Famous New York Yankees catcher Yogi Berra has a saying, "It's deja vu all over again." Seeing how Britain is handling the situation with Iran holding British military personnel hostage, Berra must be saying, "See?"
Tony Blair is taking the wrong tack by threatening to go to the United Nations if Iran didn't release the hostages, who were captured in territorial waters Iran claims is theirs. For one, the UN is inept. Does anyone really think the UN is going to do anything about President Imadinnerjacket that will make him say, "You know, we'd better release those hostages"? Of course not! Saddam Hussein pretty much proved the UN is a wet toilet paper tiger. Single ply, of course.
Then, there's Iran's claim that the Brits were in Iranian waters. For us to research this, we'd have to know where the Brits were and whether they were inside the internationally accepted borders of the body of water in question. The hostages have already "admitted" they were in Iranian waters, but before I'd accept such an admission I want to see the facts. After all, Rosie O'Donnell says any confession given under duress isn't valid, and we all know how much the faux left loves Rosie, right?
The biggest problem with the way Blair is handling this newest Iranian hostage crisis is that Iran has no reason to negotiate. As long as President Imadinnerjacket has the hostages and the Brits keep playing the wuss, he has them over a barrel. And since Imadinnerjacket believes war with the West will bring back the 12 Imam, it's a win-win situation for him.
Except in one situation. There is one way Britain can save face, Iran can lose complete control of the situation, and America can stand back and watch it happen. Remember when Imadinnerjacket claimed he would wipe Israel off the map? The way to go about freeing the hostages is to send in Israeli commandos. They have a score to settle with Iran, as well as a war in Lebanon to make up for, so they would be ready to go. Imagine Imadinnerjacket having to explain to his country that Israel freed the hostages. He would be in deeper trouble than he already is in with the religious leaders in Iran, and especially with the Iranian youth who are already pushing for reform.
If I were Blair, I'd be on the horn with Israel while playing the role of a Neville Chamberlain/Jimmy Carter clone. Unfortunately, I'm not Blair, and he might literally be a Chamberlain/Carter clone, so we'll have to suffer through deja vu all over again as Blair repeats the mistakes of the aforementioned buffoons.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
NOW, Baby Daddies, and Bad Ideas
File this under "The Hell????" There is an initiative called the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative where fathers are taught job skills and how to connect with their children. The Bush Administration has already given $50 million annually to the initiative. And guess who wants in on the action.
The National Organization for Women.
NOW, along with a female advocacy group called Legal Momentum, filed complaints with the Department of Health and Human Services claiming that the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative discriminates against women. President of Legal Momentum, Kathy Rodgers, said, ""What we're asking them to do is to make sure that the grantees provide equal services to women and men." Furthermore, NOW President Kim Gandy said, "The proposals they received and funded clearly indicate that they only intend to serve fathers."
Where do I begin with this one? Let's start with the larger target, the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative. Is this really what we should be spending taxpayer money on? Maybe it's my natural distrust of anything that smacks of unnecessary government involvement, but responsible fatherhood should be natural to any man who donates half of his chromosomes to a baby. I know there are plenty of men out there who don't take this responsibility seriously enough, but I don't think we want Big Brother to become Big Daddy, too.
If you're a man and you get a woman pregnant, you had better be responsible or else you'll be responsible for how that child turns out, regardless if you're down the block or across the country. Too many kids today are in fatherless homes because the male of the species decided to skip town. Those who don't and really work to be the best father they can be to their progeny showcase what it takes to be a father, not just the winner of the Baby Daddy Lottery. And when you consider the divorces and infidelity in the nation's capitol these days, I think you'd prefer to stick around and raise your children yourselves.
Now, onto NOW. It's really cute what you're trying to do, but let me give you a clue. There are some things men can do that women can't, like being a father. And, no, being a single mom doesn't count. Just because you have to do the job of two parents doesn't make you a mommy and a daddy. There are things that fathers impart on sons and daughters that cannot be duplicated by a woman, no matter how manly she is. In this case, gender discrimination is a good thing. The last time a woman tried to advise a man how to be a man, we almost got Al Gore as President.
Some have said that if NOW gets their wish, the federal government should cut funding to programs designed specifically for women, like WIC and breast cancer. Sorry, but most of the programs in question don't quite equate. However, I do think if NOW gets their way, we should do away with federal funding of abortions. (Actually, I think it's a good idea regardless, but this situation allows us to advance the argument using NOW's own logic against them.) After all, who is the only gender to get abortions? Why, it's women. And we can't spend money solely on women, can we? Why, if we did, it would be...gender discrimination!
