Saturday, September 29, 2007

Billion Dollar Babies

We've all heard the phrase "for the children" on the political campaign so many times it's become a running gag. But yesterday, Hillary Clinton announced that if she's elected, she would like to give each newborn a $5000 "baby bond" to help with college or the purchase of a home. At a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus, Hillary announced her idea, saying the following:

I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home.

I know this isn't the case with all 18 year olds, but I remember the way I was when I was 18 and just out of high school. If you would have given me access to the kind of money from a $5000 bond that had accrued interest over the 18 years of my life, I would have blown at least some of it on stupid stuff, and I was pretty responsible at that age. Given today's breed of self-centered me-monkeys, I guarantee most would take that money and use it for just about everything but college or a downpayment on a home. And while we're on the subject, can you imagine an 18 year old with a house? That would the worst idea since "Gigli."

As you might expect, Hillary didn't offer estimates on how much this idea would cost and even her campaign said it wasn't a firm policy position, just an idea being considered. That's because at this stage in the campaign, nobody's looking for solid numbers and I guess the politicians making these pie-in-the-sky proposals don't figure there's anybody paying attention to these details because to do so would signal a complete lack of a life.

Of course, they didn't count on me.

When it comes to programs like this, I pay close attention because it's going to cost me money ultimately. And when you promise something this big, I'm going to figure out these things. I will warn you ahead of time that this next section deals with a lot of math, but it's with a purpose, so if you hate math, stick with me.

According to the most recent estimates I could find, the current birth rate is approximately 14.16 births per 1000 people. Out of an American population of approximately 301,139,947, that equals 4,264,141 babies. We also need to factor in an estimated infant mortality rate of 6.37 deaths per 1000 live births, or approximately 27,162 deaths. Taking that away from the 4,264,141, we get a grand total of 4,236,979 babies eligible for Hillary's idea. Granted, I'm not sure the infant mortality rate factors the number of abortions performed, but let's say for the purposes of this sketch that it doesn't.

Taking 4,236,979 times $5000, we get...drumroll please...$21,184,895,000. For the math challenged out there, that's over $21 billion dollars, and that's annually. Furthermore, since it's a federal bond, it will accrue interest, making that amount go even higher after just one year. And after that first year, another group of babies eligibile for Hillary's idea will be added, meaning we spend another $21 billion if conditions remain the same, which most likely they won't.

And who gets to pay for this? That would be you and me, kids.

If that isn't a reason to do whatever you can to ensure Hillary doesn't see the inside of the White House again unless she's invited at behest of the President or as a tour guide, I don't know what is.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Stuck on Stupid? Not So Much...

It used to frustrate me to no end when a faux liberal would tell a lie, get caught in the lie, and then lie some more to try to get out of it. As someone who kinda likes truth in my life, I was shocked and offended that people treated the truth with such disregard. And for the longest time, I couldn't figure out why the faux left would ignore facts and logic presented to refute them.

Then, it occurred to me that the faux left believes in situational ethics. What this means is the faux left will look at a particular situation from as many different perspectives as possible to arrive at a way to say whatever will coincide with their ideology. For example, the faux left believes Bill Clinton having sex outside of marriage is an invasion of his privacy, but Newt Gingrich having sex outside of marriage is inexcusable. For the longest time, I thought it was pure partisanship, but it's not.

The faux left believes in situational reality.

It's basically the same concept as situational ethics, but with a twist. Whenever a faux liberal is introduced to facts that they cannot reconcile with their beliefs, they will ignore those facts and continue believing they're right. That's why they maintain there were no WMDs in Iraq, the Marines in Haditha are guilty of murder, and President Bush suspended habeus corpus with the PATRIOT Act. Once the facts to counter them are laid out, the faux liberal erects a wall against the onslaught of truth, thus ensuring no facts will break through.

Yes, there are some so-called conservatives who do the same (John McCain and Ron Paul come to mind), but by and large, the faux left have cornered the market on situational reality. Whether it's Bill Clinton's "depends on what your definition of is is" or John Murtha's "Marines shot civillians in cold blood because of the pressure," the faux left will ignore any amount of reality to sustain their view of the world and their egos. Why?

Because it's all they have. The faux left hates to be questioned on anything because they know once their world view is challenged successfully, they don't have anything to fall back on. It's the ultimate defense mechanism for their egos. Don't want to deal with the real world? Create your own where only you can determine what qualifies as real.

The problem with this approach is that reality doesn't change for the people who follow it. The facts that would ruin their world view are still there, no matter how much they wish the facts didn't exist. And the more the faux left insulates themselves from the harsh realities that are out there, the more they undercut their ability to lead.

