Sunday, September 30, 2007

What's the big deal about a photo ID?



Let me get this straight. I need a photo ID to cash a check, get a loan and borrow a DVD. However, some people are complaining about a photo ID to vote.

It seems to me that voting and a photo ID go hand in hand. Otherwise, you can expose the electoral process to massive fraud.

Yes, it's OK and it makes sense to require a photo ID on Election Day.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Barbara Lewis was one of my favorite singers



Barbara Lewis had a great voice and quite a few good songs. Some of her big hits were Baby, I'm Yours, Hello Stranger, and I'll Make Him Love Me. My favorite was Make me your baby:

"I'm gonn'a kiss you in a special way: make me your baby.

I'll find a way to please you every day: make me your baby.

Make me, make me your baby.

Kiss me, kiss me and maybe

You'll see, paradise is waiting for you and me

If you'll make me your baby, (make me your baby)

If you'll make me your baby. (make me your baby)

You'll know a love no one has known before:

make me your baby;

A love that we would share forever more,

when I'm your baby.

Make me, make me your baby. Kiss me, kiss me and maybe You'll see paradise is waiting for you and me" (http://www.songlyrics.com/)

I saw on the Internet that they've released a collection of her hits! Hello Stranger/Workin on a Groovy Thing has most of her hits!

Like Dionne Warwick, Barbara Lewis had a great voice and very easy songs. They sound just as good today as they did in the 60s!

Friday, September 28, 2007

Friday's show: A little bit of everything!




On Friday's show, we reviewed the Democrats' new position on the Iraq War. For a good summary, check Democrats don't vow full Iraq withdrawal by 2013 by Mark Silva:

"Among all of the leading Democratic candidates for president, none was willing to commit to a promise in a campaign debate that all of the U.S. combat forces deployed in Iraq will be gone by 2013, the end of the next president’s term in office."

Also, see:

"I am not saying I disagree with anything Obama, Clinton and Edwards are saying. It’s just been a bit tiring to hear them beat that “end the war” drum all across the country when even they don’t know what that means" (A Lack of Clarity (A.B. Stoddard)

The problem is that the Dems are reading polls, such as the latest Gallup:

"Most Americans support the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but there is only limited support for an immediate withdrawal (there is also only limited support for increased troop levels)."

So here we are. The Dems are reading polls again. Of course, they've been doing that since the voted to support the war in the first place!

Poll readers, poll readers! Click here for the show!

2nd graders do not need to hear about homosexuality




During the debate last night. the Democrats were in top pandering form:

"“Obviously, it is better to try to … help your children understand the many differences that are in the world. … And that goes far beyond sexual orientation. So I think that this issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country.” (Democratic Candidates Say They're OK With Second-Grade Teacher Reading Gay Prince Fairy Tale )

Is this insane or what?

2nd grade children should not be hearing about Tom and Tom, the gay prince or Lesbian Cinderella. Wonder how this is going to play with the mom and dad vote?

Pres. Sarkozy is great



As I mentioned on my radio show, Pres. Sarkozy had a great speech at the UN:

"It was only a few months ago (or was it years?) that the left was warning how we were alienating the peaceable French and the other Europeans.

But this week Monsieur Sarkozy's remarks were in sharp contradistinction to the speech of President Bush, which was full of talk about soft-power and human rights.

We were tempted to send some smelling salts over to the editorial sanctum of the New York Times in case anyone there came down with vertigo." (Role Reversal)

After Chirac's corrupt term, we can now say that France is a friend again. (America's friend again: France!)

In the end, it may be reality that is bring the French back to the West:

"The French flip is only one part of the changing landscape that has given new life to Bush's Iran and Iraq policies in the waning months of his administration. The mood in Congress also has significantly shifted." (France Flips While Congress Shifts By Charles Krauthammer)

It's OK to eat French fries again!