Anyone want to take bets on how well that would sit with NOW? Didn't think so.
If NOW were smart, they wouldn't be trying to shut down the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative; they would be helping to make it a success. A good father in the house allows the mother to do more, including working outside of the home, which is something NOW seems to like women to do. We can speculate about why NOW feels the need to hamstring the Initiative with silly gender equality guidelines, but one thing is clear. NOW simply doesn't want to be left out of the loop when it comes to federal money.
Tell you what, NOW and Legal Momentum. If you can show me a woman who can become a father, I'll go along with you. But you'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting.
The National Organization for Women.
NOW, along with a female advocacy group called Legal Momentum, filed complaints with the Department of Health and Human Services claiming that the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative discriminates against women. President of Legal Momentum, Kathy Rodgers, said, ""What we're asking them to do is to make sure that the grantees provide equal services to women and men." Furthermore, NOW President Kim Gandy said, "The proposals they received and funded clearly indicate that they only intend to serve fathers."
Where do I begin with this one? Let's start with the larger target, the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative. Is this really what we should be spending taxpayer money on? Maybe it's my natural distrust of anything that smacks of unnecessary government involvement, but responsible fatherhood should be natural to any man who donates half of his chromosomes to a baby. I know there are plenty of men out there who don't take this responsibility seriously enough, but I don't think we want Big Brother to become Big Daddy, too.
If you're a man and you get a woman pregnant, you had better be responsible or else you'll be responsible for how that child turns out, regardless if you're down the block or across the country. Too many kids today are in fatherless homes because the male of the species decided to skip town. Those who don't and really work to be the best father they can be to their progeny showcase what it takes to be a father, not just the winner of the Baby Daddy Lottery. And when you consider the divorces and infidelity in the nation's capitol these days, I think you'd prefer to stick around and raise your children yourselves.
Now, onto NOW. It's really cute what you're trying to do, but let me give you a clue. There are some things men can do that women can't, like being a father. And, no, being a single mom doesn't count. Just because you have to do the job of two parents doesn't make you a mommy and a daddy. There are things that fathers impart on sons and daughters that cannot be duplicated by a woman, no matter how manly she is. In this case, gender discrimination is a good thing. The last time a woman tried to advise a man how to be a man, we almost got Al Gore as President.
Some have said that if NOW gets their wish, the federal government should cut funding to programs designed specifically for women, like WIC and breast cancer. Sorry, but most of the programs in question don't quite equate. However, I do think if NOW gets their way, we should do away with federal funding of abortions. (Actually, I think it's a good idea regardless, but this situation allows us to advance the argument using NOW's own logic against them.) After all, who is the only gender to get abortions? Why, it's women. And we can't spend money solely on women, can we? Why, if we did, it would be...gender discrimination!
Anyone want to take bets on how well that would sit with NOW? Didn't think so.
If NOW were smart, they wouldn't be trying to shut down the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Initiative; they would be helping to make it a success. A good father in the house allows the mother to do more, including working outside of the home, which is something NOW seems to like women to do. We can speculate about why NOW feels the need to hamstring the Initiative with silly gender equality guidelines, but one thing is clear. NOW simply doesn't want to be left out of the loop when it comes to federal money.
Tell you what, NOW and Legal Momentum. If you can show me a woman who can become a father, I'll go along with you. But you'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
We Need An Investigation
You may not have heard the name of Phillip Thompson, but you may soon. Thompson is a staffer for Democrat Senator from Virginia Jim Webb. Thompson got in a bit of trouble for coming into the Russell Senate office building with a pistol of Webb's. Given this situation, we have to pull out all the stops! We need to get to the bottom of this crime! We must leave no stone unturned to find the truth!
First, we need a Special Prosecutor to look into Thompson having Webb's pistol in the first place. We'll put him on the stand and ask him all sorts of questions designed to make him commit perjury. We'll even load up the grand jury with 12 of the most hardcore Republicans out there. Then, we'll have to demand that Webb appear on the stand. And since he works for Harry Reid, we should demand the Senate "Majority" Leader testify.
Then, after we spend a ton of money grilling Thompson, Webb, and Reid, we need to hold a Congressional hearing where a representative of the National Rifle Association can testify about responsible gun ownership. No Senators who oppose this representative will be allowed to ask the NRA rep any tough questions. Then, we'll get Sarah Brady in the chamber, ask her questions, and then interrupt her before she can give her answer.
