Thursday, October 23, 2008

To all the major newspapers and media outlets.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups.

But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

These are facts.

This financial crisis was completely preventable.
The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party.
The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!


It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an "official" adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents.
Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth.
That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans.

You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do.

Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one.
He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all?

Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women.

Who listens to NOW anymore?

We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late.

You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008


The mainstream media has made it so obvious that they are in the tank for Obama. Why?

I believe the media feels like it is taking part in history, and it wants very badly to be part of it.

Even if it cost them their journalistic integrity.

Only 1 reporter was on the tarmac the other night in NewHampshire when John McCain arrived.
Really? Only 1 reporter needed to follow McCain.

Where is everyone else???? On Obama's plane. Touring the world with the our wannabe president. Why is Obama in Europe and the Middle East? They can't vote for him.

No, he wants the US and world to see how everyone loves him. The media has fake interviews and false footage that they constantly replay. Today I saw his royal highness step onto the basketball court ( pander alert ) in front of the troops in Afghanistan and take a shot. Swoosh! It goes right in. Oh, I am so sure that it only took one take for that. Right. And I can dunk it too.

Anyway, don't you see what is going on here? The media is tilting it's coverage to only focus on Obama. If you don't see McCain, then you will only think Obama. We used to rely on the media to keep people in line. Especially politicians. Not any more.

What, with Dan Rather, Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman ( not a journalist ), Wolf Blitzer, Katie Couric, Brian Williams, and countless other shills propping up this empty suit, - MCCain doesn't have a chance.

Any criticism by him will be portrayed by O's minions that McCain is racist. Sick.

So, when 51% of Americans think that the media is tilting its coverage towards the Messiah, then there is clearly bias present.

Why? Why does the media do this? Why do they not do their jobs right?

If someone in the media calls Barry O out on this, he chastises them and tells them how to ask him questions. He even has the audacity to do this before the question has even been asked.

So, it will be ObamaTV for the next 4 months and there is one reason why..............

BECAUSE WE SAID SO! - Sincerely, network news.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

I'll bet you.....

Back in March, my co workers and I were contemplating the possible rewards of signing Shaq to the Phoenix Suns. I remember telling the enthusiastic group of Suns fans that surrounded me, that no-way was the Big Diesel going to get it done in the valley of the sun. I said at that time, and later wrote in an email to them the following......

" Neither the Suns nor the Mavs will make it out of the first round this year. The NBA Finals will be between the Lakers and Celtics. The MVP of the NBA Finals will be Paul Pierce".

Yep. That is what I said. So, you can only imagine how smarty-pantsy I must have felt when the final results mirrorred my predictions.

I am the Great Prognosticator!

So, why do I bring this up?

I have a new prediction...........

Israel will attack Iran before the November election. ( Stipulation - Obama must be a good deal ahead in the polls).

Israel fears that if Obamamamaramalamadingdong becomes President, then no US action against Iran will occur.

Israel is quite certain that it cannot defeat the worlds Muslim population without the aid of the US. Since we have a policy of defending Israel, we will be forced into a conflict that Israel creates.

Now, honestly I don't have a problem with that. Iran needs a wakeup call in the form of a "shock and awe" campaign. The population of Iran is more aligned with Western ideals than the people who control the country are. Iran sucks, I could tell you non- stop how much that I dispise them for a few days straight and never repeat myself.

Iran see's itself as a leader in the region. Geopolitically posistioned upon a jackpot called crude oil, Iran thinks that it can put a stranglehold on 40% of the worlds petroleum reserves that enter and exit through the Strait of Hormuz. Technically, they could put up a blockade.

Problem is...... The US Navy is already there waiting for them to do this. If they do this, we will engage them.

Or at least I hope we do.

I have made many predictions in my life, most of them turn out to be wrong.
I pick my Dallas Cowboys to win the SB every year.
I once said that computers are just a "fad".
I once said that no way, no how, would the US population vote for a black man named B. Huessein Obama.

Anyway, irregardless of when, I think this is one you can count on.

In case you weren't aware. Israel attacked a site in Syria(Dec 2007) that was holding a massive collections of WMD's. ( Many experts think that these could be a large sample of what Saddam removed before weapons inspectors got there).

Did you hear about it on the news?????? NO!

