We live in an age where the Democrat Party runs roughshod over anyone in their way and will destroy anyone and everything in its path. They have no qualms about accusing people of racism and ruining the character of people in order to further their own political agenda.
And now the Republicans want to play nice when it comes to Sonia Sotomayor and the Supreme Court. I am not saying that they should treat her as the Democrats did to Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito or John Roberts or Robert Bork. But they should not be afraid to come out against her and question her actions and her words. This is a legitimate time to do so. And it is part of their role in the nomination process.
However, the Republicans are afraid of offending the Hispanics in this country. They are afraid of offending women. They do not want a harsh tone. They want to be nice, as can be seen in this article on foxnews.com. However, they have short memories. Do they forget how the Democrats treated any Republican nominee to the courts, especially Miguel Estrada? The Democrats would not allow a vote on him because he was Hispanic. I guess the Hispanic community has a short memory.
The beltway Republicans are mad at Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for speaking out against this nominee. These 2 men have backed up what they have said about her with facts. They are not making things up. They are passionate about their beliefs and what they think is right for this country. Yet, Republicans in Washington are pusillanimous, feckless, and useless. They would rather pick a fight with non-elected public figures than do battle over the direction of the high court.
The Republican establishment just wants to get along. They think that by being more like Democrats, they can regain power. Even one-time conservative stalwarts like Orrin Hatch and John Cornyn are being sucked up into this shameless approach to politics. I guess they have not figured out that Democrats do not want Republicans in office (no matter what their ideology might happen to be), and true conservative, core, grass-roots Republicans do not want Democrat Lite in office with a republican nameplate.
We want people who stand up for the values that we believe in. Let us not forget that we ran a candidate for President who tried to be a Democrat. And we lost big-time. This approach does not work. Just look at Arlen Specter. He had to change parties in order to have a chance to get elected, because the Republicans in Pennsylvania were tired of him selling us out.
According to Peggy Noonan, who was a speech writer for President Reagan and someone who fancies herself a conservative, conservatives like Limbaugh and Republicans like Gingrich should act like grownups. She called the Sotomayor pick 'a "brilliant political pick" because the GOP has struggled to attract and retain Hispanics and women, and because Sotomayor's rags-to-riches story is so moving.' (I note here that these issues have nothing to do with the makings of a Supreme Court Justice). What about Clarence Thomas's story? That did not impress the Democrats. That did not cause them to treat him better. Where was Peggy Noonan then?
She then goes on to say that '"Politically she's [Sotomayor] like a beautiful doll containing a canister of poison gas: Break her and you die," Noonan wrote.' Is Noonan for real? Did she forget what Reagan did and stood for in our once-great party?
She then sums it up like this: '"Excite the base? How about excite a moderate, or interest an independent?" she wrote. "How about gain the attention of people who aren't already on your side?"' Noonan makes me sick. She should be excommunicated from our party and should not be considered as a conservative by anyone (except, of course, by the New York Times, and MSNBC, who happen to love these stand-up-for-nothing Republicans).
This is just ludicrous. Without the base, the Republican Party will not win. Basically, she is saying to the base of the party, 'Hey, you don't matter any more. Go find your own party. We would rather be like Democrats and ruin this country and never win another election." As far as I am concerned, this woman is an embarrassment. I am sure Reagan is doing somersaults in his grave right now.
Compromise does not win elections. Standing firm on what you believe will win elections. Conservatism wins when it is on the ballot. All we need to do is go back to Reagan, the Contract with America, and, to a certain degree, George W. Bush. We should not run from the conservative mantle. Rather, we should embrace it and be proud of it. Not like these pansies now who claim to represent us.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Thursday, May 28, 2009
More Supreme Court thoughts....
Well, it has been a few days since Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to be the next Supreme Court Justice. What have we learned since then?
Well, we learned that the President and his administration think that no one should oppose her. I guess this is due to the fact that we are to do exactly as the President tells us to do. He knows all and see all; and, therefore, we should just fall in line.
We cannot oppose her. If we do, then we are anti-Hispanic, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-diabetes, anti-Obama. Basically, we are just a bunch of redneck bigots.
