrats to break a filibuster by Republicans. Instead of trying to convince just 1 Republican to vote with them, however, Democrats are ready to abuse and disregard Senate rules in order to deliver so called health care reform.

Once again, we see that for liberals, the ends always justify the means.

A word you're going to hear a lot in political talk for the next few weeks is "reconciliation". Reconciliation is a process by which the Senate only needs a simple majority, and the minority can't filibuster. Democrats are looking for ways to use this process to get a deeply unpopular bill through the Senate.

The problem is that reconciliation is only to be used for budgetary issues. This health care bill clearly addresses more that budgetary issues, meaning that the reconciliation rule can't and shouldn't be used. One of the authors of the reconciliation rule, the detestable Senator Byrd (D-W.V.) has even said “Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits...it was not designed to…restructure the entire health care system.”

Of course, this isn't going to stop the Democrats, which are looking for any way around the rules to pass this bill. One of their brilliant ideas is just to wheel Joe Biden over to capitol hill. In his capacity as President of the Senate, Democrats think he can simply overrule the nonpartisan Senate parliamentarian. It's not like he's doing anything else right now anyway.

This article has more info:

I know there are some unsavory characters that call themselves Republicans, but the next time you think that Republicans are the same as Democrats, ask yourself "Would Republicans try to ram home a deeply unpopular bill without any support from Democrats, and by breaking established congressional rules?"

Nope, only Democrats would do something like that.

John Brennan: 20% jihadist recidivism, not bad

2010-02-18T00:45:00.002-07:00

If you haven't heard yet, there is some more good news coming from the Obama administration. That is Pentagon has announced that the recidivism rate of released Gitmo detainees is 20%. John Brennan says that this is "not that bad," because the recidivism rate of American prisoners released is 50%. The problem with his logic is that there is a difference between a jihadist who wants to murder as many people as he can and someone who gets arrested for stealing car radios. One of those should never get let out of prison. His boss, Jim Jones seems to think that there is no problem with John Brennan's statement. "We have been working with many other countries to accept them back. We have rehabilitation programs that are in place in different countries." The rehab programs that Jones is bragging about is Saudi's jihadi rehab program. This article from the BBC says, "Saudi authorities are keen to stress that any convicted Islamist will be offered a chance at rehabilitation, regardless of past crimes." Yemen would be a country that the United States is working with to accept Gitmo detainees. The United States encouraged Yemen to replicate the Saudi rehab program. The 20% recidivism rate includes two of the leaders of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, both of which are graduates of the Saudi rehab program. Apparently they were not cured by ping pong.

This comparison of terrorist recidivism with civilian recidivism is just more evidence that Obama is viewing this war as more of a law enforcement matter. Investor's Business Daily has a good article about the insanity of Obama and friends in their efforts to release terrorists from prison.

The releasing of Guantanamo Bay prisoners to Saudi Arabia and Yemen will cause more people to die. Apparently it is more moral to allow terrorists to murder innocents than to keep terrorists locked in prison. How many people are going to die for us to boost America's "moral standing."

The Pro-Abortion Left gets PWNed by Focus on the Family

2010-02-08T22:11:00.002-07:00

Pwned is a corruption of the word "owned". It was misspelled in a video game, and it soon became cool to spell owned with a "p". For those that don't ever have to see teenagers, "to be owned" is like saying you got your clock cleaned -- defeated in a humiliating way. You can "own" someone while playing sports, or "own" someone while arguing. Go to urbandictinary.com for more phrases the kids are using.

For days previous to the Superbowl, the Pro-Abortion Left was going nuts over CBS allowing Focus on the Family to air an ad starring Tim Tebow and his mom. NOW, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood all responded with outrage to an ad that they thought was going to be anti-abortion. The whole time, Focus on the Family didn't respond, allowing the whole country to see how nasty this Pro-Abortion crowd can be. Then, during the first quarter, we see this

I saw this ad, and like most of the nation was thinking: "This is what they were so upset about? So the only people that brought up the divisive issue of abortion were the anti abortion people. Beautiful. Now they're starting to say: "...well, uh, hmm, the ad promotes violence against women." Interesting how they don't have anything to say about the Bridgestone Tire commercial.

In conclusion, NARAL, NOW, Planned Parenthood and the Pro-Abortion Left, you got PWNed.

The Superbowl

2010-02-06T20:36:00.003-07:00

According to PPP, a Democratic based polling outfit, Democrats generally want the Saints to win, while more Republicans want the Colts to win. The article is here.

As for me, I want the Colts to win, and I'm predicting a 31-28 Colt victory. The best scenario as far as I can tell would be for Austin Collie to catch the game winning TD, and then declare to the whole world that "magic happens".

The New "n" Word

2010-02-03T11:14:00.002-07:00

Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is known for using coarse and foul language to try to intimidate those who he disagrees with. That kind of works in Chicago, but it doesn't fly as well in Washington. He once sent a dead fish to a pollster that ticked him off. (allegedly)

(By the way, why did everybody think Obama would 'clean up Washington' when he came from a city known for its corruption in politics?)

When speaking about liberal democrats, he called them "f---ing retarded".

Almost immediately, Sarah Palin called for his resignation. On her facebook page, she said: "Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the “N-word” or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking."

While I agree with her that people shouldn't use that kind of language, and I believe she has the right to address such issues, since she has a son with Downs Syndrome, I think the only reason she is calling for his resignation is because he's a Democrat. It's so tempting for conservatives to try to bludgeon libs with the 'politically correct' sledgehammer, but I don't think that's the best tactic, when there is so much more to go after him for.

Call him out for using such language, ask for an apology, and move on. I want him to stay chief of staff, because I think he hurts Obama more than he helps. He will get fired/resigned sooner or later in my opinion anyway. I don't think it's a good idea to play the gotcha game with political correctness, and at the same time, preach that political correctness is ruining the security of this country.

Plus, I'm more outraged that Emanuel thinks it's OK to drop the F-bomb every 5 seconds. Is there really a direct correlation to dropping the F-bomb, and getting things done? I doubt it. He's just a bully that doesn't have the intellectual power to come up with other words.

All this said, Sarah Palin is going to be one of the candidates I heavily consider voting for should she choose to run in 2012.

"Pro-choice" "Feminists"

2010-01-30T09:56:00.003-07:00

I sure hate to overuse quotes, I feel like that guy that is always doing air quotes, but is there anything more misleading than the title of this post?

CBS is set to air the Superbowl on the 7th of February. They are also set to air an ad in which former Florida quarterback, and Heisman Trophy winner, Tim Tebow, presents an alternative point of view to aborting babies.

Tim's mom was a missionary in some tropical jungle when she was pregnant with him. She got a disease that could only be treated by medicine which could have an impact on the baby she was carrying. Her doctor suggested that she get an abortion. She didn't, and that is the story they are set to tell to the Superbowl audience.

Only in this brave new liberal world that we live in would choosing to keep a baby be so outrageous and controversial. The Women's Media Center sent a letter to CBS decrying it's decision to let another point of view air other than theirs.

As it turns out, these "pro-choice" feminists are only pro-choice if the choice is killing the baby. Apparently, they don't want women to make another choice.

And as Brent Bozell points out, they aren't even feminists. Otherwise, why would you attack an ad promoting a woman that made a wise choice, and ignore the Big Daddy ads? Those Big Daddy ads seem a lot more demeaning to women than a story about how a woman stayed strong, despite the advice she was given, had the baby, and then he went on to do such great things.

Ironically, if liberal "feminists" had their way, Barack Obama would have been aborted.

This world liberals try to make us live in makes less and less sense each day.

Not True

2010-01-28T20:41:00.003-07:00

Obama is now trying to intimidate the Supreme Court by lying to America about their decision to uphold the first amendment last week. This video shows Chief Court Justice Samuel Alito mouthing the words "not true", as Obama tries to convince America that they reversed 100 years of precedent.

Obama claims that the decision will open the way for foreign entities to influence the election, but as this article points out, that is not the case. Either Obama is an idiot way out of his league, or he's a blatant liar. I'd prefer the former, but fear it's the latter.

If Obama's so worried about foreign money influencing elections, why doesn't he refuse any money remotely tied to George Soros? Why did he allow contributions to his campaign from laundered credit cards?

I think he knows all these things, but is trying to intimidate the Supreme Court into ruling his way the next time the issue comes up.

Yemen to Open Guantanamo Bay Rehab Center!

2010-01-27T21:35:00.007-07:00

Obama has been forced to acknowledge the problem in Yemen, with the Nidal Hasan and Abdulmutallab both having links to members of al Qaeda located in Yemen. The week before the Christmas bombing, Obama sent six former Guantanamo Bay detainees to Yemen. After the bombing he suspended sending detainees from Guantanamo Bay to Yemen. Al Qaeda did not suddenly become a bigger presence in Yemen. The threat from Yemen was well known. The only thing that changed was the public's awareness of the Yemen problem. Obama would still like to send Guantanamo Bay inmates to Yemen, so he can fulfill his foolish promise of closing Guantanamo Bay.

The United States has encouraged Yemen to host a Guantanamo Bay rehab center. Yemen is working to establish a rehab center where jihadists released from Guantanamo Bay will be persuaded to forsake the jihad and learn to properly express themselves. This will be a place where jihadists can learn job skills and integrated back into society. It is modeled after the Saudi jihadi rehabilitation program. In rehab the jihadists play ping pong.

They also learn how to express themselves through art. This picture was drawn by a jihadist in the rehab program.

Surprisingly, the Saudi jihad rehabilitation program has experienced some recidivism among the jihadists. The program attempts to persuade the jihadists that only the Saudi government can authorize jihad and that there is no jihad in the world today. Included among the graduates of the program are Abdul-Hereth Mohammed Al-Awfi and Said al-Shihri. These two are among the leadership of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula operating out of Yemen. Al-Shihri's art therapist said that he was not the "ideal student." He also said, "He's got big problems, big psychological problems." These "big psychological problems" were not enough to prevent al-Shihri from being pronounced cured. Perhaps Captain Amazing intervened on his behalf.

The jihad rehab program whose graduates go on to leadership positions in al Qaeda is to be replicated in Yemen. All because of the irrational determination to free our enemies so that they can kill us.

Waterboarding Works. Telling Terrorists to be Quiet, not so much

2010-01-22T19:22:00.004-07:00

Here is an interview where Marc Thieson calls out Christine Amanpour about being misleading on her reporting on waterboarding. Plus, he does an excellent job defending the technique and its effectiveness. The other guest who constantly refers to waterboarding as torture is reduced to challenging Thieson to get waterboarded to prove that it is not torture. He could also have challenged him to spend the rest of his life in prison to prove that life sentences in prison aren't torture.

Looks like I am going to have to read his book that is coming out. It's called "Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama is Inviting the Next Attack." Obama has a different method of extracting information from our enemies. His method is to send them to jail in Detroit and tell them they have the right to remain silent. Less effective.

Here is an article written by Thiessen about the real Jack Bauers.

86 Page DOD Report on Fort Hood Shooting Mentions Islam Zero Times

2010-01-21T21:52:00.004-07:00

I found this post on Jihad Watch which mentions that the absurdity of political correctness is starting to become apparent to even some in the clueless mainstream media. Time magazine, the Christian Science Monitor, and even Jack Cafferty from CNN are asking why the Fort Hood report does not mention Islam.

In response to the Fort Hood shooting from last year by Nidal Hasan, a task force was established to help understand how this tragedy could have been avoided and to identify potential threats. This task force released a document that is 86 pages long. Islam is not mentioned one time. This document is an example of how the obvious warning signs displayed by Hasan were missed. Islam was the primary motivation for Hasan's actions and yet an 86 page document about the incident and how it could have been prevented does not mention Islam once. There is a serious misplacement of priorities in this country. Political correctness takes priority over people's lives. Refusing to identify the motivations of our enemies will cause us to continue to miss signs that warn us about who are enemies are.

The words of General Casey says it all. "Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

Game On

2010-01-19T20:48:00.004-07:00

On one of the largest political upsets in memory, Scott Brown has pulled off the seemingly impossible. In super liberal Massachusetts, the Republican was leading by 5 points, with only 3% of the precincts not reporting. This is a large enough margin of victory, that even ACORN can't steal it for the Democrats.

