People who hate America gravitate towards Barrack. This is a simple fact.

Because there are so many of them, it is reasonable to assume that Barrack gravitates towards them as well. For example, I don't know anyone who actually openly and proudly hates America. I certainly know of no one who would engage in terrorism to express their distaste or frustration. Barrack knows more than one such person. Therefore Barrack is not like me, and this critical difference really concerns me. How far does this difference extend?

What would it mean to elect someone President who hates our country down to its roots? Someone who clearly thinks his constituents are idiots and talks to them as if they were no more able to think reasonably than his pet dog? Someone who believes that America has marched steadily backwards since the days of Dr. Martin Luther King? Someone who believes that America doesn't deserve any of the wealth or prosperity or good fortune that we treasure and enjoy or any of the countless other blessings we benefit from each day by the simple accident of our birth?

What would it mean? Could it mean that, as some fear, Barrack really will insist that we unilaterally disarm ourselves around the globe? He swears he will do it in Iraq, and I believe him. Why? Because he hates America, and from the "blame America first" perspective that he shares with his friends and even with his pastor, it only makes sense to try to hurt America, for the good of all Americans, you see. Yes, I know It may sound twisted to us un-enlightened folks, but Barrack and his friends believe that throwing bombs is the ultimate form of patriotism, not wearing some stupid flag pin! What a bunch of rubes we are! So back to my point: Our military is the source of all that is unfair and unjust in the world. To fix the world, just stand-down the military, and the entire world will love us again. Make love, not war. Shake hands and smile big toothy grins with Ahmedinejad, and just ignore that pesky little nuclear program. Gee, can't we all just get along?

For someone who hates America and has America-hating radical hippie friends, it stands to reason that ANY action that could cripple our military or industry (the fabled military-industrial complex from the 60's) or damage our economy would be our "just desserts" and probably long overdue. After all, we Americans have it far too good over here while others more deserving than us go hungry and die around the world through no fault of their own.

It stands to reason that someone who hates America and marries an America-hater would ingratiate himself to his closest confidant and lover, as well as to his inner-circle of friends by crippling America or ACCEPTING the crippling of America as righteous and justly deserved, in the name of some highly intellectual and enlightened perspective that we cannot understand, if only for the simple reason that he never shares or explains it to us poor, ignorant patsies who put him in office.

It stands to reason that someone who hates America and goes to an America-hating church would have no trouble using the power of the office to decree by Executive order that all past wrongs and injustices visited upon blacks long-dead should now be righted, with financial remuneration. America is made of money - let's pass some of that around to those who simply did not have the good fortune to inherit their riches like all our white brothers and sisters, shall we? There you have it - instant reconciliation. From each, according to his means, to each, according to his needs. This is Reconciliation, according to the Black Church. Well, not at first, of course.....

The thing I don't get is this: if you feel so strongly about hating the country, why not just leave? Is it because you can do more damage here on the inside than anywhere else outside the country? Or is it because you figure that here on the inside you can get a bigger slice of the pie - a slice as big as you feel you deserve?

Barrack believes in bitterness. He and the other, more established misery pimps never miss an opportunity to fan the flames of normal frustration and discontent and keep anger and resentment against the faceless "they" (i.e. "whitey") alive. These pimps have held back large segments of the black community for decades and now, in the face of true adversity (for them) with more and more blacks becoming well-to-do and voting Republican, the misery pimps have been given a new lease on life. Now they have the smiling face of Barrack Obama to put on the front of their bitter creed of Black Liberation Theology. (For those who don't know, Black Liberation Theology is the ULTIMATE hand-out mentality. Not only does the government owe us a hand-out, but God Himself OWES US! And we intend to collect, brother. Payday's-a-comin'! We do not accept God on any other terms. God acquiesces to OUR WILL. We've created God in our own image and likeness. Seriously. Jesus was a black man, did you know that? Get used to it.)

Sadly, Democrats have positioned themselves to benefit politically when America suffers or stumbles - they gain a sound-byte opportunity on the six-o'clock news. Misery pimps (i.e. black Democrats) benefit when blacks suffer or stumble by holding themselves back from achieving the things that the pimps say should be given to them for free.

I'm sorry; I just can't stomach all the pain and misery (and flights of fantasy) that Barrack is peddling. I'm ready for a change - I'm ready to feel *GOOD* about this greatest country in the history of mankind. I'm voting for John McCain.

Look, let's be clear about this: we all know that we need a president who is diplomatic and cordial all the time, assertive most of the time, aggressive some of the time and a downright a-hole when it's "crunch-time" (against threats to our security).

We all know the mix instinctively. We know that our president's external pleasant demeanor is a fluffy, practiced facade, masking the cold hard steel underneath. That's what we want, what the country requires in order to go forward. Otherwise we would live in constant fear of being attacked and subverted by any and every mildly antagonistic anarchist group around the world.

Hilary fits the bill, therefore she is eligible. Barrack does not, therefore he is not.

Barrack cries foul in the face of any test of his character, because he has none and he cannot play the game, he criticizes those who can and do play it, especially those who play it well. Political in-fighting is a test of one's mettle. Much as we hate it, we love the competition aspect. We want to see who comes out on top in ANY competitive arena. And woe to the one who goes down without swinging a single blow.

Politics is ugly and dirty and that's how you find out who has the resolve and the strength of character to go into the ring and take the pummeling and dish out as good as he gets. This willingness to engage tells us what kind of responsibility the candidate is ready for. Do it with class, do it with style, with panache even. Everybody has their own style, but however you do it, beat the crap out of the other guy!