Google - Israeli attack on Syrian nuclear site.

Israel will not wait for permission to protect itself.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

When is 9% Acceptable?

Would 9% be acceptable to you?

Well, if only 9% of tax returns were paid out - would you be happy?
If only 9% of the doctors did their job well - would you accept that?
If you had a company of 100 employees, and only 9 did a good job - would you fire anyone?

Why do I bring this up?

According to Rassmussen polls, the current congressional approval rating is 9%.

I say again, 9%.

Is 9% acceptable? I say NO!

If 91% of the people polled think that Congress is doing a bad job, then why do these individuals still continue to hold their respective positions?

Do these poll participants think their congressman is " the good one" and all the other ones are
" the bad ones"?

Probably. This why I built this blog ( Thanks James O ). I need new leadership.

I think they all suck. They are all part of the problem. The system is sound. The people doing the jobs are screwed up.

Here's a clue to the representatives: Do what the people ask you to do! Period.

Quit doing things that only help your own district.
Quit earmarking money for your own pet projects that only serve to make a name for yourselves. ( I.e. - metro rail projects ).
Quit blocking legislation voted for and approved by the people. ( Prop 200 in AZ).
Quit pandering and cowtowing to slack-jawed special interests. (
Drill for OIL HERE AND NOW! ( duh!)

In short, JUST QUIT. Seriously, do all of us a favor. Quit. Imagine the respect you would get when one day you just came out and stated on the capitol steps, " I'm out, I've got nothing".

YOU, yes You, could be the one congressperson who would be telling the truth.

Because, really - you have nothing to offer our nation at this point. If you are a senator or rep serving in the current Congress, you have nothing. You have proven nothing. You have wasted time and money in securing your own interests and future wealth. Obviously, you have either done a bad job ( 9% ) or you have failed miserably to communicate what exactly it is you have accomplished. Which is simply put - nothing. nada. zip. zero.

Do you want to know what this Congress has produced since taking over in Nov 2006?

HHHMMMMM????? I'm waiting.

Here, let me help you - They redesigned the freaking lunchroom at the Capitol building. Yep, that is it. Anything they have tried to pass has failed by either vote or veto.

So, I ask again. Is 9% Acceptable.

I'm going to drive home now. I hope that more than 9% of the drivers out there know how to drive.

Your thoughts?

Monday, July 7, 2008

Lets get God back in the USA.

I was listening to sermon by Newt Gingrich yesterday and I wanted to comment on it.

He was in Atlanta delivering a speech about American values and the lack of education around them.

He stated that when we removed "prayer" from our schools, our way was lost. I know it's debate-able, but I feel he is correct.

I remember in elementary school when my teachers would lead us in quick prayer. It was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and then a patriotic song chosen by one of the students.
I have fond memories of that.

I remember quite clearly when it stopped. I asked my teacher why we didn't say a prayer and she said, " The Supreme Court says we can't make you do it".

Well, as a young boy- that didn't make much sense to me. I just thought we were doing the right thing. We were only saying a nice prayer that asked God to help us do well in our lives. What could be bad about that?

I started to ask questions to my parents, whom by the way are not religious by any means, what was happening. It was then that my dad explained the way the Supreme Court rules. Back then there were 12 judges not 9. I still thought that it was weird that only a handful of people could make the rules for the entire USA. How powerful those people must be, I thought to myself. Indeed they are.

Here are some facts - Since prayer was removed .....
Petty and violent crimes have increased by 120% according to the FBI statistics gathered in 2005.
Abortions have risen to 2 million annually. - US Dept of health and human services.
Education scores has sunk to an all time low in the past 30 years. - Dept. of Education 2003

Now, to say that " not saying a prayer" caused this all to happen might seem a bit alarmist. I can understand that logic. However, I believe that God gave us this nation to serve as a beacon of hope for all of the world. When the SCotUS determined that we didn't need God in our public schools, we slapped him in the proverbial face.

I often hear the phrase " Seperation of Church and State ", as being an essential part of the US Constitution. Problem with that is.........

There is no amendment that says that. Anywhere. I will give anyone who can find the phrase "seperation of church and state" in that document a hundred dollars. It doesn't exist. Seriously. I have read the Constitution numerous times and I even corrected my college professor on this topic.