Yes, we have to do all of this to make sure we aren't being fed a bunch of lies from Jim Webb. After all, it's all about finding the truth, not politics, right?
Oh, and one last thing. To those of you who object to what I propose to do with Webb, I'm only following your lead...as you handled Scooter Libby and the Valerie Plame testimony in the Senate.
First, we need a Special Prosecutor to look into Thompson having Webb's pistol in the first place. We'll put him on the stand and ask him all sorts of questions designed to make him commit perjury. We'll even load up the grand jury with 12 of the most hardcore Republicans out there. Then, we'll have to demand that Webb appear on the stand. And since he works for Harry Reid, we should demand the Senate "Majority" Leader testify.
Then, after we spend a ton of money grilling Thompson, Webb, and Reid, we need to hold a Congressional hearing where a representative of the National Rifle Association can testify about responsible gun ownership. No Senators who oppose this representative will be allowed to ask the NRA rep any tough questions. Then, we'll get Sarah Brady in the chamber, ask her questions, and then interrupt her before she can give her answer.
Yes, we have to do all of this to make sure we aren't being fed a bunch of lies from Jim Webb. After all, it's all about finding the truth, not politics, right?
Oh, and one last thing. To those of you who object to what I propose to do with Webb, I'm only following your lead...as you handled Scooter Libby and the Valerie Plame testimony in the Senate.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Building Mountains Out of Molehills
The situation involving the firing of 8 federal prosecutors by the Bush Administration has gotten ridiculous. Not only are Democrats and Republicans calling for Alberto Gonzales to step down or be fired, but Arianna Huffington suggested that Gonzales should be impeached if President Bush tries to "run out the clock on this scandal."
That is, unless the Democrats cause the public to run out of patience.
The problem with the federal prosecutor firings controversy...is that there really is no controversy. The handling of the firings was politically clumsy, but when you dig past the political side of the situation, you're left with one central question: Does President Bush have the power to fire the attorneys in question. For this, we need to take a trip back to Civics 101.
The job of the Executive Branch (of which the President is a member) is to enforce the law and Constitution. To that end, the President can hire federal prosecutors to assist him. He also has the power to fire said prosecutors. Usually, this is done at the beginning of a term, but the Constitution and the law as written right now does not limit the timeframe under which a federal prosecutor can be fired. This is what people like Sean Hannity means when he says the federal prosecutors "serve at the behest of the President."
So, what's driving the move for investigations? Democrats have the power to investigate, so they're going to exercise it in an attempt to embarass the Bush Administration. Personally, I think their energies would be better served by reading the Constitution about the powers of the President. It would save them a lot of embarassment, and us a lot of money.
That is, unless the Democrats cause the public to run out of patience.
The problem with the federal prosecutor firings controversy...is that there really is no controversy. The handling of the firings was politically clumsy, but when you dig past the political side of the situation, you're left with one central question: Does President Bush have the power to fire the attorneys in question. For this, we need to take a trip back to Civics 101.
The job of the Executive Branch (of which the President is a member) is to enforce the law and Constitution. To that end, the President can hire federal prosecutors to assist him. He also has the power to fire said prosecutors. Usually, this is done at the beginning of a term, but the Constitution and the law as written right now does not limit the timeframe under which a federal prosecutor can be fired. This is what people like Sean Hannity means when he says the federal prosecutors "serve at the behest of the President."
So, what's driving the move for investigations? Democrats have the power to investigate, so they're going to exercise it in an attempt to embarass the Bush Administration. Personally, I think their energies would be better served by reading the Constitution about the powers of the President. It would save them a lot of embarassment, and us a lot of money.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The Compassionate Modern Left
If you've been following come of the comments to previous blog posts, you know there's a poster or two who love to post absolutely venomous comments about me. I'm used to it, having taken shots from the left and the right over the years, but it is indicative of a larger phenomenon. The faux left has gotten mean.
Here are a few of their "greatest hits":
- Anti-war protestors vandalized House members' offices, including throwing red paint on a sign that read, "Support the Troops."
- Anti-war protestors burned an American soldier in effigy, chanting, "Bye-bye GI...In Iraq, you're gonna die."
- Before President Bush's State of the Union Address this year, vandals spraypainted graffiti on the Capitol Building, claiming it as "the people's house."
- Liberal posters on The Huffington Post have posted death threats against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow.
- Bill Maher suggested that more people would be alive if Dick Cheney were killed.
- People who believe global warming is caused by man have called skeptics of their arguments "global warming deniers" and compared them to Holocaust deniers.