The administration sets the tone. Cordial and apparently concerned, but not in any way weak or overly deferential (i.e. deferential beyond the mandates of sincere hospitality).

Women are normally unsuited for this blood sport and truth be told MOST MEN ARE TOO, but those women who do well at it are no less steely than their male counterparts. It isn't physical body strength at play here - it is simply the WILL TO POWER. For us normal people, the WILL TO POWER is repulsive. For the political class, it is lifeblood. Either you have it or you don't. Like Hilary says, if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Show your mettle, show your worth. INSPIRE CONFIDENCE. Confidence is job #1 for any president.

Everybody sees it now - Hilary has it, Barrack does not. Hilary is qualified, Barrack is not. No steel, no confidence. No Confidence, no job. Sorry, Barrack - you're better suited to play with your Play-Doh in the senate where the refusal to fight for what you believe in can perhaps be mistaken for statesmanship and being above the fray. At the top, you have to be willing to "mix it up" with the toughest, meanest, ugliest SOBs on the planet.

Hilary could do that. Barrack could not. Barrack knows this as well as his former pastor.

Better go back to the Senate and hit the gym, Barrack. Find the punching bag and learn what it takes for you to FEEL LIKE beating the crap out of it. What motivates you enough to rip it apart? What do you care about? What will you fight for if not yourself? We need answers, Barrack - don't come back to this arena until you have some.

Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright threw a 20-year member in good standing of his Trinity Church, one Senator Barrack Obama, under the political bus yesterday on the launch of his own political ambitions to become the new Voice of Black America. Wright saw his chance to rise to national prominence and he took it, mealy-mouthed Senator Obama be damned, just like America. From here on, it's the Reverend Jeremiah Wright show. Obama has just become a footnote to *his* story, instead of the other way around.

Wright put the lie to everything Obama WANTED us to believe about him. Pure and simple. If Wright had postponed his ambitions, Obama might have stood a chance of winning. Now, Hilary will mop the floor with him. And lo and behold, there is not a racist Republicans anywhere in sight on this one. This was a black-on-black drive by assassination.

Obama does not have the guts the intestinal fortitude to strike back, not even in self defense. No one wants a namby-pamby president like this. If he can't defend himself, how can he presume to defend ALL OF US as Commander-In-Chief?

Good Night, Sweet Prince, in your own mind, at least. I can't tell you how disappointed I am to see this come to pass. And now it is clear - black on black political homicide is NOT the fault of ANY white influence whatsoever. I won't be surprised to hear Dr. Wright attempt to make the case anyway - after all, speciousness is his forte.

Never mind that I'm a conservative Republican and Obama is a Mad Hatter liberal - I still cheered for Obama early on - he's black, I'm black. (Us black folks are just like that, so get over it.) We *always* like to see each other doing well, living out Dr. King's dream for us. I thought Obama COULD have been good for this country if he could live up to his potential, his promise - if he had some character, if he had a spine, if he had a clue about who he is and what he stands for. Instead, he lets people like Dr. Wright define him by association. People like Bill Ayers. Demonstrably DANGEROUS people who believe and espouse very DANGEROUS things. Unashamed and unrepentant “looney tunes”. By association, Obama is not what you might call a winner by any stretch of the imagination.

No, Obama was a false start. He got all our hope up, black and white. We’re all ready for it to happen. We’re all waiting with baited breath. So I guess we’ll just have to wait a little while longer for the next Great Black Hope. Obama just ain't got what it takes. And sadly, all of us should thank Dr. Wright for the object lesson he provided on Barrack's UNIQUE unsuitability to serve our great nation as its Chief Executive.

Mark

But wait - there's more!

Did some digging at the NY Times for something I KNOW I've read before. Guess what I found?

Several thousand years ago the Earth was very much colder than it is now. It was downright inhospitable. Then the Earth wobbled and tilted itself differently towards the sun and the planet began to warm up. Ice sheets that once covered an entire continent (North America) melted away and sea levels rose many dozens of feet. The result is the world as we know it today. Global Warming made the Earth the relative Paradise that it is today.

Global Warming has made modern-day agriculture possible. It has made modern civilization possible (granting us access to resources beneath the ground, for example). In short, Global Warming is our friend. It has made our modern lifestyle possible. It has granted us a brief window of opportunity to develop our technology and to immunize ourselves against the ravages of Earth's natural inhospitability.

Global Warming comes and goes in phases. This current phase is due to end in a couple of thousand years. We didn't start it, we can't stop it, and we'd better get on with dealing with the consequences someday. The warming will stop and the ice will return. This is the NORMAL STATE of the Earth.

And once this Global Warming comes to an end, we will have to wait 100,000 years for it to return. Odds are we will have moved our homes elsewhere in the solar system or galaxy.

Assuming, of course, that we ever stop wasting time trying to kill this Golden Goose.

Next: Why Other Planets are Warming Too

I must confess to a certain guilty pleasure in watching Hillary's campaign implode. For all the times she has tried to damage whatever portion of the American social fabric she could lay her hands on, I say "Bravo, Karma!"

What really makes me want to imitate her cackling, though, is the possibility that the fix (for the Supreme Court) is *NOT* in, in which case and she will almost certianly refuse to give way until the Convention - what a bloody, ugly struggle THAT could be!  :-)

We know she won't get off the stage willingly - that is not her way, especially since there certainly will not be a next time. She has shown herself to be a loser, and she has acted the part true to form. She will be a footnote in history and nothing more. This will be a good thing for America, but her political ambitions will be doused for good. amen and Hallelulia!