We do have a duty to preserve the ideals and values that the forefathers set forth. The Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the remainder of the Constitution are all based on Judeo-Christian values. More importantly the 10 commandments. Why????

Because the extremely intelligent men who wrote these documents were all very, very, very, active in their churches. Their is a carving and statue above the Supreme Court that states " IN GOD WE TRUST". It is accompanied by a marble version of the 10 commandments.

IN GOD WE TRUST has to mean something. If it doesn't mean anything here in the USA, believe me it will be utterly meaningless elsewhere on the globe.

Americans are defenders of truth, justice, faith, freedom, and liberty. We take these things very seriously. We have seen the true faces of evil in Stalin, Hitler, Mao, BinLaden, etc,etc.

Our task in the future is to fight for prayer to be in school. Our children must know that they are to be accountable to someone, to something, - that life cannot be lived without consequences.

Life is a series of choices, humans tend to be like snowflakes - we are all different. Yet, in America, despite who you are, or where you are from, you have a duty to believe in the ideals and principles that we hold dear. In the past, you had to agree to this before you could become a citizen. I know, my parents are immigrants.

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Happy 4th of July

To all the anti-US people out there.

"So, how does it feel to know that someone’s kid in the heart of America has blood on their hands fighting to defend your rights so you can maintain the lifestyle that insults his family’s existence ?

Well where I'm from we have a special salute waved high in the air towards all those pompous assholes who spend their days pointing fingers.

Fuck you." - Avenged Sevenfold

Quite simply - Thanks to all US servicemen and women.

God Bless you all. I hope that you stay safe and God finds favor with you and your families.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Arrogant Liberals think they can Change anything!

Recently, the US Fish and Wildlife Assc. placed the polar bear on the endangered list. Problem is, that there is absolutely no proof of them declining in their birth rate. If you can produce the proof, then post a comment. I will not find a comment, because there is no proof. Why do this? To push the global warming agenda. OOPS. I mean " climate change " agenda. Ya see, using the term global warming doesn't fly when we experienced some of the coldest years on record in the past few years.

And for those who didn't attend elementary school, " Climate change" is what killed the dinosaurs. Their time came and went. The planet moved on.

Let me tell you about endangered species, all right? Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control nature. It's arrogant meddling. It's what got us in trouble in the first place. Doesn't anybody understand that? Interfering with nature. Over 90%, way over 90% of all the species that have ever lived on this planet, ever lived, are gone. They're extinct. We didn't kill them all. They just disappeared. That's what nature does. We're so self-important, so self-important. Everybody is going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails. And the greatest arrogance of all, save the planet. What?

I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths, people trying to make the world safe for their Volvos.

There is nothing wrong with the planet.

Nothing wrong with the planet.

The planet is fine.

The people are f**ked up.

The planet is fine.

Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. It's been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little more than 200 years.

Two hundred years versus four and a half billion, and we have the conceit to think that somehow we're a threat, that somehow we're going to put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us, been through all kinds of things worse than us, been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sunspots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages, and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference?

The planet isn't going anywhere.

We are! We're going away!

Your thoughts?

RIP- George Carlin

Monday, June 30, 2008

From my cold dead hands!

Mr. Heston once said, " You can have my gun, when you pry it from my cold dead hands".

I am a firm advocate for the second amendment right of gun ownership. In fact, I have owned a gun since I was just a child of 10. I gained ownership of a 12 gauge single shot shot-gun. I can't remember where my brother in law got it from, but I do remember the way it felt when he took me to shoot it.

I put the shell in the chamber, lock it, and aimed. Bang! What a rush. That bottle was disintegrated into dust!

Well, many years have passed since I shot that gun. I have a total of about 7 guns to date. Some are rifles, others are shotguns, and I own a few pistols.

I own the guns for one simple reason : BECAUSE I CAN.

I don't hunt anymore. I used to be into duck hunting in TX.
I don't work with a secret govt. agency.
I don't live in a bad neighborhood.

So, why do I need a gun? Again, because I can.

It is my right! Quick history lesson : This country was founded by pissed off men who lived in a brutal and savage environment. They wrote the Constitution to include gun ownership for multiple reasons. Hunting, food gathering, sport, and most importantly - PROTECTION.