Bush Derangement Syndrome in Madrid



Barcepundit is a Spanish blog worth checking. Today, he discusses the recent story in the Spanish press about a conversation between Pres. Bush and PM Aznar in March 2003:

"MUCH IS BEING MADE of the scoop by pro-Zapatero's daily El PaĆ­s, in Madrid, of the transcript of the memo of a conversation between Bush and Spain's former PM Aznar in Crawford in March 2003 as the Iraq war was about to start. Editor and Publisher has a machine translation, which is quite atrocious. If you can read Spanish, the full text is here." (Barcepundit)

Fausta and Jules Crittenden have more on this blown out of proportion article.

It is further evidence that Bush Derangement Syndrome
diagnosed by Charles Krauthammer in 2003 is alive and well in the land of my grandparents.

The story on El Pais tries to make a sinister connection between Pres. Bush and PM Aznar.

As we have heard, it is the left's template that Bush was planning to go to war since he was governor of Texas. Worse than that, he was planning to invade Iraq since he was a Little League pitcher in Midland, TX. (After all, his dad was the coach and Cheney was probably the catcher!)

Barcepundit translated the documents and concludes:

"Clearly this is not an equivalent to the Downing Street memo, but a leak from a Zapatero administration official to an anti-Bush, anti-Aznar newspaper in the hope of embarrassing the two, and atrociously translated to make it all look worse.

But I'm sorry to say they only embarrassed themselves.

No matter how much you spin it, the memorandum shows exactly the opposite to what they say it shows. In layman terms, they got hoisted by their own petard."

Who is giving El Pais advice? Could it be Mary Mapes of CBS' forged memos fame? Or could it be the fellow at The New York Times who approved the 60% discount for MoveOn.org?

Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets is worth reading and the clincher:

"The Washington Post reports on a story leaked to Spain's El Pais about a meeting between President Bush and the former Spanish president Jose Maria Aznar weeks ahead of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It's interesting to note how Bush discusses Saddam's signals that he might accept exile from Iraq.

El Pais provides the Spanish language transcript
here.
And here's Bush on the chances that Saddam Hussein might choose exile instead of war [translation mine]:

...The Egyptians are talking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he's indicated that he'd be ready to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1 billion dollars and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction. Gaddafi has told Berlusconi that Saddam Hussein wants to leave. Mubarak tells us that in that case, there's a strong possibility that he'd be assassinated."

This begs the question: why would Saddam attach so much importance to information on Iraq's WMD program?

The mainstream media, the Democratic party, and many others have accepted that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, and that there is no reason to think that Iraq's program posed a threat to anyone at the time of the US invasion.

Small caches of WMD and evidence that Saddam intended to reconstitute the program at some point in the future have been downplayed in light of the failure to find the stockpiles of weapons that most intelligence agencies believed to exist.

Yet if the dominant narrative is correct--that Iraq posed no WMD threat--then why did Saddam stake his life on concealing information about the program?

After all, he had to think that if he did not leave Iraq, there was every chance that he would be killed during or after the invasion.

Why would it have been so important to hide evidence that merely confirmed the lack of any threat?

The only logical reason for making this a condition of his agreement to exile was that he believed the program was more advanced than it really was, or that he intended to augment it. In either case, it further bolsters the case that Saddam remained a threat to the region (at least), and that it was wise to depose him."

Why was Saddam so attached to his WMD program? Perphaps Saddam was crazy and just wanted to make Bush look bad. Maybe Saddam was secretly a Democrat and was hoping to help them win the election!

Or, perphaps he had a program and did not want to lose it!

Logic suggests that he had a program. Logic also suggests that El Pais and much of the European leftist media needs to visit Iraq and see a few things for themselves. We've done great things in Iraq but El Pais and much of the European left is still talking like Jacques Chirac. Wonder how many of these leftist journalists were getting money from The Oil for Food program?


Thursday, September 27, 2007

Wednesday's show: A chat with Captain Ed



Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters, a very popular blog, joined us for a review of The New York Times' ad and Hillary Clinton's "hsu" problem (Hsu's Strings Tied To Hillary).

