Wednesday, February 28, 2007

The clueless party

This is a sample of stories about Democrats and Iraq:

Democrats Snipe At Senate Leaders over Handling of Iraq Issue By: John Bresnahan

Over at CNN see Senate Democrats may be splintering on Iraq.

See The Power Line's Trouble In Paradise.

Pelosi Falls Short On Election PromisesBy Daniel W. Reilly and Jim VandeHei

Democrats back away from Iraq plan By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS.

So what's going on? Why can't the Democrats bring down an unpopular president presiding over such an unpopular war?

The answer is simple. The Democrats don't have a clue and never did. The country may not like Pres. Bush's handling of the war. On the other hand, Pres. Bush takes a position and sticks to it beyond the latest opinion polls!

It won't be long before the Democrats call for a new election and beg Americans to put them back in the minority. It was a lot easier when all they had to do was to sit in the bleachers and criticize Pres. Bush.

They can't do that anymore. Now they have to govern.

Yes, now they have to take responsibility for alternatives and that's too much for a party that does not have a clue.

Let's stop the global warming hysteria

What are the environmentalists smoking? I don't know but don't give me any of it.

I saw three great articles about global warming.

The first one is
Warming delirium By William Rusher:

"The media have recently been blaring what they depict (inaccurately, by the way) as the latest grim warning from the practically unanimous ranks of the world's climatologists concerning global warming. It is time to take two aspirin, lie down and consider the matter calmly."

The second one is
Plus Ça (Climate) Change (The Earth was warming before global warming was cool) BY PETE DU PONT:

"During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001."

The third one is
As Went the Dodo so Will Kyoto By Marc Sheppard:

"February has been a tough month for Global Warming doomsayers. First, their cataclysmic worst-case scenarios were debunked by the IPCC, which cut its own 2001 projections for temperature increase by a third and sea level rise completely in half. Then, just five days later, they learned that the environmentally irresponsible U.S was actually doing a better job of cutting CO2 emissions than their Kyoto-signing European Union heroes. And to top it off, attendees of a February 16th DC meeting of GLOBE nations agreed to abandon their adored Kyoto's economy-killing, energy-rationing, short-range, mandatory CO2 targets in favor of more realistic long-term goals."

So let Hollywood enjoy its global warming moment. After the party, let them get on their private jets and fly to the next global warming meeting!

In the meantime, the rest of us will work on creating jobs and finding alternatives to fossil fuel.

Message to the eco-celebs

A Modest Proposal to Eco-Celebs by Clarice Feldman is right on target:

"So, I have a modest proposal for the eco-celebs. We'll give you the exclusive right to wear certain colors, shoes, swords and clothing and you can pick what these are.

Only those of you who have won OscarsTM, married ketchup queens or created hit TV shows, inherited substantial wealth or whose earned income exceeds by some substantial degree that of the upper middle class-say $10 million a year --will be in this class.

In exchange, you have to promise to confine yourself to staying out of politics, pretending you know beans about energy or the environment and leave the rest of us alone."

Go away eco-celebs. Most of us don't like your movies either!

The Gore mansion warms the globe!

VP Gore should win an Oscar for Lifestyles Of The Rich, Famous:

"If the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or the Nobel Committee handed out prizes for demonstrating unsurpassed hypocrisy, Al Gore and John Edwards should be among the first recipients."

Sorry. Please don't tell me that I'm using too much energy. Don't make me feel guilty because I drove to my office rather than ride a horse.

Don't waste my time over global warming, specially if your name is Al Gore.

See this from Neal Boortz:

"It has been discovered that Al Gore's Nashville-area mansion has 20 rooms, eight bathrooms and uses more electricity in one month than the average house uses in a year.

A group called the Tennessee Center For Policy Research has gotten its hands on some of Al's gas and electric bills for 2006, and it's not pretty. I guess that's what you call "an inconvenient truth."

I suppose this falls underneath the category of do as I say, but not as I do.

Is there an Oscar for that?

Maybe Al Gore will win that one next year.

This has always been the problem when it comes to the holier-than-thou leftist environmentalists.

Al Gore will stand up there and tell you America is destroying the planet, thanks to greenhouse gases.

We're supposed to feel guilty for driving our cars, using too much electricity and the like.