They like to tell us that she has a compelling life story, as if this was the first time this ever happened. This is not the case. I would like to urge you to read Clarence Thomas's book My Grandfather's Son. He had a very compelling life story, and look how he was treated, especially by the current V.P.
When the Democrats opposed Republican nominees, they never did so on grounds of character or judicial ability. They did so based on personal attacks and the fact that they were nominated by a Republican President. If the Democrats were so bent on minorities in judicial positions, then they would not have filibustered Miguel Estrada. They should have supported him simply because of his lineage. Now, they try to portray those against Sotomayor as racists? Is there a pot calling a kettle black somewhere? I am not quite sure what hypocrisy smells like, but I think this might be it.
I would like to see the best person be nominated to the Supreme Court. I do not want to see tokens on the court. If she is the best person for the job, then she should be there. If not, then she should not be there. It's that simple. However, I know it will not happen like this.
The Democrats do not need any Republicans to pass this nomination through, even though they will most likely pick up a few along the way. I would like to see Republicans, though, stand up for American and stand for what is right. They need to ask the serious kinds of questions that need to be asked of a nominee to the Supreme Court. Then we, as Americans, can judge whether or not this nominee is qualified.
Well, we learned that the President and his administration think that no one should oppose her. I guess this is due to the fact that we are to do exactly as the President tells us to do. He knows all and see all; and, therefore, we should just fall in line.
We cannot oppose her. If we do, then we are anti-Hispanic, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-diabetes, anti-Obama. Basically, we are just a bunch of redneck bigots.
They like to tell us that she has a compelling life story, as if this was the first time this ever happened. This is not the case. I would like to urge you to read Clarence Thomas's book My Grandfather's Son. He had a very compelling life story, and look how he was treated, especially by the current V.P.
When the Democrats opposed Republican nominees, they never did so on grounds of character or judicial ability. They did so based on personal attacks and the fact that they were nominated by a Republican President. If the Democrats were so bent on minorities in judicial positions, then they would not have filibustered Miguel Estrada. They should have supported him simply because of his lineage. Now, they try to portray those against Sotomayor as racists? Is there a pot calling a kettle black somewhere? I am not quite sure what hypocrisy smells like, but I think this might be it.
I would like to see the best person be nominated to the Supreme Court. I do not want to see tokens on the court. If she is the best person for the job, then she should be there. If not, then she should not be there. It's that simple. However, I know it will not happen like this.
The Democrats do not need any Republicans to pass this nomination through, even though they will most likely pick up a few along the way. I would like to see Republicans, though, stand up for American and stand for what is right. They need to ask the serious kinds of questions that need to be asked of a nominee to the Supreme Court. Then we, as Americans, can judge whether or not this nominee is qualified.
Were Chrysler dealer closings politically motivated?
There is much speculation of impropriety about the way in which Chrysler and the government chose which dealers would be closed and which would remain open. What did they use as a basis for their decision?
For me, the obvious way to close down dealerships would be to get rid of the dealers that were not performing well and not making money. Then, I would look to consolidate dealerships in the same market. If more dealerships needed to be closed, then maybe you would decide by sales volume. there are many business-savvy ways to do this.
However, many bloggers are looking a little deeper into this to see if there was any political payback involved. Were dealers that made contributions to Democrats rewarded? Were dealers that made contributions to Republicans punished?
We should withhold judgment until the facts are out. However, given this administration's penchant for political bullying, I must say I would not be surprised if there was politics involved. This could possibly be a case study in Chicago-style, thug politics. We will have to wait and see how this transpires. But please, do not expect the mainstream media (which is the spokesgroup for the Administration) to do any vigorous research into this. They want it to pass quietly.
But let us remember what happened after President Bush fired a few of the U.S. Attorneys a couple years back. Everyone was outraged that this was a politically motivated act. In fact, there are still hearings going on about this (Karl Rove had a meeting concerning this issue last week). Why was this issue of firing U.S. Attorneys such a big deal, but the possibility of the Administration closing hundreds of dealerships based on politics OK?