- At an anti-war protest held in Washington, DC, on March 17th, anti-war protestors were seen vandalizing federal property and pushing and insulting people who were there to protect the Vietnam War Memorial from vandalism attempts.
- Republican Senate candidate Michael Steele had Oreos thrown at him because he was an African-American Republican. He also had his credit report pulled illegally by Democrats.
- Editorial cartoonists have portrayed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with exaggerated features designed to demean her race and her personally.
And all of these (and many more I didn't mention) have occurred within the past six months or so. This is not to say there aren't hateful people on the right, but an honest assessment of the current state of affairs shows the majority of the hate and negativity has come from the left, not the right.
Whether it's lame attempts at civil disobedience like throwing pies at Ann Coulter or criminal activites like trying to run over Katherine Harris when she ran for the House of Representatives in 2002, the left tries to justify all of its activities under the auspices of dissent. There is a fine line between legitimate dissent and criminal activity, though. Marching or speaking at an anti-war protest in and of itself isn't a reason for the police to keep tabs on you. When you step beyond peaceful assembly and into what would normally be considered criminal activity, it's no longer legitimate dissent; it's criminal activity!
It's past time we stop considering what the angry left does in the name of dissent to be justifiable. It's little more than a violent temper tantrum that always has the threat of being physically violent. And these goofs preach to us about diversity and compassion?
Here are a few of their "greatest hits":
- Anti-war protestors vandalized House members' offices, including throwing red paint on a sign that read, "Support the Troops."
- Anti-war protestors burned an American soldier in effigy, chanting, "Bye-bye GI...In Iraq, you're gonna die."
- Before President Bush's State of the Union Address this year, vandals spraypainted graffiti on the Capitol Building, claiming it as "the people's house."
- Liberal posters on The Huffington Post have posted death threats against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow.
- Bill Maher suggested that more people would be alive if Dick Cheney were killed.
- People who believe global warming is caused by man have called skeptics of their arguments "global warming deniers" and compared them to Holocaust deniers.
- At an anti-war protest held in Washington, DC, on March 17th, anti-war protestors were seen vandalizing federal property and pushing and insulting people who were there to protect the Vietnam War Memorial from vandalism attempts.
- Republican Senate candidate Michael Steele had Oreos thrown at him because he was an African-American Republican. He also had his credit report pulled illegally by Democrats.
- Editorial cartoonists have portrayed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice with exaggerated features designed to demean her race and her personally.
And all of these (and many more I didn't mention) have occurred within the past six months or so. This is not to say there aren't hateful people on the right, but an honest assessment of the current state of affairs shows the majority of the hate and negativity has come from the left, not the right.
Whether it's lame attempts at civil disobedience like throwing pies at Ann Coulter or criminal activites like trying to run over Katherine Harris when she ran for the House of Representatives in 2002, the left tries to justify all of its activities under the auspices of dissent. There is a fine line between legitimate dissent and criminal activity, though. Marching or speaking at an anti-war protest in and of itself isn't a reason for the police to keep tabs on you. When you step beyond peaceful assembly and into what would normally be considered criminal activity, it's no longer legitimate dissent; it's criminal activity!
It's past time we stop considering what the angry left does in the name of dissent to be justifiable. It's little more than a violent temper tantrum that always has the threat of being physically violent. And these goofs preach to us about diversity and compassion?
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Are You Smarter Than an Anti-War Activist?
Fox's new game show "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader?" is a hit, mainly because it plays on our natural discomfort at not being as smart as we think we are. Well, after reading some of the exploits and comments from the anti-war movement lately, I've come up with my own game. It's called Are You Smarter Than an Anti-War Activist?
The rules are simple. I will give you a series of multiple choice questions. Choose an answer, keep track of them, and see the bottom of this post for your score. Here we go...
1) You are in the voting booth trying to decide who to vote for. One candidate is a pro-war Democrat. One candidate is an anti-war Democrat. One candidate is an unknown Republican. Who do you vote for?
a) The anti-war Democrat
b) The unknown Republican
c) The pro-war Democrat
d) None of the above. You're writing in Cindy Sheehan!
2) A usually staunch ideological ally seems to be going soft on her promise to end the Iraq War. What do you do?
a) Write to the ally telling her how you feel.
b) Sign a petition to get her to listen to you.
c) Nothing. You aren't anti-war.
d) Stage a sit-in in the middle of her office, claiming she's no better than George W. Bush.