This will be her last stand, so this weekend could see some real bombshells go off in terms of dirty tricks from Clinton or some kind of intrigue with *NOBODY's* fingerprints on it to stir up a hornets nest of confusion and finger-pointing (i.e. Clinton dirty tricks version 3.0)

Who knows what she might spill this weekend about Obama? Ugly is all she has left - everything else has failed her - even "ugly" has failed her but she has nothing left and she seems like the type to go down flailing - not gracefully.

unless the fix is in, of course.

Here's what I'm watching for this weekend: If Hillary ducks out of the race with some uncharacteristically brilliant (and uncharacteristically *SELFLESS*) oratory like Mitt Romney, then that will be the signal - the fix is in.

If Hillary does not do everything in her power to torpedo the Democratic political machine that has now turned it's back on her, then the fix is in.

If Hillary stops whining and crying about how hard it is to run for President and how it's so unfair for the media to be treating her, HER, the *annointed*one*, like some freakin' Republican, then I will know and you should too - the fix is in.

And on that day, Conservatives, you'd better get your motors running for the battle of all battles because this will be another two-for-one deal - a clueless Obama in the White House nominating a shrill, angry, soul-less Hillary to the Supreme Court (with a Democrat Congress) - major shivers, folks - BRRRRRRR!

Rest in peace, William F. Buckley Jr., and remember - you won't be winning an arguments with God.   :-)

OK, Conservatives, I've heard this bandied about for awhile and now, after Hillary's poor showing in the Cleveland debate (she sounded like a loser and nobody likes a loser) it suddenly becomes a much more likely scenario - to wit, a Hillary Clinton nomination to the Supreme Court. She certainly will not be able to cry or whine or whimper her way back into the White House (not even Democrats want a cry-baby for President).

But even still, she can find a way to undermine this greatest nation ever blessed to be the most powerful on Earth and, indeed, in history. Even still, it's "Good Night, America", if Obama wins the Presidency. Because he will be duty-bound (the deal will have been made) to nominate Hillary for the very first opening that comes available. If Republicans won't stand against Obama, they certainly won't play any of the dirty tricks the Democrats played with Supreme Court nominations. Therefore, Hillary is a GUARANTEED LOCK if Obama wins. Think about it - you know it's true.

The ONLY way we can possibly stop Hillary is by electing John McCain to the Presidency. The time to stop this disaster is RIGHT NOW! Now is the time to rise to the defense of our nation from this domestic enemy number one.

We're talking about someone who could single-handedly undermine the entire foundation of the awe-inspiring structure built by our founding fathers. Nothing like imagining the pinnacle of political correctness and political double-speak being granted THAT kind of power for THE REST OF HER NATURAL LIFE to make me physically cringe in terror.

Imagine all the axes she will be empowered to grind. Imagine someone who is so short-sighted that she pledged to walk off the field of battle against the most intractable enemy modern civilization has ever known. Imagine such short-term, single-minded, self-interested, self-absorbed, monomaniacal influence over the next 20-30 years. I can see a once-great, generous and benevolent Christian nation in ruins, a once-great, generous and benevolent Christian nation that cannot stand for anything, a once-great, generous and benevolent Christian nation that cannot defend itself, a once-great, generous and benevolent Christian nation that cannot come to the aid of others in need or peril, a once-great, generous and benevolent Christian nation that cannot proclaim and promote Biblical (lasting) virtue of any kind at home or abroad.

If nothing else can rally the lethargic conservative masses, perhaps this can. McCain had BETTER WIN and he'd better win BIG. Or else.

So. Conservatives. Brothers. Sisters. Mothers. Fathers. Does America still mean anything to you? Can you live with yourself if you allow this bitter, angry, petulant, petty, totally and utterly failed woman with a chip on her shoulder the size of the White House to chip away at the foundation of all we hold dear for an entire GENERATION? Is that what you want YOUR legacy to be? That we gave our children the Judas Iscariot of The Supreme Court?

So - are you guys going to show up and vote ***NOW*** ?

Go with God, my friends,

Mark

Brothers and Sisters in the Conservative fight for freedom, truth and the American way, I am compelled to bluntly state that I question the wisdom of ANYone who claims that by telegraphing your intention to surrender you will somehow manage to win the war. Many of you, my conservative brethren, seem to have adopted this dubious strategy right out of the Liberal playbook on the war in Iraq and applied it to their pursuit of the White House this year. What's so frustrating is that I know you all know better because you see it so clearly in our liberal cousins' proclaimed strategy.

When I point this out to my conservative cohorts, they claim that they are standing on principle. As if liberals don't somehow believe (in their variably convoluted fashion) that they are doing the same thing. GET A GRIP, PEOPLE! Losing is not the way to win.

We are at war for the preservation of all we hold dear, and in any war there are many battles and many more skirmishes. Just because we lose a skirmish here and there doesn't mean we walk off the field of battle! So Duncan Hunter fell out - we lost a skirmish. So Fred Thompson fell out - another loss. So Romney fell out (with more class than anyone I've ever seen!) - another loss. I think that's about as much losing as I care for this year.