The U.S. Attorneys serve serve at the pleasure of the President. It is his prerogative to keep them or let them go. There was nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about what happened to this small group of attorneys.
However, if the Administration is using politics as their basis for closing dealerships, then there is a tremendous problem. What it says is that you need to support us or we will put you out of business. In other words, "You need to pay in order to play" (just like the Illinois Senate seat that Rolland Burris sits in right now). These dealerships are not open for the pleasure of the President. These dealerships are open to serve the public. When the government starts to get involved and decide which businesses stay in business based on politics, then we have reached an awfully slippery slope. Where does it end?
What would have happened if President Bush tried something like this with any given industry? He would have been crucified for it, and rightfully so. Why, then, do we have a double standard when it comes to President Obama?
Now, there are going to be several hundreds of dealerships going out of business. many may stay open and continue selling used cars or remain in the auto repair business. But this is still going to lead to unemployment, affecting potentially thousands of people and families. This is sure to help the economy get better.
But don't worry. The President nominated someone to the Supreme Court who will have empathy for you..
For me, the obvious way to close down dealerships would be to get rid of the dealers that were not performing well and not making money. Then, I would look to consolidate dealerships in the same market. If more dealerships needed to be closed, then maybe you would decide by sales volume. there are many business-savvy ways to do this.
However, many bloggers are looking a little deeper into this to see if there was any political payback involved. Were dealers that made contributions to Democrats rewarded? Were dealers that made contributions to Republicans punished?
We should withhold judgment until the facts are out. However, given this administration's penchant for political bullying, I must say I would not be surprised if there was politics involved. This could possibly be a case study in Chicago-style, thug politics. We will have to wait and see how this transpires. But please, do not expect the mainstream media (which is the spokesgroup for the Administration) to do any vigorous research into this. They want it to pass quietly.
But let us remember what happened after President Bush fired a few of the U.S. Attorneys a couple years back. Everyone was outraged that this was a politically motivated act. In fact, there are still hearings going on about this (Karl Rove had a meeting concerning this issue last week). Why was this issue of firing U.S. Attorneys such a big deal, but the possibility of the Administration closing hundreds of dealerships based on politics OK?
The U.S. Attorneys serve serve at the pleasure of the President. It is his prerogative to keep them or let them go. There was nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about what happened to this small group of attorneys.
However, if the Administration is using politics as their basis for closing dealerships, then there is a tremendous problem. What it says is that you need to support us or we will put you out of business. In other words, "You need to pay in order to play" (just like the Illinois Senate seat that Rolland Burris sits in right now). These dealerships are not open for the pleasure of the President. These dealerships are open to serve the public. When the government starts to get involved and decide which businesses stay in business based on politics, then we have reached an awfully slippery slope. Where does it end?
What would have happened if President Bush tried something like this with any given industry? He would have been crucified for it, and rightfully so. Why, then, do we have a double standard when it comes to President Obama?
Now, there are going to be several hundreds of dealerships going out of business. many may stay open and continue selling used cars or remain in the auto repair business. But this is still going to lead to unemployment, affecting potentially thousands of people and families. This is sure to help the economy get better.
But don't worry. The President nominated someone to the Supreme Court who will have empathy for you..
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Thoughts on the Supreme Court
So, the President has made his nomination for the soon-to-be-vacant Supreme Court seat. His nominee is Sonia Sotomayor, an Hispanic-American woman from working class parents. She is a woman who came from an unremarkable background and worked hard to get where she is today.
It is not my intention here to debate the merits of her nomination and whether or not she is qualified. That information will become apparent in the weeks and months to come, and we can make up our minds on that issue as this process plays out in public.
I do find a few things to be quite interesting in this whole Supreme Court issue, though. First, we need to look at the type of person that the President wants on the Supreme Court. He never said that he wanted someone with a firm grasp of the Constitution and the fact that the Judicial Branch of government is to be impartial. He never said that he wanted someone who would base decisions on the law of the United States, not on laws that he/she wanted to see, or foreign law that has no application to us.