This is, of course, a huge blow to Obama and his agenda. Even the bluest of blue states is standing up and saying "no" to the Obamatopia envisioned by most of the Democrats.

So what's next for the Democrats? Do you think they'll start actually listening to the people, who have been telling them no on Obamacare since the summer? Do you think they'll reach across the aisle for help from Republicans in shaping new health care legislation? Do you think Obama will take the lessons learned from a failed special election in Massachusetts, and like Bill Clinton, start to govern more to the right?

Of course not. These guys are Statists. Their only goal is to increase the size of government, while decreasing our liberty. They don't care what the people want. They don't even care what the people that put them in office want. They're prepared to break more Senate rules, and ram this bad boy home.

As Democrats have reminded us over and over for the last year, elections have consequences. I guess Democrats only think elections have consequences when they win.

If Brown can win Massachusetts, I don't see why any Democrat would be safe this November. Hopefully, they recognize this, and start steering our country in the right direction, or it's going to be a blood bath.

I'm not holding out much hope... after all, they're Statists.

Unions steal $60 billion from taxpayers...

2010-01-18T14:14:00.002-07:00

In 28 short hours, we'll know if the Democrats still hold a super majority, or if there was a Republican "short heard 'round the world". We'll know if Democrats will be able to pass health care on the strength of a filibuster proof Senate, or if they'll have to find ways to further destroy the rule of law in order to ram Obamacare through.

So it turns out that the unions, one of the Democrats' main supporters, got a little grumpy with Obamacare last week.

Contained in the miles of pages of the Obamacare bill passed by the Senate, there is a provision to tax so called "Cadillac" health plans. This is, of course, a tax against the middle class, and makes President Obama a liar when he campaigned on not raising taxes on anyone making $250,000 or less.

So the unions realized that many of their members own these Cadillac plans, and therefore are in line to get taxed. They couldn't stand for this.

So the unions bosses got together with the leaders of congress, and "the most transparent" leadership in history, went behind closed doors and hammered out a deal with the union chiefs.

As part of the deal, union members are not subject to this tax, until 2018, while regular, non-union Americans will be. That works out to about a 60 billion dollar favor, that will be funded by the United States taxpayer, which is to say, nobody in the Obama Administration.

This little treat was given in addition to The Louisiana Purchase, and the Cornhusker Kickback, all massively expensive favors to get people to vote for this "masterpiece"

Read all about it here.

90999

2010-01-15T09:05:00.003-07:00

We've all heard about the earthquake in Haiti. Most have likely seen pictures. I had to stop, because I couldn't take it anymore.

The Red Cross has set up an easy way to donate. If you text HAITI to 90999, you'll donate $10. It will show up on your next phone bill.

According to Aurthur Brooks, for each dollar you give freely to charity, you'll earn about $3.75 back. So text the number if you want to earn a cool $37.50

If everyone who voted donated the ten dollars, we could raise 1.29 billion dollars. Of course that number probably includes people who have been dead for several years. But think how much we could raise if everyone with a cell phone donated.

Democrat Desperation

2010-01-13T14:30:00.004-07:00

So what does a politician do when they are faced with polls that show a once insurmountable lead whittled away to nothing? What do they do when they realize that even in a state that usually agrees with their ideology, voters are rejecting their message? What does a politician do when their opponent clearly wins the final debate, and goes on to raise $1.3 million in a single night?

If you're Martha Coakley (D), you hire thugs to beat up reporters.

I guess that isn't fair. She probably didn't actually tell the hired thug to drop the reporter, but as the current attorney general of the state of Massachusettes (her spelling) isn't she obligated to report the crime she just witnessed?

Or is assault and battery not a crime in Massachusetts?

Anyone in their right mind would not be able to vote for her. Unfortunately, we're talking about Massachusetts... they sent Ted Kennedy back to Washington over and over after he allowed Mary Jo Kopechne to drown. Hmm, I guess that isn't fair either. How about "waited until the cops discovered the car and Kopechne's body to report the accident".

Hopefully Bay State voters will finally put someone in Ted Kennedy's Senate seat that would actually report a crime that he/she witnessed/caused.

Of course, as Scott Brown, the Republican running against Coakley reminds us, it's the people's seat.

Here's to Scott Brown breaking the filibuster proof majority, and ridding us of this horrid health care bill.

We the People?

2010-01-09T09:42:00.003-07:00

Democrats, if nothing else, have proven that they are willing to do almost anything to subvert the will of the people and ram this health care bill through congress. The 60th Democrat in the Senate, Al Franken, was elected under shady conditions at best. Norm Coleman, the incumbent senator for Minnesota had won that election, but the Democrat Political Machine went to work, "found" several more votes for Smiley, and the Democrats that run that state were more than happy to help him cheat his way to D.C. This delivered a crucial, filibuster breaking 60th vote to the Senate. Then, despite the objections of a majority of Americans, the Democrats in the Senate took up Reid's health care bill. Every parliamentary trick was used, and only a select few Democrats were allowed to even see the bill while it was being debated, and amendments were being offered. Senate rules were broken, and reluctant "moderate" Senators had to be bought off with our money. In the end, the bill was rushed through, so Senators didn't have to face the people they represent before a vote for the bill.

Since the two bills are different, they have to be reconciled, but the Democrats not only want no Republicans voices in their "smoke filled chambers", but are going against President Obama's pledge to televise health care proceedings. So chalk up another broken promise to the great Obama, the leader that was going to not play any of the old Washington games, and was going to look for bipartisan solutions.

Now, Massachusetts, is voting to replace the deceased Senator Kennedy. The state changed the way Senators are selected to fill vacant seats back when Romney was governor. They didn't want Romney to appoint a Republican to a possible vacant Kerry seat, so the process was changed to a vote by the people within a certain amount of time. That has backfired on them, because now a Democrat is governor, and the Republican in the race, Scott Brown, is gaining momentum and just might win the seat. It should be noted that in order for him to win in such a blue state would be a colossal task, and he is by no means assured of winning. It should also be noted that the victory by him needs to be decisive, or the Democrats will find a way to cheat him out of his seat (see Minnesota)

But in the hypothetical situation that Brown does win the seat, that would break the Democrat's filibuster proof majority, and doom the health care bill. Not so fast. It looks like Democrats are once again willing to subvert the will of the people. If Brown were to get elected, they'd just stall swearing him in until health care passes.

Yes, Republicans when they were in the majority lost their way, in most cases acting like Democrats. It's only logical for the voters to ask themselves "How bad could Democrats be?" But look what happens when Democrats are the majority party. Corruption, cheating, ignoring the will of the people are all in play. Democrats don't care that you don't want this health care legislation, and they don't care what rules have to be broken to get it. November can't come fast enough, when we can get our country back by voting out some of these clowns.

Other references to the same story are here, and here.

Abdulmutallab has the right to remain silent

2010-01-05T00:28:00.002-07:00

Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan was on Fox News Sunday yesterday. Chris Wallace asked some good questions. Apparently the fact that Yemen is headquarters to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is not enough to persuade the Obama administration to not send al Qaeda prisoners to Yemen. The fact that the leadership of AQAP is comprised of two former detainees from Guantanamo Bay is not a good enough reason either. The fact that Yemen has a long history of making deals with members of al Qaeda and releasing them from prison is not a good enough reason either. Brennan says that the U.S. will continue to send Guantanamo Bay detainees to Yemen, but "We are not going to do anything that will put American security at risk." That is like saying that I am going to light you on fire but I will make sure that you will not get burned. Doesn't make much sense.

At 8:00 on the video below they start to talk about the fact that Abdulmutallab stopped cooperating once he got a lawyer. Brennan says towards the end that the U.S. will offer a deal to Abdulmutallab. There are no advantages to giving this guy a civilian lawyer. It is beyond stupid to tell a terrorist after he is caught that he has the right to remain silent and give him a lawyer. There is no rational reason for this. If Abdulmutallab were turned over to military authorities they could be gathering intelligence from him right now. Instead he is sitting quietly in a Detroit jail cell.

NEA vs. minority students

2010-01-02T10:29:00.004-07:00

Lots of liberals, and many non-liberals like to pretend that the Republican Party is racist just because they don't subscribe to Democrat views that you should open the treasury to minorities so they'll be a loyal voting base.

Democrats claim that Republicans aren't charitable, or that they're just mean simply because Republicans (most anyway) understand that when you confiscate a person's property via the IRS, what you are really confiscating is their time, and by extension their life. This should only be done for Constitutionally approved matters, one of which is not to solidify a voting base.

While both sides can argue the merits of their position, that is not my intent with this post, although I'd be happy to address why I don't think we should open the treasury to every Harry Hard Luck in the country in the comments section, or perhaps on a future post. My intent is to show that Democrats, at least the ones that populate this congress, care more about politics, than the well being of minorities.

The Democrats have many different groups they have to please by handing out money, or doing favors for. One of those groups is the National Educators Association (NEA). This group is about as left wing as they come. They have donated millions to ACORN, and have Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" as suggested reading on their website. (I also suggest reading that book just so you can know and recognize the kind of underhanded tactics hardcore Lefties like to use.)

So the Republican's started a school voucher program in DC. This program overwhelmingly benefited inner city minority children that otherwise would have had to go to dangerous and failing schools. The studies that had been done had shown that the program was a smashing success.

You would think that Democrats would be pleased with this successful voucher program. Unfortunately, the Democrats in our congress are more interested in helping the NEA than helping minority children.

Now, I'm not accusing the Democrats of being racist, certainly, I have concerns with the Federal Government funding a DC voucher program. I just find it interesting that they are so willing to throw down the race card in regard to Republicans, and then turn around and pass legislation that actually hurts minorities. All those minorities in DC that voted for Obama probably didn't know that they were voting against themselves... a common theme for many Democrat voters.

The story is here.

Terrorist Plot Foiled! System Works!

2009-12-31T13:55:00.003-07:00

I have been a little behind on the news because of the Christmas season and all. It was only yesterday that I learned that on Christmas day an al Qaeda operative attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane as it landed that was coming from the Netherlands to Detroit. Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab attempted to detonate a bomb he had hidden in his underwear when he was tackled by other passengers who smelt smoke and heard a noise that “sounded like a firecracker in a pillowcase.” He was subdued and the plot failed.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano said afterwards that “the system worked.”Robert Gibbs said that “in many ways, this system has worked.” I am glad that the system worked so remarkably well, I think it would be appropriate to analyze this success so it can be replicated in the future.

Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab is the son of a wealthy banker. He attended a British school in Togo, west Africa. His classmates gave him the nickname “the Pope” because of his pious religious views. After finishing high school he went to London to study mechanical engineering at a university. Mutallab headed to Yemen to connect with al Qaeda leaders. Yemen is the headquarters of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and is led by terrorists who used to be in Guantanamo Bay. Six Guantanamo Bay terrorists were sent to Yemen last week and 91 prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are from Yemen. Mutallab’s father was concerned that he had joined with Islamic extremists and reported him to the United States embassy in Abuja, Nigeria and also reported him to Nigerian security agencies.Mutallab was placed on a terrorist watch list but he was never placed on a no fly list.

The system working seems to mean ignoring warning signs from Mutallab’s father, allowing Mutallab to get a visa to the United States, allowing Mutallab to smuggle explosives on to an airplane and then hope that the bomb malfunctions and that he will be tackled by other passengers. Yes, the system worked perfectly. Napolitano has received criticism for her comments and now claims that she meant that the system worked after the attack. How reassuring. She also made it clear that she thought that Mutallab should not have been on the no fly list. Here is part of a transcript from an interview she gave with CNN:

CROWLEY: ... Let me ask you about those watch lists. Here is someone whose father came to the U.S. embassy and said I am worried about his ties, I am worried that he is becoming increasingly militant. He is on a list, but somehow no none looks at him more closely, apparently, than any other passenger. Is there some way -- I mean, it seems to me there is all these computer lists, and this one has suspected ties, and that one -- and this is the no-fly list. Is there not some way to merge this information so that he would have popped up someplace?

