Wednesday, October 31, 2007

A group of congressmen has asked the Department of Veterans Affairs to retain the tradition of reciting the significance of each fold in the flag-folding ceremony at military funerals.
"The flag folding recitation is a longstanding tradition which brings comfort to the living and honor to the deceased," Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., writes in his letter Tuesday signed by 11 other congressmen. "The recitations accompanying each fold pay tribute to the service and sacrifice of our veterans and their families, the nation they proudly serve, and the beliefs that they hold dear."

Veterans Affairs has a policy that allows for a full military funeral, which includes the playing of taps and the folding of the flag in respectful silence. Upon request, family can have honor guard read special recitations, which include religious symbolism.

A complaint was filed to the White House after one of those recitations was read incorrectly. Steve L. Muro, the director of the National Cemetery Administration's field programs office, ordered cemetery directors to stop the readings......FULL STORY

Very interesting story. I'll reserve my comments for now.

Monday, October 29, 2007

NASCAR superstar Jimmie Johnson announced before yesterday's race that he was going to donate all of his race winnings to the California wildfire victim's relief fund. In response, his corporate sponsor, Lowe's Hardware, decided to match that donation. So did his employer, Hendrick Motorsports. So did the president of Atlanta Motor Speedway. Jimmie Johnson ended up winning the race, and as a result the victims of the horrible disaster in California will be getting over $1 million in assistance from NASCAR and its sponsors. Tip your hats, gentlemen. Jimmie Johnson may not be the most popular driver at the track, but he is a class act.

Then there's the other end of the spectrum. I have to hand it to Congress. Just when I think the bums up there couldn't stoop any lower, they prove me wrong. Case in point, Senator Harry Reid said this: "As you know, one reason that we have the fires burning in southern California is global warming. One reason the Colorado Basin is going dry is because of global warming." And then, Barbara Boxer blamed the fires on, what else, but Iraq by saying that the ability of the state's National Guard to respond to disasters like the fires has been compromised because too much of its equipment and personnel are committed in Iraq.

This is what it means to "politicize" something, like a natural disaster. Keep in mind, as these two Congressional leaders were issuing their statements, people in southern California were literally running for their lives as their homes burned to the ground. But Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer weren't going to pass up an opportunity to score political points over something this big. We haven't had a tragedy like this since Katrina which, by the way, was another juicy opportunity for our politicians to take advantage of.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for healthy debate. I think it's important to discuss these things, to try to find the cause, to hopefully prevent it in the future. But, shouldn't we wait until people's homes are no longer in flames? Shouldn't we wait until the temporary shelters are finally empty? Seems like common sense - and common sensitivity - to me, but then again there isn't much of that in Washington these days.

And now that we seem to have the fires under control, how about we explore Senator Reid's claim? In doing so, I came across this column by Steven Milloy. Milloy is a "junk science" expert. Basically, he takes so-called scientific claims and puts them to the scientific evidence test. Milloy is an evidence-based kind of guy - like me. He doesn't go for rhetoric, heresay and anecdotal claims. He seeks the truth.

So, let's play along with Reid and assume (as he is claiming) that increased global temperature alters atmospheric conditions to prevent rainfall and ensuing drought conditions are exacerbated by warmer temperatures that increase drying on the ground. Here's what Milloy found in the scientific literature:

---During the period 1900-2005, precipitation seems to have actually increased in areas above 30 degrees north latitude — including California and the rest of the U.S. — according to the most recent assessment from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

---During the period 1900 to 2005, moderate-to-severe drought conditions occurred in Southern California during 34 of those 106 years — that is, about one-third of the time.

---During the period 1900-1940, when most of the 20th century's one-degree Fahrenheit temperature increase occurred, there were 7 years of moderate-to-severe drought.

---During the period 1941-1975, when global temperatures cooled, giving rise to concerns of a looming ice age, there were 11 years of moderate-to-severe drought.

---Since 1991, when global temperatures rose slightly past the 1940 levels, there have been 7 years of drought.

Now, this is very simplistic, but the point is that even the most basic of scientific data fails to support Reid's theory. In short, Reid was speaking out of the backside of this trousers, taking advantage of a horrible tragedy to score cheap political points. As for Boxer, the National Guard has already refuted her claim that they are too undermanned for their mission at home.

Maybe Reid was trying to cover for his eco-nista supporters. Milloy also found compelling evidence that decreased forest management and controlled burns (due to the efforts of environmentalists to limit these actions) likely contributed more to these fires than anything else.

"Our forests are detonating like napalm bombs. We need to remove dead and dying bug-killed timber," said Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif. This was said in 1994 when Congress was trying to pass legislation to increase forest management in the west. That failed, but it was revitalized in 2003 and opponents said Bush was just trying to help his friends in the logging industry. Actually, I think the environmentalists called it a "trojan horse for sneaking through logging projects."