Protection from what? Wild animals, Savages ( American Indians were pissed off too ), other wild and drunk settlers, and the biggest threat - The US government.

Most people don't realize the main reason for the 2nd amendment is to protect ourselves from our own government. WE keep them in check. Simply put, we are there to insure that no wacko's take over our government and try to remove our rights. And if they do, we have the right to protect ourselves against enemies. Foreign and domestic. Period.

If big brother shows up at my front door and says, "you can't have a gun anymore - that is when I will go out WACO - style."

Waco, TX is a perfect example of why we have the 2nd amend.

Govt. doesn't like how many guns David Koresh bought. Govt. sends goons to house to raid house and take guns away. Why? There is no limit.

Clinton and Janet Reno were just making up the rules as they went. You can't do that.

So with all that said........... Hooray for the Supreme Courts decision last week to allow handguns in Washington, DC. They overturned a 30+ yr old rule and now law abiding people of DC can protect themselves from the slime.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Another ringing endorsement!

Well, well, well. It appears that Obamamamarambalambadingdong has another ringing endorsement.

From who??? Why none other than N. Korean dictator - Kim Jung Il.

So now the tally reads...........

Endorsing Obama: Hammas, Hezbollah, Ahmandenijad, Jung-Il.

I can only wonder when Mugabee will be sounding off on his enthusiasm.

I find this incredibly frightening. There used to be a time when a canidate would be kicked off his party's ticket for having an endorsement from a unsavory dictator.

Not any more. People, the media is in the tank for this guy. An empty suit.

The Mainstream media will not say one negative thing about Obama.

I have one question for the glassy-eyed, slack-jawed, brownshirts that are mezmerized by this fraud.

" What do you not like about Obama"?

Creak, creak, creak. - That is the sound of crickets.

Friday, June 20, 2008

The Supreme Disaster!

Unelected judges at it again.......

Where is the voice of the people?

After reading Justice Anthony Kennedy's recent majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush, I feel like I need to install a "1984"-style Big Brother camera in my home so Justice Kennedy can keep an eye on everything I do.

Until last week, the law had been that there were some places in the world where American courts had no jurisdiction. For example, U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over non-citizens who have never set foot in the United States. But now, even aliens get special constitutional privileges merely for being caught on a battlefield trying to kill Americans.

I think I prefer Canada's system of giving preference to non-citizens who have skills and assets.

If Justice Kennedy can review the procedures for detaining enemy combatants trying to kill Americans in the middle of a war, no place is safe. It's only a matter of time before the Supreme Court steps in to overrule Randy, Paula and Simon.

In the court's earlier attempts to stick its nose into such military operations as the detainment of enemy combatants at Guantanamo, the court dangled the possibility that it would eventually let go. In its 2006 ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the court disallowed the Bush administration's combatant status review tribunals, but wrote: "Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority (for trial by military commission) he believes necessary." So Bush returned to Congress and sought authority for the military commissions he deemed necessary -- just as the court had suggested -- and Congress passed the Military Commissions Act. But as Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent in the Boumediene case last week: It turns out the justices "were just kidding." This was the legal equivalent of the Supreme Court playing "got your nose!" with the commander in chief.

The majority opinion by Justice Kennedy in Boumediene held that it would be very troubling from the standpoint of "separation of powers" for there to be someplace in the world in which the political branches could operate without oversight from Justice Kennedy, one of the four powers of our government (the other three being the executive, legislative and judicial branches).

So now even procedures written by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive branch have failed Kennedy's test.

He says the law violates "separation of powers," which is true only if "separation of powers" means Justice Kennedy always gets final say.
Of course, before there is a "separation of powers" issue, there must be "power" to separate.

As Justice Scalia points out, there is no general principle of separation of powers. There are a number of particular constitutional provisions that when added up are referred to, for short, as "separation of powers." But the general comes from the particular, not the other way around. And the judiciary simply has no power over enemy combatants in wartime. Such power is committed to the executive as part of the commander in chief's power, and thus implicitly denied to the judiciary, just as is the power to declare war is unilaterally committed to Congress. As one law professor said to me, this is what happens when the swing justice is the dumb justice. Kennedy's ruling thus effectively overturned the congressional declaration of war -- the use of force resolution voted for by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, 75 other senators as well as 296 congressmen.