Rather, he wanted someone that could empathize with the less fortunate. I am not sure when this became the role of the judiciary. The empathizing role is played out by Congress. They are elected to represent us, and therefore, empathize with those who elected them. Judges, though, are to be impartial, not basing decisions on what is fair or unfair, but rather on what is legal or illegal. They are to rule on the law, not make new law because they view someone to be less fortunate than others.
The founders of our country were smart enough to know that these roles should be separate. However, as each generation goes by, and as slight changes are made and accepted with each generation, soon we forget what the original intent of the founders was. And sadly, many do not care. And these ‘leaders’ are smart enough to know that drastic changes at any given time or usually not welcome. However, they know that slight changes, over time, will have the same effect and that people are more willing to accept this kind of change.
Another thing I find quite interesting is the reaction of the mainstream media. NBC has come out and asked the question that can be summed up like this: Are Republicans dumb enough to object to an Hispanic woman being nominated to the court? Granted, I changed the wording of the question, but this is the point that they are trying to get across.
I do not know about you, but I view the job of Supreme Court Justice as being quite a prestigious position. Only 9 people can hold that position at any one time. It is a lifetime appointment. We should be interested in nominating the best person to that position. Political correctness has no business in the selection process.
I am not quite sure how being an Hispanic or being a woman has anything to do with being a Supreme Court Justice. It seems to me that if you are rendering opinions on legal cases based on existing laws, then gender and nationality should not need to play a part in the whole process. It should be knowledge of the law, as well as its application in the cases that are in front of you, that should be the guiding factor in who is worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court.
This is really where Presidential elections matter. Presidents are not able to sign their own bills into law without Congressional approval. Presidents are the beneficiaries of good economic times and the punching bags during bad economic times. However, the people that they appoint to the Supreme Court (and who are approved by the Senate) are there for a long time, much longer than the President that appointed them. They have the opportunity to rule on law or make new law.
The President has all the votes he needs to push this nomination through. My question is this: Will there be Democrats (and Republicans) who have the courage to stand up and ask the right questions to see if this candidate is truly worthy of being s Supreme Court justice? Will Democrats dare vote against the President? Will Republicans finally have the courage to stand up and do the right thing?
I am not saying that they should treat the nominee in the same manner the Judge Bork was treated, or in the same manner that Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts were treated. They can be fair, courteous, and still ask the hard questions. I encourage all Senators to do this.
It is not my intention here to debate the merits of her nomination and whether or not she is qualified. That information will become apparent in the weeks and months to come, and we can make up our minds on that issue as this process plays out in public.
I do find a few things to be quite interesting in this whole Supreme Court issue, though. First, we need to look at the type of person that the President wants on the Supreme Court. He never said that he wanted someone with a firm grasp of the Constitution and the fact that the Judicial Branch of government is to be impartial. He never said that he wanted someone who would base decisions on the law of the United States, not on laws that he/she wanted to see, or foreign law that has no application to us.
Rather, he wanted someone that could empathize with the less fortunate. I am not sure when this became the role of the judiciary. The empathizing role is played out by Congress. They are elected to represent us, and therefore, empathize with those who elected them. Judges, though, are to be impartial, not basing decisions on what is fair or unfair, but rather on what is legal or illegal. They are to rule on the law, not make new law because they view someone to be less fortunate than others.
The founders of our country were smart enough to know that these roles should be separate. However, as each generation goes by, and as slight changes are made and accepted with each generation, soon we forget what the original intent of the founders was. And sadly, many do not care. And these ‘leaders’ are smart enough to know that drastic changes at any given time or usually not welcome. However, they know that slight changes, over time, will have the same effect and that people are more willing to accept this kind of change.
Another thing I find quite interesting is the reaction of the mainstream media. NBC has come out and asked the question that can be summed up like this: Are Republicans dumb enough to object to an Hispanic woman being nominated to the court? Granted, I changed the wording of the question, but this is the point that they are trying to get across.
I do not know about you, but I view the job of Supreme Court Justice as being quite a prestigious position. Only 9 people can hold that position at any one time. It is a lifetime appointment. We should be interested in nominating the best person to that position. Political correctness has no business in the selection process.