Bush countered this by saying: “For too many years, bureaucratic tangles and bad forest policy have prevented foresters from keeping our woodlands healthy and safe...This year's fire outlook seems less severe, and that's good news, yet the danger persists, and many of our forests are facing a higher-than-normal risk of costly and catastrophic fires." Again, the legislation failed.

Bush could have responded to Reid and Boxer by reminding them of his warning back in '03, but there is a time and a place. People were running for their lives at the time. Their homes were burning down. Those are times when politics doesn't least to some. And I salute the President for not saying "told you so", even when his critics couldn't help themselves.

And I'm waiting for Harry Reid to revise his statement and blame the environmentalists for the fires.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Here is a recent statement that I saw in the comment line. Sometimes I'll feel the need to respond to comments in a separate post in order to keep my response from getting buried in the comment line and insuring more people see it.

"...have you considered for a moment that perhaps "victory" in Iraq is unattainable? I think that military conquest of AQM is attainable but if you are talking about "victory" in the sense of transforming a former dictatorship w/ no history of representative government into a functioning democracy, I'll take the under, thanks. More sick irony the invasion of Iraq has caused more jihadism than it cured. Withdrawal is not a consideration, but neither is relying on the Malaki government to acccomplish national reconciliation or to provide internal and external security. So what is the solution?"

Actually, this is a good point. And, yes, I have wondered whether victory in Iraq is attainable. I think doubt occurs during the course of any war. When we first stepped foot in North Africa in 1942, things weren't looking too good either. But in Iraq, the stakes are too high for us to give in to doubt. No, victory is not assured, but that's no reason for us to quit. It wouldn't be the first time a dictatorship transitioned to a functioning democracy.

And as far as the Malaki gov't being unable to achieve national reconciliation? I see this as the latest in a long line of criticisms and pessimistic snipes. This argument appears to be the snipe du jour. It seems to me the Left is always coming up with reasons why we will not achieve victory, with a new reason needed each time the previous reason is disproven. Let's recap some of the arguments that I've heard. "Victory in Iraq is unobtainable because....

...We will never find Saddam or his sons, and the Iraqis won't move on until we do
...We will never capture or kill al-Zarqawi
...The Iraqis will never embrace democracy
...The Iraqis will view us as occupiers rather than liberators
...We will never be able to secure Baghdad
...The Iraqis will never be able to establish a functioning government with such deep divisions
...The Iraqis will never turn against Sadr
...Sadr's militia is too well-armed, he will never conform to the new government
...The Iraqis will never turn against Al Qaeda
...The Iraqi military is inept

And now, they're saying Malaki will never be able to achieve national reconciliation. Now, I've been critical of the Iraqis and what I've perceived as their unwillingness to fight for their own freedom, but perhaps I was being a bit too impatient. Perhaps they simply needed more time, because it seems as though a new attitude is starting to form over there. It seems, with each passing day, that the Iraqi people just may pull this off. I've had to remind myself that our own democracy took many years to take root. It took us over a decade to get our Constitution up and running. And we weren't sandwiched between two theocratic terrorist nations who were taking strong actions to undermine our efforts. Perhaps we should cut the Iraqi people some slack. They've overcome adversity, and so far they've proven the doubters wrong. It's a testament to their strength and to the power of liberty. My question is: At what point do the defeatists stop saying victory is unattainable, and start saying 'maybe there is a chance'? Imagine the impact on enemy morale a truly united America would have.

I don't know if victory will happen. But I do know that America has always stood for liberty and has always been there to lead others to freedom. How different would this world be today if America allowed itself to take the attitude of pessimism and cynicism seen above? We like the underdog for a reason. Right now, millions of Iraqis are in a fight for their lives, their country, their fledgling democracy. They have a lot of hard work ahead, but they've overcome hard work to reach this point. Islamofascism won't be defeated on the battlefield, it will be defeated in the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide. But that can't happen without liberty, without a Muslim democracy to lead the way. A line of dominos requires that first little tilt to do their magic. We saw it in Eastern Europe and the Soviet states. Perhaps Iraq can be that tilt in the Middle East.

We've paid dearly for them, and they've paid dearly for their freedom. The easy thing would be to pack up and leave, say it's not worth it, it's too costly, but since when does man's last great hope take the easy way out? The right thing is to stay and see these people through their fight. They haven't given up yet, and by God neither should we.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

The truth about SCHIP

President Bush has vetoed the SCHIP bill and recently the House failed to get enough votes to override that veto, sparking some harsh words and rhetoric as usual. So what is this piece of legislation?