NEWSFLASH: We conservatives NEED the center-part of the electorate in order to obtain solid majorities. We need the mainstream! Conservatives are not nearly as energized this election cycle so how else do we get our voting numbers up? Perhaps with a guy who can reach across and take votes DIRECTLY from the Democrats, for starters. With a guy that you know will always follow his conscience, no matter if all of us unite against him (which we have, by the way). A guy who will make TOUGH decisions and not flinch when the firestorm hits. Have you ever seen McCain "run for cover" over any political decision he has ever made? I haven't, and that's why I respect him. He's just wrong, that's all - he's not hell-bent on tearing down this great country from the inside like his competition from the other party.

I think that, given the right arguments organized in the right form, John McCain can be persuaded to see my point of view (someday) and even to prioritize it higher than his current point of view, for example, on immigration. John McCain might be won over, someday. On the other hand, no liberal will EVER agree with me on any important issue simply out of "principle".

Folks, I am among the staunchest Black Christian Conservatives most of you will ever meet, but I don't cotton to pre-emptive surrender, no matter WHAT war it is we're talking about. Anyone who would surrender in battle before the war is lost, and especially before the war is even fought is a loser, in my opinion. And what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Brothers and Sisters.

We need a winning strategy, folks, in order to win in November. We aren't going to win by accident and we aren't going to win by quitting. We will win by winning, and by (hopefully) learning from our losses.

I ain't no ways tired of fightin' yet (I'm doing it for the children, you know). After we elect McCain is the time for continuing this ideological battle with our President. If he doesn't get in, then there won't even be a discussion.

"There's only two kinds of people" in this political environment - winners and losers. And losers generally never win. Think about it, and then roll your sleeves back up and come back to the fighting. And smile a little - I find it helps a lot. Plus it really pisses of the Lefties.  :)

Good thing I wore my flame-retardant underwear today, huh?   ;-)

Peace!

Mark Brabson

 

Where's the press? Where's the coverage on the war? I know there's a war going on and I want to know as much as can be known about it - why isn't the press covering it?

 

Oh, Congress is out of session. Obviously the war itself is not news, only the pontificating upon the war that comes out of Washington is news. I begin to see how this works - there has to be something in it for the press, i.e. currying favor with one of the major political parties. Without a rabid Congressperson to lead them, their reporting might benefit the opposition.

 

Here's another one: Why won't the MSM cover Islamic terrorists in any way, shape or form? We need to know about the threats we are facing, possibly right here in our own back yards. We know they are here, we probably know who they are - why don't reporters investigate them? Reporters investigate Christians (especially Catholics) all the time, especially extremists, and then try to paint all devotees as extremists.

 

Oh, it's probably better all the way around to just pretend that radical Islamists are no real threat to us at all, and then we don't _HAVE_ to cover them and invite the wrath of twisted Jihadi angst upon our own heads. Let’s leave it to the Bush administration to handle that dangerous stuff, and while we’re at it, let’s cut their legs out from under them so that they can’t protect the American people and when the next terrorist strike happens we can have a field day blaming Bush for failing us again. Yes, this is better all the way around – truly a win-win strategy. Oh, except for the people who might get killed as a result. But heck, at least it won’t be us reporters getting killed – we’re too important to the process!

 

 

They won't tell us what we want to know, they won't tell us what we need to know. Refresh my memory again - what do we need them for?

 

It is clear that one of the MSMs major weapons against Conservatives is simply exercising the power to IGNORE. Without news coverage, news does not exist. In this regard, the MSM creates news by choosing to report. Additionally, smiling in the face of Liberals and frowning in the face of Conservatives has the effect of biasing news coverage. Additionally contesting every assertion Conservatives make and giving a pass to assertions from Liberals has the effect of biasing news coverage.

 

 

Question: After months and years of negative news coverage, why is there suddenly no news at all when it "suddenly" appears that the war is beginning to go well for our side?

 

What are we waiting for - for the Democrat spin machine to come up with a new way to create the perception that all is lost?

 

What is most sickening of all is the notion that, once their feet are held to the fire for their abject failure to objectively report the news, all they need to do is take a few days to publish a few mea-culpa and some half-hearted, faux-introspective drivel like "How could we have been so misled by the Democrats?" or "Where did we go wrong - are we too trusting? Too naive? Too virtuous in every conceivable way?" and they will pledge to do better next time (meaning pledge to not get caught next time) and then they will go right back to business as usual.

 

"If we appear contrite and sincere our public will surely forgive us our missteps - they always do." Perception is reality. This is the mantra of the MSM and of the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party. They are unified in other ways as well, but I digress.

 

Why does anyone still believe anything that the MSM has to say about anything? The MSM doesn't report news - it *filters* news. The MSM personifies the frightening culture of double-speak etc. from Orwell's 1984 and they do so in the worst possible way - the MSM are completely unaccountable to citizens AND to government and they protected by the Constitution. This means the only defense we have against their insidious influence is, ironically, to utilize one of their own major weapons against them. That's right - we ignore them.

 

Turn off the evening news. Put down the leftist newspapers that mis-represent personal bias and wish-fulfillment as fact. Turn off the news reports of mayhem everywhere except for the little slice of the world you occupy - it's all exaggerated and blown up to GRAB your attention, then it is puffed up to HOLD your attention. The common denominator is that it is YOUR ATTENTION that makes it all work.

 

Without your attention, the crap cannot continue. So turn it off, put it down and cut it out of your daily routine. Then one day, eventually, out of the ashes of the news industry should arise a better institution, one that we more rightly deserve, one that is worthy of our sincerity and our earnestness and charitableness and altruism, not one that preys upon these virtues to twist our opinions to fuel their political purposes.