NAPOLITANO: Well, there is no suggestion that -- he was on what's called a tied list, which has half-a-million-plus names on it. And there is no suggestion that that was not shared information. The issue was, was there enough information to move him to the more specific lists, which would require additional examination or indeed being on no-fly status. And to date, it does not appear that there was any such information to move him from that tied list, which was shared and everybody had it, but to a more specific list which would require different types of screening at the airport.

CROWLEY: So not even a father coming in, knowing what his son has been up to and reporting this to the U.S. embassy, is not enough? I mean, what puts you on the watch list if that is not enough?

NAPOLITANO: Well, indeed you can -- let's not get into that, because for one thing, we need to ascertain exactly who said what to whom and when. But also, you have to understand that you need information that is specific and credible if you are going to actually bar someone from air travel. He was on a general list, which over half a million people, everybody had access to it. But there was not the kind of credible information, in the sense derogatory information, that would move him up the list.

Getting a visa to the United States is not a right guaranteed to all of humanity. Flying on airplanes in the U.S. is not a right that all the world automatically receives. You don’t need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to not give someone a visa. How about we don’t give visas to people who’s father informs the United States government that he is an Islamic extremist who is in Yemen, which happens to be the headquarters of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula? How is it that this is not enough to get this guy on the no fly list? It would be a great thing if Janet Napolitano is fired and replaced by someone who is competent. I am not holding my breath, if she was fired she would most likely be replaced by another incompetent person.

Mutallab has not been arrested and told that he has the right to remain silent. Now he gets to have a lawyer that will help him not cooperate. He should have not been read his rights, not given an attorney and sent to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation. 71% of Americans agree that Mutallab should be investigated by the military instead of civilian authorities. Unfortunately, none of those 71% are in the White House.

Christmas 1776

2009-12-25T22:55:00.003-07:00

Christmas marks a season when most of us remember and honor the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Through his life, and his death, he delivered us freedom from the grave, and freedom from our sins.

But there's another Christmas story that I think we Americans should remember. 233 years ago, things weren't going so well for the American Colonies. Their army had been driven back from New York to Pennsylvania. Most of the soldiers were due to be released at the end of the year, other countries weren't taking us too seriously, and the British looked to be on the brink of crushing the revolution.

George Washington, in a desperate attempt to get a victory crossed the Delaware River and fought the wind and ice, about 8 miles from Trenton, New Jersey. He and his men, many of whom didn't have shoes, marched to Trenton, and won a victory against the British.

This is considered the turning point of the American Revolution by many people. The Colonies quickly won a few more battles, and other countries realized that we were a force, and were willing to throw in with us. Did Washington, and those soldiers with him know they were on the brink of turning the war around? No. Did they love freedom, and were they willing to die fighting for it? Yes.

So as you ponder the birth, life and death of our Lord, who delivered us spiritual freedom, take time to give thanks for men like George Washington, who helped men become physically free, and helped found such a great country.

Detroit... French for Dung Pile?

2009-12-23T22:30:00.003-07:00

Liberal policies have destroyed Detroit. Now they want to do the same with the rest of the country.

You might have to click on the video to get the whole view... lousy new 16:9 format.

Corruption You Can Believe In

2009-12-18T14:54:00.002-07:00

A new study came out asserting that Democrat leaning districts got almost twice as much stimulus money as Republican leaning districts did. There was no correlation to any economic indicators, including job loss. The study actually showed that far more stimulus money went to higher income areas.

So this is why Obama and the Democrats wanted to pass the stimulus so badly. They knew it wouldn't help jobs or the overall economic situation. They just had some allies that needed to be paid off.

So Mr. President, now that you've paid off your friends, could we actually pass a recovery bill that would do some good?

An article about this from Fox News is here. If you're wondering why I had to use the "evil" Fox News, it's because I couldn't find the article on CNN, MSNBC, or Politico. That doesn't mean it isn't there.

Scorched Earth

2009-12-17T14:54:00.006-07:00

Looks like the Democrats are going nuclear, and by nuclear, I mean ignoring Senate Rules.

There was much howling done yesterday because of Republicans' so called "obstructionist" behavior. What Republicans did was well within the rules of the Senate.

The Senate is designed for things to move slowly. This allows for more consideration on policies that affect the entire country. The Democrats have been trying to ram home health care legislation before Christmas, so they can get it over with, hoping the American People will forget about the unpopular bill if it just gets passed.

Of course, Obama took 3 months to decide if we should get more troops to Afghanistan, but when it comes to taking over 1/6 of the economy, it needs to be done NOW. So, like any patriot, for the good of the country, Senator Tom Coburn decided it was time to fight.

The Senate rules say that any amendment that is going to be considered needs to be read. This is usually waived by a unanimous consent decree. If only one senator objects, however, the amendment must be read. Bernie Sanders (socialist - Vermont) introduced a 700+ page amendment that had no chance of being included in the legislation. He moved to waive the reading, as usual. This time, however, Coburn objected, forcing the senate clerk to read all 700 pages.

Libs everywhere started howling at the obstructionist tactics of the Republicans. The clerk read for 3 hours before Sanders retracted his amendment, and the reading stopped...

but according to Senate rules, the entire amendment has to be read. Red State has an article on it, but the applicable senate rule I've copied here:

"Under Rule XV, paragraph 1, and Senate precedents, an amendment shall be read
by the Clerk before it is up for consideration or before the same shall be
debated unless a request to waive the reading is granted; in practice that
includes an ordinary amendment or an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
the reading of which may not be dispensed with except by unanimous consent, and
if the request is denied the amendment must be read and further interruptions
are not in order."

Of course, you couldn't find any libs anywhere that were lamenting that the Senate rules had been violated. These Democrats that are trying to ram home this legislation will do anything, legal or not, to get it done, because for the Statist, the ends always justify the means. So they carry on about Republicans using legal maneuvers in the Senate, but clam up about illegal senate procedures done by Democrats.

Hey Democrats, if you don't want to take forever reading bills on the Senate Floor, how about shortening them up a little?

Something else of interest: Most senators have not been able to see Harry Reid's actual bill. He's kept it to himself. Of course, the only reason is because he knows the American People aren't going to like what they see. Mitch McConnell had something to say about this here.

Chicago Politics?

2009-12-15T21:47:00.002-07:00

Full disclosure: I haven't been able to confirm the following from a second source, so take it for what it's worth. I think it's important to put out there, because if it's true, it shows us what Obama's willing to do in order to score political points.

Ben Nelson is a senator from Nebraska. He looks to be the last democrat holdout on healthcare legislation. Obamacare is so radical that not once single Republican, not even Olympia Snow, for crying out loud, is willing to go along with this nonsense. So much for bipartisanship and ruling from the center. Anyway, according to this article, Obama aids have told Ben Nelson that he'll shut down an air force base in Nebraska if he doesn't toe the line.

If this is true, I hope Nelson holds his ground. I don't think Obama would have the nerve to pull the trigger, and if he did, he'd expose himself as a president willing to extort others and put politics above national defense.

Captain Kirk

2009-12-12T12:28:00.003-07:00

I guess William Shatner has been doing some sort of "beatnik" style readings of various Sarah Palin quotes on the tonight show. He even did so with some fake Levi Johnston tweets. So he showed up a last night to do some "readings" from her new book "Going Rogue". Hilarity ensues.

I'm sure everyone knows my opinion, but she'd be a much better president than the one we got right now. Tons more experience, and tons more common sense.

Navy Seals Receive Court Martial For Capturing Terrorist

2009-12-12T12:22:00.010-07:00

What happens when Navy Seals capture one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq? They get a court martial of course. I've been busy lately so I haven't had time to write about this story. Here is a good article about this story. In 2004, Ahmed Hashim Abed was the mastermind behind an attack on four American contractors. They were shot, set on fire, their charred bodies were dragged through the streets and their corpses were hung from a bridge in Fallujah, Iraq. Here is a picture of those who were murdered that day.

Here are some pictures of what Abed did to these people.

It is a disgrace that these Navy Seals face court martial for capturing this terrorist. I would not be surprised if Abed gave himself the bloody lip. Claiming abuse is a common tactic used by Islamic terrorists. But even if they did give him a bloody lip, why does that matter? It seems like Navy Seals should be allowed to give murderous terrorists bloody lips when they capture them.

Dirty Harry

2009-12-08T17:50:00.002-07:00

Harry Reid embarrassed himself again on Monday. Reid embarrassing himself happens with such regularity that one might suspect the Democrat Party has him do it on purpose. Whenever they are trying to push something unpopular onto this country, I think they tell ol' Harry to start talking. That way everyone gets distracted by his insanity, and the Dems know they don't lose anything, since he's going to lose his reelection bid next year.

So on Monday, on the Senate floor, Reid said that those that were delaying a government overhaul of our health care system, were like those in the 60's that opposed granting equal rights to all Americans. My favorite quote: "When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

Good one Reid... I wonder if he knows that he was talking about the Democrats. Democrats have historically been the opposition party when it comes to giving minorities, specifically blacks, the rights enjoyed by the rest of us. They opposed Lincoln in the 1860's, and a century later filibustered the 1964 civil rights bill. One Robert Byrd, current Democrat Senator, and former majority leader filibustered for more than 14 hours. On the vote for cloture (to end the filibuster), 79% of the votes against came from Democrats. Later, when the bill was finally passed, 73% of the votes against the bill were cast by Democrats.

So Reid is essentially telling Republicans to stop acting like Democrats. Of course, the difference, as this article points out is that Democrats dragged their feet when the issue was extending more freedom to American people. Republicans are dragging their feet today because the issue is the extending of government control and tyranny.

I think the most embarrassing Mormon award is a no brainer.

Climate Change Hypocrisy

2009-12-07T21:11:00.008-07:00

Everyone is a hypocrite, the only alternative is to not have any morals.

But nobody is so spectacularly, unashamedly hypocritical than many of those that promote man made climate change, or whatever they've decided to call it this year.

Has anybody noticed that some of the most strident believers of global warming, are also huge carbon dioxide producers? Consider for your amusement this story from the UK. Local limo companies have run out of limos to provide the people that are attending this man made climate change convention, so they're having some driven in from Germany. My favorite quote: "We thought they were not going to have many cars, due to it being a climate convention, but it seems that somebody last week looked at the weather report." According to this article, the amount of carbon produced from this conference is equivalent to the amount produced by a city the size of Middlesbrough. I'm not going to pretend to know how big Middlesbrough is.

So tons of "important" people are burning all sorts of fossil fuels so they can meet together to discuss how the rest of us shouldn't be allowed to go visit Grandma on Thanksgiving. Have these people not heard of the Internet? After all, their hero invented it.

Or there is this article by the New York Post that claims that the conference will produce more carbon than the daily output of 30 small countries.

Is that not good enough for you? How about earlier this year when Obama flew in a pizza chef from St. Louis to make a pizza? What was wrong with just finding some nice pizza in DC? So Obama's thinks you shouldn't drive an SUV, but he's OK with flying in some guy from St. Louis just so he can have his favorite pizza?

Or how about Obama keeping the Oval Office warm because it reminds him of Hawaii. I thought we all had to sacrifice and turn the thermostat down during the winter. Like most libs, they only expect others to sacrifice.

This isn't limited to Oblahblahbama, take a look at the queen of climate change, Al Gore. His house in Tennessee used 20 or 12 times more energy than the average American's house in 2006 depending on who you listen to. That sounds like an inconvenient truth to me.

Then there's RFK Jr. He doesn't like the construction of wind turbines... at least not near his house at Cape Cod. Again, the liberal position is that other people should have to deal with the "eyesore" that wind turbines would present.

And then there are the countless celebs that profess to be green, while drinking bottled water, and criss crossing the country on their private jets. I don't care that they are rich. I don't care that they have the money to do all these things. It's money they earned and they can spend however they want. But is it too much to ask that they at least travel first class on a jam packed Boeing 777 before they lecture us about our carbon footprint?

And the list goes on.

So now Obama is off to Copenhagen to try to sell off a little more of our liberty to the man made global warming crowd. Do you think he knows that water, a greenhouse gas, can be found by much larger quantities in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide? Do you think he cares that the consensus he claims to have on the global warming issue does not mean scientific fact?