At times like these when we have international terrorists wanting us dead, we can't afford to have people who follow situational reality in positions to make decisions because invariably those decisions will be bad or not well thought out. And even one lapse in judgment, one tiny mistake, can be catastrophic. Seeing as how I kinda like living, I'm not to keen on having people not too keen on reality making decisions.

A Special Guest Post

My friend Ari wrote the following and asked me to post it here. Since I'm a nice guy (and since he paid me 10 bucks), I'm going to do it. Enjoy!

Looking at the breakdown below, you'll notice that ALL of the most powerful senators, the committee chairs and those running for president (sans chickens like Obama and Biden who couldn't bother to vote; some leadership therein!) voted to condemn our military's top commander---someone so moderate and fair-minded he had full bipartisan support upon promotion---and thus, America's military and America itself. The hijacking of my former party by the RADICAL "hate America first" left is complete. Bold for powerful folks/pres. candidates in the Leftist Regime, italics for so-called "Jews" who basically voted against America & Israel's well-being like Presidents Clinton and Carter so often did.

NAYs ---25

Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Byrd (D-KKK)
Clinton (D-NY) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Levin (D-MI) Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (Socialist-VT)Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Whitehouse (D-RI)W yden (D-OR)

YEAs ---72

Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Barrasso (R-WY) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johnson (D-SD) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) Martinez (R-FL) McCain (R-AZ) McCaskill (D-MO) McConnell (R-KY) Mikulski (D-MD)Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Roberts (R-KS)Salazar (D-CO)Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK)Sununu (R-NH) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)Webb (D-VA)

Not Voting - 3

Biden (D-DE) Cantwell (D-WA) Obama (D-IL)

And as Ken Burns' "The War" explains over and over and over, mistakes are ALWAYS made in War, often on a far greater scale than soldiers being picked off by cowardly roadside bombs from Muslim animals in Iraq.

Further, as an honest WWII journalist once said, “Only the soldier really lives the war. The journalist does not -- war happens inside a man -- and that is why, in a certain sense, you and your sons from the war will be forever strangers. If, by the miracles of art and genius, in later years two or three among them can open their hearts and the right words come, then perhaps we shall all know a little of what it was like -- and we shall know then that all the present speakers and writers hardly touched the story.”

And any sane person would agree. Those who do not are named Anderson Cooper, Katie Couric, Michael Moore and are listed atop---and want to be president of the USA? A disaster. It will take a selfish, ignorant, hate-filled "American" to vote Democrat in 2008. But alas, some people never change or grow up.

At some point in life one wakes up and takes a stand. Many did so after 9-11. Others did so, but for a day or two, then returned to standing AGAINST the country that has made them as prosperous as the liberal elite are. The families who supply our heroic troops are 90-95% Republican but those who bash and castigate our military and its leaders are wealthy by and large and Democrat. Is something wrong here? It's far worse than treason. In the olden days, a rope would have been implemented long ago. But now, Iranian Nazis are cheered and given more freedom in America's largest city (with the world's largest Jewish population) than our president, our border security and our military.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Imadinnerjacket: Case Study In Faux Liberal Love

Today was Imadinnerjacket Day in New York City. From his appearance at the United Nations to his controversial speech at Columbia University, President Imadinnerjacket of Iran made an impression. To some, it was a good impression since he's come across as so friendly and intelligent. To others, it was a bad impression because of his statements about wanting to wipe Israel and America off the map. (Gee, I wonder why people might have a problem with that...)

The faux left has been cheering today's speech at Columbia as a "victory for free speech" because Imadinnerjacket got to face people criticial of him. Well, it might have been a victory if Imadinnerjacket didn't deflect difficult questions without answering them. But perhaps the most disturbing thing about his speech (aside from the delusional notion that Iran doesn't have gays and that homosexuality is a "phenomenon") was that the faux left cheered him.

For a while now, the faux left has had a serious man-crush on Imadinnerjacket. Of course, they'll deny it, but their words betray them. With the exception of the "60 Minutes" interview last night (which, by the way, was not very well done, even by the declining standards CBS has shown lately), media portrayals of Imadinnerjacket have been flattering to say the least. They comment about him as a teenage girl might gush over Justin Timberlake. (Granted, Timberlake doesn't have nuclear ambitions...that we know of...)

Yet, I have to wonder how much the faux left is willing to ignore of Imadinnerjacket's misdeeds and troubling statements. For all the talk the faux left does in the area of freedom, they're woefully silent on the definite anti-freedom bent Imadinnerjacket has been on. The Drudge Report today reported that the offices of a website critical of Imadinnerjacket was shut down by the government. So far, not a peep out of the pro-freedom faux left.