Speaking of the ad, George Will was great today:

"The Times, a media corporation that is a fountain of detailed editorial instructions about how the rest of the world should conduct its business, seems confused about how it conducts its own.

The Times now says the appropriate rate for MoveOn.org's full-page ad should have been $142,000, a far cry from $65,000, which is what the group paid. So the discount of $77,000 constitutes a large soft-money contribution to a federally regulated political committee.

The Times' horror of such contributions was expressed in its enthusiasm for McCain-Feingold."

We regret that there was about a minute of dead air due to technical problems. Wait through a minute of dead air and the show will start! Sorry about that!



The poll readers have a new position on the Iraq War!


Most Democrats must be wondering what the 2006 election was all about. According to the pundits, and most Democrats, the 2006 election was a rejection of Pres. Bush's Iraq War policy.

However, it looks like Bush is leading and the Dems are just reading polls.

Last night, I did not watch the Dems debate. Frankly, I can not sit through an hour of pandering plus more pandering. The modern Dems are all about pandering and offering something to everyone.

This morning, the headlines must be cold water to the anti-war leaders:




Our friend Rick Moran had a summary of the debate:

"According to the tentative schedule set by General Petraeus, we will still have a substantial number of troops in Iraq through 2009 and a strong residual force for the foreseeable future." (Democratic Bluster on Iraq Shown to be Empty Rhetoric)

I don't know who won or lost. Most Americans do not watch MSNBC so the audience was probably very low. Nevertheless, it was not a good night for those Democrats who voted for "a new direction"!

Yes, we have a new direction in Iraq and Gen. Petraeus is leading the way!

What are Cindy Sheehan and the Code Pink ladies saying this morning?

200 hits again: Congratulations to Michael Young


The Rangers finally beat the Angels but it did not matter in the standings. The Angels will play in the post season next week and the Rangers will watch on TV.

Overall, a bad season!

However, it was another great year for Michael Young. The wonderful Michael Young put another 200 hits on his resume.

Later, I will post some thoughts on the Rangers. Today, I just want to congratulate the wonderful Mr. Young!

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Homosexuals and Iran!


Yesterday, the Iranian president drew laughter when he said that Iran did not have homosexuals.

Indeed, Iran has an awful human rights record. They don't treat anyone very well in Iran, specially if you disagree with the party line. (Iran Does Far Worse Than Ignore Gays, Critics Say)

No one in their right mind supports violations of human rights. Everyone is entitled to dignity and respect, regardless of their sexual orientation.

However, the international left seems more interested in homosexual rights than military arsenals.

Does the left care about nuclear bombs or Iran's military arsenal?

What about the Middle East and the price of oil?

Does they left worry about Iran meddling in Lebanon and threatening Israel?

Check out Ed Koch:

"As important as it was to stand up for the rights of homosexuals, who are hanged or stoned to death in Iran, standing up for the U.S. and the American soldiers being killed daily by Iranian-supplied bombs was particularly relevant and in need of greater emphasis than that given by Bollinger."

This is all about homosexual rights for the left. They don't seem to care a bit about the national security implications of what's going on in Iran and Iraq.

Maybe we should say that Al Qaeda is killing homosexuals in Iraq and the left will support the war!

I love this one from Rick Moran:

"The visit of Ahmadinejad has illuminated a great difference between right and left."

Yes. It shows that the left is not serious and unwilling to face real threats!

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Will any UN speaker thank the US for picking up 22% of the tab?


The UN has not distinguished itself in recent years. From Bosnia to Iraq, from Sudan to Rowanda, the UN has shown to be a weak and corrupt enterprise.

Today, the UN begins its annual round of speeches. (Third World Dictator’s Convention: Day 1) Or, maybe they should look into what happened in Syria a few days ago! (Where did Syria get the chemical weapons to put on scuds?)