3) You really want to make an impact at an anti-war protest in your city. What do you wear?
a) Your "No Blood For Oil" t-shirt.
b) Your "War Is Not The Answer" t-shirt.
c) Your "Tofu Is For Wussies" t-shirt.
d) Your favorite pink pig costume, with your favorite oversized tie-dyed t-shirt with the pot leaf on it.
4) The war in Iraq is...
a) being lost on the ground.
b) pointless.
c) damn cool when you think about all the terrorists meeting Allah.
d) an inside job perpetrated by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, and the Zionist Jews to make money for corporate fatcats who created a fascist dictatorship in America thanks to the Patriot Act.
And last question...
5) The most effective form of protest is...
a) educating your family and friends.
b) holding a protest march.
c) protecting a national monument against those who would try to vandalize it.
d) making a complete ass of yourself.
Okay, here are the answers.
If you chose a, you're smarter than an anti-war activist most of the time.
If you chose b, you're smarter than an anti-war activist some of the time.
If you chose c, you're smarter than an anti-war activist all of the time.
If you chose d, you're an anti-war activist, so you're not that smart to begin with.
The rules are simple. I will give you a series of multiple choice questions. Choose an answer, keep track of them, and see the bottom of this post for your score. Here we go...
1) You are in the voting booth trying to decide who to vote for. One candidate is a pro-war Democrat. One candidate is an anti-war Democrat. One candidate is an unknown Republican. Who do you vote for?
a) The anti-war Democrat
b) The unknown Republican
c) The pro-war Democrat
d) None of the above. You're writing in Cindy Sheehan!
2) A usually staunch ideological ally seems to be going soft on her promise to end the Iraq War. What do you do?
a) Write to the ally telling her how you feel.
b) Sign a petition to get her to listen to you.
c) Nothing. You aren't anti-war.
d) Stage a sit-in in the middle of her office, claiming she's no better than George W. Bush.
3) You really want to make an impact at an anti-war protest in your city. What do you wear?
a) Your "No Blood For Oil" t-shirt.
b) Your "War Is Not The Answer" t-shirt.
c) Your "Tofu Is For Wussies" t-shirt.
d) Your favorite pink pig costume, with your favorite oversized tie-dyed t-shirt with the pot leaf on it.
4) The war in Iraq is...
a) being lost on the ground.
b) pointless.
c) damn cool when you think about all the terrorists meeting Allah.
d) an inside job perpetrated by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, and the Zionist Jews to make money for corporate fatcats who created a fascist dictatorship in America thanks to the Patriot Act.
And last question...
5) The most effective form of protest is...
a) educating your family and friends.
b) holding a protest march.
c) protecting a national monument against those who would try to vandalize it.
d) making a complete ass of yourself.
Okay, here are the answers.
If you chose a, you're smarter than an anti-war activist most of the time.
If you chose b, you're smarter than an anti-war activist some of the time.
If you chose c, you're smarter than an anti-war activist all of the time.
If you chose d, you're an anti-war activist, so you're not that smart to begin with.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
An Immeasurable Loss
One of the best friends I've ever had and one of the best men I've ever had the fortune of knowing passed away on March 13. He was known to the online world as Taxula, to others he was Charles E. Perry, but to those who knew him, he was simply Charlie.
A man of many interests, there were a few things Charlie could be counted on to do. Write brilliant pieces on the Constitution and political and social issues. Be as rock-ribbed a conservative as they come. Come up with a great joke with the timing of a master. Rhetorically throttle anyone who advanced a weak argument for an even weaker cause.
Charlie meant more to me not because of his politics, but because of his influence on me as a person and me as a writer. He was someone who made me believe that I what it took to write a column for CommonConservative.com back when it was just The Common Conservative. He saw in me something I didn't see in myself and he never let me forget it. For that, I will be eternally grateful.
He and I didn't always see eye to eye. Like brothers, we fought and wound up on opposite sides of a couple of conflicts we shouldn't have even had, but I never lost my respect for Charlie.
Near the end of his life, he moved to Las Vegas to be with his sister. We didn't talk much after that, but when we did, it was as though nothing had changed. But we knew something had changed. He wasn't getting any younger and his health was failing him. But it never mattered. To me, he was always Charlie.
In what could be termed a final gesture of good will before he died, I donated money so my friend Resa Laru Kirkland (also known as Warchick) could go to the Gathering Of Eagles. I donated $25 for me, and chipped in an extra $25 on Charlie's behalf. Being a veteran, I knew Charlie would appreciate it. Even though Warchick didn't get to go, the gesture was worth it. I know he'd have approved.