SCHIP was initially passed in 1997 to provide health coverage for children who were not poor enough for Medicaid, but not wealthy enough for private insurance. It's a well-intentioned bill, but is riddled with problems. Currently, it covers about 7 million children nationwide. But Congress recently revamped the bill to increase coverage to include households that make up to 83K annual income. This would potentially expand the number of children covered to 10 million. Bush disagreed with the expansion and thus the veto. He basically wants to keep the bill as is, with a modest $5 billion increase in spending, as opposed to Congress' call for $35 billion increase.

When Bush vetoed the bill, he was immediately attacked for "not caring about the children" and opposing health care for our most innocent citizens (see my post about Pete Stark and some of the comments supporting him). Of course, those attacking him don't care much about the millions of innocents aborted each year in this country, but that's another post. Today, I need to clear up the facts amongst the politics.

First, Bush supports the SCHIP bill. He even asked for an increase in spending. So saying that he doesn't support health care for kids is simply disingenuous. Second, there are some big problems with this bill. Bush rightly complains that some states spend more than half of their SCHIP funds on care for adults (up to age 25) rather than children, violating the intent of the bill. If these states allocated their funds appropriately, there wouldn't be a need for such a dramatic increase in spending. Also, 60% of children currently eligible for SCHIP already have private insurance coverage. If the bill expanded as Congress wants, that number would increase to 77%. Bush argues that this would encourage families to drop private insurance to enroll in SCHIP, which means more Americans having their health care managed by the government and not private insurance, which is a bad thing.

There is nothing (except military protection) that the gov't can do better than the private sector, including health care. The more people who have health insurance via the private sector the better. Once we get the gov't involved, things get screwed up. And we're talking about health care, not delivering the mail. This is a big deal. So I think Bush is right to veto the bill. There's a reason why the US has the best quality health care in the world, and it's because the gov't (for the most part) is not involved. The closer we get to socialized medicine, the more that that will change. And quality of care will plummet, while costs skyrocket. Like someone said: If you think health care is expensive now, just wait 'till it's free.

But the Dems have pounced. They cherish the notion of more people dependent on the gov't. Why? Well, this is the foundation of their party. The more people who depend on the gov't, the more will vote Democrat. They are the party of gov't entitlements. Let's not kid ourselves. This isn't about taking care of children, folks. This is about politics as usual.

We ALL want kids to have health care. So we can stop with the "mean conservative" attacks. The fact is, a family making 83K a year can afford health coverage, that's already been noted ni the statistics. So I don't see where anyone can make an argument that expanding the bill is necessary. Again, 77% of eligible children already have health coverage. The idea isn't to get them health care. The idea is to get them GOVERNMENT FUNDED health care, and thus get them dependent on big brother. Yet, the rhetoric pours in:

Sen. John Kerry: "so help me, children will die, and some will end up with permanent disabilities." This is an off-the-cuff remark. There is no clinical evidence that expanding this bill would save lives. In fact, I could argue that shifting people from private care to gov't funded care would be detrimental.

Nancy Pelosi: "the Bush veto would prevent 10 million children from obtaining any health care at all." This is an outright lie! As mentioned, SCHIP already covers 7 million children. Pelosi's bill would only include 3 million more, of which 77% already have private health insurance. So what's the point? What good can this bill, and the $35 billion, actually do?

This is nothing but a power grab by Dems, and the power they seek is power over the American people who currently have choices in health care. Once we give up that power and become dependent on the gov't for anything, including health care, then we become part of the Democrat party's voting block...and they know it.

The GOP Congress cut noncitizen immigrants from the Medicaid rolls in 1996 and they were assaulted with the same "heartless" attacks. But Harvard economist George Borjas did a study and he found that after losing gov't coverage, a large proportion of these workers sought better jobs with better health coverage to the point that their overall insurance levels actually increased. Go figure, a free market society actually works better for the people! Take the gov't out of the picture and the people fare better. Why would SCHIP be any different?

Everyone wants to take care of the children, even cold-hearted conservatives like myself. And we all want to see the uninsured get health care. But there's a right way to do this. I've posted before on the multi-pronged approach to solving our uninsured problem. The right way doesn't involve the government. The AMA is wrong. The Democrats are wrong. Vetoing this bill was the right thing to do and I applaud the president for it. Government-funded health care would be a disaster.

Plus, there is nothing in the Constitution mandating the government to provide anything to the people except for liberty and military protection. Let's not over step our bounds.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Lt Michael Murphy - Medal of Honor

Day is done, gone the sun, From the hills, from the lake, From the skies, All is well, safely rest, God is nigh.......