Of course, my biggest beef is that US taxpayers pay 22% of the budget and get 100% of the criticisms.

It's time for someone to get up and say this:

"Thank you, USA.

Thank you for protecting the world's sea lanes. Without the US Navy, the world's oil sea lanes would be in the hands of bad guys who would manipulate the price of oil.

Thank you for creating the wealth and prosperity that we envy so much.

Thank you for sending your troops to do what no one else has the guts (or the troops) to do.

Thank you USA."

We won't hear that because the UN is a collection of corrupt leaders who don't care about democracy or prosperity. Why not move the UN to Paris and let the European left deal with all of the parking tickets and drunk diplomats? I vote "yes"!

This young woman will never speak at Columbia University


This picture tells the whole story. (Source: Babalu Blog) What about Shiri's freedom of speech? Who remembers her family, her parents? She lost her life because Iran is financing terrorists!

Monday, September 24, 2007

Monday's show: Columbia and The NY Times!



On Monday's show, I discussed The NY Times controversy and Columbia University.

We learned very little today from the Iranian president, except that Iran does not have homosexuals. Captain Ed has a good summary of the speech and Mr. Bollinger's comments. (Bollinger Tries To Butch Up After Providing Forum To Ahmadinejad)


The NY Times' story is rather interesting. Do you remember The NY Times blasting AG Gonzalez over getting the story straight? Should The NY Times be throwing stones? See what Peter Wehner wrote:

"It’s worth bearing in mind that the Times—which took almost two weeks to correct its false claims and admit wrongdoing—is the same newspaper that regularly lacerates public officials (like former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales) for not being able to get their stories straight.

Is it any wonder, then, that the New York Times is losing money, readers, respect, and credibility by the day?" (Bad Ad)

I don't think that we have heard the last of this ad! (Why The NYT Ad Issue Matters)

For more on the financial problems, see Another Meltdown At The New York Times by Hugh Hewitt!



More on Ahmadinejad's visit


Columbia University pretends that they are defending freedom of speech by inviting the Iranian president to their campus. Apparently, they are going to confront him with tough questions. Let's hope so!

In fact, Columbia, or any other university, does not defend our freedoms. College professors do not defend our freedoms.

Our freedoms are defended by the young men serving in the military, the same ones being killed by Iranian bombs.

It's time for Columbia's students to support those who are actually defending their freedoms:

"The young men and women of Morningside Heights aren’t being asked to risk their lives for their country, but they should be expected to stand in solidarity with those who bravely do." (Monday Mission for Columbia Students)

Stand up for freedom of speech by cancelling the invitation. Tell Ahmadinejad that you will invite him when he:

1) stops calling for the destruction of Israel;

2) stops sending weapons into Iraq;

3) stops funding Hezballah; and

4) treats women with respect.

P.S. Here is a good one from Strappleface, the humorous web site:

"President George Bush today said he would consider “alternative means” to accommodate a request by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit ‘Ground Zero‘, the former site of the World Trade Center towers, during his trip to the United Nations next week.

“You know the old expression,” Mr. Bush said. “If Mahmoud can’t come to Ground Zero, we may have to bring Ground Zero to Mahmoud.”
The White House refused to clarify the president’s statement." (By Scott Ott)

Good idea. Let's give Iran a big ground zero!


Sunday, September 23, 2007

The Gray lady is a tramp




This morning, we woke up to Betraying Its Own Best Interests By CLARK HOYT, the reader's representative or public editor, over at The NY Times:

"Did MoveOn.org get favored treatment from The Times?

And was the ad outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse?

The answer to the first question is that MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083.

The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake.

The answer to the second question is that the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.”

Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print.

By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on both MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq — and on The Times."

We are happy that Mr. Hoyt has published this. We appreciate his honesty.

Here is the question: Why did The NY Times do it anyway? Why did The NY Times make a bad business decision to publish this? How does a sales rep at The NY Times give someone such a discount? Frankly, is this any way to run a newspaper?