He knows these things, but uses global warming as a cover for expanding the government.

As Mark Levin says, "Liberals have a high tolerance for someone else's pain."

Global warming people sure do love being hypocritical.

I guess that means they have morals.

The Huckster

2009-11-30T20:36:00.002-07:00

Maurice Clemmons, a 37 year old (my age) Tacoma man is a cop killer. He shot and killed four police officers near his hometown. Turns out that this is a bit of a problem for one Mike Huckabee (a Republican). Details from the Seattle Times are here.

Apparently, this guy should have been in jail... From the above linked story: "Nine years ago, then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee granted clemency to Clemmons, commuting his lengthy prison sentence over the protests of prosecutors.

This isn't the first time a Huckabee granted clemency has led to problems. According to National Review Online, "Huckabee's administration apparently went above and beyond standard operating procedure (and perhaps legality) in securing the parole of convicted rapist Wayne DuMond, who was finally released in 1999. DuMond raped and murdered a Missouri woman shortly thereafter."

Looks like this might cause a problem for the Republican ex presidential hopeful. While I don't think Mitt Romney is necessarily the best conservative out there to vote for, the fact is that he would have been the best presidential candidate of the top three remaining last year to run against Obama. Huckabee, effectively took votes away from him, thus giving the nomination to McCain. I can't say that Romney would have won the Republican nomination sans Huckabee, but I do believe that Romney would have beaten Obama given the financial meltdown that eventually delivered the presidency to Obama. Hopefully, Huckabee decides he shouldn't run, because I'm not sure this scandal will convince those who voted for him that he isn't fit for the presidency. Some people just like their minister.

Fair and Balanced

2009-11-25T12:49:00.002-07:00

One of the most frustrating things for me to hear is when people say (or type) that if they want a conservative point of view, they'll tune in to Fox News, but if they want to hear the "real story" or "both sides", they'll tune into network news, such as NBC or CBS, or they'll find CNN. (MSNBC is a joke, so I will only mention them here if I'm making fun of them.)

When you hear people say this, they are just being parrots. I doubt studies will change their minds, because several studies have shown Fox News to be the most fair and balanced. Another such study was released recently by the Center for Media and Public Affairs. Forbes magazine has a good article about the study's findings here.

What the study found was that Fox News had both the most negative coverage of Obama, and the most fair coverage of the election. This is possible, because the mainstream press has tilted so sharply to the left, that down the center coverage appears to be "right wing hate speech". So when Obama or his cronies try to pretend that Fox News is out to get them, just remember that it's because the rest of the media not only gives liberals a pass, but will at times try to promote a liberal agenda.

Such has been the case for the last couple of days. A new scandal has arisen that has been dubbed "Climategate". In case you live in a cave, or don't watch Fox News, what happened was that the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia got its emails hacked. Some of the emails stolen were from prominent "scientists" that are on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC). The research from this panel is what drives the whole man made global warming theory, and influences policy of many countries, including the U.S.

Some of the emails that were stolen showed that some of these "scientists" had purposely manipulated data to exaggerate the threat of global warming. You would think this would be a huge story, but... well, let's just say that the mainstream press has more important things to report on, such as a sea lion, or Pete, the orphaned moose.

The New York Times has acknowledged that emails got hacked from the Center for Global Warming Hysteria (CGWH), but they are refusing to cover it extensively, because they were illegally obtained. That sounds like a nice excuse, but you have to wonder, if some conservative that was a woman was running for, say, vice president of the United States had her emails illegally hacked, I wonder if the New York Times would hold the same standard.

As it turns out, that did happen, and the New York Times was more than happy to post links to the hacked material. So when it's a conservative person or cause, they wanted to advance the story, but when it's a liberal person or cause, they put the wraps on it.

There are so many more examples of liberal media bias, that it's mind numbing. Bernie Goldberg has written at least two books about it, and there's an entire webpage devoted to it.

So the next time someone accuses Fox News of being full of hateful shrill right wingers, it probably best to just walk away. Most liberals are allergic to facts.

Obama Hands Megaphone to Terrorists

2009-11-24T20:57:00.003-07:00

Al Qaeda lawyer says that the al Qaeda members on trial for 9/11 will give their assessment of American foreign policy. Good thing Obama gave these guys a megaphone to spew anti-American pro al-Qaeda propaganda. One thing that Obama must have been thinking lately is that we don't have enough jihadists in the world trying to destroy America, how can we get more? If this was the problem he was trying to solve then this was the perfect move. In the video below the al Qaeda lawyer says that there will be a "justification defense." When asked if there is any justification for killing thousands of innocent people he refused to answer the question. He also refused to state whether the victims of 9/11 were murdered at all.

The Government Can!

2009-11-23T23:40:00.002-07:00

Sometimes I need to remind myself about all the things the government does well.

Unprecedented Stupidity

2009-11-18T20:29:00.002-07:00

Recently, Obama has made the decision through Eric Holder that Khalid Sheik Muhammad who was captured in Pakistan gets the constitutional rights accorded to U.S. citizens. Below is a video of Senator Graham questioning Eric Holder regarding the decision to prosecute Khalid Sheik Muhammad in New York. This is a very crazy idea. In a civilian court he has the right to get access to the information that is used to prosecute him, this could include classified information. I like how Senator Graham started the questioning, "Can you name a case in United States history where an enemy combatant caught on a battlefield was tried in a civilian court?" The answer is no, it has never happened before. The decision to prosecute Khalid Sheik Muhammad in the United States is an historic event. This decision is an unprecedented level of stupidity. Senator Graham makes a good argument about how this decision will hurt our war efforts. My favorite quote, "You have taken a war time model that will allow us flexibility when it comes to intelligence gathering and you have compromised this country's ability to deal with people who are at war with us by interjecting into the system the possibility that they may be given the same constitutional rights as any American citizen."

Primaries

2009-11-17T17:28:00.002-07:00

The Republicans should change the way they nominate a presidential candidate. Democrats can do whatever they want. In fact, I like their current primary system that elects one nutty guy after another. They can keep their stupid super delegates that essentially negates the will of the people. I don't care. That party has gone so hard to the left, I don't think I'll ever seriously consider one of their nominees.

The Republican Presidential Primaries need to be fixed. The Republican Candidate should be a conservative, and not a Democrat Lite, like John McCain. So I've come up with a solution.

1. Why should corn farmers in Iowa have a say on who should be running for president? Yet they do. Gallup has found that since 1972, "it has not been uncommon for national nomination preferences to quickly change following the Iowa and New Hampshire contests". The full article is here. So in order to make it out of Iowa with more than 3% of the vote, you have to pay homage to corn. Has anyone every wondered why politicians still think ethanol produced by corn is an actual solution to our energy problems? They don't actually think that, but they have to pretend to in order to stay in the running to win Iowa, should the need or desire arise. Electing candidates based on one or two states' economies is not a good idea.

2. Why on earth would we let Democrats vote for the candidate that is going to represent the Republicans? South Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia, and Texas, just to name a few let Democrats vote for the Republican candidate. This is like letting the Dodgers draft players for the Giants. It's insanity. There shouldn't even be any modified open primaries, which means independents can vote either way. If you're an independent, that's another way of saying that you like to sit on the fence.

3. States can decide the voting format, and the way delegates are awarded. Personally, I don't like the caucus system, because it typically penalizes people that work for a living.

4. If states don't comply with the above rules and the schedule below, they are stripped of their delegates. Some would argue that stripping a state of its delegates would make the citizens more likely to vote for the other party. Florida, a state that had voted for Bush in the previous two elections, voted for Obama despite the Democrat party stripping them of their vote. And don't give me that "they ended up getting half of their delegates" argument. That was after it was obvious Obama was going to be nominated. Michigan also went with Obama, but Democrats have controlled that state for a while. (As evidenced by their economic chaos.)

5. The country is divided into 5 regions. Members of each region vote on the same day. This means that politicians don't have to criss cross the country (thus reducing the carbon footprint those libs are always yapping about), and can focus on one area. Each region is assigned a day to vote. The possible days to vote are: The first Tuesday in February, March, April, May and June. States would be allowed to move the day they vote as many as 4 days back. The regions are rotated so that after 20 years, each has had a chance to vote first. I assumed there were 2,279 total delegates, which means I tried to keep them around 456 per region.

So, without further delay, here is how I broke up the states into regions, along with the number of delegates for each one.

West Coast Region
California - 170
Oregon - 27
Washington - 19
Hawaii - 20
Alaska - 26
Arizona - 53
Nevada - 31
Utah - 36
Idaho - 24
Wyoming - 24
Montana - 25
Guam - 6
American Samoa - 6

467 total delegates
11 total States
2 total territories

South Region
New Mexico - 29
Texas - 137
Louisiana - 20
Arkansas - 31
Oklahoma - 38
Colorado - 43
Kansas -36
Missouri - 58
Tennessee - 52

444 total delegates
9 total states

Upper Midwest Region
North Dakota - 23
South Dakota - 24
Nebraska - 33
Minnesota - 38
Iowa - 40
Wisconsin - 37
Illinois - 57
Indiana - 27
Ohio - 85
Kentucky - 42
Michigan - 60

466 total delegates
11 total states

Northeast region
Maine - 18
New Hampshire - 24
Vermont - 17
Massachusetts - 40
New York - 101
Rhode Island - 17
Connecticut - 27
New Jersey - 52
Pennsylvania - 74
Delaware - 18
Maryland - 37
West Virginia - 18
District of Columbia - 16

459 total delegates
12 total states
1 total district

Southeast region
Virginia - 60
North Carolina - 66
South Carolina - 24
Georgia - 72
Florida - 114
Alabama - 45
Mississippi - 36
Virgin Islands - 6
Puerto Rico - 20

443 total delegates
7 total states
2 total territories

So that is my hair brained idea, but it's way better than anything we have right now. Math mistakes are a result of not double checking, and being a little tired.

Proposed health care reform is unconstitutional

2009-11-13T16:34:00.003-07:00

I know it's silly of me to still care what the constitution says, but for what it's worth....

CNS News as been going around asking various Democrats about the constitutionality of mandating the purchase of health insurance.

Forcing people to buy health insurance as a condition of lawfully abiding in this country is unconstitutional. The way you can tell is first by actually reading the document, and second, by how Democrats avoid answering the above question, and when they do, they give an incoherent response.

Nancy Pelosi was asked, her response: "Are you serious?"

Senator Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island tried to compare mandating the purchase of health insurance to the draft. That, of course is a stupid analogy, because the Constitution grants the authority to congress "To raise and support armies" and "To provide and maintain a navy". I'm guessing the Air Force is not mentioned because of the lack of planes back then. Anyway, the loony response of the gentleman from Rhode Island is here.

And then we have Ben Nelson, a Democrat Senator from Nebraska that essentially claims to be too stupid to answer the question.

And there's more on their website.

I think the real problem is that most Democrats, and certainly the hard left Democrats don't care what the Constitution says. They can't come out and say it directly, but actions speak louder than words... at least that's what my mom used to say, and she was a pretty smart woman.

What do You Call Someone Who Kills in the Name of Allah?

2009-11-13T01:15:00.003-07:00

I love how Greg Gutfeld begins this Gregalogue. "Denying the role of militant Islam in the Fort Hood atrocity is like staring at a shark bite and thinking bicycle."

Major Hasan Communicates with al Qaeda, FBI Knows About It, FBI Does Nothing, People Die

2009-11-11T01:06:00.003-07:00

I just wanted to share this post from the Weekly Standard. Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan communicated with Anwar al Awlaki, who is an active recruiter for al Qaeda, 10-20 times since last December. The FBI knew about these communications and did nothing because it was consistent with his "research." Meanwhile the FBI says, "there is no information to indicate Major Malik Nidal Hasan had any co-conspirators or was part of a broader terrorist plot." The FBI knew that a Major in the Army was in frequent contact with an al Qaeda recruiter and they did nothing. Let's not jump to any conclusions. I'd recommend reading the entire post. My favorite quote from Thomas Joscelyn of the Weekly Standard is "How dense can the FBI be? Yes, all of the pieces of Hasan’s story still need to be put together. But to say there is no evidence of a 'broader terrorist plot' is myopic to the point of absurdity."