According to a Navy citation, Murphy and three fellow SEALs were searching for a terrorist in the Afghan mountains on June 28, 2005, when their mission was compromised after they were spotted by locals, who presumably reported their presence and location to the Taliban. A fierce firefight ensued, with more than 50 anti-coalition militia firing on the outnumbered SEALs. Despite the intensity of the firefight, Murphy - already wounded - is credited with risking his own life to save the lives of his comrades by moving into the open for a better position to transmit a call for help. While continuing to be fired upon, Murphy provided his unit’s location and the size of the enemy force. At one point he was shot in the back, causing him to drop the transmitter. Murphy picked it back up, completed the call and continued firing at the enemy who was closing in. Murphy then returned to his cover position with his men and continued the battle.

By the end of the two-hour gunfight, Murphy and two of his comrades were dead. An estimated 35 Taliban were also killed. The fourth member of their team managed to escape and was protected by local villagers for several days before he was rescued.

God be with you, Lieutenant. This country is safer tonight because of the sacrifice of you and your unit. May we never forget...
Say hello to General Patton for me

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Sen. Barack Obama on Friday demanded the Justice Department fire one of its officials (John Tanner) over remarks made about elderly minorities not aging like white Americans, because they die first...."Our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do; they die first," Tanner said...."There are inequities in health care," Tanner continued. "There are a variety of inequities in this country. And so anything that disproportionately impacts the elderly has the opposite impact on minorities; just the math is such as that."....Obama said in his letter: "Such comments are patently erroneous, offensive, and dangerous..."

In 2003, the average life expectancy was 72.7 years for African Americans and 78 years for whites

John Tanner's remarks, while crude and obviously politically incorrect, were based on statistics. And, as I cited, the life expectancy statistics support what he said, although certainly not to the degree that he implied. In fairness, the life expectancy gap has narrowed over the past two decades to the point where it is now. I think Tanner could have used a bit more tact in what he said. Barak Obama felt he should be fired.

As of yet, Senator Obama has not issued an opinion on Pete Stark's comments about the US military and President Bush. I can only assume he has no objection.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

"I would just like to point out that under the Republican plan, by 2017 we probably will have killed 20,000 soldiers in Iraq, spending $200 billion....Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies like you're telling us today? Is that how you're going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old, enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement....President Bush's statements about children's health shouldn't be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote to override his veto." -- Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) today on the floor of the US House of Representatives

No, this is not an excerpt from the latest Bin Laden video. This is actually a US Congressman speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I'll keep my comments brief in order to keep from being too hostile. Plus, what this useful idiot said pretty much speaks for itself. I am, however, growing a bit tired of these politicians, one after the other, defamating our troops. Whether it's John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Barak Obama or Pete Stark, the message is all the same. Then they have the sack to follow words like this with "I support the troops". Really? Stark basically just called US troops murderers, but he supports them.

I think anyone who makes statements like this should be forced to serve a month in Iraq. And I'm not talking about the Green Zone that's been secured. I'm talking about body armor, field helmet, fully armed, the whole thing. One month in the trenches. Then we'll see if they still think so poorly about the people who are dying for the people Stark & Co claim they're killing.

This is beyond disgraceful, and should be condemned by everyone, regardless of political affiliation or opinions about the war.

If you'd like to contact Congressman Stark and share your thoughts on this matter, you can click HERE to email his office.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Clinton recently floated the idea of issuing a $5,000 bond to each baby born in the United States to help pay for college and a first home, but it immediately inspired Republican ridicule and she quickly said she would not implement the proposal.

She defended that decision yesterday, saying she is focusing on proposals with more political support and she is not formally proposing anything she can't fund without increasing the deficit: "I have a million ideas. The country can't afford them all."

Okay, before I get into the $5,000 bond idea, let me address that last sentence. This wasn't a 'just-kidding' remark, or something tongue-in-cheek. Clinton was being serious. She basically gave an open endorsement of massive government. Yes, she says she won't increase the deficit, but she said nothing about increasing revenues to fund her "ideas". These two simple sentences say a lot about Clinton's fundamental principles in government.

Now, the $5,000 bond idea. The idea of giving $5,000 to someone just for having a baby is quite disturbing, and counters the abortion-rights argument (of which Clinton is a part) that says "we're trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies". One can only imagine how many unwanted pregnancies will occur if we started handing out 5K bonds to every baby born. The uterus immediately becomes a money tree. And since these pregnancies are unwanted, you then have more children growing up in poverty and abusive homes, which leads to more need among the lower class, which leads to more calls for government programs, which leads to more support for Democrats.......

No one ever accused Clinton of being a foolish politician.