And after he's done lecturing us all, Al gets onto his private jet, burns up the jet fuel back to Nashville where he goes back to his mansion.

But back to Al's energy bill.

It's also come out that on average in 2006, Al Gore paid $1,359 a month in electricity...twice in one month what that average household uses in a year.

And natural gas? Gore used plenty of that, too...$1,080 a month, on average.

Remember ... for most of those months Al wasn't even there!

So what's the problem with all this?

Well, nothing really. Al Gore is rich...he's entitled to buy his house and use as much electricity and natural gas as he can afford.

But so is everybody else.

So maybe the next time Gore gets up onto his soapbox and starts lecturing the public, somebody will call him out. Maybe."

Are the Democrats serious at all?

Is this amazing or what? See this:

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that she believes President Bush's judgment on the Iraq war "is a little impaired."

So why won't the Democrats move to impeach him or, at least, cut the funding? Don't they have a responsibility to the constitution?

February 2007: "The Oscars" or too much of the same thing

What's wrong with the Oscars? Let me try this:

1) It is too long. Sorry 4 hours of meaningless awards is just too long. Cut the TV portion to 2 hours and it will be more relevant. They should run the first 2-3 hours on some cable outlet so that the more passionate fans can watch every award and dress.

2) Hollywood has become too political. You can not put liberal after liberal on your TV screen without tuning out large segments of conservatives.

3) Most Americans do not like to hear sermons about global warming from movie stars who fly around in private jets and get around in huge SUVs


"Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy."

The Oscars is too much of the same thing!

P.S. If Gore runs for president, he will carry Hollywood but not Tennessee!

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

The Mexican Congress needs to get its act together!

The Mexican Congress once again demonstrated what is wrong with our neighbor. I feel sorry for Felipe Calderon. He has to deal with these people every day.

They certainly have their priorities messed up.

First, Mexican Congressmen got angry yesterday and it wasn't with each other. See:

"Legislators say workers and equipment building a section of the barrier have gone 10 metres (yards) into Mexico."

Second, we have more evidence of Mexico's economic decline. See Here Comes China:

"Case in point: The number of Mexico's maquiladora workers has plummeted almost by half since 2001, a decline some tie to China's productivity, America's manufacturing decisions and Mexico's economic troubles.

So what's the answer for Mexico?

It begins with Mexico making its economy more competitive. Industries like telecommunications and energy must be deregulated, and Mexico must make sense of its crazy-quilt labor laws.

It also must develop a more skilled workforce and provide jobs for a greater percentage of its burgeoning population.

And, of course, it must stem the drug violence and state corruption that complicate foreign investment. "

My message to the Mexican Congress is simple: Get serious about job creation and stop blowing smoke over some unintentional border crossing!

Mexican women want their husbands back!

Guess who wants strict enforcement of US immigration laws? The answer is Mexican women.

Up here, they are cheap labor. In Mexico, the political class loves to send them north. After all, it's better to have them cutting grass in Dallas rather than marching in front of Los Pinos.

However, no one talks about the horrible consequences to the Mexican family unit.

This is why I loved this article. See Mexican wives seek ouster of husbands from U.S. By Stephen Dinan:

"It's a stark reminder of an often forgotten voice in the U.S. immigration debate -- the wives, children, parents and villages left behind as millions of workers come to the U.S., many of them illegally.

The plea also underscores the dual effects of migration on Mexico: Its economy needs American jobs as an outlet for workers, but determined, able-bodied workers get siphoned out of Mexico.

More than 10 million Mexican-born people, or nearly one out of every 10, was living in the United States in 2005.

And as a percentage of the work force it's even higher: One in seven, or 14 percent, were here, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

The institute said 77 percent of Mexican workers in the U.S. were younger than 45, and 70 percent were men.

Villages devoid of men between 20 and 50 are common in many parts of the country. The stories of single mothers struggling to raise their children are just as frequent."

There are always consequences. In this case, they are not good for Mexican wives and children!

It's time to close the border and force Mexican politicians to fix their nation's problems.

The Mexican trucks are OK

Look around you! If you see a big Mexican truck on I-35 then say "hola"! The US and Mexico are finally going to complete part of the NAFTA agreement signed in '93.