 

On the brighter side, there are new sources of news; sources reporting the rest of the story, the other side of the coin and all the facts that are fit to print. They don't tell us everything, or even everything we might want to know. Some things we do not need to know, like how our best and brightest are tracking and pursuing those who would do us harm. We don't need to know about secret operations and countermeasures and the like - such knowledge is useless to us. And if those who would harm us can read the same papers and watch the same news programs, then they know better how to avoid detection and to succeed in their efforts to maim and kill us and our loved ones.

 

The _new_ news media are responsible and are accountable to the American people. When they make a mistake, we expect them to admit it, to make corrections to their procedures to improve their accuracy and completeness and then to move on, not whitewashing the error or pooh-poohing it and repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

 

Democracies get the government they deserve. Democracies get the news media they deserve. We are a free and proud and terribly fortunate people. We deserve far better than we have been getting from the MSM. And now I EXPECT better!

 

 

 

Nobody believes Democrats are finished with knifing our troops in the back - they just need to find a way to do it without being called on it. Embarrassing President Bush is job #1 for the Democrats, and there is simply no other means of damaging Bush's legacy. If they can't spin the war or re-cast the waras some sort of failure, then George Bush wins. And he winds big.

And Democrats face an uphill battle next year at the polls.  On a level playing field they stand to lose everything. The Clinton/Obama ticket is doomed - too much baggage, too little seriousness. So it's back to President Bush. And the war. And the troops.

They've been focus-grouping their next attack on George all during their recess, and the sad fact is that, for all their bluster, no matter what it turns out to be, their constant deriding of the man and the decisions he had made indicates that George Bush is the strongest Lame Duck President ever!

George Bush has been taking the arrows for the party since day one and he has never complained or cried foul no mater what the Dems have stuck in his eye, no matter how unfair the coverage by the MSM. He has been Preesidential at every turn. Unflappable. The Dems want to (NEED to) knock him down a peg or two, and they still can't do it. For seven years they've tried, and now, when he should be weakest, his sad, sorry approval ratingpractically  towers above their own.

So it'll be back to attacking the war and the strategy and the troops and whatever else they can. Searching high and low for a defector from the camp to trumpet. Oh wait, that failed miserably already. But Dems aren't anything if they aren't  persistent and single-minded - they could try this again. We've got to lose this war. WE MUST LOSE THIS WAR.

The only question is HOW? Dammit, HOW???!!! Are military is unbeatable, unstoppable. The enemy is taking unsustainable casualties. We're clearly winning this war - and this is totally unacceptable.

So quick, while no one is looking, how do we derail this freight train? We can't let it pull into the station next year. We gotta stop it, BUT HOW????????!!!!!!!!

Well, here's one idea - we know that the foreign national terrorists will become more and more desperate and will schedule bigger, more dramatic killings of larger and larger numbers of Iraquis to try to win the battle of public opinion. Hundreds, maybe thousands of deaths per incident. Maybe they can persuade the UN to intervene and save them. Of course that would take a willing press and a more willing Congress. Hmmmmm, no fingerprints on this one - the major killing seems to be on hiatus, waiting for Congress to return to session - better put this one in the possibilities column.

As far as national security is concerned, Congress is our weakest link. Therefore all attacks *must* be aimed at Congress!

Good thinking, laddie! But There are so many other rocks you haven't looked under, don't get complacent!

Stay tuned for the next installment of Democrat Underhanded Cowardice On Parade, coming soon to an unbiased MSM outlet near you.   :-)

Only Libs stand to gain from losing in Iraq.

Our troops lose face and honor, having promised the Iraqis they fought and died for that they would stay until Iraq was safe.

The American people lose safety and security in a post-911 world as well as losing confidence and faith in their military.

Our commander in chief is embarassed on the international stage by his own party pulling the rug out from under him. A prat fall is always good for a laugh, eh?

The Iraqi people lose their dreams of freedom while they lose their lives by the tens of thousands.
(Libs think Iraqi lives are pretty cheap - several hundred thousand brown-skinned lives lost will not cost true-blue Libs any sleep)

Oddly enough, everybody loses with this strategy.

Strangely enough, only Democrat-party Libs could conceivably benefit from the *perceived* failure (and perception is reality - Democrat handbook) that an early pull-out would imply, which could then conceivably be spun into electoral successes in 2008.

No single other individual, group or interest is served AT ALL by an early withdrawal. Surely I am not alone in noticing this lop-sided equation. The Libs are ALL on the side of failure and EVERYONE else involved wants victory over terror.

What's wrong with this picture?

Next up, why aren't reporters reporting?

So, the Libs failed to pull the rug out from under our troops. Since we know that success in the War On Terror is not an option, then it simply follows that the Libs will come back at this from another direction.

But how many more ways can they spin slipping a knife in the back of our best and brightest? I wouldn't have thought they could have pulled off this vote, but I would've been wrong. So I won't underestimate them again.

They have to use the power of the purse, and they have to find a way to scuttle the President's looming success. But how? They can't simply stage a massacre or ambush our soldiers - such moves can always be traced to their source. They can't directly fund the enemy. They can run interference for the enemy (read Nancy Pelosi cavorting with Syria and Iran) but they can't do anything overt. For example, they can make some sort of legal legislative  nosie over something inconsequential to divert our attention from some important or significant threat in a vulnerable location, leaving Al-Qaida free to strike and Bush to blame.  But whatever it is it must be a death blow. It cannot simply be a setback but it must completely deflate and demoralize our brave men and women in unifirm so that everyone will demand they come back.