I am not quite sure how being an Hispanic or being a woman has anything to do with being a Supreme Court Justice. It seems to me that if you are rendering opinions on legal cases based on existing laws, then gender and nationality should not need to play a part in the whole process. It should be knowledge of the law, as well as its application in the cases that are in front of you, that should be the guiding factor in who is worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court.
This is really where Presidential elections matter. Presidents are not able to sign their own bills into law without Congressional approval. Presidents are the beneficiaries of good economic times and the punching bags during bad economic times. However, the people that they appoint to the Supreme Court (and who are approved by the Senate) are there for a long time, much longer than the President that appointed them. They have the opportunity to rule on law or make new law.
The President has all the votes he needs to push this nomination through. My question is this: Will there be Democrats (and Republicans) who have the courage to stand up and ask the right questions to see if this candidate is truly worthy of being s Supreme Court justice? Will Democrats dare vote against the President? Will Republicans finally have the courage to stand up and do the right thing?
I am not saying that they should treat the nominee in the same manner the Judge Bork was treated, or in the same manner that Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts were treated. They can be fair, courteous, and still ask the hard questions. I encourage all Senators to do this.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Indian dad avoids washing for 35 years because......
I came across this article yesterday concerning a man from India who had not washed in 35 years in an attempt to assure that his next child would be male. He already has seven daughters.
Some humorous excerpts from the article............
Some humorous excerpts from the article............
- Kailash "Kalau" Singh replaces bathing and brushing his teeth with a "fire bath" every evening when he stands on one leg beside a bonfire, smokes marijuana and says prayers to Lord Shiva. My thoughts: Yet another reason not to legalize marijuana.
- "It's just like using water to take a bath," Kalau was reported as saying. "A fire bath helps kill germs and infection in the body." My thoughts: He better hope he does not catch on fire from the stench surrounding him.
- He refused to take the ritual plunge into the Ganges River, even after the death of his brother. My thoughts: You must really be filthy if dipping in the Ganges River will actually help clean you up.
- Kalau's hygiene regime has taken its toll on his professional life. The grocery store that he used to own closed when customers stopped shopping there due to his "unhealthy personality."
First of all, the man is 63 years old, so why is he looking to have more children now? I hope his wife is not the same age. Second, what woman would want to have a child with a man who has not washed in 35 years? I am not sure that this would be healthy for her. Third, i just turned 36 a couple days ago. This man has not washed since I was 1 yr. old. That is truly disgusting.
Miss California: Much Ado About Nothing?
By now, I am sure you are all aware of the events surrounding the Miss USA 2009 Pageant and the comments made by Miss California, Carrie Prejean. When asked by Perez Hilton regarding her views on homosexual marriage, she stated that, due to the way she was brought up and due to her Christian faith, she thinks that gay marriage is wrong. However, having the freedoms that we do in America, it is still somebody's choice to choose how they live.
Now, I am having a problem with seeing what the problem is with her statement. After all, it is consistent with the opinion that President Obama stated on the campaign trail. And, after all, he is all-wise. So if she agrees with the one who can do no wrong, then she should be applauded. Also, she never says that we should do away with gay people. All she is saying is that she believes they should not marry.
Well, the militant homosexual movement is doing everything they can to destroy this woman for having an opinion. And let's keep in mind that she did not come out and just offer her opinion. They asked her for it. I guess they were expecting a politically correct answer that you would expect to hear at a beauty pageant.
They are using the fact that she said she was a Christian to attack her. She must be some sort of bigot and gay-basher. Now, they are railing on her for posing for provocative photographs. Granted, these pictures should not have happened, and I am not going to defend the fact that she posed for the pictures. This is not the point of my posting. However, since the militants are unable to debate, in an educated manner, what she said concerning gay marriage, they are trying to attack her on a different front. They say that she is a hypocrite for not being consistent in her Christian beliefs. They are using this issue to destroy the person.
Also, why is she under attack for posing for these kinds of photos while Miss Rhode Island did that same thing, She is not being put under the microscope for this. Shouldn't there be equal treatment? To the militants, this does not matter, becasue they do not care about the fact she posed for the pictures. It is all about destroying the person that disagrees with them. This is typical Larry Flynt politics.