But you'll hear plenty of talk about how he's so intelligent, articulate, and friendly. Oh, and how they wish President Bush was more like him. Yet, given what he does to his own people, it's a good thing for them Bush isn't more like Imadinnerjacket or else some of the things they've said about Bush over the years might come true.

As much as it pains me to say it or even think it, I think the main reason the faux left loves Imadinnerjacket is because he's just like them.

- He hates America.
- He hates Bush.
- He hates Israel.
- He lies.
- He dodges questions when caught.
- He hates criticism.
- He doesn't care about freedom.

Seems like a match made in Heaven...if either one of them believed in Heaven, that is.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

A New Slogan

Occasionally as I drive around Des Moines, I'll see bumper stickers and yard signs with sentiments like "Support the Troops. Bring Them Home" or "Support the Troops. End the War." They represent the basics of good advertising slogans: short, catchy, to the point. Even though I don't agree with the message, I cannot fault the effectiveness of it.

As an advocate of free speech, instead of trying to have these signs and bumper stickers banned, I decided to come up with a slogan of my own. Short, catchy, to the point.

Support the Troops. Impeach the Democrats.

To some, this will be seen as extreme partisanship, and they'd be right. After watching the disgraceful displays of disdain from the Democrats in the past few years, I think any criticism is warranted and valid. Here are some of their greatest misses:

John Murtha - accused Marines of shooting Iraqi citizens "in cold blood" in the Haditha massacre before said Marines had even been charged

Richard Durbin - compared American soldiers guarding Gitmo to Nazis

Harry Reid - said "The war is lost" as the troop surge was going on and succeeding

Hillary Clinton - accused General David Petraeus of lying before Congress

Dianne Feinstein - chastises Vice President Dick Cheney for allegedly making money off the Iraq War while being married to a man who actually is making money off the war

And there are many, many more examples. And after 25% of the Senate (all Democrats, by the way) couldn't even vote to condemn the ad calling General Petraeus "General Betray-Us," the gloves are coming off. With leadership like what we've seen from the Democrats lately, there can be no real victory in Iraq or elsewhere. And there's only one way to change that dynamic.

Support the Troops. Impeach the Democrats.

Friday, September 21, 2007

The 70 Million Dollar Man?

Just when you thought you wouldn't have to hear the name Dan Rather again, he comes back, this time with a lawsuit against CBS, Viacom, and high-level figures in both companies for making him a "scapegoat" in the aftermath of Memogate. For those of you unfamiliar with it or who have forgotten, in September 2004, CBS ran a story that claimed George W. Bush was AWOL from the Air National Guard on the testimony of Bush's commanding officer at the time. After bloggers poked holes in the story large enough for Rosie O'Donnell to lambada through and still have room for the members of NOW to join her. Granted, that's only adding 5 or 6 women tops, but it's still pretty impressive.

But now Rather says it wasn't his fault that he, the head of CBS News and the final guy with any power to kill the unsubstantiated story, didn't kill the story. Oh no. It was the fault of CBS and Viacom, who tried to curry favor with the Bush Administration. Rather has said in his lawsuit that he felt pressured to go along with the big bosses even though he knew the story was true. Okay, I'm not the smartest man in the world, but if CBS/Viacom was trying to curry favor with the Bush Administration, why would the big bosses have allowed Rather to go ahead with this story in the first place? And let's not forget Rather has stared down Richard Nixon while Nixon was President. Do you honestly think he was intimidated?

But all that will be decided by a court of law in the coming months. Rather should be glad I'm not serving on the jury on this one because his case would get laughed out of court by the time his lawyer's opening statement started. Much like Memogate, there are too many facts to overlook for it to be believed.

But even more absurd than the lawsuit is the fact Rather is trying to portray himself as some sort of hero in journalism for standing up for the integrity of his craft. Rather made the following statement on "Larry King Live":

Somebody, sometime has got to take a stand and say democracy cannot surive, much less thrive with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in the news.... They [CBS and Viacom] sacrificed support for independent journalism for corporate financial gain, and in doing so, I think they undermined a lot at CBS News.

He just doesn't get it. It's not CBS or Viacom that undermined CBS News; it was Rather's decision to run with the Bush story. Yes, Dan, you made a conscious decision to believe the editor, believe the story, ignore journalistic standards, and air it. And now you're trying to make excuses for your lack of judgment, not unlike a former President who will remain nameless. Sorry, but you're not going to pass the buck here. Be a man and say, "I screwed up." And once you admit the lawsuit was a mistake, then you can address Memogate.