In this episode, we see the same impulse that drove Mary Mapes and Dan Rather of CBS News to do a story based on forged documents. (CBS and the liberal crusaders)

The answer is that too many in the left hate Pres. Bush so much that they have lost their common sense.

The NY Times and Moveon.org are so committed to destroying Pres. Bush that they will do such stupid things.

They are so invested in Bush Derangement Syndrome that it's all about "getting Bush"!

Like CBS, they stepped on something that smells bad and stick to your shoes!

Of course, the tilt to the left has come at a price.

The CBS Evening News is a ratings disaster. How can you believe a network that fell for forged documents to destroy the president of the US?

Thomas Lifson has been following the newspaper's financial decline:

"For quite some time I have been urging members of the Sulzberger/Ochs family to wake up and remove Pinch from his leadership role in the company before it is too late.

The company is in a downward spiral financially, strategically, journalistically, and now for all to see, ethically. There is no longer any reason for the family to assume that the company will always be there for one of the clan to steer.

Christopher Alleva demonstrated in American Thinker a week ago that the company is in dangerous financial territory, and that it could in fact be forced into receivership if it is unable to change the adverse trend its business results have taken.

Pinch Sulzberger's strategic blunders have put the company in this bind. (What did Pinch know and when did he know it?)

Based on the newspaper's financial condition, will The NY Times outlive the Bush presidency? Wouldn't that be funny?

P.S. Captain Ed got it right:

"The Times got caught with its pants down and its biases exposed.

Hoyt not only acknowledges the obvious, he undermines the ridiculous meme that got floated about the standby rate, which the ad itself obviously refutes in its use of "today" when referring to Petraeus' testimony.

Even the Gray Lady can't dance around that."

Saturday, September 22, 2007

Who cares about the euro's value?


Since the Florida recount, the "doom and gloom" brigade have jumped on every headline to say that the US economy is falling apart. (Bad News: The Economy is Good By Rich Tucker)

It gets silly and sillier. Remember the boy who kept crying wolf?

We have 4.6% unemployment, steady GDP growth, a federal deficit around 1.5% of GDP and lots more.

Most of our allies would love to have those numbers!

We have a strong economy, which is why you see a long line at every US embassy around the world. They are not lined up to oppose the Iraq War. They line up to get into the US!

Today, I saw this headline:


What does that mean? It means nothing, unless you travel to Europe often, consume French wine with every meal or represent a line of European machines.

Otherwise, it helps thousands of small businesses exporting to Europe and makes the US a very attractive place to visit.

So who is angry at the euro headline?

Not me!

Ironically, it is the people carrying "euros" who aren't happy about it:


Read this:

"The European Central Bank again struck out at politicians and industry leaders who warn that the soaring euro will cost European jobs by making exports too expensive in foreign markets." (Politics, Business Spar Over Euro Rate)

Does that sound like the Europeans are cheering that their "dear euro" is kicking our dollar? It does not to me!

Don't be surprised if Europeans kick the euro and replace it with their old "pesetas", "DMs" and "liras".

Europe can not get back in the game with an overvalued euro. The old system was better because it allowed each country to control its currency.

What does it all mean? It means that they have a problem rather than us!

The euro vs US dollar debate is not meaningful anyway. People invest in the US for various reasons:

First, we have a US$ 13 trillion GDP. That's a lot of consumption and production!

Second, we have a tradition of the rule of law. In other words, contracts matter in the US.

Last, but not least, we have the army, navy, marines and air force capable of defending our GDP. Unlike Europe, the US does not depend on someone else's navy to keep the oil sea lanes open.

Go Navy! Long live the B-52s! They keep us safe regardless of what the euro is worth.

Investors love security and the US is the most secure place to invest! That's the bottom line!

What happened in Syria last week?




For days, we have been hearing about an Israeli air strike on Syria:

"On Sept. 6, something important happened in northern Syria.