Now, I have several questions regarding this whole situation:
Now, I am having a problem with seeing what the problem is with her statement. After all, it is consistent with the opinion that President Obama stated on the campaign trail. And, after all, he is all-wise. So if she agrees with the one who can do no wrong, then she should be applauded. Also, she never says that we should do away with gay people. All she is saying is that she believes they should not marry.
Well, the militant homosexual movement is doing everything they can to destroy this woman for having an opinion. And let's keep in mind that she did not come out and just offer her opinion. They asked her for it. I guess they were expecting a politically correct answer that you would expect to hear at a beauty pageant.
They are using the fact that she said she was a Christian to attack her. She must be some sort of bigot and gay-basher. Now, they are railing on her for posing for provocative photographs. Granted, these pictures should not have happened, and I am not going to defend the fact that she posed for the pictures. This is not the point of my posting. However, since the militants are unable to debate, in an educated manner, what she said concerning gay marriage, they are trying to attack her on a different front. They say that she is a hypocrite for not being consistent in her Christian beliefs. They are using this issue to destroy the person.
Also, why is she under attack for posing for these kinds of photos while Miss Rhode Island did that same thing, She is not being put under the microscope for this. Shouldn't there be equal treatment? To the militants, this does not matter, becasue they do not care about the fact she posed for the pictures. It is all about destroying the person that disagrees with them. This is typical Larry Flynt politics.
Now, I have several questions regarding this whole situation:
- When did it start to matter what Miss USA contestants thought about social issues? We all know that this is a beauty pageant, not a philosophy round table. Let's face it, people who watch beauty pageants are not interested in the political leanings of the contestants. It is all about looks, not brains.
- Why would they let someone like Perez Hilton be a judge? Surely, the organizers should have known something like this was going to happen.
- Why would they allow such a politically charged question to be asked? Since they did not know what the answer was going to be, they should have known that this would cause controversy, no matter what the answer would be.
- What happened to free speech? While George Bush was President, free speech was something that the militants were always in favor of, especially if it demeaned then-President Bush. If you disagree with them, you are basically guilty of hate speech. Now, where is the hypocrisy?
- Are these pageants relevant? Should we be allowing a beauty pageant (and now the press) to set the tone on the national discourse? Do people actually even watch these pageants anymore?
- Is Donald Trump using this situation to gain publicity for himself and the Miss USA Pageant? Of course, he is. And he is playing it for all it is worth.
I am sure that Carrie Prejean wishes that this would go away. I applaud her for standing by her views that gay marriage is wrong. She is not backing down from that. However, we all need to be aware of the situations we put ourselves in, because they could come back to bite us at some point in the future.
Friday, May 1, 2009
What is a moderate?
To me, a moderate is someone who does not want to take a stance on a difficult issue. They wait to see how the majority decide, and they just jump in line with them. That is a moderate.
Too many of these people have infiltrated the Republican Party. Thankfully, one of them just left for the Democrat Party, and that would be Arlen Specter. In fact, he was a liberal. he passed by moderate a long time ago.
My problem now is that the Democrats are saying the Republican Party needs to be more moderate. They are too right-wing now. I would say that this is hypocrisy at its finest. When was the last time that the Democrats allowed a moderate to have a prominent position within their party? Does anyone remember what they did to Joe Lieberman? They do not want moderation in their party. They want strict adherence to a specific left-wing agenda.
However, the Democrats are on to something that the Republicans have not yet figured out: Moderates do not help you win elections. Rather, they will pull you down. That is the reason that they want the moderates on the Republican side. They know that moderates do not stand for anything, so they want them with the Republicans in order to split the party apart.
Look what has happened to the GOP when they allow moderates to lead: They lost control of the House, the lost control of the Senate, and John McCain was beaten handily in the 2008 Presidential election. Moderates do not help the Republican Party win. Rather, just the opposite is true.