Monday, September 17, 2007

The Faux Left's Tolerance

It's always amazing to me that the faux left can get away with calling themselves the party of tolerance because they're just as bad as they claim conservatives are. The latest example of this comes from ABC's female gab-fest "The View" and singer Barry Manilow. Apparently, Manilow was set to go on "The View" to promote his new CD, but he has a problem with co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck. In an exclusive interview with the website TMZ, Manilow said, "I strongly disagree with her views. I think she's dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her." (Of course that didn't bother him the last couple of times he's been on the show...with Hasselbeck on the stage.)

On his website, Manilow goes into a bit more depth:

Hey guys,I wanted to let you know that I will no longer be on The View tomorrow as scheduled. I had made a request that I be interviewed by Joy, Barbara or Whoopi, but not Elisabeth Hasselback. Unfortunately, the show was not willing to accommodate this simple request so I bowed out.

It’s really too bad because I've always been a big supporter of the show, but I cannot compromise my beliefs. The good news is that I will be on a whole slew of other shows promoting the new album so I hope you can catch me on those.

Again, see above.

My point isn't that Manilow is a hypocrite. Do about five minutes of research and you'll come up with the same conclusion. Instead, I want to focus on something Manilow didn't say: what Hasselbeck said or did that makes her "dangerous and offensive." The faux left are rarely called on their antics when they pull something like this. They make claims like "Bush is a Nazi" or "She is dangerous and offensive" and that's good enough for the faux left. And when the right doesn't respond, it makes the labels stick.

Well, I'm not one for letting something like that go. Mr. Manilow, it's time for you to put up or shut up. Either give us examples of how Hasselbeck is offensive and dangerous or withdraw your objections and apologize. And unless it's something serious, like "She puts poison in fudge brownies and gives them to Joy Behar," I'm just not going to buy that she's that dangerous. As far as offensive, that's no real reason to drop an appearance on "The View" especially considering you've done the show before with Hasselbeck on it.

Maybe it's my Spidey Sense tingling, but I get the distinct impression you don't have the proof and might just be trying to gin up interest in your CD. You don't need to go the Babs Streisand route to get it, though. You're talented beyond belief. Don't stoop when you can soar.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

The Petraeus Report

It's been a while since I posted, but I wanted to weigh in on the Petraeus Report and how Democrats have been reacting to it. As you might have guessed by now, the Dems don't come off looking that great in this situation. Here's why.

- Before General Petraeus said one word before Congress, Democrats were already characterizing it as a pack of lies. And, more importantly, before it was even released to Congress. How did the Democrats know what Petraeus would report before he issued the report? I know the faux left thinks they're ultra-intelligent, but even that's jumping the gun a bit.

- The day before the Petraeus Report, along with the New York Times put out an ad calling General Petraeus "General Betray-Us." So far, no Democrat has stepped forward to condemn the ad and, if anything, have picked it up and run with it. Everyone from Hillary Clinton to John Murtha to John Kerry have suggested Petraeus wasn't telling the truth at the behest of President Bush. Of course, this goes hand-in-hand with what the faux left was saying before the report came out. But one has to wonder what they would have said if Petraeus's report coincided more closely with what they've been saying all along. Would they be saying Petraeus was lying, or would they praise his "bravery, honesty, and service to the country"? Given how political the faux left has made the war in Iraq, I'm confident they'd be crawling over each other to get to a microphone to pat him on the back if he agreed with them. As it stands, they're crawling over each other to get to a microphone to stab him in the back.

- The responses to Petraeus's report coming from Democrats with a military background are interesting because it's usually one of the first things they and the media reference when they issue statements. Yet, when actual soldiers who have or have had boots on the ground speak up in support of the surge and the war in Iraq, Democrats and the media ignore them. In fact, some leftist luminaries have gone so far as to suggest soldiers are ignorant fools. Remember John Kerry's hoof-in-mouth moment from 2006? That slip-up was the Kerry speaking the truth about how the faux left feels about our soldiers. Need further proof? Ask yourself why Al Gore was so intent on disqualifying as many military ballots in Florida as he could in 2000. It's simple: the faux left knows the military isn't on their side. And with good reason.

- I'm surprised no one else has picked up on this yet. Democrats say Petraeus is a liar and a Bush puppet. Yet, what do they do when they talk about the problems in Iraq? They quote Petraeus. So apparently they're picking and choosing when Petraeus is telling the truth. Isn't that like...oh I don't know...cherrypicking information that supports a predetermined outcome? I mean, if it's bad when Bush allegedly does it, it should be bad when Democrats do it.

In the end, though, Petraeus won this contest by not only beating the Democrats to the punch, but by doing it with a grace that they can't seem to muster. If you get a chance, take a look at how Petraeus delivers his comments and responds to questions (when he's allowed to respond, that is). Now, compare it to the grandstanding and testiness of the Democrats.

Who would you rather have leading the troops: a cool, collected General, or a bunch of howling jackals playing armchair generals?