Monday, October 15, 2007

No comment on this story, it speaks for itself. I just wonder if you'll find it anywhere in the mainstream media.

The U.S. military says it has dealt devastating and potentially irreversible blows to Al Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq, the Washington Post reported Monday......FULL STORY

Friday, October 12, 2007

Congratulations to Al Gore for his well-deserved award. At first, I was a bit puzzled. Al Gore? Peace Prize? I was unable to draw the connection. Then, I saw the history of this award and it all made sense. It's not a peace prize as much as it is a political prize. In light of that, I feel that Gore's award is very well deserved. If you disagree, then look at some prior recipients and you may reconsider:

Le Duc Tho (1973) - Founded the Indochinese Communist Party. Oversaw the communist insurgency in 1956 against the South Vietnamese government, planting the seeds for what would become America's Vietnam War.

Anwar Sadat (1978) - Egyptian president, launched the unprovoked Yom Kippur surprise attack against Israel in 1973, eventually agreeing to peace only after Israeli forces pushed him back.

Mikhail Gorbachev (1990) - Soviet leader who, in fairness, helped bring down the iron curtain. His award would be more understandable if Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were also given the award, but that's not what happened. Apparently, Gorbachev was solely responsible for ending the USSR.

Yasser Arafat (1994) - A key planner in the murder of 11 Israeli athletes in Munich. Established Fatah, a terrorist organization with the purpose of expelling Israel from the Middle East. Responsible for countless terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens, as well as waging a continuous war with Israel for nearly 40 years. The number of deaths attributable to Arafat may never be known.

Kofi Annan (2001) - Leader of the UN. Was in charge during the largest global scandal in human history as the UN was fleeced for billions of dollars in the oil-for-food scandal. Many UN officials, including Annan's son, profited considerably from the suffering of the Iraqi people. Took no action to stop genocide in Rwanda, hundreds of thousands of people were murdered. Failed to enforce UN resolutions requiring Iraqi disarmament, directly leading to today's current war in Iraq.

Jimmy Carter (2002) - Betrayed the Shah of Iran, paving the way for a militant theocracy to take hold in that country, the same theocracy that is threatening to plunge the world into nuclear conflict and openly defies the UNs call for disarmament.

Al Gore (2007) - Peddles incomplete science and alarmism for the purpose of global income redistribution and keeping American power in check. Promotes misinformation and fear based on bad science. Attempted to cram the US Constitution into his desk-side shredder so he could become the US President.

Notable nominees for the "Peace" prize include: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini.

Those who have never won the award include: Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Mahatma Gandhi, Pope John Paul II

So, at first it seems like Gore isn't deserving, until you look at the company he joins.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

I wasn't very familiar with General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, until recently. General Pace has caused a bit of a stir and is coming under increasing scrutiny for remarks that he has made about homosexuality. The General, like myself, believes homosexuality is an immoral act. These beliefs are derived from his personal religious faith. Because he feels it to be immoral, he does not believe the US government and the US military should condone the behavior in any way. He was recently given a chance to clarify his remarks and, like a man of conviction, he refused to back down. Plus, he was on the verge of retirement, so what did he have to lose? He is careful to condemn the behavior and not any individual and he is sticking by his beliefs regardless how much criticism comes his way. General Pace has just earned a great deal of respect from me.

Current military policy on homosexuality is "dont ask-dont tell". The behavior is forbidden and out-of-the-closet homosexuals aren't allowed to serve in the military. Homosexuals can serve as long as they're not open about their sexuality. Bill Clinton implemented this policy on his own accord, without consulting his military advisors. He had no idea what kind of effect on morale or troop condition such a policy would have. It was a political move to appease a voting block and a half-hearted attempt to fulfill a campaign promise. Colin Powell did not feel it was a good policy, and his sentiments were shared by many military leaders. Unfortunately, they were not asked.

Some people think gays should be allowed to serve. Some don't like the current policy. Their opinions don't count. The military has two functions: Kill and Destroy. Everyone in the military does a job that in some way contributes to the military's ability to kill and destroy. Policy, regardless of what it deals with, should coincide with this. Will allowing gays to openly serve enhance the military's ability to kill and destroy? The only ones qualified to answer that are our military leaders. The military is not the place for social experiments.

Like a good soldier, General Pace upholds the current policy, but he is making his stand there. The obvious next step (as Senator Harkin has said) would be allowing openly gay people to serve (as well as allowing adultery). That would amount to the US military condoning homosexual behavior, which is what the General opposes, and would potentially become a social experiment rather than enhancing the military's ability to kill and destroy.