Charles Perry was an amazing man, one who touched the lives of many around him just by being himself. Words fail me when I try to express just how much I appreciated his honesty and his encouragement. Even when we disagreed, he was always a gentleman to me, and even when I didn't return the favor, I knew he was right to take me to task for it. And I'm a far better man for it.
Thank you, Charlie. For everything.
A man of many interests, there were a few things Charlie could be counted on to do. Write brilliant pieces on the Constitution and political and social issues. Be as rock-ribbed a conservative as they come. Come up with a great joke with the timing of a master. Rhetorically throttle anyone who advanced a weak argument for an even weaker cause.
Charlie meant more to me not because of his politics, but because of his influence on me as a person and me as a writer. He was someone who made me believe that I what it took to write a column for CommonConservative.com back when it was just The Common Conservative. He saw in me something I didn't see in myself and he never let me forget it. For that, I will be eternally grateful.
He and I didn't always see eye to eye. Like brothers, we fought and wound up on opposite sides of a couple of conflicts we shouldn't have even had, but I never lost my respect for Charlie.
Near the end of his life, he moved to Las Vegas to be with his sister. We didn't talk much after that, but when we did, it was as though nothing had changed. But we knew something had changed. He wasn't getting any younger and his health was failing him. But it never mattered. To me, he was always Charlie.
In what could be termed a final gesture of good will before he died, I donated money so my friend Resa Laru Kirkland (also known as Warchick) could go to the Gathering Of Eagles. I donated $25 for me, and chipped in an extra $25 on Charlie's behalf. Being a veteran, I knew Charlie would appreciate it. Even though Warchick didn't get to go, the gesture was worth it. I know he'd have approved.
Charles Perry was an amazing man, one who touched the lives of many around him just by being himself. Words fail me when I try to express just how much I appreciated his honesty and his encouragement. Even when we disagreed, he was always a gentleman to me, and even when I didn't return the favor, I knew he was right to take me to task for it. And I'm a far better man for it.
Thank you, Charlie. For everything.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Turn Out the Lights...
No, this isn't my last blog post ever. In the old days of "Monday Night Football," Don Meredith would sing "Turn out the lights, the party's over," near the end of the game. After hearing President Bush's speech today regarding the Democrats' demand for an investigation into the firing of federal prosecutors, I'm getting the pipes ready for a Dandy Don impression.
Bush tried to act tough while surrendering to the whims of the Democrats in the hopes they'll leave him alone. His attempt to make a reasonable gesture to comply will fall on deaf ears. Why? Because the people he's trying to comply with are unreasonable! They can claim that all they want to do is "get to the bottom of this" or to "get to the truth," but in reality all they want is to score political points, one Bush Administration official at a time. They'll never stop investigating, they'll never stop questioning, and they'll never stop suggesting a Republican conspiracy to obstruct justice around every corner.
Since Democrats took back control of one house of Congress outright and close-enough-for-government-work control of the other, the Bush Administration seems to be throwing bodies to the wolves, which only makes them hungrier for more meat. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the latest to be considered for a one way trip under the bus, and for what? For giving an opinion on what President Bush is authorized to do? It may look bad politically, but let's face facts: Bush is well within his power as President to fire those federal prosecutors for any reason. That's what winning a Presidential election allows you to do.
But instead of telling the Democrats to do something unnatural with themselves, he's playing along in the hopes they'll show him some mercy. They won't. And this milquetoast macho act from today won't help matters.
Listen, Mr. President. It's time for you to go back to being the cowboy, not the Frenchman. Here's what you should have said to the Democrats demanding hearings about the firing of those federal prosecutors.
"That's a mighty fine idea, but I have a better one. Why don't you shut your pieholes and get back to doing the job you guys said you were going to do before last November's elections? That Valerie Plame hearing you guys had in the Senate was more pointless than Kate Moss's bra and not nearly as entertaining. Oh, and while we're on the subject, read up on the separation of powers in the Constitution. I'm running this show, not you armchair generals who only sees action when that Washington, DC, madame is looking for new clients. Now, I have to go back to doing my job: winning the global war on terrorism so you guys aren't al Qaeda's prison bitches."
Unfortunately, that would require a backbone, and you've lost yours, Mr. President. Get it back while you still have the ability to counter the Democrats.