Of course, Democrats are up in arms. As always, The Wall Street Journal is the voice of reason. See Semi-Truths:

"Last week, the Bush Administration announced a plan to lift the mileage restriction, and unions and their supporters in Congress are predictably crying foul. Rather than acknowledging their protectionist agenda, opponents are raising bogus concerns linked to the supposedly poor "safety" record of Mexican rigs.

Teamster President James Hoffa told reporters the Administration is "playing a game of Russian roulette on America's highways."

Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington says she'll hold hearings."

Nobody wants unsafe trucks in our highways. At the same time, it's unfair for Democrats to beat up on Mexican trucks:

"According to the Transportation Department, 32% of Mexican trucks were pulled from the road for safety violations in 2001. Last year that number fell to 21%. Meanwhile, 21% of U.S. trucks failed safety inspections in 2001, versus 23% last year. Mexican drivers are less likely than their U.S. counterparts to be in violation of the law--1.2% in 2006, versus 7% for U.S. truckers."

The Mexican trucks are OK. Let them cross the border!

Monday, February 26, 2007

What about the new deal with North Korea?

Like most people, I don't trust North Korea. Why should I trust liars? Why should I believe a man who allows thousands, if not millions, of his own countrymen to starve?

The new deal needs time. Let's see if NK lives up to its word. However, it does look like there is a new reason to feel optimistic. The reason is China.

Thirteen Years Later By George H. Wittman:

"This answer may reside in the altered role of China during the thirteen interim years. China, already politically dominant, is now recognized as the major regional economic power -- competing only with Japan. Ironically this strength has been gained through the PRC veering away from its commitment to strict socialist economic principles. The North Korean leadership cannot admit it openly, but it no longer can consider China as the same fraternal partner it once was. Pyongyang, from its continued Stalinist perspective, certainly views Beijing's eroding Communist dogma as giving impetus to China's emergence as a nascent capitalist state."

Will it work? I hope so. Again, I don't trust North Korea. However, I do think that China wants North Korea to behave differently.

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Geffen blasts the Clintons

David Geffen won the "quote of the week" award:

"Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice? Yet another time when the Clintons
were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."

Liars, Inc. (David Geffen has reminded folks what it was like when the Clintons were in the White House) By Larry Kudlow recalls a period that we would rather forget:

"David Geffen also has turned our attentions back to the days of the Lincoln bedroom scandal, when White House sleepovers were regularly offered in exchange for large political contributions. I could be wrong, but I don’t recall a single instance of this happening while George W. Bush has been in office. Same for Bush Sr. and Ronald Reagan. For that matter, I don’t recall any Lincoln-bedroom sales during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, or Richard Nixon. Just the Bill Clinton presidency."

That's right. Is this country ready for that? Even liberals are not ready for that!

The non binding resolution cartoons

Anti-Americanism? This is insanity!

If you are blown up by Al Qaeda's new deadly chemical bombs (
Blowback in Iraq), don't expect a lot of sympathy in Europe.

If your parents or relatives are blown up in a Tel Aviv eatery don't expect a lot of tears from Europe, either.

For the European left, the US and Israel are the problem.

Take a look at
An Upside-Down World (The British far left makes common cause with Muslim reactionaries) BY NICK COHEN.

"As al Qaeda, the Baathists and Shiite Islamists slaughter thousands, there is virtually no sense that their successes are our defeats. Iraqi socialists and trade unionists I know are close to despair. They turn for support to Europe, the home of liberalism, feminism and socialism, and find that rich democrats, liberals and feminists won't help them or even acknowledge their existence."

Mr. Cohen is a columnist for the Observer and The New Statesman. He is also the author of What's Left? How Liberals Lost Their Way.

For the European left, it's tough to cheer for anyone liberated by the US. This is odd since most of these European lefties were liberated by US troops in 1945. During the Cold War, their freedoms were guaranteed by US tanks in the old West Germany and the awesome US Mediterranean Fleet.

We see the same phenomenon with the world's feminists. Where were the feminists when women voted in Afghanistan or Iraq? Again, they don't want to cheer for women liberated by the US. (Where are the feminists?)

This is the state of the new left. It is anti-American because it no longer shares our values, such as freedom. The left would rather be in bed with people who blow up innocents than the soldiers who defend them. The left would rather cheer for people who do not believe in basic women's rights!