Problem is, no one knows exactly what.

Except for those few who were involved, and they're not saying.

We do know that Israel carried out an airstrike. How do we know it was important? Because in Israel, where leaking is an art form, even the best-informed don't have a clue. They tell me they have never seen a better-kept secret." (Middle East Volcano by Charles Krauthammer)

Why is everyone so quiet about this? Why is Pres. Bush quiet? Is there something going on that involves Syria, Iran and North Korea?

I don't know the answer. I guess that no one wants to talk about it. Neverheless. I believe that the Israeli attack was a signal to Iran.

It would be nice if level headed Iranians would stop their regime's suicidal madness. It would be nice but not likely.

Friday, September 21, 2007

Columbia University and The NY Times are sitting down with a madman


Iran is a terrorist nation, an abuser of women's rights and Hezbollah's sugar daddy!

So why is this man speaking at Columbia University?

Why is The NY Times buying him lunch?

As always, Bill Kristol is on target:

"It should go without saying that the appropriate thing to do, when the Iranian ambassador called Columbia, would have been to say: No thanks. Or just, No. But that would be to expect too much of one of today's Ivy League university presidents."

The American left is out of touch with reality.

Thursday's show: Iran president wants to visit NY?





On Thursday, we spoke with Ryan Williams about the Iranian president traveling to New York. Yesterday, Gov. Romney and other Republicans like Sen. McCain, took a tough posture against having the Iranian president visit ground zero.

Also, we reviewed today's US Senate vote:


Today, Hillary Clinton and 24 other Dems did not have the courage to defend a good man, like Gen. Petraeus. Instead, they buckled under the Moveon.org pressure. Senator Obama did not vote! Where was he?

It's hard to believe that 25 Democrats would do this at a time of war. There are 200,000 US young men in Iraq and Afghanistan but the Democrats are apparently still counting votes in Florida!


Thursday, September 20, 2007

Why are Dems afraid of FOX NEWS?



Moveon.org is at war with Bush, Republicans and FOX News. Moveon.org has warned Democrats against appearing on FOX News. This is why Hillary Clinton and John Edwards will not appear on O'Reilly or other FNC shows.

To be fair, Republicans are at war with Democrats and The New York Times.

What's the difference? Republicans are not afraid of taking questions from The NY Times! In other words, Republicans do not boycott questions from The NY Times!

The Democrats are clearly playing "primary" politics but risking their general election strategy. Also, how can you say that your are "tough" enough to fight terrorism but can not take a question from Fox News? ('Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Fox News?")

On any given evening, more people are watching FOX than the others. Check this out:

"O’Reilly:
2,282,000 viewers

CNN:
618,000 viewers

Countdown:
781,000 viewers

Nancy Grace:
644,000 viewers"

In sports terms, this is a rout! O'Reilly is killing the next guy 3-1!

Why would Democrats give up 2.2 million viewers? The answer is primary politics and an unwillingness to answer tough questions.

What happens when you vote for poll readers?


Yesterday, the poll readers failed to change Pres. Bush's Iraq policy. They gave it a good try but the Republicans held firm.

Now, Senator Reid will have to explain to the anti-war leaders that his members do not have the courage to cut the funding.

As I have written before, it was a lot easier for the Dems when they were sitting in the bleachers second guessing the coach!

It started with a silly amendment to stop the war by limiting troop deployments. (Effort to Shift Course in Iraq Fails in Senate)

The next one is even sillier and a threat to everyone of us who wants to protect our homeland and families from terrorist attacks. (Senate defeat for detainee rights: Bid to give habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo prisoners falls short)

Are you kidding me? These are people captured on a battlefield who do not wear uniforms. By the way, they also kill innocent men, women and children!

Frankly, the GITMO detainees should thank God that Lincoln or FDR is not in the Oval Office. I don't think that FDR or Truman would have subscribed to the modern Dems' obsession with giving terrorists "equal rights".