Now, Republican leaders in Pennsylvania do not think Pat Toomey can beat Arlen Specter in a general election. While that may be true, now is the time to back the candidate and support him, not try to tear him down and throw another moderate into the front-runners spot. The leaders want former Gov. Tom Ridge to run for Senate. While he would be better than Specter, he still has his faults.
But a moderate is not the answer. We need a principled person that we can vote for. We need someone who will stand up for the constituents that voted him/her into office. We need someone who has the courage of his convictions. Now is the time to stand up for something, which would disqualify any moderate who is interested in the job.
Too many of these people have infiltrated the Republican Party. Thankfully, one of them just left for the Democrat Party, and that would be Arlen Specter. In fact, he was a liberal. he passed by moderate a long time ago.
My problem now is that the Democrats are saying the Republican Party needs to be more moderate. They are too right-wing now. I would say that this is hypocrisy at its finest. When was the last time that the Democrats allowed a moderate to have a prominent position within their party? Does anyone remember what they did to Joe Lieberman? They do not want moderation in their party. They want strict adherence to a specific left-wing agenda.
However, the Democrats are on to something that the Republicans have not yet figured out: Moderates do not help you win elections. Rather, they will pull you down. That is the reason that they want the moderates on the Republican side. They know that moderates do not stand for anything, so they want them with the Republicans in order to split the party apart.
Look what has happened to the GOP when they allow moderates to lead: They lost control of the House, the lost control of the Senate, and John McCain was beaten handily in the 2008 Presidential election. Moderates do not help the Republican Party win. Rather, just the opposite is true.
Now, Republican leaders in Pennsylvania do not think Pat Toomey can beat Arlen Specter in a general election. While that may be true, now is the time to back the candidate and support him, not try to tear him down and throw another moderate into the front-runners spot. The leaders want former Gov. Tom Ridge to run for Senate. While he would be better than Specter, he still has his faults.
But a moderate is not the answer. We need a principled person that we can vote for. We need someone who will stand up for the constituents that voted him/her into office. We need someone who has the courage of his convictions. Now is the time to stand up for something, which would disqualify any moderate who is interested in the job.
ABC News: Helping out our enemies?
Yesterday, ABC News revealed the identities of 2 men who were intimately involved in the so-called torturing of terrorist detainees. What were they thinking? What is their motivation here? Were they aware that they are endangering the safety of these men? Better yet, who in this administration is leaking this kind of information?
Waterboarding was last on the list of tactics to use when interrogating top-level terrorist suspects. I do not believe it is torture. Yes, it may scare the daylights out of them. Yes, they may be uncomfortable. But if this is what is necessary to get information from these people in order to save American lives, than that is what we need to do. Keep in mind, these are the same people that cut the hands off of people who steal, stone women who commit adultery, chop the heads off of their enemies, fly planes into buildings. However, if you listen to the spin machine of the administration (MSNBC), you would think that this is the worst thing that you could ever do to someone. Keep in mind, no one ever died during this (not even close). They want people's heads (figuratively) for waterboarding terrorists, but they think partial-birth abortion is OK? Explain the humanity of that one to me: You can't waterboard a terrorist, but you can suck the brains out of a halfway-born child? Who are the real thugs?
Anyway, by identifying these men, ABC News has put a target on the backs of these men and they have endangered their families. First of all, the media and Democrats in Congress are going to be after these guys. They would love nothing more than to have a show trial with these men. Also, by releasing names, they have helped our enemies know who was behind our plans and methods for getting enemy information. I am sure that they will not let this information go by the wayside and go on their merry way.
Why did ABC News do this? Is there any benefit to do doing this? Why do these news organizations find glory in revealing sensitive information that is related to national security? The media still wants to crucify members of the Bush administration for 'outing' Valerie Plame, the desk jockey analyst at the CIA who sent her husband on a political mission. There is now way on earth that Valerie Plame was more critical to the CIA than these men who were outed by ABC News. Plame was nothing. She just happens to fit a media template for the 'Blame Bush First' crowd, while these men are guilty of the worst sins that mankind could have ever committed. Keep in mind, the gentlemen that revealed her identity, Richard Armitage, has never been attacked and investigated by the major news outlets.