The price of political correctness

2009-11-09T14:45:00.002-07:00

Maj. Nadal Hasan, the perpetrator of the Ft. Hood massacre last week had some troubling beliefs as posted earlier in this space, and outlined in part in this article.

Among other things, he posted the following about a suicide bomber under the screen name NidalHasan: "“To say that this soldier committed suicide is inappropriate, it’s more appropriate to say he is a brave hero that sacrificed his life for a more noble cause.”

So how is it possible that all the warning signs were ignored? In my opinion, the answer is obvious. Political correctness. There are certain protected minority groups that everyone in this country knows you shouldn't say anything bad about. I think the Army in this case is a victim of being politically correct, that is, the constant worry that legitimate concerns will be brushed of as "racist" or "profiling".

Had this man been Catholic, or Lutheran, or Methodist, or Mormon, he would have been sniffed out immediately. But since he's Muslim, everyone has to treat him with kid gloves, careful not to offend, because the PC police are out there ready to pounce on anyone who has a concern about a protected minority member.

Political correctness cost us 13 American lives, and another 30 wounded. That is a heavy price to pay.

Fort Hood Shooting Easily Prevantable

2009-11-05T21:27:00.002-07:00

Nidal Malik Hasan killed twelve soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas. Hasan was a Major and a psychatrist. These deaths were preventable as Hasan had obvious warning signs that he was a dangerous individual. He attended a Muslim Community Center. He is a Muslim and his former imam described him as “very devout.” Six months ago federal authorities were concerned about some internet postings that he made. He glorified suicide bombers comparing them to soldiers who jump on a grenade to save their comrades. Col. Lee, a retired officer who worked with Hasan told Fox News of some comments that Hasan made. Hasan claimed that Muslims had the right to raise up and attack Americans. When a soldier was murdered in Arkansas by another Muslim Hasan was happy. He suggested that people should strap bombs to themselves and blow up Time Square in New York. These deaths were avoidable, Hasan should not have been allowed to continue working in the military.

Nancy Pelosi does not care about the Constitution

2009-10-27T12:25:00.003-06:00

Nancy Pelosi cannot believe that she is asked a question about that out-dated Constitution. "Where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact individual health insurance mandate?" Her response, "Are you serious?"

I know where it says that Congress does not have the authority to do this. It's called the tenth amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Some of us are serious about the Constitution. Unfortunately, most in Congress who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution could care less what it says.

Obama: Don't Worry About the Taliban

2009-10-09T14:54:00.001-06:00

I’ve been really busy with school lately so it’s been hard to update this blog. The one area that I had a little hope that Obama might not be absolutely horrible is in regards to Afghanistan. But then some bad signs have been coming. General McChrystal was appointed in June and before Obama’s trip to try to get the Olympics Obama had only met with him once. Gen. McChrystal made a speech about what needs to be done in the war. He said that he needed 40,000 more troops to accomplish the mission. He needs more troops to secure the Afghan population. In a counterinsurgency the focus needs to be on the security of the population more than on just killing terrorists. As the population becomes more secure, they would be less fearful and more likely to give us useful information. Joe Biden on the other hand thinks that we should switch to a strategy of using drone missiles and rely on special forces operations against al Qaeda. Gen. McChrystal says that this strategy would lead to “Chaos-istan.” Joe Biden is also the genius who thought it would be an excellent idea to split Iraq into three countries, one for the Sunnis, one for the Shias and one for the Kurds. Completely ignoring the fact that such a decision to split the country would need to be made by the Iraqi people and not by the United States. He gave some crappy advice then and continues to do so to this day. The civilian population needs to be secured.

Obama then got mad that General McChrystal made his advice publicly. Maybe if Obama was willing to meet with Gen. McChrystal earlier then he would not have had to make his advice publicly. After his comments, Gen. McChrystal was ordered by Obama to come to Copenhagen where Obama was busy trying to get the Olympics for Chicago. They had a twenty-five minute conversation on Air Force One. Breaking down the time that would be spent on actual talking, you could split that time in half if you don’t count the time that Obama was saying “uh.” So that leaves twelve and a half minutes.

Obama still would not make a decision about sending more troops. Meanwhile, people are dying while the One is thinking. Then comes some news yesterday, that Obama is going to focus his efforts on al Qaeda and not on the Taliban. Obama’s team says that we will let the Taliban have a political future in Afghanistan and even maybe let them have control over some of the country. They say that the Taliban is not a threat to us only al Qaeda is. So the goal will no longer to be to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, it will be to defeat al Qaeda and prevent them from getting a safe haven there.

The thinking of Obama and friends has some major flaws. The Taliban will not be satisfied with having any political future in Afghanistan that is short of running the country. The violence will continue until they are defeated or if they achieve their goal. But even if they do achieve their goal, their method of governance would be continually violent against Afghanistan’s population. There is no reason to believe that they won’t protect al Qaeda after they gain power of the country, which is seeming more and more likely. Al Qaeda will then use Afghanistan to set up training camps and to plan attacks against the United States and other targets. The Taliban and al Qaeda cannot be separated no matter how much wishful thinking that the Obama administration uses. If we stop fighting the Taliban that does not mean they will stop fighting us. Before the election Obama called Afghanistan the “good war.” Before the election Obama criticized Pakistan for making treaties with the Taliban. Now the Taliban apparently isn’t a threat and Obama is not willing to do what is necessary to win this war. If we stop fighting the Taliban all of the American soldiers who have died fighting in Afghanistan will have died in vain. Obama has repeatedly demonstrated his weakness to the world. President Obama’s weakness, indecision and ineptitude is truly worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

Are you a racist?

2009-10-02T01:11:00.003-06:00

If you are uncertain about if your views of President Obama's policies are racist or not, I found a convenient flow chart here that will let you know. You can click on it to enlarge, I didn't know how to make it bigger. Or you can go to the website where I found it. Turns out I am a racist.

NEA and ACORN

2009-09-14T20:00:00.002-06:00

Yet another reason surfaces for me not to join the teachers' union. According to this story, teachers unions have contributed $1.3 million to ACORN. When Obama says he was a community organizer, he's talking in part about his days with ACORN.

ACORN is a group that is supposed to help secure funding for low income families to be able to purchase homes. It goes far beyond that. For years they have been shaking down bankers to supply risky loans based on the Community Reinvestment Act that was signed into law back in the seventies. This in part help contribute to the financial collapse that swept Obama into the White House.

More recently, they've been involved in one scandal after another, from registering people who don't exist to vote, to only registering those likely to vote Democrat, to the recent scandal of ACORN providing assistance in setting up a prostitute business.

NEA's willingness to contribute $100,000 to ACORN in 2008 alone gives me pause about the decision making ability of the organization I'd be contributing to should I decide to join the union. If I ever find a union that believes the free market should apply to education, and a union that stops protecting teachers at the expense of students, I'll consider joining.

Obama talks to the kids

2009-09-11T16:14:00.003-06:00

So does this guy ever shut his mouth? After talking to the kids, the next day, he addresses congress on national TV. On Sunday, he's going to be on, and again on Monday. Hey Prez, could you just leave us alone for a couple of weeks? It's not like he's a gifted orator. All he does is inflect his voice higher, and then lower, and then higher, and then lower. Sometimes he goes higher two times in a row before going lower. But that's beside the point.

Some have questioned why conservatives were all up in arms about Oblahblahbama talking to the kids. How about a little context?

1. The speech came on the heels of the I Pledge video controversy. If you don't know, a Utah elementary school showed a video where certain celebrities, say some weird things. Jason Bateman, said something about taking a dump twice before flushing, and others were talking about curing Alzheimer's, or not giving the finger to people. Right at the end, this one tattooed celeb, says "I plan to be of service to Barack Obama." And then Demi Moore says "I pledge to be a servant to our president." as the picture dissolves into that one ugly red white and blue picture of Oblahblahbama.

It's worth noting that teachers didn't cause the uproar, but parents did. I'll let you draw your own conclusions on that. Given this little incident, it's not at all unreasonable for parents to hold kids back from further "indoctrination", even if that wasn't the president's intent. After all, many teachers just can't help but blather on about Obama.

For all those Obamaites out there, just replace the words Obama in the video linked above with Bush, and imagine Demi and Ashton flying into that one part of W's right cheek where he'd put eye black if he were a football player. You'd be outraged, and you know it.

2. About a week before the little speech, the Department of Education came out with some lesson plans. In one of the lesson plans, students were to be instructed to write an essay on how they can best help Oblahblahbama achieve his goals. Again, if you aren't outraged, replace W. for Obama.

3. We already know that libs don't like Republicans addressing students. Check out this story about when George H.W. Bush addressed some students.

That being said, I think all the attention before the speech forced Obama to tone it down a little. Of course, Obama, ideologue that he is, couldn't help some campaigning. According to this story, he pitched health reform to students at the school, before he hit the airwaves, thus validating Republican's fears.

As for the actual speech itself, I watched it with my students, and provided running commentary free of charge. I have to say I was brilliant. It sounded like more of a pep talk than anything else, and most the things he said were things that everyone could agree on.

Something I took exception to was right at the start of his speech, he said how he and his mom were very poor, and so he just had to go to whatever school. So how did Obama make the world a better place? By immediately yanking the DC voucher program, which effected mostly black children, thus forcing them to return to their run down, crime infested neighborhood schools. This proved to anyone who wants to pay attention, that Barack is not about improving education, but helping his friends in the NEA and AFT.

Cutting taxes stimulates the economy... who knew?

2009-09-03T18:25:00.002-06:00

Cutting taxes can help stimulate the economy according to this hard right conservative nut job:

"Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for expanding the American economy."

Some may have already recognized the quote as coming from that famous right winger John F. Kennedy. The quote is here, and I'm pretty sure that's Kennedy, although he was killed before I was born.

So what's Oblahblahbama's strategy in dealing with a recession? Spend more money than we have, (despite the fact that he reduced the military budget) raise taxes, impose ever more regulations on the energy sector, take over car companies and impose new CAFE standards, and attempt to take over a sizable chunk of the economy via a single payer health care system.

Mark Levin sure is right in his book "Liberty and Tyranny" when he says that Statists "have their eyes on their next meal before their last is fully digested".

So in just over eight months, the Oblahblahbama administration has successfully or attempted to take over the finance industry, the auto industry, the energy industry, the health care industry among others.

So I suppose the question is, what industry will he or his cronies attempt to take over next? I think he's going to take over the traveling carnival industry... but in fairness, those carnies had it coming.

I wonder if there's anything in the world that Obama doesn't think he can fix with more government.

Ahmadinjad's Imam: Raping Political Opponents Approved by God

2009-09-02T23:01:00.001-06:00

Here is an article about a fifteen year old Iranian boy named Reza, who was raped by Iranian police officers in prison. Read the article if you want a better understanding of the evil of the Iranian government, but I’ll give a brief summary. Reza was arrested with forty other teenagers during a protest. His crime: wearing a green wristband of Iran’s opposition. Reza was raped the first night, he said, “They were telling us they were doing this for God, and who did we think we were that we could demonstrate.” Later, Reza was taken to an interrogator and he told the interrogator of how he was raped, apparently believing that rape was against the official policy of the Iranian government. The interrogator ordered him to be tied up and raped him again. He said, “This time I’ll do it, so you’ll learn not to tell these tales anywhere else. You deserve what’s coming to you. You guys should be raped until you die.” Later, Reza was forced to sign a confession that foreign forces had told him and his friends to burn banks and government media buildings. He was raped again the next day then forced to sign a confession that he had made baseless allegations against the police about being raped.

Ahmadinijad and his personal spiritual guide, Mesbah-Yazdi answered questions from supporters about the recent charges of rape and torture. Mesbah-Yazdi said, "Getting a confession from any person who is against the Velayat-e Faqih ("Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists", or the regime of Iran's mullahs) is permissible under any condition." He was then asked if a prisoner could be raped to obtain a confession. He answered that this is allowed but the interrogator should say prayers while raping the prisoner. He went on to say that an interrogator who rapes a female prisoner who is to be executed will receive a spiritual reward from Allah equivalent to the reward of performing the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Meanwhile Obama continues to hold his hand open to the Iranian regime as they continue to use their clenched fist to beat their people into submission.