The Dems are already starting to feel the heat about their unwillingness to stand up and cut the funding.

Rep. Baird in Washington is facing newspaper ads blasting his assessment of the Iraq War.

What did Rep. Baird do? He went to Iraq, took a look at the situation and came back saying that our troops were doing a good job.

That's a mortal sin in the land of MoveOn.org!

Of course, the real problem is that the anti-war left is all about hating Bush rather than thinking about the national security interests of the US. No one over at MoveOn.org or The Daily Kos has given any thought to what happens to the price of oil if we pull out and leave a vacuum in the region.

They want Bush to fail period. Their hatred of Bush has overtaken any rational analysis of anything. It's all about hating Bush, and hating Bush and hating Bush!

At the same time, the Democrats flirted with the anti-war left by promising a "new direction" in Iraq if they worked to put them in power. See Clifford May:

"The antiwar movement made a strategic error by aiming not to persuade but to punish; not to debate but to coerce and bully. This approach reached its peak — or rather its nadir — with MoveOn.org’s full-page ad accusing General Petraeus of “betraying” his country for daring to say that continuing to fight al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias is preferable to ceding Iraq to these enemies of America." (How the Left Spent Its Summer Vacation)

How will the left spend the fall and winter? They will go after Reid & Pelosi. The anti-war movement is a bunch of immature children who will scream and yell when they don't get what they want! Watch out for these brats! They are about to throw their food plates on the floor because they don't like what Mommy is saying! It's temper tantrum time! (Dems frustrate war critics By Ryan Grim)

Furthermore, they will learn what so many others have learned over the years: The Dems are poll readers.

They usually follow the polls and no one did that better than Hillary Clinton's husband!

P.S. What have the Democrats done since they took over Congress? They passed a non-binding resolution. Beyond that, they have not done much. This is why Congressional approval is 11% according to the latest Zogby!


Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Tuesday's show: Cowboys, Rudy-G, HIllary and Iran



On Tuesday's show, we discussed the Cowboys' victory and recent political events.


These are some of the articles that we discussed on the show:


by Major Garrett


Vicente's new book!


My guess is that Bush won't be buying Vicente's memoirs. Frankly, I can't blame W for being a bit confused with Vicente's comments.

According to a new book, Fox indicates that Bush is "....the cockiest guy I have ever met in my life."

I guess that's better than saying that he is "wimpiest" guy that I've ever seen!

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

A new Che biography



During the weekend protests, a group of people showed up to protest the protest. They carried many patriotic placards. My favorite was this one about Che, who died 40 years ago!

Jacobo Machover, author of The Hidden Face of Che, reminds us of the truth:

"A prolific diarist, Guevara wrote vividly of his role as an executioner. In one passage, he described the execution of Eutimio Guerra, a peasant and army guide.

"I fired a .32-calibre bullet into the right hemisphere of his brain, which came out through his left temple," was Guevara's clinical description of the killing. "He moaned for a few moments, then died."

I guess that the left will love any assassin as long as the assassin hates the US!

Moveon.org and the Dems are one!


Stevie Wonder had it right:

"Here I am baby

Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I'm yours

(You got my future in your hands)

Here I am baby

Signed, Sealed, Delivered, I'm yours

(You got my future in your hands)"

MoveOn.org has a lot of money tied up in the Democrats:

"In the last two election cycles, MoveOn.org Political Action Committee spent more than $58 million in pro-Democrat political advocacy, according to Federal Election Commission records.

In just the 2006 election cycle, MoveOn.org spent $27 million in advocacy to elect a Democratic majority in Congress and used its formidable fund-raising clout to propel numerous Democratic challengers to House and Senate victories.

By comparison, the NRA PAC donated $11 million in 2006.

"They give away and raise about three times as much as the National Rifle Association," said Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics.

"A tremendous amount of money, especially when you consider how quickly they came on the scene." (MoveOn Gravy Train Makes and Breaks Political Fortunes)

Don't get me wrong. I want unlimited campaign financing. I want people to donate as much as they want as long as there is full disclosure.