Bush tried to act tough while surrendering to the whims of the Democrats in the hopes they'll leave him alone. His attempt to make a reasonable gesture to comply will fall on deaf ears. Why? Because the people he's trying to comply with are unreasonable! They can claim that all they want to do is "get to the bottom of this" or to "get to the truth," but in reality all they want is to score political points, one Bush Administration official at a time. They'll never stop investigating, they'll never stop questioning, and they'll never stop suggesting a Republican conspiracy to obstruct justice around every corner.
Since Democrats took back control of one house of Congress outright and close-enough-for-government-work control of the other, the Bush Administration seems to be throwing bodies to the wolves, which only makes them hungrier for more meat. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the latest to be considered for a one way trip under the bus, and for what? For giving an opinion on what President Bush is authorized to do? It may look bad politically, but let's face facts: Bush is well within his power as President to fire those federal prosecutors for any reason. That's what winning a Presidential election allows you to do.
But instead of telling the Democrats to do something unnatural with themselves, he's playing along in the hopes they'll show him some mercy. They won't. And this milquetoast macho act from today won't help matters.
Listen, Mr. President. It's time for you to go back to being the cowboy, not the Frenchman. Here's what you should have said to the Democrats demanding hearings about the firing of those federal prosecutors.
"That's a mighty fine idea, but I have a better one. Why don't you shut your pieholes and get back to doing the job you guys said you were going to do before last November's elections? That Valerie Plame hearing you guys had in the Senate was more pointless than Kate Moss's bra and not nearly as entertaining. Oh, and while we're on the subject, read up on the separation of powers in the Constitution. I'm running this show, not you armchair generals who only sees action when that Washington, DC, madame is looking for new clients. Now, I have to go back to doing my job: winning the global war on terrorism so you guys aren't al Qaeda's prison bitches."
Unfortunately, that would require a backbone, and you've lost yours, Mr. President. Get it back while you still have the ability to counter the Democrats.
Monday, March 19, 2007
A Little More Housecleaning
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the blogosphere, I'm baaaaaaack. :-)
I took a break from blogging for a while to promote the Gathering of Eagles and to do a few things. And in my absence, a few events have happened that I'll take the opportunity to weigh in on now.
- The Scooter Libby verdict. I've written a column reference the jury in the trial at my other website http://www.commonconservative.com, but let me reiterate a point I made there. I'm not sure Libby got a trial before a jury of his peers. When the jury asks for a definition of "reasonable doubt" and has to get clarification on what Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was arguing, let's just say I'm not confident the jury has both oars in the water, if you know what I mean. And if you don't know what I mean, you may have been a juror.
- Plamemania is running wild! Valerie Plame testified before the Senate last week about her identity being "leaked" due to the Bush Administration. Of course, she was treated with the utmost respect...as she lied through her teeth. No matter how much she insists her identity was compromised by the Bush Administration as a means to retaliate against her husband Joe Wilson's report in the New York Times "debunking" the rumor of yellowcake uranium out of Niger, the fact is her identity was compromised during the 90s, thanks to Joe Wilson. I've never been convinced Plame is completely willing or cogent of what she's done so far. I believe Wilson's been the mastermind behind this whole situation. The trip to Niger (which Plame recommended Wilson for, in direct contradiction to her Senate testimony), the civil lawsuit against members of the Bush Administration, the Vanity Fair photo shoot, all of it has been at the behest of Joe Wilson. And given what I saw of Plame during her Senate testimony, I don't think she has the self respect to stand up to him. But that doesn't matter to the Senate Democrats. All they want is a dog and pony show to "get to the bottom" of Plamegate. Don't you feel better already for putting these bozos in charge?
- The Gathering of Eagles. From some accounts of those who were at the Gathering of Eagles on Saturday, the pro-America crowd outnumbered the anti-war crowd 3 to 1. Yet, what did the media focus on? The anti-war freakshow. I caught an ABC News radio news break about the event, and they actually broadcast a quote from Cindy Sheehan without so much as a mention of those who came out to protest her ilk. And reports coming from the event itself showed the anti-war folks (who love peace oh so much) pushed people around, spit at them, and hit people with their signs. The GOE folks? Peaceful and restrained, even when provoked. Yet, I guarantee if the GOE folks had been starting crap with the anti-war folks, it would be noted. But the anti-war side acting like thugs? Not even a mention. If that doesn't prove the out-of-the-mainstream media are liberally biased, I don't know what would.
- The Anna Nicole Smith freakshow. So much attention paid to someone who offered so little to so many. First, there was legal proceedings about where Smith would be buried, and that's STILL GOING ON! Then, there are the numerous people coming forward claiming to be the baby daddy of her daughter. Of course, there's the fact that the girl looks to inherit more money than she'll ever know what to do with, but not more than her daddy would know what to do with. We knew this would happen, but like a car wreck, we're craning our necks at the carnage.