My Email Exchange With ConAgra Foods

2009-09-01T00:24:00.003-06:00

ConAgra foods was one of the companies that decided to boycott Glenn Beck. Here is my email exchange with ConAgra foods.

I have recently read that you have canceled your advertising with Glenn Beck. I would be interested in hearing an explanation about this decision. I am a regular customer of many of your products, especially Healthy Choice and Marie Calendars. I will stop buying your products if you are part of a boycott against Glenn Beck.

Here is their response:

Dear Mr. Millburn,

Thank you for sharing your perspective with us regarding our decision not to advertise during the Glenn Beck show. Like many other advertisers, we work through a media buyer to purchase time on broadcast stations during periods when our targeted demographic is likely to be watching. Our advertisements are never intended to support or endorse a particular program, and we do not determine our media purchases based on interest groups or political agendas.

Regarding this decision, we want to be clear that ConAgra Foods is firmly committed to diversity. That commitment is not related in any way to a political or special interest group agenda--our commitment to diversity is core to our company's values. In addition, our advertising objectives--including reaching our targeted demographic--can be accomplished without the use of purchased air time during the Glenn Beck show.

Thank you so much for taking the time to contact us and for your interest in our fine products.

Sincerely,

Consumer Affairs

And now my response:

Nobody thinks that when a company advertises on a program that that means the company agrees with the program. But when Color of Change pressures you to stop advertising and you promptly do so, that is taking a position against the program. Contrary to your email, you did make this decision based on pressure from an interest group. I will no longer be purchasing your products.

I will sure miss the Healthy Choice and Marie Calendar meals. I eat one of those or the Hungry Man meals pretty much every day that I eat dinner at home. ConAgra Foods makes many products. Here is a list of their products. Glenn Beck's program has been excellent lately. He is exposing the extremists in the Obama administration that nobody else is talking about. I think it is important to not support companies that take part in a boycott against Glenn Beck. A good website to go to on this is DefendGlenn.com. They are doing good investigating which advertisers are a part of this boycott. Check out their "Turncoat List." I am adding a DefendGlenn.com link to my link list. Everybody should join me, it's fun sticking it to the man.

MSNBC: Oppose Obama = Racism

2009-08-20T19:43:00.004-06:00

MSNBC deliberately lies to its viewers. Contessa Brewer says, "You have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists or to their legs." They show a clip of a black man carrying an AR 15 semi-automatic rifle, but they zoom in so close that you cannot tell the race of the man. They then proceed to talk about how a bunch of white racists are carrying weapons.

Picture of racist white man provided by the Weekly Standard.

MSNBC has also found more evidence of racism among Obama's opponents. Carlos Watson explains how socialism is the new n word. It's almost as if any criticism of Obama is automatically racist.

Boycott Companies Who Boycott Glenn Beck

2009-08-18T16:55:00.004-06:00

Colorofchange.org has been organizing an email campaign to pressure companies that advertise during Glenn Beck’s show to pull their advertising. On their website they write:

Fox's Glenn Beck recently said President Obama is "a racist" and has a "deep-seated hatred for white people." Beck is on a campaign to convince the American public that President Obama's agenda is about serving the needs of Black communities at White people's expense. It's repulsive, divisive and shouldn't be on the air.

Join us in calling on Beck's advertisers to stop sponsoring his show.

This comment by Beck was made recently on Fox and Friends. Before the election Beck did a show on Barack Obama’s church. Obama called Jeremiah Wright his “senior spiritual advisor.” Wright baptized his children. Jeremiah Wright says the foundation of his beliefs is Black Liberation Theology. Jeremiah Wright praises James Cone’s book Black Power and Black Theology. James Cone says in this book, “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power. Which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity we must reject his love.” It is clear that Obama’s church was racist and he attended that church for twenty years. Jeremiah Wright said many racist things from the pulpit. It is not difficult to see why Glenn Beck would believe that Obama is a racist.

So far, the Color of Change has been successful in getting several companies to pull their advertisements from Glenn Beck’s show, these include, Wal Mart, GMAC Financial Services, Best Buy, CVS, Travelocity, Geico, ConAgra, RadioShack, Men’s Warehouse, State Farm, Sargento Cheese, Proctor & Gamble, Lawyers.com, and Progressive Insurance.

Color of Change was co-founded by Van Jones. Van Jones has been appointed as Obama’s “Green Jobs Czar.” On a side note, Jones also admits that he was a Communist. I think it is important to boycott any companies who cave into left wing pressure groups.

I have started by canceling my insurance with Geico. Geico continues to advertise on MSNBC and there is no indication that Geico has pulled it’s advertisements from Countdown with Keith Olbermann even though Keith Olbermann agrees that I and all the other people who attended any tea parties are racist. I have never attended a racist church once, let alone for twenty years. Here is my email exchange with Geico.

My first email:

Recently I have read of Geico pulling advertisements from the Glenn Beck show. Geico claims that the reason for this is that Geico has a policy of not taking positions on controversial issues, but removing advertising is taking a position. At the same time Geico continues to advertise on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, which wouldn't make sense if Geico has a policy of not advertising on controversial shows. I currently have a policy with Geico and I plan on canceling my policy if I don't get a decent explanation of this inconsistency.

Geico's response:

Dear Matthew Millburn:

If you are a policyholder we thank you for being with GEICO and we want to tell you more about this matter. If you are not, we also want you to learn more.

This week we took action to move our marketing messages from the Glenn Beck show and you are wondering why.

Well, you deserve an answer.

If the inflammatory nature of the comments on a program overshadows our message and causes GEICO to be drawn into a national debate, we are likely to reconsider where we place our marketing messages, which is what we did.

GEICO delivers very important messages through its major marketing campaigns: we’re saving customers’ dollars … we’re easy to do business with … we’re looking out for our policyholders. That’s what we hope the public hears and sees and focuses on.

As a company, we do not take positions on controversial issues.

As an advertiser, while a national debate on issues can be healthy and appropriate, we don’t see ourselves in the role of taking part in those debates.

Our business is auto insurance. We want to bring people value and we attempt to reach large audiences with that message.

It is of little benefit to us if a controversy on the program gets so much attention that our message is drowned out.

GEICO Corporate Communications

My response:

I want to thank you for sending me a generic form letter that in no way answered my question. You are being dishonest in saying that you do not take positions on controversial issues. You took a position when you canceled your advertisements on Glenn Beck, but did not cancel them on Keith Olbermann. I have now canceled my policy with Geico.

Matt

UPDATE: I wrote to Walmart to ask them about their position. They wrote back saying that they don't advertise on any news commentary shows on national cable networks. I don't believe that that is a position that is boycott worthy. The New York Daily News article that I got the list from apparently got their list from Color of Change. I'll be contacting more advertisers to see what they say.

War on Persons of Unidentified Ideology

2009-08-06T18:07:00.003-06:00

Obama's homeland security czar, John Brennan, has declared that it is wrongheaded to say that the U.S. is fighting jihadists despite the fact that the U.S. is fighting jihadists. He also said that we should not call this a global war despite the fact that it is a global war. This is the latest example of ignoring the ideology that motivates our enemies.

Read all about it at Jihad Watch.

White House: Ahmadinejad is the "elected leader" of Iran

2009-08-04T23:20:00.003-06:00

Good news for Ahmadinijad, the White House declares that he is the “elected leader” of Iran. HotAir says, "So desperate are these tools to get Iran to the bargaining table and show Americans some sort of dividend from Hopenchange diplomacy that Gibbs actually acknowledges Ahmadinejad as the “elected leader” — the same lie the regime’s been telling the world and the same lie Iranians have been dying in the streets to challenge."

In the video Gibbs pretends that the Iranians were having a debate to determine their leadership, "This was a decision and debate that was ongoing in Iran by Iranians that they were going to choose their leadership."

I can't believe the nerve of Gibbs to take the side of the murderous Iranian government against the Iranian people. Despite the fact that the mullahs of Iran tightly control who can get on the ballot, despite the fact that the irregularities show that the election was rigged, despite the fact that the Iranian government murders those who oppose rigged elections, Gibbs thinks this is a legitimate election. Neda Agha Solton is an example of how the Iranian government conducts debates. Below is the video of the debate. Warning: GRAPHIC

Looks like Ahmadinijad won the debate. Obama supports the murderers in the hope that the world will praise him. This is what he means by diplomacy. He supports the murderers in Iran because they are strong. Whoever is better at killing the opposition wins the support of Obama. He cares more about the praise of the international community than the lives of the Iranian people. This is disgraceful.

"Liberal" Arts

2009-08-04T18:28:00.004-06:00

Most people don't know who Bob Chanin is. He is the former general counsel of the NEA, the most powerful teachers union in the country. He gave a retirement speech, which I've embedded below, a little while ago to a bunch of members, and his comments exposed a little about how these people think.

At 18:14 in the video, he calls conservatives and right wingers "bastards" to much cheering and laughter by the teachers in attendance. He goes on to say that conservatives attack them because they are powerful. Of course, they are powerful, because many teachers have to belong to the union as a condition of their employment. He also says they get attacked because they are a leading advocate... for the "type of liberal social and economic agenda that [conservatives] find unacceptable". (18:52 of the video)

What are some of the issues that the NEA, on behalf of their member teachers fights for? Later in the video, Chanin ticks off a list, among them are "affirmative action, and gay and lesbian rights". One of the resolutions passed by the NEA at this year's conference was pro gay marriage. An amendment for the NEA to be "abortion neutral" on the other hand failed by a 21 point margin.

These are many of the teachers we find in the classroom right now. These liberal teachers have made sure that our government spends millions of taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate children in left-wing politics, and they have spent millions of their own dollars to lobby for left wing agenda items. Many of these teachers take these liberal viewpoints such as the same sex nonsense and abortion, and openly advocate for them in the classroom. Liberalism has literally taken over the public education system.

Liberals don't have a birthright to these institutions, and that is one of the reasons I am a teacher. Luckily, I don't have to contribute to the NEA as a condition of my employment, so I don't. I also take very seriously my duty to make sure students understand liberal and conservative viewpoints for what they are. There are many teachers at my school that advocate for liberal policies. I unashamedly advocate conservative policies, because I want students to understand that there is another way of thinking. I let them know up front what I am, and encourage respectful debate on issues, but I always win, because conservatism is so easy to defend, and liberalism is usually very illogical.

Chanin, in the video below says that people are coming after the NEA. I sure hope so. They've spent too much time funding and lobbying for liberal politicians, and a lot of that money comes from unwilling teachers who have to support these morons in order to keep their job.

Obama Wants to Eliminate Private Insurance

2009-08-02T23:36:00.001-06:00

Iran Attacks Mourners at a Cemetary

2009-07-30T12:11:00.003-06:00

Not content with murdering Neda Agha Soltan, the Iranian government banned holding a memorial for her and for other protesters murdered by the Iranian government. A memorial was held anyway despite the ban and people were beaten up by the police.

Meanwhile, Obama still thinks he can negotiate with these murderers who have a history of lying to protect it's development of nuclear weapons.

Health Care Reform

2009-07-23T10:43:00.004-06:00

I listened to much of Obama's so called press conference last night. How can they call it a press conference, when the press is hardly involved? Any question that Obama gets, he carries on for ten minutes until nobody has any idea what the question was in the first place. On top of that, he hardly ever answers the question that was actually posed.

The reason he does this is because his health care proposal is going to cost us more money than the current system, and take health care away from the elderly, and give it to the illegal immigrants.

Now, there's no question in my mind that something has to be done about health care in this country. People need to understand, however, that our system is pretty good. So why would we completely blow it up and start down a socialized path? Why not make some minor adjustments? Then, if that doesn't work, it would be way easier to roll it back and try again. Once you go down the socialized path, it would take a generation or more to fix.

I've listed some very basic ideas that I think should be included in health care reform. Most of the ideas involve the free market, give more choice to individuals, and empower doctors to make choices that would be in the best interest of the patient. I also reject the number that Democrats like to throw out that 50 million or so people are uninsured. As I've explained in a previous post, most of those uninsured are illegal aliens, don't want health care insurance, or become covered again within four months. Keeping that in mind, here are some ideals that should be included in any health care reform.