The point is this: Why are Democrats afraid to disagree openly with MoveOn.org? Why did John Edwards send his wife out to criticize MoveOn.org's ad? Why won't Hillary Clinton confront the angry left for once and for all?

The answer is money, and lots of money!

Bash Bush and then read the book for the real information!


Bob Woodward spoiled another liberal parade. Yesterday, he clarified Allan Greenspan's comments over oil and the Iraq War:

"My view is that Saddam, looking over his 30-year history, very clearly was giving evidence of moving towards controlling the Straits of Hormuz, where there are 17, 18, 19 million barrels a day" passing through.

Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.

Given that, "I'm saying taking Saddam out was essential," he said. But he added that he was not implying that the war was an oil grab.

"No, no, no," he said.

Getting rid of Hussein achieved the purpose of "making certain that the existing system [of oil markets] continues to work, frankly, until we find other [energy supplies], which ultimately we will." (Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security
By Bob Woodward)

It must be sad to suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Woodward certainly knows how to spoil another anti-Bush orgy!

BDS makes an otherwise smart person fall for anything about Bush. They will believe anything that fits their mental template. They hate Bush more than they love their truth.

At some point, these anti-Bushies must answer a simple question: Why hate Bush at the expense of my own intelligence? Why make a fool of myself to show everyone how much I hate Bush?

Check out Bashing Bush with Greenspan (The pedantic economist speaks plainly about his support for the Iraq war -- and liberals misquote him).

Over the weekend, we heard all about Greenspan's new book. We heard about how we went to war for oil.

It was enough to give the anti-Bushies a large dose of hope after the "moveon.org ad" fiasco.

Unfortunately for the anti-Bushies, Greenspan did not say that we went to war for oil:

"Greenspan wanted to communicate how important the Middle East is in terms of global finances.

He himself made the case for removing Saddam Hussein to keep financial markets from collapsing from an attack on world oil supplies, such as the one Saddam conducted during the first Gulf War.

He took that argument to the White House, which specifically rejected it — quite the opposite of what the quote implied when first reported.

In general, Greenspan has it right.

People have turned oil into a protest chant, but the global economy depends on a free flow of oil to provide energy.

A great portion of that oil comes from the Middle East, which makes its politics a matter of interest to most nations of the world.

We can’t ignore people like Saddam Hussein when they threaten oil supplies, and Greenspan understands this better than most." (Heading Right)

That's right.

Oil is the fuel that gets the lefties to their anti-war protests. Over the weekend, many anti-war protesters took buses to go to the anti-war march? How did they get there? Did their buses run on horse manure or some other alternative fuel?

Oil is what keeps their daddy's factory running and their tuition checks flowing. Without oil, daddy would shut down the factory, lay off his workers and tell "sonny" to get a job and pay for his own school.

Oil is the bottom line fuel for the moment because we can't run our economy with alternative energy right now.

This is why every US president, from Democrat LBJ to the current Republican GW Bush has maintained a huge military presence in the area.

This is why the Europeans, Japanese and everybody else with a brain loves that we are willing to use our armed forces to keep oil flowing!

If we can't defend the oil sea lanes, who will? Can we seriously count on any other nation to keep the Persian Gulf free of Iranian control of oil supplies?

It gets better. See Greenspan's DismayExtends Both Ways!

In fact, Greenspan comes down very hard on the protectionist and anti-free Dems!

Why didn't we hear this one over the weekend.

Greenspan is concerned that the Democrats will promote their anti-free and wreck our economic progress.

At the end of the day, the book hype turned out to be a lot different than the real stuff. Are you surprised?

PLEASE SUPPORT OUR BLOG AND RADIO SHOW

MY BOOK: CUBANOS IN WISCONSIN

Follow by Email

MY TWITTER

BLOG ARCHIVE

Search This Blog

Loading...