This is not anti-Americanism. This is insanity. As Mr. Cohen indicates:

"I hope conservative American readers come to Britain. But if you do, expect to find an upside-down world. People who call themselves liberals or leftists will argue with you, and when they have finished you may experience the strange realization that they have become far more reactionary than you have ever been."

Saturday, February 24, 2007

How is this impacting young girls?

Britney's public meltdown may be a blessing in disguise. It may take something like this incident to wake parents, and our society, that our kids need better role models.

Frankly, little girls need to be little girls. They need to stay simple and cute for a long time. They will have plenty of time to grow up and be women.

Let's respect their innocence.

See Sexualizing Girls By Mona Charen:

"The American Psychological Association has discovered that too early sexualization of children, particularly girls, is damaging. How about that?"

Finally, check out
Dying to be divas By Kathleen Parker:

"Between hourly updates on the decomposing body of Anna Nicole Smith and the balding of Britney Spears, we can confidently declare that the Jerry Springerization of America is complete. The travails of these two tragic characters would be of little interest in a normal world, but ``celebrity'' is the new normal. Like it or not, we're all in this together."

Why is Rudy gaining? It's leadership!

Rudy Guiliani is leading polls against every Democrat. He is also the strongest supporter of Pres. Bush's Iraq policy and War on Terror.

How is this possible? The answer is leadership.

As Democrats position themselves, Guiliani consistently reminds us that we are in a war started by "them not us". (Check out this amazing audio Rudy Giuliani on The Bill Bennett Show.)

There are many reasons to distrust Democrats. I agree with The top 9 reasons why a Democratic president can't handle the war on terrorism By John Hawkins. The Democrats are not serious about national securtiy. They don't see it!

Again, 2008 will be about leadership. So far, we are not getting any from the Democrat side! Take a look at this transcript: Mayor Rudy Giuliani on the campaign trail on The Hugh Hewitt Show.

P.S. Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) leads New York Senator Hillary Clinton (D) 52% to 43%.

Obama vs Clinton

Hollywood loves Obama. He is the new liberal virgin. For many of these liberals, Obama is like living the '68 Bobby Kennedy campaign all over again. Beyond that, I do believe that most liberals hate the Clintons. Liberals feel betrayed by the Clintons.

After all, who let the Kyoto treaty sit around without bringing it to the US Senate for ratifications?

Who went around the UN in Bosnia and Haiti?

Who bombed Iraq in 1998?

Who signed welfare reform, NAFTA and The Defense of Marriage Act?

Let me ask you this: Who threw the liberals overboard in '96 to go "centrist" and get reelected? The answer is Bill Clinton!

This is why 4 million liberals voted for Nader in 2000. It was their way of saying "no" to 8 years of Clinton-Gore!

Add the last minute Clinton pardons and the story is complete.

Hillary Clinton's "yes and no" Iraq War record does not help. It is correct to assume that Hillary Clinton is reading polls and telling people what they want to hear.

Don't underestimate this Obama-Clinton spat.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Let me say it: I'm sick and tired of all of this anti-Americanism

A few weeks ago, the BBC ran a poll about attitudes toward the US. See View of US's global role 'worse' . (According to the poll, everybody hates the US!)

All of this about polls recalls an article from Christopher Hitchens:
"I ask this because almost every week I seem to read a study of how the rest of the globe thinks (or at any rate feels) about the United States. The polls in this country are unreliable enough and are often used to measure intangibles, such as “approval ratings,” which is why there is so much fluctuation within and between them. But who’s doing the random samples in Somalia and Tajikistan and Ecuador?"
How do you do a poll anyway in most of these countries? How reliable are the answers?

Yet, anti-Americanism has very little to do with Bush and it lot to do with the US.

They hate us because we are the sole superpower, a prosperous nation and the only large economy creating jobs.

See Anti-Americanism's Deep RootsThe Current Wave of Hostility Will Ebb (But This Is About More Than the Iraq War) By Robert Kagan:
"If we refrained from action out of fear that others around the world would be angry with us, then we would never act. And count on it: They'd blame us for that, too."
They blame us if we do and they blame us if we don't!