But how? We can predict that they have to try something drastic - people may commit suicide if this war is won; that's how high the stakes are. Victory cannot be tolerated or a generation of Libs will be left to wander aimlessly in the desert of a political landscape transformed into the likeness of George W. Bush. But how?

I can't figure it yet but I know I'll be kicking myself when it happens. Just like trying to figure where and how Al Qaida will strike next. We know they *will* try, but how?

I think the Libs have some explaining to do, in the off chance that they succeed. To the people of Iraq, especially, but to all the free-minded people of the region. Thousands will be massacred. Maybe millions. And the Libs would force this scenario into existence. No matter the cost. "I don't deal in hypotheticals." to quote just one of the soulless leaders of that party. Referring to thousands of living souls as hypotheticals is the most heinous form of racism imaginable. And these Libs pat themselves on the back for it. Just rememebr - no matter how harshly history will judge these pariahs, it will not be harsh enough to atone for the terrible injustices the Libs advocate, in the name of pursuing their own political power.

By the way, these are the ***EXACT*** same Libs that blamed Bush for not having a "plan for peace" ready to implement after the war against the Iraqi Army and Security forces was won. Fancy that. Hindsight being 20/20 and all, Libs will say nobody knew.

Except that we ***ALL*** know. It has happened before. Sadly, it may well happen again. And the phrase "Never again" has lost its terrible, historical  meaning.

I just have one question for the cut-and-run crowd: What's in it for us?

We've already established what we stand to lose if we pull out - essentially, everything we hold dear. Our honor, our self-respect, our sense of being a highly moral people, our pride in standing up for the right thing, our blue-collar sensibility and drive to always do our very best. In effect, we stand to lose all the things that we try to pass on to our children.

So what do our children get out of this? Not only the disappointment of not succeeding but, even worse, the shame of not trying our very best when the going gets tough and the stakes are high. Theirs will be a legacy of failure and physical cowardice, for surely, we have lost countless soldiers on the battlefield in years gone by and yet mere death did not sway us from our resolve to do the right thing.

Already, the Turks are massing on the northern border, Syria is preparing on the west and Iran is preparing on the east to rush in and divide the spoils when America tucks its tail and runs away.

In the Middle East, memories run long and deep. In the Middle East, conflicts are still raging to this day over slights and insults from centuries past. We have no concept of this - in our culture when a conflict happens we deal with it and move on. In a few months, we have completely forgotten about it.

Our children will inherit the hatred of the Iraqi people who will sing songs of our cowardice and betrayal. It will not be fair, it may not be justified, but it will be their reality. Our children will beg the forgiveness of the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi people will spit on them in return. They'll say things like, "We'll forgive you, when you bring back my mother who was butchered in the genocide in Ahnbar province after you deserted us. Until then, you are wicked and vile beyond the most despicable minions of hell."

The Iraqi people, the *millions* of brave and courageous people who turned out to vote despite threats of the most gruesome deaths for themselves and their families, these people will remember us well and they will remember us forever. They will remember betrayal during the Gulf War when we did not topple Saddam Hussein, then the additional betrayal of leaving them defenseless against the terrorist superpowers in the region - namely Al-Qaeda, Syria, Iran and so on.

Our children will be pariahs, and for what? What do we gain by snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? In a world peopled more by Muslims than anyone else, we will be remembered for centuries to come for having turned our backs on non-white Muslims. They will point out, and rightly so, that we will gladly sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American lives in a just cause, but only if the recipients of our largesse are Caucasian. If they be Korean or Vietnamese or Muslim, then one American life lost is one life too many.

Democrats' racism is usually obscured by their flowery talk, but their walk is always decidedly against the best interests of everyone outside of their own little group. They do not concern themselves with the best interests of anyone else concerned. All that matters, to them, is their stated intentions.

Our troops tell us that our news media are not reporting the real news. The MSM reports body counts in a war. Beyond the first few weeks, escalating body counts are not front-page news. Our troops report incredible progress on numerous fronts, yet the reporters who are embedded with them never report that progress. Apparently, success of any kind is not news. So why are they embedded, if not to tell the story of the war? When all they produce is fodder for the cut-and-run contingent, and the untold stories are remaining untold, what's the point? To score political points against the President.

In this entire imbroglio, the ONLY thing gained is a black eye, politically, for the President. This seething, undisguised hatred of the President is now clearly out of control. It is driving the Democrat party to the exclusion of everything else, including concern for our national security.

By thwarting administration efforts to track and monitor terrorists, Democrats are laying the groundwork for another terrorist event on American soil so they can point their fingers at the President and call him a failure. Never mind that people will die. All that matters is that the President be blamed.

By refusing to close the border with Mexico, Democrats are guaranteeing that terrorists have free passage into the country. Again, when terror strikes, they believe they can simply point their finger at the President. "The President is incompetent." "The generals are incompetent." "The Iraqis are incompetent." This picture is coming into focus rather clearly now. Paint everyone as incompetent, sweep them aside then pick up the pieces later. The only problem is that this is a new world, one in which there will be no pieces left to pick up.

This is SICK!

Surely, there is another, less costly way to defeat your political rivals. But, alas, the stakes may be too high for Democrats to allow for any margin of error.


The cost for establishing a bulkhead of freedom and self-governance in the most volatile region on earth is not too high. We are as willing now as we have always been to pay the price for liberty and justice for all. Now it's time for liberty and justice for Muslims in the Middle East. We will not shrink from our duty. We will not cower. We will not flinch. We will continue to be America. Or we will blithely follow the Democrats into the tightening spiral of the decline of our civilization. I simply cannot believe we are ready to stop being who we have always been.