Eventually the debate about homosexual policy will occur. At that time, the arguments can be made on the merits of whether it is strategically wise to condone this behavior. I for one feel it is not, and not just because of my faith, but because of what I feel is best for a mentally and physically capable military force. I haven't seen any sound argument that supports the notion that allowing homosexuality and adultery in the military enhances it's ability to make war. For now, the argument can wait. General Pace has retired, bringing an end to a highly decorated career of honorable service. The General stands beside his personal conviction and I whole-heartedly salute him for it, in every sense of the word. It's men like him who we need leading our troops in a time of war. So long, General, God bless you for your service to this country.

Sunday, October 07, 2007

This photo is priceless, and authentic. This is Hillary Clinton posing with a US soldier in Iraq. Look closely at his left hand. Yes, he is actually crossing his fingers. This is what soldiers are taught to do if they are coerced to give a statement or appear before cameras while captive. The humor is obvious, but I think this gentleman's sentiment about Clinton is shared by many who wear the uniform.

Hillary is seeking to become Commander in Chief, and in the process she is going to have to overcome an anti-military image that may or may not be fair, depending on your point of view. Her husband's administration did little for the military, unless you count the to-the-bone budget cuts that reduced our fighting force to a skeleton crew and in many ways continue to be a hindrance in our war efforts. And who can forget Bill's letter to an ROTC Colonel who was trying to recruit young Billy..."I loathe the military". One wonders if Hillary shares her husband's sentiment.

And then there are first hand accounts of Hillary and the military. Take, for instance, the book "Dereliction of Duty: The eyewitness account of how Bill Clinton compromised America's national security" by Lt Col Robert Patterson. Colonel Patterson was the Air Force lliason to Bill Clinton, and for a time was in charge of carrying the nuclear football, which means that he spent some time very close to Bill and Hillary. Here is an example of what he witnessed:

"On a similar trip, as we lifted off a helicopter pad in Marine One en route to Air Force One for the journey home, Hillary suddenly shouted, 'Put this back on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo.' By this time, however, Marine One was safely scooting to an awaiting 747. The required support for even a helicopter flight was involved and extensive. The Secret Service, White House Communications Agency, and administration staff were pulling down communications lines, lifting barricades, and driving off in vehicles.

'Ma'am,' my fellow military aide responded, 'we can't safely do that.'
'I need my sunglasses, we need to go back!'
The onboard Secret Service agent chimed in, 'Yes, ma'am, the mil-aide is correct. That wouldn't be wise.'

She acquiesced, but not without obvious disdain in her eyes. Security be damned, those were her sunglasses!"

Hillary seems to think that Marine One is more a limo and chauffeur service than a military transport vehicle. I wonder how that attitude will play as Commander in Chief. Patterson gave other examples of Hillary's disdain for the military, including her attempt to forbid members of the military to appear at the White House in uniform. She wanted them to wear civillian attire for any official or unofficial visits. Whether or not anyone complied with this is another issue. After all, the first lady is nowhere in the chain of command for anyone in uniform, even though I'm sure she would have disagreed.

And what about her military budget? Well, she apparently plans to spend a lot on the Pentagon. New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer asked the Pentagon to spend $123 million for New York projects that the Department of Defense didn't ask for -- many of them benefiting the lawmakers’ campaign contributors. Among the two Democratic senators’ projects cited by the New York Sun and NewsMax were:

--$5 million to STIDD Systems of Greenport, NY, whose president gave $2,500 to the Friends of Hillary political action committee in May, 2006.

--$8 million to the defense contracting firm DRS Technologies and its electronic warfare and network systems program in western New York. The firm's political action committee gave $8,000 to Friends of Schumer and $30,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which Schumer chaired. The company also gave Clinton's political action committee $2,000.

--$2 million to the Buffalo firm Nano-Dynamics, Incorporated, whose chairman gave $4,400 to the Friends of Hillary political action committee over the past year. Three of the firm’s officers gave $2,000 each to Schumer's campaign.

--$2 million to Plug Power, Incorporated, a developer of fuel cell technology. The company's president Roger Saillant has given $2,000 to the Friends of Hillary committee over the past two years, and $3,000 to the Friends of Schumer committee over the past four years.

So this is Hillary's military record. Is this someone who deserves to be Commander in Chief?

Friday, October 05, 2007

Senator Tom Harkin: "Well, I don’t know. Maybe he[Rush Limbaugh] was just high on his drugs again"

For those who don't know, the Senator said this recently during a Senate session and may be the first US Senator to mock another human being's medical affliction from the Senate floor. I'm not sure, but I couldn't imagine another example. So, after thinking about it a while, I decided that this was way too despicable to mention in passing, and if Senator Harkin wants to dust off skeletons, then let's do it! So, I decided to take a stroll through Harkin's political career. Here are some highlights:

--While running for his Senate seat in 1984, and again while running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1992, Harkin has faced criticism for claiming that he had flown combat missions over North Vietnam. In a 1979 round table discussion with other Congressional Veterans, Harkin said of his service as a Navy pilot: “One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions”. This is actually not true. Harkin never flew combat aircraft in Vietnam, making him one of those phony soldiers Limbaugh was referring to. No wonder Harkin took such offense at Limbaugh's comments.