Welcome to life as a superpower!

Would you like to live in that world? Probably not, specially if you are currently living in the Europe liberated by US forces in 1945.

My memo to US critics is very simple: We are not perfect. You are not perfect either. However, chill out and thank God that US presidents from Truman to Bush have been willing to defend you!

A great article on anti-Americanism

This morning, I saw Italian Lesson (They don’t call her Signora Pelosi for nothing) By Denis Boyles:

"In America itself, liberals will try to convince themselves that anti-Americanism is based on a dislike of Bush, but in reality, it’s a consistent and very long-running hatred that is essential to the self-understanding of European elites, as many have pointed out, including Roger Philippe in his French bestseller The American Enemy. (It was also our topic here just last week)."

Sorry, it did not start with Pres. Bush! It's been going on for some time.

Guess what happened to a Mexican journalist?

From Mexico, we hear that César González-Calero, a journalist for El Universal, won't have his papers renewed by the Castro regime.

Why not? It appears that Sr. Gonzalez-Calero has been doing some reporting which is contrary to the "national interest".

What does that mean? It means that Sr. Gonzalez-Calero has been telling the truth and Castro's regime does not like that!

It's OK to work in Cuba and play along. See
Faustian Bargain by Henry "Conductor" Gomez:

recent expulsion from Cuba of foreign journalists that have been deemed as "too negative" by the Castro regime is OBVIOUS proof that that quid pro quo exists between the international press and the Cuban government. Presumably any journalists that haven't been asked to leave have not been judged to be "too negative." On that grounds any report they file should be suspect."

If they tell the truth then they are singled out like Mr. Gonzalez-Calero.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Sooner or later, we will have to deal with Hugo

In 1962, we had the missile crisis over Soviet arms in Cuba. Sometime soon, a US president is going to have to deal with Hugo Chavez.

Take a look at
The Coming Naval War With Venezuela:

"Venezuela is negotiating with Russia to buy nine diesel-electric submarines from Russia, for about $335 million each. That would nearly double the $3.4 billion in weapons Venezuela has already bought from Russia.

Venezuela wants the subs in order to defend itself from American attack. U.S. aircraft carriers would be a crucial part of any American attack force. The U.S. has denied any intention of attacking, but no matter.

Venezuela already has two 1970s era German Type 209 subs. The Russians would provide much more modern Kilo class boats. Iran, China and several other nations, already use the Kilo.

Venezuela has also approached France and Germany, but these nations are reluctant to pursue such an offer. Mainly because Venezuela is seen squandering billions on weapons it doesn't need, while domestic needs are ignored. Thus, it's not the prospect of supplying weapons for use against the United States navy that discourages the French and German sub builders, but the fear of being seen as less than politically correct regarding the way Venezuela is being misgoverned. "

So far, Pres. Bush has avoided Chavez. My guess is that the US is hoping that Venezuelans will get tired of Hugo and replace him. In the meantime, Hugo Chavez continues to buy more weapons.

Don't be surprised if Pres. Bush, or his successor, draw the line on Chavez' weapon purchases. Frankly, what does Venezuela need to buy submarines for anyway?

The surge

It's hard to get concrete facts news from Iraq. Unfortunately, the war coverage is so partisan that the American people have a hard time deciphering the truth.

Over the last few months, I've started getting my news from other sources.

How is the surge doing? Actually, it is doing well but the task is huge.

What's Not News:

""Taking back the streets" is easy. Holding them in the long term is hard. It will take several months before it is known who won the Battle of Baghdad. It's all a matter of crime rates. If the murder rate comes down, you've won. Actually, the murder rate has come down over the last year, but not enough to become news. Eliminating the suicide car bombings would be a real victory, as these operations are largely for the media. Militarily they mean much less than the gun battles between police and terrorist (Sunni or Shia) gangs, or the raids on terrorist safe houses. At this point, the Sunni Arabs are fighting a media war. On the ground, they have lost. But until the media confirms this, they can keep it up."

Will it work perfectly? Probably not. The enemy is determined and cruel.

I found this story rather amazing.

Iraqi Insurgents Using Dirty Bombs on Civilians By DAMIEN CAVE and AHMAD FADAM:

"For the third time in a month, insurgents deployed a new and deadly tactic against Iraqi civilians today: A dirty bomb combining explosives with poisonous chlorine gas."