The racists among us will claim that American blood is too precious to spill over non-white Muslims. I disagree. I am more proud of our men and women fighting today because they fight for the truly disadvantaged, the truly vulnerable, the truly desperate, and the truly deserving, by virtue of standing in line to vote for their freedoms by the MILLIONS in the face of threats of the most grievous bodily harm to themselves and their families. They have the courage, but not the means to defend their most cherished beliefs. That's where we come in.

It is easy to fight back-to-back with the strong nations of Europe against one of their own. It is another to fight back-to-back with the weak and brutalized, powerless and oppressed of the world. This war is the true measure of our character, of our collective moral vision. And one party stands to lose everything if America is victorious. This is the simplest explanation as to why Democrats are blocking, obstructing, and sabotaging our efforts at every turn. They are not traitors, as some would believe. They are simply frightened animals who have backed themselves into a corner.

Cornered animals are always dangerous.

During WWII we lost more soldiers in single skirmishes than we have lost in this entire war. Every month we fought in WWII cost us more than we have lost in this entire war. Daily body counts in today's war are typically less than ten. Comparable daily body counts in WWI would typically be more than a thousand. Losing more than 100 times more soldiers did not deter us then. Losing 100 times less now than then does not deter us now.

What deters some of us now is the fact that we are probably going to succeed, even if only by accident.  

If we succeed in Iraq, the Democrats have no agenda and no platform in 2008. Politically, they are sunk. If America begins to succeed, the Democrat party elites probably will lose power in America for an entire generation. Not for a cycle or two but a generation. They will be seen for the obstructionists they are, for the idea-less panderers they are, for the mindless cowards they are, for the self-important, self-aggrandizing, self-consumed arrogant prima donnas that they are. Moreover, they will have nowhere to turn and no one to blame but themselves. Better to try to blame Bush for whatever flaws they can help engineer in the press over every policy that threatens them. With the help of the left-leaning MSM, they can recover from anything that might go wrong *except* for a victory OF ANY KIND on the battlefield. This is why they are white-hot on the war - they fear it will be their death knell.

Rank and file Democrats cannot believe this. It is too heinous to consider. It is too grotesque to contemplate.

The fact is, however, that the Democrat leadership needs America to fail in order for them to survive beyond 2008. Their only agenda is anti-Bush. The fact that Bush isn't running sort of makes the case pretty obvious: Bush is a lame duck, yet the destroy-the-Bush-legacy fervor is increasing to a fever pitch. Bush cannot be allowed to ride off into history with a military victory under his belt. The Democrat leadership will, therefore, stop at nothing to defeat Bush on and off the battlefield. A Bush with a military victory under his belt will sport very long coattails and cast a mighty long shadow. Defeating Al-Qaeda and the Democrats combined forces will be surely marked as a strategic victory of epic proportions and celebrated in song as the stuff of legends.

So you see, success is simply not an option.

Lastly, Democrats do not understand that once this enemy *believes* he has defeated us, he will spend the next several hundred years driving that point home. Generations of our children will suffer and die at the hands of these terrorists. And Democrats are complicit in their deaths and torture, their humiliation and degradation. Until one of them is taken hostage, they will not understand. Until one of them is slowly beheaded live on the internet, they will not find the courage to act. Until one of them loses an *innocent* loved one, they will not find the compassion to stand in the breach.

Mark my words: Someday, when it is far, far too late, Democrats will apologize for what they have done to this country. When it is far too late they will say, "If we only knew then what we know now…" The saddest fact of the matter is that they could easily know now, if they'd simply set aside their political ambitions and open their eyes.

The Global Warming crowd will soon enough be totally discredited by the simple facts on the ground (unexplained Global Cooling chief among them). At that point, normal people would hang their heads in shame and try to quietly disappear from their soapboxes and slink back under whatever rocks they crawled out from under.

But these whack jobs are anything but normal. They will almost certainly resurface in another guise at a later date when we have all but forgotten about the Great Global Warming Fraud.

 

My question is “what will they do next” because I'd like to just skip their next bit of scare-mongering altogether, thank you very much. This latest bit has been pretty sickening, I really must say. Every day being beat over the head with a lie, my kids being coerced into believing a politically expedient lie, while the truth is clearly visible and widely known and even more widely ignored is the most frustrating thing I have ever had to endure, long term.

 

I just want to get off the tracks before the next big scare/hoax comes along, and I want to get my loved ones off this track as well, thank you very much. I just need a little inside information – what’s the new target?

 

C’mon, you guys can tell me – you know I won’t tell anyone else.

 

 

 

Manmade global warming is a hoax, and all the lefties are in on it.

In the '70s, scientists and politicians and the Hollywood elites (most notably, Ted Dansen) looked through a tiny window onto the geological history of climate change and saw what appeared to be the next Ice Age looming on the horizon. They promptly proceeded to warn us that we would be totally irresponsible unless we began doing something about it and RIGHT AWAY! Catastrophic global cooling was a reality that could not be ignored. Most notably, no one has asked Ted Dansen to lead the effort on this latest Global Warming craze. That might strain credulity just a bit too much - even Pelosi couldn't keep a straight face then.

More recently, scientists and politicians and the Hollywood elites (most notably, Al Gore) looked through a slightly bigger (but still tiny) window onto the geological history of climate change and concluded just the opposite - that catastrophic global WARMING was upon us and we had better act fast to do something about it.