Tort Reform - Doctors pay so much in malpractice insurance. The reason is because they can get sued for just about anything. This would keep doctors from driving up costs by ordering every test under the sun, just to make sure he doesn't get sued, and lower costs because of lower insurance expenses for the doctors. A good starting point for tort reform would be to force the loser to pay for the winner's court expenses. Don't hold your breath on this one. Many democrats in the house and Senate were trial lawyers before running for office.

Stop Fraud and Abuse - Medicare and Medicaid are riddled with fraud and abuse. Some have suggested that 20% of expenditures under these programs are from fraud and abuse. Even if it's only 10%, that still translates into billions of dollars a year. Private companies are much better at stopping abuse, and could be used by the government to help in this area.

Provide the Consumer with more options - At the state level, an insurance exchange could be created that could give consumers an easy way to compare insurance policies, if they choose to buy one. States could also put their own regulations in place to help prevent fraud, abuse, price gouging etc.

Health Savings Accounts - Allow everyone to create a HSA and invest untaxed money in it every year. Employers as a benefit could also contribute to an individual's HSA. The money could be used to pay for medical care if uninsured, or to pay premiums to insurance companies, and then deductibles when receiving health care. I would not be opposed to the government giving a tax credit, as an advance or refundable, to help jump start individual's HSA's

Disaster Insurance - Individual's who don't wish to purchase insurance for every little thing, and would rather pay out of their pocket for their medical expenses, could purchase, for a reasonable price, insurance that would cover them in the event of a catastrophic illness or accident.

Encourage Innovation - In both the medical field and the insurance field. Help insurance companies empower the individuals they serve. Reward companies or individual for medical breakthroughs such as curing diseases like Alzheimer's or AIDS.

Transparency - Create a public/private board that can publish and enforce quality and price information.

I'm sure they're more ideas out there that I haven't even thought of. I'm open to those ideas, as long as they give the individual more power in making health care choices, help us become a healthier nation, and limit the influence the government has on us.

Check out the Patients' Choice Act of 2009 for these and other ideas.

House Wants to Limit Free Speech

2009-07-22T16:58:00.002-06:00

Bill in the House seeks to make it illegal to be mean to someone on the internet. HR 1966, Sec. 3, Sec 881A says, "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years or both." I can't wait to see how a liberal judge interprets "substantial emotional distress." Free speech is dying int the United States. I know that this would never be considered in the current Congress, but the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Good thing we have a constitutional scholar in the White House who will surely veto any unconstitutional laws. But wait, Obama says that the Constitution is a "living document." Obama resists the temptation of following Justice Scalia's view of the Constitution that we should strictly follow the original understanding of the Constitution. If we follow Obama's practice of ignoring the original intent of the writers of the Constitution, that means the Constitution can mean whatever we want it to mean, that means we can ignore the First Amendment and pass all sorts of crazy laws!

The Future of American Health Care

2009-07-20T23:03:00.002-06:00

Steven Crowder explores the future of American health care by looking at Canadian health care. If you like long waits, crappy health care and high taxes then you will love Obamacare.

Obama's "Not Unprecedented" Welcome

2009-07-18T01:20:00.002-06:00

Funny video of CNN's Don Lemon asking a leading question designed to get the other reporter to say how Africans worship Obama. Watch Lemon pop in the air as he gets the unexpected answer.

Health Care Bill Outlaws Private Insurance

2009-07-16T23:53:00.003-06:00

One of the concerns of those who oppose government run health care is that this will drive private health insurers out of business. After all, as of 2006, 89% of Americans were satisfied with their health care. But don’t worry, honest Obama is here to reassure the public, “First of all, if you’ve got health insurance, you like your doctors, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you.” In an interview with Diane Sawyer Obama clarified, “I can't pass a law that says, 'I'm sorry, employers, you can never make changes to the health care plans that you provide your employees.' What I can say is that the government is not going to force you to, your employer or you to join a government plan, for example. If you're happy with it, and your employer's happy with it, keep it."

I was actually pleased to hear Obama say that he “can’t pass a law” about something, this is the first sign of his presidency that shows that he believes there is some limit to his power. But the reality is that a public option will drive private insurance companies out of business and it won’t be long before there is a government monopoly over health care. But the liberals in Congress are not taking any chances. Critics of government health care were concerned about the public option driving private insurance companies out of business, they did not think that government health care would actually outlaw private insurance. Investor’s Business Daily found this gem in the health care bill, "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

Yes, you can keep your health care if you already have private health insurance. But if you don’t have private health insurance you won’t be allowed to get it. If you already have private health insurance you will not be allowed the freedom to purchase health insurance from a different company. You can read it for yourself here. It’s found on page 15, and continues onto 16, the section of the bill is titled, “Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage.” The section would be more accurately labeled, “Destroying the Option to Choose Your Coverage.” Investor’s Business Daily writes, “Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.” Obama says the government will not force you to get a government plan, but it seems that forbidding you from buying private insurance is kind of the same thing.

Universal Abortion Coverage

2009-07-15T23:39:00.002-06:00

Senator Mikulski, a democrat from Maryland, has added an amendment to the health care bill that would force insurance companies to pay for abortion. Not sure in the Constitution where it gives Congress the authority to force it's citizens to pay for abortions. As if there wasn't enough reasons already to oppose this crappy government health care bill. If Obama has his way then we can be sure that the government will make sure that every mother will have the right to kill her baby whether before or after birth.

Sotomayor Testifies On Tape

2009-07-13T23:22:00.000-06:00

Quote of the day by Sony Sotomayor during her opening statement. “In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law – it is to apply the law.”

Here is a video of her in 2005 saying that laws are made in the courts, then she says that she shouldn’t say that because she is on tape. Then she tells the “we don’t make laws” joke to much laughter.

Is she lying now or then? Could it be that she realizes she is on tape this time? Or did she finally learn what the role of a judge is since 2005. I think that there is probably a judge in the country who learned what a judge’s job is before he was fifty years old. Maybe it would be a good idea to pick a name randomly out of the phone book, odds are that the name chosen would know that judges don’t make laws.

Mumbai Terror Attack Documentary

2009-07-10T20:17:00.002-06:00

Below is a video of an excellent documentary on the Mumbai terrorist attacks. I found this at the Infidel Blogger's Alliance. They got it from Vlad Tepes Blog. They got it from the British channel 4. It's really good, but pretty long, I would recommend finding time to watch it.

Link:

The 14th Amendment

2009-07-09T17:12:00.003-06:00

Matt and I were at the Tea Party on the 4th of July that was held at the Capitol. When I arrived, there was a young man speaking at the microphone who is one of the many Republicans trying to win the Senate Seat currently held by Bob Bennett.

At one point in his speech, some guy in the crowd was not happy with speaker guy's explanation that the Constitution provides citizenship for those born in the United States. He said something about jurisdiction. Matt then purchased a Constitution for a quarter, because I didn't have mine with me. We looked at the language of the 14th amendment and after a brief discussion, came to the conclusion that speaker guy was right, and crowd guy was wrong.

Upon reading Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny (again, a great book for those who think the government should actually act within the bounds of our founding documents.) I came across the following passage that sheds some light on crowd guy's arguments, and will be the source of reflection for the next few months. On page 154 it reads: "But does the Fourteenth Amendment grant automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens? The relevant part of the amendment reads that 'all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United states.' This language requires more than birth within the United States. The amendment's purpose was to grant citizenship to the emancipated slaves, who were born in the United States and owed sole allegiance to it. Native Americans who were also subject to tribal jurisdiction were excluded from citizenship. There is no legislative history supporting the absurd proposition that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to empower illegal alien parents to confer American citizenship on their own babies merely as a result of their birth in the United States. Foreign visitors and diplomats are not subject to American jurisdiction. Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, as are their children, whether they are born in their home country or the United States."

I thought that was a pretty good explanation. As I've said before, Conservatives are interested in the words and context of the Constitution. The context of the 14th amendment granting citizenship to the emancipated slaves, but not the Native Americans, makes me think that the writers didn't intend for any child to become a citizen by virtue of being born here.

However, since I believe in the rule of law, unlike many liberals, I'll have to go with the Supreme Court's interpretation. I haven't done enough homework to know if there is an interpretation or not, I'm assuming that the high court has ruled that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. I think it would serve our country better, however, if we modified that amendment. I don't think someone should have citizenship just because mommy was able to get across the border before giving birth.

When In Doubt, Side With the Dictator

2009-07-08T11:09:00.003-06:00

It's taken a while, but I finally have figured out how Obama thinks.

After the fraudulent Iranian election, thousands of Iranians took to the streets to protest. Several were killed or injured. Obama didn't say anything to condemn the tyranny going on over there until the domestic pressure got to be too much for even him to control. It was only then that he was "appalled" at what was going on. He said he didn't want to meddle but...

Manuel Zelaya was removed from his post of president of Honduras for essentially ignoring their Constitution and Supreme Court. He is a dictator that fancies himself as a Hugo Chavez type. Ol' Hugo even provided him with the ballots he wanted to use for his unconstitutional referendum. (I really do have an ax to grind with Chavez. I was there when he tried to overthrow the Venezuelan government the first time in 1992, and I've watched as he's taken a once semi free people, and subjected them to an oppressive tyranny. I really feel bad for those I knew over there who have to deal with this kind of non sense.) How would the average American react if he discovered that his president had not only blatantly gone against the Constitution, but then defied the Supreme Court? They would want him gone from office. That is what happened in Honduras with Zelaya. Obama decided it was time to "meddle". Through the State Department, he called it an “attempted coup,” and demanded that Mr. Zelaya be returned to power in order to facilitate the “restoration of democratic order.” There is a good article about both of these loser dictators here.

So what's next? Is he going to sit in on a speech where Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, another dictator, blasts the US for 50 minutes? Is he going to accept an anti-American book from Chavez? Either way, when presented with a choice between siding with people who want freedom, and those who would oppress, Obama has been siding with the latter.

I guess all those shady associations that we weren't supposed to pay attention to during the election did mean something after all. Better luck next time, America.

Universal Healthcare

2009-06-29T10:27:00.002-06:00

Do you want the government running your health care Canada style? This year may be your last chance for a while. Obama "warned" that if it doesn't get done this year it might not get done.

That explains his inviting ABC to the White House to do a little health care infomercial last week. One of the Democrat's favorite numbers is that 46 million (the number always changes) or so people in this country don't have health care. And that somehow justifies the government taking control of the whole health care industry.

"Obamacare" doesn't help all the uninsured
Even taking them at there word that there are 46 million or so uninsured. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Obama Health care plan would still leave 37 million or so uninsured, while adding more than a trillion dollars to our national debt. The full report from the CBO is embedded at the bottom of this post.

The number of uninsured quoted all the time is inaccurate
But the 46 million uninsured figure is misleading.* About 9.5 million are not US citizens. 17 million or so live in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year, which is enough to purchase insurance. About 18 million are between the ages of 18 and 34, most are in good health and don't need to purchase insurance. (BTW, Obama has said that it wouldn't be fair for healthy people to not have insurance, because that drives up costs. He is considering compelling all to have some form of insurance... something he criticised Clinton for in the primaries.) Finally, only 30% of those who lost insurance in a given year remained uninsured a year later.

Obviously, there is some overlap from the above numbers, but the 46 or 50 or whatever million of uninsured people the Democrats throw out there is inaccurate.

Is state run health care better?
The Brits have provided pretty strong evidence that the government delivers worse, not better health care. In Great Britain, patients wait between one and two years** to receive hip and knee replacements. The reason for the wait is a cost cutting measure. In addition to paying fewer doctors to do the surgery, there's always a chance that people will die waiting for their surgery. Meanwhile, patients, who think they don't have to pay for this kind of health care, end up paying a huge price in unnecessary pain, lost productivity and anything else that would be inconvenient about needing a hip or knee surgery, but not being able to get it.

Hillary had some story about heartless private insurance companies that caused the death of a woman. The story was later proven false.