--Senator Harkin gave a nationally televised and controversial eulogy for Senator Paul Wellstone, a close ally in the Senate who perished in a plane crash 11 days before his potential re-election. In the eulogy, Harkin urged the crowd to “stand up for Paul" and talked about “passing on Paul's legacy” and to win the 2002 Senate election “For Paul” . Even during a funeral, Senator Harkin was being a good little politician

--In June 2001, the Des Moines Register reported that Senator Harkin had “inadvertently omitted” $200,000 in Conoco stock owned by his wife Ruth and some $15,000 owned by their daughter Amy on his Senate financial statement. Inadvertently? When it comes to politicians, it's only inadevertent when it gets discovered.

--In September of 2006 Senator Harkin commented on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's September 20th 2006 United Nations speech in which Chavez referred to President George Bush as the devil. Senator Harkin said that while Chavez's comments were “incendiary,” he could “… understand the frustration, ah, and the anger of certain people around the world because of George Bush's policies”. A communist dictator calls our President the devil, and Harkin says 'I understand'

--In September of 2007, Harkin demanded apology from General Pace - the week before Pace's military retirement - for condemning homosexuality and adultery in the military. Pace promptly reminded the Senator that the UCMJ prohibits these behaviors in the military, and Harkin then voiced his opinion that the policy should be changed to accomodate homosexuality and adultery.

All of these things are the typical behaviors of a man who lacks any moral standard, and mocking someone else for their medical ailment is more of the same. I guess, given the record, we shouldn't expect anything less from Iowa Senator Tom Harkin

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Hillary Clinton collects 27 million dollars in third quarter, bringing her total campaign war chest to 70 million dollars, second only to Barak Obama's 75 million.

Well folks, the Presidency now seems to be available to the highest bidder, and there are some pretty high bidders lining up to raise their card. 70 million dollars for a political campaign is obscene, and we haven't even cast a single vote yet! This is beyond concerning. Nothing good can come when this much money is invested in getting one person elected. Nothing.

If you wonder why Clinton is collecting so much money, here's a story that may help you understand. It involves Corning Inc., an upstate New York industrial company.

"In April 2003, a month after Corning's political action committee gave $10,000 to her re-election campaign, Mrs. Clinton announced legislation that would provide hundreds of millions in federal aid to reduce diesel pollution, using, among other things, technology pioneered by Corning. It was one of several Congressional initiatives Mrs. Clinton has pushed that benefit the company. And in April 2004, Mrs. Clinton began a push to persuade the Chinese government to relax tariffs on Corning fiber optics products, inviting the Chinese ambassador to her office and personally asking President Bush for help in the matter. One month after the beginning of that ultimately successful effort, Corning's chairman, James Houghton, held a fund-raiser at his home that collected tens of thousands of dollars for her re-election campaign."

It's actually a brilliant strategy. A company gives tens of thousands to a politician, who in turn takes action in Congress to ensure that company gets lots of government money funneled their way. Of course, Clinton isn't the only one. I could post every day for a year about different politicians raping the treasury, but Clinton is the one who is running for President and has been given tens of millions to do so.

If elected, Hillary stands poised to make an art out of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" politics. And 70 million dollars represents a lot of backs that need to be scratched. Get your checkbooks ready. How does 50% income tax sound?

To Hillary, that probably sounds like a good start.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

San Francisco City Council votes to condemn Michael Savage

This seems to be yet another headline that acts as an example of a troubling trend. I thought the Left touted itself as the advocate for free speech? Apparently not. The city council of San Franciscograd doesn't like what Michael Savage says, so they vote to condemn him. This may sound harmless, but like it or not it's a blatant attempt by government officials to suppress free speech. The officials of San Franciscograd are one step from sending tanks into Tiananmen Square, and every American should be concerned about this latest episode in a recent trend:

--The US Congress, led by Democrats, are attempting to revive the Fairness Doctrine, governmental oversight of talk radio via the FCC to ensure equal time is devoted to all political opinions

--Univ of Columbia radicals chase the Minutemen from the stage while the neighborhood watch group spoke at the college.