Unfortunately, these terrorists are willing to kill civilians and use dirty bombs. Why aren't we hearing more about this? Also, couldn't these dirty bombs be used elsewhere?

Too much Anna Nicole for me

On one side, you have a dead woman. On the other side, you have a baby who has become the center of a huge "who is your daddy" controversy.

In the middle, there are millions like me who are sick and tired of this.

Anna's death was tragic. The media's coverage is sick.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Democrats will regret all of this

In 1975, the Democrats threw South Vietnam to the communist dogs. They allowed a better equipped, and much larger, North Vietnamese army to run over everyone in Saigon. It was a despicable scene.

Didn't we agree to defend the South? Pres. Nixon did in '73. The Democrats forgot all about in '75.

In the long run, it killed the Democrats politically.

Don't take my word for this. Check out Lawrence J. Haas, former communications director for Vice President Al Gore, and currently the vice president of the bipartisan Committee on the Present Danger.

See Democrats should beware of the post-Vietnam syndrome:

"Clearly, a failure in Iraq will create a haven for terrorists, including those from al-Qaida whom we are fighting there today.

It will create a regional power vacuum to be filled by an increasingly emboldened Iran, which is stoking the fires in Iraq while ignoring international efforts to stop its nuclear program.

The world will grow more dangerous, not less. Failure in Iraq, leading to an exodus of U.S. forces, will provide merely the illusion of peace.

The terrorists will challenge the United States in more places around the world while plotting to bring more turmoil to our homeland.

At some point, the nation will recapture its spirit.

Taunted by our enemies or attacked directly, Americans will look to the party that is ready to respond in kind.

Will Democrats once more be on the losing end?"

There is a new poll out there. It is incredibly consistent with the IBD poll (Unparalleled Perfidy) released a few days ago. The bottom line is the same. Americans want to win!

Matt Drudge has a good summary of the POLL: AMERICANS 'WANT TO WIN IN IRAQ' :

"By a 53 percent - 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq."

There are lots of other numbers. The bottom line is that Americans want to win!

For further analysis, check out The Power Line's
The limits of defeatism:

"These poll results suggest that, apart from the irresponsibility of their position on the merits, the Democrats' defeatist approach to Iraq may not be a winning political strategy. In fact, the Dems' approach may be a dubious political strategy precisely because of its weakness on the merits."

Great numbers! This is another sign that the Iraq War will blow up in the Dems' faces.


"In fact, I commented here after the election on the curious disconnect between what Democrats were actually telling the American people before the election and the anti-war “mandate” they were claiming after the vote. With precious few exceptions, the Democrats did not talk about pulling our troops out of Iraq in 6 months or a year. They didn’t advocate timetables for withdrawal. They didn’t run commercials about supporting the defunding of the war or redeploying troops elsewhere."

How is this going to impact the Democrats? I think that they will come to regret having their foreign policy hijacked by the left.

Another liberal Democrats has a similar warning. See Will Embarrassing the President Make Us Safer? By Ed Koch.

See Will '08 Democrats Follow Murtha, Vote to Cut Troop Funds? By Mort Kondracke:

"If Democratic candidates embrace the strategy of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) to cut off funds for U.S. troops in Iraq, they deserve to be compared to the losers of the past -- George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

All lost presidential elections -- often by landslides -- mainly because voters perceived them as being unreliable in protecting the country from foreign adversaries."

Did Chavez really win the election?

This is an amazing article. Take a look at Ignoring Chavez's Plan BY MICHAEL ROWAN AND DOUG SCHOEN:

"Hugo Chavez may have lost both the recall referendum in 2004 and the December 2006 presidential election, according to studies conducted by a distinguished multidisciplinary team in Caracas, Venezuela. The team includes the rector of Universidad Simon Bolivar, Frederick Malpica, and a former rector of the National Electoral Council, Alfredo Weil."

Of course, you can't prove any of this because the Chavez regime won't allow an investigation. However, is anyone really surprised to hear that Chavez would rig an election?