There is also the issue of how they got their hands on this sensitive information? Who in this administration leaked this one? If revealing Plame's name was so bad, then this one is 50 times worse. These men were critical in getting information from terrorists to keep us safe from attack. Whoever revealed the identities of these men should be put in jail for revealing top secret information about who was involved and what we were doing. Then to top if all off, this wonderful administration is going to release pictures of what was going on. This is political ineptitude, at its finest.
Plame is guilty of sending her husband on a politically driven CIA trip to try to undermine U.S. foreign policy. She is the traitor. The men who have been outed are patriots. When will the current President understand that his job is to provide protection for Americans. His job is not to be nice to terrorists, to apologize to them for being treated harshly, to give them Constitutional protections afforded to American citizens. Why is he more interested in protecting the rights of the terrorists than he is in protecting the lives of the American people? And he is using media outlets like ABC News to help him. And he has many people falling down at his feet and worshipping him. If this is his view of what is good for America, if this is the change we need, then we are in trouble.
Waterboarding was last on the list of tactics to use when interrogating top-level terrorist suspects. I do not believe it is torture. Yes, it may scare the daylights out of them. Yes, they may be uncomfortable. But if this is what is necessary to get information from these people in order to save American lives, than that is what we need to do. Keep in mind, these are the same people that cut the hands off of people who steal, stone women who commit adultery, chop the heads off of their enemies, fly planes into buildings. However, if you listen to the spin machine of the administration (MSNBC), you would think that this is the worst thing that you could ever do to someone. Keep in mind, no one ever died during this (not even close). They want people's heads (figuratively) for waterboarding terrorists, but they think partial-birth abortion is OK? Explain the humanity of that one to me: You can't waterboard a terrorist, but you can suck the brains out of a halfway-born child? Who are the real thugs?
Anyway, by identifying these men, ABC News has put a target on the backs of these men and they have endangered their families. First of all, the media and Democrats in Congress are going to be after these guys. They would love nothing more than to have a show trial with these men. Also, by releasing names, they have helped our enemies know who was behind our plans and methods for getting enemy information. I am sure that they will not let this information go by the wayside and go on their merry way.
Why did ABC News do this? Is there any benefit to do doing this? Why do these news organizations find glory in revealing sensitive information that is related to national security? The media still wants to crucify members of the Bush administration for 'outing' Valerie Plame, the desk jockey analyst at the CIA who sent her husband on a political mission. There is now way on earth that Valerie Plame was more critical to the CIA than these men who were outed by ABC News. Plame was nothing. She just happens to fit a media template for the 'Blame Bush First' crowd, while these men are guilty of the worst sins that mankind could have ever committed. Keep in mind, the gentlemen that revealed her identity, Richard Armitage, has never been attacked and investigated by the major news outlets.
There is also the issue of how they got their hands on this sensitive information? Who in this administration leaked this one? If revealing Plame's name was so bad, then this one is 50 times worse. These men were critical in getting information from terrorists to keep us safe from attack. Whoever revealed the identities of these men should be put in jail for revealing top secret information about who was involved and what we were doing. Then to top if all off, this wonderful administration is going to release pictures of what was going on. This is political ineptitude, at its finest.
Plame is guilty of sending her husband on a politically driven CIA trip to try to undermine U.S. foreign policy. She is the traitor. The men who have been outed are patriots. When will the current President understand that his job is to provide protection for Americans. His job is not to be nice to terrorists, to apologize to them for being treated harshly, to give them Constitutional protections afforded to American citizens. Why is he more interested in protecting the rights of the terrorists than he is in protecting the lives of the American people? And he is using media outlets like ABC News to help him. And he has many people falling down at his feet and worshipping him. If this is his view of what is good for America, if this is the change we need, then we are in trouble.
ABC News: Inadvertently helping the enemy?
Yesterday, ABC News revealed the identitiesm/Blotter/story?id=7471217&page=1of 2 men who were intimately involved in the so-called torutring of terrorist detainees. Was this responsible journalism? Was this something the public needed to know? What was the motivation behind this? Better yet, why is the administration leaking this kind of information in the first place?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)