What both of these incidents demonstrate is that it is never wise or prudent to make prognostications based upon a limited subset of the facts involved in a given situation. What we now know about global climate change is that the Earth's climate cycles continually from warm and hot to cool and cold at least every fifteen hundred years. What we know now is that global warming PRODUCES more CO2 in our atmosphere about 800 years after it begins. We also know that while CO2 levels are still high and/or on the rise, the Earth 'mysteriously' enters its cooling phase.  *GASP!*

So, basically, what we know now is that we still DON'T KNOW why the Earth warms and cools as it does. Some scientists say that there's a strong positive correlation to sunspot activity, but the same 'consensus' that says man-made Global Warming is settled science also tells us that the sun, the source of *all* life-giving light and heat for the entire planet, cannot possibly be overheating the earth from time to time. It's only about half a million times bigger than the earth. Clearly, though, it is not big enough to make any sort of difference at all, is it?

But we can. You and I can manufacture cataclysmic heat waves on this same planet just by driving our gas-guzzling SUVs to Grandma Parker's house more often than we really need to. You're buying this, aren't you? Good. Then I guess I won't have to compare you to Hitler.

Just imagine the gas guzzlers they had back when the America was a solid chunk of ice from sea to shining sea.

If the Sun does not cause the warming that we know occurs, then we do not have the foggiest idea *what* causes global warming, although we can say with certainty that CO2 does NOT (CO2 increases ALWAYS lags warming by approx. 800 years and cooling begins DESPITE THE EVER-CONTINUED RISE IN CO2). Conversely, we cannot say what causes global cooling either, but, again we know that it is NOT CO2.

For the honest scientist in this debate, if he/she does not know, then he/she says "I don't know". For the other scientists, one can only guess at their motivations while we know that they are not motivated by any love of science.

For part 2 of this hoax, I now present exhibit A, another liberal hoax - the hoax of "unbiased mainstream media."

Now enter the MSM. MSMers all march to the same drum, so if one of them reports a lie as fact, they are all likely to report the same lie as fact. Because the MSM is so liberal, any liberal "cause celeb" gains instant traction. Never mind that a few minutes of investigative reporting would turn up the lie in the details. The Global Warming Hoax represents the saddest, sorriest performance of the MSM to date. At no point do they question, only parrot. At no point do they investigate, only forward what they've been sent. At no time do they even ask themselves why it is that the Emperor's new clothes look so terribly flimsy - they simply continue to report how fine and majestic the clothes are.

Because MSMers do not hesitate to grill conservatives for breathing the same air as liberals, we can logically use this as a benchmark. When MSMers DON'T question, then they are not reporting but propagandizing instead.

My only question is this: How much longer must we endure this hoax? How long before we get to the "excuses" phase of this whole debacle (ex. "we HAD to hype global warming so that businesses would feel the pressure to get off their butts and start making life better for us all.")   

"We only did it to help raise awareness about our national security!" is another one I expect to hear (and retch at!) shortly thereafter.

"We needed to conserve more anyway - who cares WHY we do it as long as we do it?" Ah yes, the end justifies the means. Seems to me I just recently explained that fallacy to my 11-year-old. He understood it pretty well. Hmmmm, but the MSM doesn't seem to get it despite their collective wisdom. Golly gee, I wonder why might that be? "Honest mistake" to be sure.

How long do we have to wait before the MSM begins their requisite "soul-searching" and introspection to determine why they were so easily led down this path of public disservice in the first place? How long before they excuse themselves for their good intentions and pat themselves on the back for upholding the public trust by lying to us - you all know this is coming too!

How long, America?

How long before you tune them out and turn them off and, finally, shut them up?

The trouble with the so-called "Immigration" bill is the flawed premise it is based upon. We're going to institute a regulation that applies to people whose known track record is of breaking federal law by crossing our borders without permission.

Does anyone else see the total illogic of this?

The idea that illegal immigrants will pay *ANY* attention to a simple regulation is simply ridiculous, when they lose nothing by ignoring it completely, just as they do federal law.

Conversely, after  you make these illegals legal, then why will they settle for less than ANY OTHER AMERICAN? Why should they settle for low-paying jobs when they can compete for the best jobs?

This is stupid either way!

The trouble with this is that lawmakers want desperately to pass *something* , anything that will allow them to posture politically. They don't care if the legislation is effective or useful, as long as they can spin it to their advantage come election season, which, by the way is right around the corner - go figure!

The trouble with this is that lawmakers want desperately to *appear* as if they are doing something, but are desperately afraid of actually *doing* something, like ENFORCING EXISTING LAWS!!!!

The trouble with this is that lawmakers addressed this before and what did we get out of it? A bigger problem. This is the hallmark of federal legislative processes  with regard to large and important issues. Our legislators ALMOST ALWAYS get it wrong.  Why? Because they think that simply passing a law solves a problem. 

The trouble with this is that several years from now we'll be coming back to deal with this in an even bigger, more panic-ridden atmosphere than we have today. And we will be told we have to pass some more legislation to fix it. In the short term, politicians gain while in the long term, we, the people, lose.

The trouble with this is that it is STILL easier to be here illegally than legally. There are no PENALTIES for going the wrong way around. Until this is *COMPLETELY* reversed, the problem will *NEVER EVEN BEGIN* to be solved. Everything else is pure sophistry, read political advantage.

This is only beginning to scratch the surface of the stupidity this represents. So far, this is all just so much wasted time.......