If there's no war, then there are no enemy combatants. This is the diabolical arrogance of Kennedy's opinion. We've been through this before:

Should the military run the war or should the courts run the war?
I think the evidence is in.
The patriotic party ( Republicans ) says we are at war, and the Guantanamo detainees are enemy combatants. Approximately 10,000 prisoners were taken on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Of those, only about 800 ended up in Guantanamo, where their cases have been reviewed by military tribunals and hundreds have been released. The detainees are not held because they are guilty; they're held to prevent them from returning to the battlefield against the U.S. Since being released, at least 30 Guantanamo detainees have returned to the battlefield, despite their promise to try not to kill any more Americans.

I guess you can't trust anybody these days.

The treason party says the detainees are mostly charity workers who happened to be distributing cheese to the poor in Afghanistan when the war broke out, and it was their bad luck to be caught near the fighting. They consider it self-evident that enemy combatants should have access to the same U.S. courts that recently acquitted R. Kelly of statutory rape despite the existence of a videotape.

Good plan, liberals.

The New York Times article on the decision in Boumediene notes that some people "have asserted that those held at Guantanamo have fewer rights than people accused of crimes under American civilian and military law."

In the universal language of children: Duh.

The logical result of Boumediene is for the U.S. military to exert itself a little less trying to take enemy combatants alive. The military also might consider not sending the little darlings to the Guantanamo Spa and Resort. Instead of playing soccer, volleyball, cards and checkers in Guantanamo, before returning to their cells with arrows pointed toward Mecca for their daily prayers, which are announced five times a day over a camp loudspeaker, the enemy combatants can rot in Egyptian prisons.

That may be the only place left that is safe from Justice Kennedy.

Your thoughts?

Thursday, June 12, 2008

George W. Bush. - History's greatest President.

The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush's rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant -- if that's not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush's third term. Then he might have a chance - Ann Coulter

I couldn't agree more. It amazes me that an entire country is mezmerized by a empty suit named B. Huessein Obama.

My question to you today is........ " what would Obama do if we were attacked by terrorists during his first 6 months in office"?

A. Attack the nation that was harbouring the criminals?
B. Start a "blue ribbon" panel to determine what to do?
C. Meet with the dictators.

I think he would 1st start a blue ribbon panel that would consist of anti-war idiots and appeasers.
Then, he would meet with the dictators.
Finally, he would NOT attack the nation that was harbouring the criminals. He would probably give them most favored nation status.

Just my thoughts.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Just Blame Big Oil? Hell-No!

Yesterday, the Senate Republicans voted down a bill that would have taxed the Oil companies on a Windfall profit tax. Well, it appears that at least some of the Reds in the Senate still have a pair.

What is the fasination with blaming Big Oil? I constantly hear the liberal left leaning media banging the Bush Administrations association with Big Oil drum. OH NO!

Let me ask you this? Has B. Huessein Obama stated that he will help the Oil companies? How about his stance on the Arabs and OPEC? The answer to these questions is NO and his current stance on OPEC is that he wants to sue them.

Really? I mean really???

What does that to produce more oil? Answer: nothing.

People this is a supply and demand thing. More people are using more oil everyday. Countries like China and India are no longer going to settle for rickshaws and magic carpets to get around. Their economies have grown exponentially. Therefore, in countries whose combined populations amount to over 2 billion people, you could expect demand to increase. Right?

Has production increased? Answer: NO.

In fact, it has remained stable at the same amount for the last couple of years. Why?

Answer: In different areas of the world, the governments are regulating or entirely taking over the oil production. In the last few years this has happened in Russia, Iran, and most recently Venezuela. With that said, let me propose this query, " If these govt.'s took over oil production, then who did all the work before they took it over"? Answer: the good ole' US of A.

Will those countries produce more now that we have been kicked out of the country? No. It is in their benefit not to produce as much. Right?

So. Let's get focused and put our energy into the right thing. Production.

Lets drill for more. It is my belief that when we are paying over $5 a gallon, ( probably next week ) then even the greenest of the greenies will have to change their tune.

Because as of right now. The environmentalist are the only happy ones right now.

Friday, June 6, 2008