- The Academy Awards. They gave Al Gore a Best Documentary Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth." I guess after giving Michael Moore the same Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine," they felt obliged to give that Oscar to overweight liars.
- The CPAC Convention. Ann Coulter makes a vague reference to John Edwards being gay, the faux left gets all upset, and people start dropping Coulter as a columnist or removing advertising from her website. As much as I dislike the word Coulter used, I can understand her position and agree with her somewhat. But, Ann, if you're reading this, it's time to stop being so shrill. You're smart enough to make your points without becoming a thin, blonde version of Rosie O'Donnell.
Well, that's pretty much it for now. My blogging will pick up again and I can tell all tens and tens of my fans are waiting in breathless anticipation. Either that or they're choking. :-)
I took a break from blogging for a while to promote the Gathering of Eagles and to do a few things. And in my absence, a few events have happened that I'll take the opportunity to weigh in on now.
- The Scooter Libby verdict. I've written a column reference the jury in the trial at my other website http://www.commonconservative.com, but let me reiterate a point I made there. I'm not sure Libby got a trial before a jury of his peers. When the jury asks for a definition of "reasonable doubt" and has to get clarification on what Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was arguing, let's just say I'm not confident the jury has both oars in the water, if you know what I mean. And if you don't know what I mean, you may have been a juror.
- Plamemania is running wild! Valerie Plame testified before the Senate last week about her identity being "leaked" due to the Bush Administration. Of course, she was treated with the utmost respect...as she lied through her teeth. No matter how much she insists her identity was compromised by the Bush Administration as a means to retaliate against her husband Joe Wilson's report in the New York Times "debunking" the rumor of yellowcake uranium out of Niger, the fact is her identity was compromised during the 90s, thanks to Joe Wilson. I've never been convinced Plame is completely willing or cogent of what she's done so far. I believe Wilson's been the mastermind behind this whole situation. The trip to Niger (which Plame recommended Wilson for, in direct contradiction to her Senate testimony), the civil lawsuit against members of the Bush Administration, the Vanity Fair photo shoot, all of it has been at the behest of Joe Wilson. And given what I saw of Plame during her Senate testimony, I don't think she has the self respect to stand up to him. But that doesn't matter to the Senate Democrats. All they want is a dog and pony show to "get to the bottom" of Plamegate. Don't you feel better already for putting these bozos in charge?
- The Gathering of Eagles. From some accounts of those who were at the Gathering of Eagles on Saturday, the pro-America crowd outnumbered the anti-war crowd 3 to 1. Yet, what did the media focus on? The anti-war freakshow. I caught an ABC News radio news break about the event, and they actually broadcast a quote from Cindy Sheehan without so much as a mention of those who came out to protest her ilk. And reports coming from the event itself showed the anti-war folks (who love peace oh so much) pushed people around, spit at them, and hit people with their signs. The GOE folks? Peaceful and restrained, even when provoked. Yet, I guarantee if the GOE folks had been starting crap with the anti-war folks, it would be noted. But the anti-war side acting like thugs? Not even a mention. If that doesn't prove the out-of-the-mainstream media are liberally biased, I don't know what would.
- The Anna Nicole Smith freakshow. So much attention paid to someone who offered so little to so many. First, there was legal proceedings about where Smith would be buried, and that's STILL GOING ON! Then, there are the numerous people coming forward claiming to be the baby daddy of her daughter. Of course, there's the fact that the girl looks to inherit more money than she'll ever know what to do with, but not more than her daddy would know what to do with. We knew this would happen, but like a car wreck, we're craning our necks at the carnage.
- The Academy Awards. They gave Al Gore a Best Documentary Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth." I guess after giving Michael Moore the same Oscar for "Bowling for Columbine," they felt obliged to give that Oscar to overweight liars.
- The CPAC Convention. Ann Coulter makes a vague reference to John Edwards being gay, the faux left gets all upset, and people start dropping Coulter as a columnist or removing advertising from her website. As much as I dislike the word Coulter used, I can understand her position and agree with her somewhat. But, Ann, if you're reading this, it's time to stop being so shrill. You're smart enough to make your points without becoming a thin, blonde version of Rosie O'Donnell.
Well, that's pretty much it for now. My blogging will pick up again and I can tell all tens and tens of my fans are waiting in breathless anticipation. Either that or they're choking. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)