Thursday, August 30, 2007
Downercrats seem split on the issue of terrorism.
Wait - they are split? Split as in some want to do really big things, as opposed to others who want to combat it altogether?
Nope - it is between those who want to do nothing and those who want to go backwards.
Backwards? How can they do that?
How about giving more rights to terrorists? How about making sure they are protected by the US Constitution? How about closing Guantanamo Bay?
Yep, Downies are split alright - split between helping the terrorists and embracing them outright.
Terrorism Policies Split Democrats; Anger Mounts Within Party Over Inaction on Bush Tactics
A growing clamor among rank-and-file Democrats to halt President Bush's most controversial tactics in the fight against terrorism has exposed deep divisions within the party, with many Democrats angry that they cannot defeat even a weakened president on issues that they believe should be front and center.
The Democrats' failure to rein in wiretapping without warrants, close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay or restore basic legal rights such as habeas corpus for terrorism suspects has opened the party's leaders to fierce criticism from some of their staunchest allies -- on Capitol Hill, among liberal bloggers and at interest groups.
At the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress yesterday, panelists discussing the balance between security and freedom lashed out at Democratic leaders for not standing up to the White House. "These are matters of principle," said Mark Agrast, a senior fellow at the center. "You don't temporize."
The American Civil Liberties Union is running Internet advertisements depicting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) as sheep.
"Bush wanted more power to eavesdrop on ordinary Americans, and we just followed along. I guess that's why they call us the Democratic leadersheep," say the two farm animals in the ad, referring to Congress's passage of legislation granting Bush a six-month extension and expansion of his warrantless wiretapping program.
Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), who leads a newly created House select intelligence oversight panel, lamented, "Democrats have been slow to recognize they are in the majority now and can go back to really examine the fundamentals of what we should be doing to protect democracy."
Reid and Pelosi promised last week that they would at least confront the president next month over his wiretapping program, with Pelosi taking an uncompromising stand in a private conference call with House Democrats. When lawmakers return in September, Democrats will also push legislation to restore habeas corpus rights for terrorism suspects and may resume an effort to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
But conservative Democrats and some party leaders continue to worry that taking on those issues would expose them to Republican charges that they are weak on terrorism. And advocates of a strong push on the terrorism issues are increasingly skeptical that they can prevail.
"I don't think it's that we're reluctant to take on Bush," said Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (Fla.), a senior member of the House intelligence committee. "I think it's we are reluctant to take on each other. . . . If I can fast-forward to September, October, November, December and see where we'll be, we'll be nowhere."
Said Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (Va.): "I would've thought the administration would have been bereft of credibility by now, but they seem to be able to get what they want from this Congress."
It sounds like the liberals want to surrender to our nation's enemies. They seem to always want to do that, no matter the cost to the survival of America.
Monday, August 27, 2007
The duo of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their Gang of Imbeciles in control of Congress have driven that body's approval ratings amongst the American people to a low of 18%.
Notice that since President Bush's approval ratings are at 36%, the American (read: leftist) media doesn't mention these silly polls any more. Now that Downercrats are less popular than the clap, the polls just seem less important to the simpleton leftists in the media.
Congress Approval Rating Matches Historical Low; Just 18% approve of job Congress is doing
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll finds Congress' approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.
That 18% job approval rating matches the low recorded in March 1992, when a check-bouncing scandal was one of several scandals besetting Congress, leading many states to pass term limits measures for U.S. representatives (which the Supreme Court later declared unconstitutional). Congress had a similarly low 19% approval rating during the energy crisis in the summer of 1979.
Americans' evaluations of the job Congress is doing are usually not that positive -- the vast majority of historical approval ratings have been below 50%. The high point was 84% approval one month after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when Americans rallied behind the federal government. Since then, Congress' approval ratings have generally exhibited the same downward trajectory seen in those for President George W. Bush. Currently, 32% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing as president, a far cry from the record-high 90% he received in September 2001. Bush's current job approval rating is just three percentage points above his lowest.
There was a slight interruption in the downward trend in congressional approval ratings at the beginning of this year when party control changed hands from the Republicans to the Democrats following last fall's midterm elections. In January 2007, 35% of Americans approved of Congress, a significant increase from the 21% who approved of Congress in December 2006. That December rating tied the lowest in the 12 years the Republicans controlled Congress from 1995 to 2006.
But that "honeymoon" period for the new Democratically controlled Congress was brief, as its job ratings dropped below 30% in March 2007 and have now fallen below where they were just before the Democrats took over.
How hilarious that Downercrats vow to continue their program of doing nothing legislatively and make sure there are more investigations and hearings.