--Ann Coulter was attacked by a man who hurled a pie at her while she spoke at the Univ of Arizona

--The US Congress, led by Democrats, introduced a measure to condemn Rush Limbaugh, a radio personality, because of controversial comments

--The Univ of Columbia rescinded an invitation to the Minutemen to speak again at their college, while only days later Iranian terrorist leader Ahmadinejad spoke at the same school

--A bipartisan group of college students seeking to honor the victims of 9/11 by holding a mutual moment of silence were interrupted and shouted down by radical protestors

--Karl Rove was attacked by students after delivering a speech to college republicans

--Hillary Clinton was interrupted while giving a speech in Chicago by anti-war protestors attempting to shout her down and keep her from being heard

Should I continue? Yes, there is a trend here and it involves a radical sect of ultra-Left psychos who loosely define freedom of speech in a way so that it applies only to those who agree with them, and they appear to be hubbed in San Franciscograd, Californistan. I think it's the duty of all freedom loving Americans to condemn these examples of attempted suppression of free speech and be quick to do the same in future events. The ultra-Left clearly wants to rewrite the Constitution, and their version leaves no room for people who don't buy into their ultra-Left mindset.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Rush Limbaugh comes under fire for 'phony soldiers' comment

Okay, first of all, I don't really care what Rush Limbaugh says. And neither should Congress. He is an abrasive radio personality who, in my mind, blindly supports the Republican Party and blindly denounces the Democrat Party. For that reason alone, his credibility is questionable at best. He does not have a Congressional seat. He does not distribute millions of dollars to help elect certain people. He has one vote in the election like everyone else. Yes, he may have some influence by the air waves, but that influence is minimal when he makes inflammatory comments.

For the record, I saw the transcript in question and I feel his words are being blatantly misrepresented by the mainstream media and Congressional Democrats. But who cares? He's a lightning rod who thrives in controversy. That's not the issue. Regardless what he meant, he is an inconsequential figure in the halls of Congress, and the fact that Congress is spending time condemning or supporting him is pure insanity and a waste of my tax dollars! That's the issue here.

And here's one big thumbs down for Tom Harkin, who literally used the Senate floor to mock another human being's chemical addiction: "Maybe he was just high on his drugs. I don't know." Just when I think Washington politics couldn't get any more disgusting, Tom Harkin steps up and opens his pie hole!

Let's face it, the Dems are upset about the thing. They hate the fact that they had to go on record for or against that organization, so this is their retaliation....a measure to condemn Rush Limbaugh. And no, it's not the same thing. contributes (in one way or another) millions to Democrats. They sign the proverbial paychecks for many in Congress (the same Congress that was supposed to 'drain the swamp' in Washington), so putting those folks on record was the right thing to do, consistent with maximal transparency in Congress. The Congressmen who accept money or help from Moveon are the ones who made their actions an issue for Congress to address. They are a major contributor to Democrats and they called the Commander in Iraq a traitor. Yes, that's an issue for Congress to address.

But Rush Limbaugh?

If Limbaugh contributed millions to political campaigns and deliberatley defamed our soldiers, then I could understand the Congressional action. But isn't he a bit small for Congress to spend time on? Let's see: Iran is on the verge of nukes, gas is approaching 3 bucks a gallon, Social Security is poised to be a major burden on our young workers, the housing market is tanking, medical malpractice has caused an access to care crisis, nothing has been done about illegal immigration and, oh yeah, WE'RE AT WAR! But these buffoons in Congress think Rush Limbaugh is priority. Anyone who isn't outraged by this should evaluate their own priorities or seek psychiatric counseling because you lack the ability to discern when you're being screwed by your own elected leaders.

It's a blatant slap in the face of American voters when a Senator or Representative shrugs off the assauly, or Hillary's calling Petraeus a liar, yet gets irate about a right wing disc jockey and his typical comments (big surprise...Rush Limbaugh criticizes the anti-war crowd). That, my friends, is the very definition of "politicizing the war", when our Congressmen apply a double-standard to the issue for political gain. Just reading and typing about it makes me physically ill. The fact that we voted these imbeciles into office makes it even worse. We could send a local Kindergarten class to Washington and I honestly think they would get more done, even if the name-calling and whining and bickering sound about the same.

My suggestion is that we flush every single one of them back into the private sector. If it were my decision, not a single incumbent would keep his seat in the next election, and this trend would continue until someone took office who could actually prioritize their political careers off the Congressional agenda. While these idiots debate the meaning of Rush Limbaugh's words, immigration and Social Security reform sit buried in committee! This is nothing less than a dereliction of duty by a group of cowards who lack the sack to address difficult issues, and the voters need to hold them accountable for it. The political nit-picking is killing this country and with every election we only choose more of the same. It's time every single one of them found themselves unemployed!