Joke of the day: Hillary shaves her head

Once in a while, you have to laugh. Check out Scott Ott's hilarious Hillary Shaves Head to Grab Limelight from Obama:

"Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, whose presidential campaign has been overshadowed in recent weeks by charismatic rival Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, today walked into a K-Street beauty salon in Washington, D.C., commandeered the clippers and shaved her head down to the bare skin.

“If Britney Spears can milk a week’s worth of top headlines from this trivial act, so can I,” said a visibly-agitated Mrs. Clinton, who, as it turns out, has “magnificent head shape,” according to the stylist on duty.

The candidate said she has not ruled out visits to tattoo and piercing parlors, and will do “whatever it takes.”

“I’m in, and I’m in to win,” she said. “The American voters can now see that I have much a larger cranium than Sen. Obama, and I think they’ll draw their own conclusions.”

UPDATE: First unconfirmed photos of Sen. Clinton’s new hairdo."

What Hillary Clinton should say but she won't

We are now into the latest chapter of Hillary explanations. Frankly, it gets more embarrassing to watch her.

Why can't she say this?

"In the late 90s, I agreed with my husband, who bombed Iraq in '98 because of WMDs. As all of you remember, my husband could not get anyone at the UN to pay attention to Saddam's violations of the cease fire, resolutions or kicking out the inspectors. My husband had to act unilaterally!

In 2002, I agreed with VP Gore who warned us that Saddam had WMDs.

As it turned out, there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore in 2000 over Iraq.

Frankly, everyone, including Nancy Pelosi and Russ Feingold, said that Saddam had WMDs.

In 2002, I was not tricked or lied to. I studied the options and made a decision. I am not a victim. I was not lied to about WMDs or anything else. I sat down with experts who confirmed that Saddam had WMDs. All of those experts said the same thing in '98 that they said in '02.

Today, we are in Iraq. We can not walk away because it will be a victory for terrorists. We must win so that the next president does not have to send more troops to defend the region from Iran.

What will happen to Israel if we leave? What will happen to the price of oil if we leave?

The Democrats have lost 7 of the last 10 presidential elections, including 4 huge landslides, because the public does not think that we are serious about national security.

We must become the party of Harry Truman again. Otherwise, we will continue to lose elections like John Kerry, Al Gore, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter and George McGovern!

That's my position. Take it or leave it. I'm running for president not Miss America."

Hillary's silly explanations may work in the Democrat primaries, where she has the money to force her way to the nomination. It won't be so easy when she is standing across the TV screen from McCain, Giuliani or even Romney.

Once again, the Democrats' leftist tilt to please primary voters is going to kill them in the general election.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Do we need a campaign this early?

How many of these people will be around a year from now? My guess is that most will be alive and kicking through Iowa and New Hampshire.

I also think that the country will be sick and tired of this whole thing. It's too early.

Can't we wait until the fall? Do we need to spend much of 2007 doing this?

By the way, if the election were held today, Giuliani would beat Clinton.

Great article from CA Montaner

The Cuban story is a great human tragedy. CA Montaner had some things to say about Cuba:

"Under Castro, there have been roughly 5,700 executions, 1,200 extrajudicial murders, 77,800 dead or lost raftsmen, and 11,700 Cuban dead in international missions, most of them during 15 years of African wars in Ethiopia and Angola. Castro’s legacy will be one of bloodshed and injustice, not one of Latin “solidarity” and reform."

The left and global warming

Keep reading this series. Dr. Sowell is up to the 3rd installment. It's great!

Global Hot Air: Part III By Thomas Sowell!

Also, take a look at the left's bizarre morality. They want to protect bears but will say nothing about abortion. See
The Hedonistic Left and Global Warming by George Neumayr:

"In the meantime, the propagandists for global warming, while speaking darkly of the future and the need for greater and greater "responsibility," will continue to deepen a hedonistic culture of irresponsibility in the here and now -- a culture under which children are the first to suffer, and which, far from caring about the future, considers it the height of enlightenment to prevent children from seeing it."

Let's face it. Abortion is killing more children than global warming.

Monday, February 19, 2007

What's next for the non-binders?

Susan Estrich is
warning Democrats:

"From the point of view of most anti-war activists, for the Congress to spend days debating a bill that has no impact on anything is barely a step in the right direction.