What happens when the approval ratings for Nancy and Harry go to 15%?
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Me and the family are headed out for some much-needed vacation time, but I will return at the end of the month. In the meantime, keep your heads above water, and make sure that hand on your back is not a liberal picking your pocket.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Are you ready for more liberal psychoses, sheer wackiness, and plain idiocy from the leftwingloonies at The Daily Kos? Because now, after all of their dismissal of the War on Terror, after their anti-Semitic rants and disgusting postings, we found one certifiable whackjob who is so upset that the US government is wasting its time protecting his slimy ass from terrorists that he would rather die than have this done in his name.
That's right - he would rather die.
I would rather die in a terrorist attack
On March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry before the Virginia House of Burgesses made a dramatic argument for a resolution to send Virginia's troop off to fight the British in our country's bid for freedom. He ended the speech with the famous, "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!".
The Bush Administration has stomped on Patrick Henry's passion for freedom and created an atmosphere of fear through everything they have touched. When the Senate passed the FISA I thought about how many of our 'unalienable Rights' we Americans have given up to this war without end. While our troops are being blown to bits by IED's, our liberties here at home are dying a slow but steady death with each signing statement and each deception perpetrated by the Executive Branch.
I would rather die in a terrorist attack then allow the domestic surveillance of any citizen's email, phone calls, medical records, library usage or financial transactions. The Fourth Amendment of our Constitution is suppose to protect all citizens from warrantless searches and seizures. In a country with 300 million citizens the few that are true terrorists does not justify the use of burglary or coercion with a threat of imprisonment to our bankers and doctors to get one's medical and/or financial records. If someone is suspected of terrorism it shouldn't be hard to get the proper warrants.
I would rather die in a terrorist attack then forsake the Geneva conventions in the name of our nation. To describe these international laws as 'quaint' and say that terrorists are non-combatants lessens ourselves and this nation. Suspected or even real terrorists shouldn't be grabbed off the streets in Italy by CIA operatives and flown to a third country outside any oversight of our legal system or even the Red Cross. Waterboarding should not be an interrogative method used on anyone.
But wait - get ready for this reason "to die":
I would rather die in a terrorist attack then have a CIA operative outed by the Office of the Vice President because her husband wrote an op-ed telling the truth about lies told by President Bush. Lies told to justify the decision already made by the commander-in-chief to invade Iraq. A decision that allowed a true terrorist, Osama bin Ladin, to escape and still be at large today.
Got that? This moron would rather die than have a loser like Valerie Plame and the utter scumbag liar who acts as her husband, namely Joseph Wilson, exposed for the liars that the two of them are.
Here is our advice for any Islamic terrorists out there looking for a good target: this lowlife scumbag who would rather die than be protected from terrorists is just waiting for you to kill them.
Here's to his dying a slow and painful death. And let it begin as quickly as possible.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
"Little Chucky" Schumer, the dunce who is currently the US Senator from New York, says that he will stop all of President Bush's future picks for the US Supreme Court if there are any in the last 18 months of his term.
That's right - Schumer only wants Downercrats to name Supreme Court justices.
Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”
“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”
Liberals love to tell us how important the US Constitution is. But when one of their own says that we should merely change the US Constitution's mandate on how the US Senate should react to a Supreme Court nominee - hold hearings, have a vote - the liberals are silent.
So, here is what Joobo proposes: when a Downie becomes President and they nominate a Supreme Court justice, the Republicans should now hold that nominee to Schumer's standard. And let's hope one Republican has the backbone to say that they will put a block on that nominee for being so liberal. We do not need any more liberals on the US Supreme Court, thank you.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
As we have noted in our original story on the burgeoning scandal behind the corruption of the Governor Eliot Spitzer administration in New York, and the follow-up story, we see in this following story that the scandal is now reaching resignation levels. For those in the know, there are several points in a scandal that need to be reached for the scandal to become criminal. The first is the allegation. The second is the investigation. The third is the usual "We didn't do anything wrong" statement from someone in the midst of the scandal - in this case, Governor Spitzer himself (which is not good at all). The fourth occurs when people in the midst of the scandal start to resign. We are at that point now.
Spitzer Adviser Resigns Amid Threat Investigation
One of Gov. Eliot Spitzer's top advisers has resigned under pressure after allegedly threatening a Republican on the Public Service Commission.
Virtually since the day he took office, Spitzer has been criticized for his use of intimidation to achieve his goals. There are a slew of investigations going on into his aides' efforts to dig up dirt on his political nemesis, Senate Leader Joe Bruno.
Well, his administration is just 8 months old, but Spitzer on Friday purged another top-level aide who was under investigation.