But what about Barbara Wagner? She had cancer, and her doctor recommended a certain drug. Unfortunately, she lives in Oregon, and is part of the state run Oregon Health Plan. The state refused to let her have the drug, because it does not cover drugs that are meant to prolong the life of people with advanced cancer... Barbara was sent a letter with a different option. Oregon has legalized assisted suicide, and she was told that the state run insurance would cover the costs of a Doctor to help her kill herself.

Are you willing to exchange some of your freedom for this this sort of "security"? Does this sort of thing sound like compassion to you?

Norman Thomas, six time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party said the following in 1948. "The American People will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened."

Is there a better idea out there? Of course there is, it involves the free market and giving people the freedom to choose. I'll post on that sometime in the next couple of weeks.
CBO's Preliminary Analysis on Sen. Kennedy's Health-Care Plan

*Most of what I've written comes from Mark Levin's book "Liberty and Tyranny". It is a very easy to understand book. It articulates baseline conservative principles very well. I highly recommend the book. Conservatives will be able to use facts when talking to Liberals, and Liberals, who read the book without prejudice, will realize that they are really conservatives.

**Celia Hall, "Patients Wait Year for Hip Surgery," Daily Telegraph Dec. 21, 2006

Regime Change is the Answer in Iran

2009-06-26T13:37:00.003-06:00

John Bolton wrote an excellent article in the Los Angeles Times in which he advocated regime change in Iran. Now is the perfect time to get the mullahs out of power. The following is an excerpt from his article. Read the entire thing here.

Obama's policy, and that of the United States, should be the overthrow of the Islamic revolution of 1979. The massive resistance to the June 12 elections is just another fact supporting that conclusion.

The Tehran regime -- not just Ahmadinejad but the entire Islamic revolution superstructure -- is enormously unpopular for three major reasons. First, the regime's economic mismanagement has brought the economy of a country rich in oil and natural gas to near-gridlock. Periodic but piecemeal strikes have been put down, but the prospect of a simultaneous, sustained, nationwide strike remains a potent threat

Second, Iran's young people -- two-thirds of the population is under 30 -- know they could have a much freer life if they could only overturn the mullahs' strict rule. The young are educated and sophisticated, and they know there are alternatives to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's velayat-e faqih, the system of "guardianship of Islamic jurists" that imposes harsh Sharia law on Iran today.

Third, Iran is only about 50% Persian. Arabs, Baluchis, Azeris, Kurds and others resent the ethnic, political and religious discrimination they face constantly and have little or no love for the Islamic revolution.

Of course, these various sources of discontent are not entirely reinforcing, and are sometimes in conflict, which indicates how difficult it is for a purely internal Iranian opposition to coalesce. Had the U.S. and others over the last 30 years done more to help Iranian dissidents, overtly and covertly, we might be in a different place today. The question is whether we are prepared to do now what we should have been doing for some time.

To date at least, the Obama administration's answer remains a resounding no. Obama wants negotiations with Tehran, not regime change. Given that the Revolutionary Guard and the hard-line mullahs -- and not the people -- are increasingly likely to be the short-term winners of the current Battle for Iran, supporters of regime change must now make longer-term plans.

We have missed a huge opportunity because of Obama's error (and that of his predecessors), but the continuing threat of Iranian nuclear weapons and support for international terrorism make the imperative of regime change no less compelling. The Iranian people will continue their opposition no matter how inconvenient it is for Obama's hoped-for negotiations. We should support them, and not just by rhetoric.

I agree with Bolton that the U.S. should have a policy of regime change. Below is a video of an Iranian woman on the phone with CNN who witnessed the brutality of Iran's government against it's people.

"They beat a woman so savagely that she was drenched in blood."

"I saw the security forces shooting on people."

"They were trying to beat people so that they would die."

After describing the brutality of the government she appeals for help.

"You should stop this, you should stop this. You should help the people of Iran who demand freedom. You should help us."

Neda Agha Soltan

2009-06-23T23:11:00.005-06:00

I want to write about Neda Agha Soltan. The more I have been learning of her, the more I have admired the kind of person that she is. She was unarmed, peacefully attending a protest of the fraudulent Iranian elections. She was murdered by a pro-government militia and she became a symbol of freedom to the Iranian protestors. Videos of her death were posted on youtube. The internet has been a great tool for the Iranian protesters to let the world see the truth.

CNN gives a good summary of the life and death of Neda. The government has prohibited any public displays of mourning for her. She was a very brave woman. Her boyfriend told the Associated Press, “She wanted democracy and freedom for the people of Iran.” Another friend talked about how Neda was angry about the fraudulent reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying, “She couldn’t stand the injustice of it all.” She was warned by friends not to go to the protest, Neda responded with, “Don’t worry. It’s just one bullet and it’s over.” A friend of hers said, “She said that our attendance would be worthwhile even if a bullet hits my heart.” That is how she died, a bullet to the heart. She died in the cause of freedom for the people of Iran.

"Senator" Barbara Boxer

2009-06-19T10:40:00.002-06:00

Barbara Boxer serves on some environmental committee in the Senate. A General from the Army (I believe) was testifying in front of her, and called her "ma'am". Ms. Boxer said the following: "Do me a favor, could you say 'Senator' instead of 'ma'am'? It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it."

How about that for arrogance? Hey Ms. Boxer, who gave you the title of Senator? How about the people of California. Do you think that just because you got a bunch of liberal fools to vote for you in one of the most liberal states of the country that you deserve to be addressed as only "Senator" as if you're some sort of American royalty? Well, Ms. Boxer, to me you are royalty. The Queen of Botox*. Now stop worrying about what title people use to address you, and get on with abortion rights or gun control, or whatever it is you want to do to further stomp on the Constitution. Geesh.

I've always been turned off by arrogant people that have to be addressed by their title. In fact, I tell my students that they have to address me by the title of "Master" instead of "Mister". Just because I think it's so funny when people are that into themselves and their accomplishments.

Now arrogance isn't confined only to the Democrats. There are some Republicans (although much less in my humble opinion) that also see their position in our government as some sort of birthright. Americans are getting tired of it, and I thought it was pretty well expressed in a letter to talk radio host Glenn Beck.

It is from Janet Contreras, a woman that lives in Arizona. It is an open letter to the leaders of our country, and the main point of the letter is to start doing the job you were sent to Washington to do, which is to uphold the Constitution.

She has 12 specific points that she touches on in the letter:

1- Illegal Immigration
2- TARP bill
3- Czars
4- Cap and Trade
5- Universal Health Care
6- Growing government control
7- ACORN
8- Redistribution of wealth
9- Charity
10- Corporate bailouts
11- Transparency and accountability
12- Unprecedented quick spending

She has been a Democrat her whole life, but realized the party no longer served her, so she switched to Republican. She is also starting to realize that the Republican party also doesn't represent her views.

The letter is here. There is a petition to sign here if you like the letter.

88,340 have signed the petition already... in the last hour more than 3,000 have.

*The Independent Elephant can neither confirm nor deny the use of Botox by one Ms. Barbara Boxer.

Obama Tells Jihadists that they Don't Have to Give Us Information

2009-06-10T19:47:00.003-06:00

More change. The Obama administration now has a policy of reading foreign terrorists captured in Afghanistan their Miranda rights. I somehow think it is a bad policy to tell terrorists to remain silent. The policy of the Bush administration allowed the CIA to stop a terrorist attack on Los Angeles by the information they were able to obtain from Khalid Sheik Mohammad. If the same situation occurs with Obama being president than the attack would be successful. The war against the jihadists is not over, Obama is making it more likely for thousands of Americans to be murdered in his Overseas Contingency Operation. The Weekly Standard has a good article on this topic.

The Rising Generation

2009-05-17T10:58:00.005-06:00

I had an enlightening day at school the other day. As most people know, the public education system... from kindergarten to post high school is filled with all sorts of liberals. One of the reasons why I wanted to be a teacher was to give students a conservative point of view. Events of the last couple of years have helped me realize that even though I'm a Spanish teacher, it's important that I share my conservative principles with my students.

One such moment happened in class the other day. A student said that the government should tax gas up to keep it consistently high. Not only would people be able to budget in gas, she reasoned, but we'd be immune to sudden spikes in gas prices.

I asked her what incentive gas companies would have to lower prices if they knew that their gas was going to sell for the same price no matter what. What motivation is there to lower gas prices under that scenario, when there wouldn't be the benefit of more people paying for their gas?

She then said that the federal government would mandate the price gas companies could charge based on the price of oil.

I asked her where in the constitution the government has the power to price control or to levy taxes to keep a commodity at a fixed price. (Yes, I know the government already does it.)

She looked at me like, "Huh"?

I explained to her that America has advanced so much more than any other historically (non-religious) recorded civilization because people know that if they are successful, the government has limited ability to confiscate their property. That is one of the reasons why Mexico, with it's tourist attractions, beaches, year long growing season, tons of people etc. isn't able to provide it's citizens with such a high standard of living. Mexicans know that the government can confiscate their property if they are successful, and the government is in the business of choosing winners and losers. So why work hard if it can all just get taken away?

So I asked her again, why would we eliminate competition, and at the same time allow the government to fix the price of gas, and confiscate more of our money. Why would you want to impose yet another tax on the poor? Sure, the rich would pay it too, but as a percentage of income, it would have a far greater effect on the poor.

Stunned silence that one of her teachers is challenging this insane idea... no doubt she heard this from one of her liberal teachers. At this point, several classmates have jumped to her defense, defending this nonsense.

I said that the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves.

She said that she doesn't have any respect for the founding fathers or The Constitution (wish I knew who told her that) because they allowed slavery.

Ignoring the slavery bomb, because it's such an easy argument to win, I asked her if she knew of any other founding document that has brought more freedom and prosperity to a people in such a short period of time.

She said that the UK had more freedom and prosperity than us because they get free health care.

I told her nothing is free, including the liberty that you are so willing to hand over to tyrants.

She called me a racist homophobe. (She knows my views on gay marriage.)

I said what I always say whenever people try to insult me because of my conservative views which goes something like this: "You are using the fifth tactic outlined in Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" which says that ridicule is a potent weapon. It is impossible to counteract, and infuriates your opponent. I refuse to get angry, but I'd be happy to discuss this topic based on facts instead of name calling."

At this point she says that I'm a Spanish teacher, and what does this have to do with Spanish?

I tell them how I spent time in Venezuela, and how a once free people, people who I know and love, have had their liberty taken from them as they now live under the thumb of a tyrant. IF we aren't paying attention, the same will happen here.

So to recap what kids are "learning" in school:

Capitalism is bad
Taxes are good
Big government is good
Liberals want the all knowing government to make all our decisions for us
The founding fathers were evil
The Constitution is bad
Liberals hate the Constitution
Socialized medicine is good
Socialized medicine is free
Citizens of the UK enjoy more freedom and prosperity than citizens of the USA

I love my job.

Nancy the Liar

2009-05-15T12:21:00.002-06:00

From Redstate

Waterboarding Hypocrisy

2009-05-13T18:08:00.003-06:00

Nancy Pelosi's dishonesty regarding what she knew about waterboarding was so obvious that not even John Stewart could resist mocking her. Amusing video below.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Waffle House

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

Chuck Schumer shows his hypocrisy regarding waterboarding. Below is a video of Schumer back in 2004 giving his opinion that torture can be justified in certain situations.

In the above video Schumer said that "fairly severe" torture should be used in his scenario. Waterboarding definitely does not qualify as severe torture. When 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammad was asked by his interrogators about future terrorist attacks he responded with "soon you will know." After he refused to talk, Khalid Sheik Muhammad informed the CIA of a plot in for a 9/11 style attack wherein East Asian jihadists were going to crash an airplane into a building in Los Angeles. Below is a video of Schumer supporting prosecuting those who do not say that "fairly severe" torture should be used, but to prosecute those who support waterboarding which is not as far as he said they should go in 2004.

If the Democrats are going to prosecute lawyers for legal opinions, they should also prosecute congressmen for their opinions. Also, prosecute Nancy Pelosi for her support of waterboarding.

Obama the bigot

2009-05-01T01:02:00.002-06:00

Here is an amusing video about the hypocrisy of the gay marriage supporters calling Miss California a bigot, while being indifferent towards the President Obama's identical position.