“Congress has no choice but to do some binding action after the nonbonding resolution, or the antiwar community will go beserk if they are perceived as hesitating,” Tom Matzzie, who runs the
Washington office of, told reporters."

Susan Estrich is a very smart lady. I enjoy reading her columns. Unfortunately, Democrats lied to Susan and most of the anti-war movement. In other words, they have no idea of what to do in Iraq and never did.

It's a shame that Susan Estrich, and so many liberals, had to find out the hard way that the party leaders were just playing word games with Iraq.

It's time for the anti-war movement to stand up and call the leaders' bluff.

Tell Pelosi and Reid: Give us a binding resolution or we will support Ralph Nader, the only honest antiwar candidate!

Happy Presidents Day

My five best presidents:

1) George Washington----the US was lucky to have this man at the very beginning. Most new countries go wrong from the very beginning. On the other hand, the US had the perfect man at the right moment.

2) Abraham Lincoln----who else? He kept this nation together. It's sad because no one appreciated him during his presidency.

3) FD Roosevelt----great leader. He made people feel better. FDR saw evil in Europe and confronted it.

4) Harry Truman----the great decision maker. Truman had to deal with the post-war world, the economy and Korea.

5) Ronald Reagan----the great communicator and the one who inspired so many to become conservatives.

Overall, the US has been very lucky with the integrity of its presidents.

Murtha's nonsense

Let me repeat. The Democrats do not have the courage to stand up and cut the funding. So watch for little gimmicks, like the one suggested by Rep. Murtha to

Rep. Murtha is betting on a US defeat but he does not have the courage to call for one. However, Rep. Murtha's biggest problem is that he does not understand what we are into.

The Washington Post had this to say about Rep. Murtha:

"Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq.

He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties."

He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year.

He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership.

Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha's remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support.

Does Ms. Pelosi really believe that the debate she orchestrated this week was not "the real vote"? If the answer is yes, she is maneuvering her party in a way that can only do it harm."

The "Murtha plan" will deny the president the possibility of victory while making sure Democrats don't have to share the blame for the defeat. They want to have it both ways. Somehow, I think that this strategy, or lack of one, will blow up in their faces.

The Democrats are invested in defeat. They can't afford any kind of success in Iraq. Is that crazy or what?

P.S. Murtha and his pals should check out Unparalleled Perfidy. IBD reveals in a new poll that most Americans want to win.

Sunday, February 18, 2007

Hugo and the new Bolivar

What do you do when your currency is losing value? You print a new one.

My investment advice: If you have a bolivar then sell it!

See the AP's
Chavez says new Venezuelan currency to be introduced in 2008 :

"Inflation ended at 17 percent last year — the highest rate in Latin America. While the exchange rate of the bolivar has been fixed by the government since 2003 at 2,150 bolivars to US$1, its blackmarket value has tumbled trading recently at about 4,000 bolivars to the dollar.

Justifying the measure, Chavez argued that the country's strong economic growth of recent years, which has been fueled by high oil prices, has made Venezuela "a world economic power," and that it was psychologically damaging for one dollar to be worth so many bolivars."

Is this man insane or what?

Of course, deleting 000s from your currency does not fix your domestic problems. See
Chavez Anti-Inflation Plan May Backfire, Analysts Say :

"Venezuela President Hugo Chavez's plan to curb inflation by lopping three zeros from the currency may backfire because the move fails to address production bottlenecks that are pushing prices higher, economists said".

What's driving inflation up in Venezuela? The Chavez government is spending too much money:

"Public spending grew last year by more than 50 percent and has more than doubled since the start of 2004, as Mr. Chávez has channeled oil revenues into social programs and projects like bridges, highways, trains, subways, museums and, in a departure for a country where baseball reigns supreme, soccer stadiums." (
Chávez Threatens to Jail Price Control Violators By SIMON ROMERONY)

At the end of the day, Chavez is popular because he is literally throwing money at everyone. It's popular with poor people but it distorts the natural forces of the economy.

Venezuela is not attracting foreign factories and plants. Chavez is just buying new weapons and buying votes.

The net result is inflation, shortages and capital flight. Get ready for new Bolivar and a lot more economic shortcomings in Venezuela.




Check Out Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Silvio Canto Jr on BlogTalkRadio

Follow by Email



Search This Blog