This time it was Steven Mitnick, his energy advisor. The inspector general has been investigating complaints that he tried to intimidate Public Service Commission member Cheryl Buley after she complained that Mitnick threatened her job several times.
Buley said Mitnick was angry that she'd pushed for a probe into Con Ed's role in last summer's Queens blackout.
The move comes in wake of the so-called "troopergate" scandal, which has badly tarnished Spitzer's standing in Albany. Observers predicted the public won't react well.
"They may not know what the Public Service Commission is, but they'll read the papers and hear and smell sense there has been another flap involving the governor," political consultant Hank Sheinkopf said.
The fifth step is when a grand jury is impaneled. If we get to that step, Spitzer is in deep doo-doo.
Friday, August 03, 2007
Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton want to bring "Canadian style" and "British style" national health care to the United States.
Read this story, and realize that if these two get their wish this country is finished.
Woman, 108, must wait 18 months for hearing aid
A 108-year-old woman has been told she must wait at least 18 months before she receives a new hearing aid.
Olive Beal, who has failing eyesight and uses a wheelchair, finds it difficult to hear with her five-year-old analogue aid and needs a digital version that cuts out background noise and makes conversation easier.
Mrs Beal, a former piano teacher who was involved in the suffragette movement, would be 110 by the time she gets her new hearing aid. "I could be dead by then," she said yesterday.
Her family said they had been shocked to be told there was an 18-month waiting list by the Eastern and Coastal Kent Primary Care Trust. A digital hearing aid costs about £1,000 on the open market.
Maria Scott, 52, her granddaughter, said: "After having a hearing test on Wednesday they said, 'yes, she does need a digital hearing aid, but there is an 18-month waiting list'.
Folks, this is what HillaryCare means: waiting lines, and ridiculous rulings like this one. For those who want that garbage, get your ass in a car or plane and head to Canada. Leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
In a lovely aside from ABC News, we hear that the number of Americans moving to Canada has risen dramatically since 2001. What event happened in 2001? Oh, yeah, right: George W. Bush became President. So, we hear that snide refrain from the Left: We hate America so much that if Bush is President we would rather live in Canada. Plus, Canada has such a great health care system, says ABC! It is no wonder they are headed there in record numbers!
Of course, if you read the headline and stop there, you would get only a portion of the story.
O, Canada! More Americans Heading North; The Number of Americans Moving to Canada in 2006 Hit a 30-Year High
It may seem like a quiet country where not much happens besides ice hockey, curling and beer drinking. But our neighbor to the north is proving to be quite the draw for thousands of disgruntled Americans.
The number of U.S. citizens who moved to Canada last year hit a 30-year high, with a 20 percent increase over the previous year and almost double the number who moved in 2000.
In 2006, 10,942 Americans went to Canada, compared with 9,262 in 2005 and 5,828 in 2000, according to a survey by the Association for Canadian Studies.
If you continue reading, you get the old "yeah, but" problem with the stories emanating from the American media: the number of Canadians moving to the US is much higher, and is at record highs as well.
Oops. Darn. Shit.
Of course, those numbers are still outweighed by the number of Canadians going the other way. Yet, that imbalance is shrinking. Last year, 23,913 Canadians moved to the United States, a significant decrease from 29,930 in 2005.
Why are so many Canadians leaving that country where such a fine health care system resides? That part is not discussed, as the rest of the story is used to demonstrate why the evil George W. Bush is forcing tens of thousands of
But we know the reason: Canada's health care system sucks. And so does its welfare system, and its forcing of gay marriage on everyone who disagrees.
Message from ABC News: Read our headlines and most of our stories, but when we have to stick in contrary evidence to our beliefs ignore those parts. They are just there for fill.
And the American media wonders why people are shutting them off in record numbers.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, both Clinton dupes and leftists who have been against the war in Iraq, just came back, and...WHOA!...they find things improving! And, wait for this one - the NY Times allowed them to say so on their very own editorial page!
A War We Just Might Win
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
Read the rest - it is shocking to say the least, coming from two war opponents.
Now, you would think this would be good news all around. But not to Downercrats, who have invested their entire party's world in one thing: Surrender and defeat in Iraq.
Minority Whip James Clyburn says that if things improve in Iraq and Petraeus reports as much in September, his party is in big trouble.
Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."
Notice the "problem for us" comment - improvements in Iraq would be a good thing for the US, for Iraq, for the world, but bad for Downercrats.
When you have a party that has invested as much as it has in retreat, surrender to our enemies, and complete capitulation, you should never put that party in control of things. That Downercrats are in charge of screwing up this country proves one thing: these bastards have to be gotten rid of in 2008. For the salvation of America.