Friday, July 16, 2010

Backgrounds Matter

Is it too much to ask for that our leaders be checked-out before they run for office? I don't think so, but some on the left, for obvious reasons, might object. They will refer to such a policy as "un-American" and probably cite the Bill of Rights--a document that they abhor, except of course when it serves their immediate needs, as a defense. When that fails, they will likely complain about the costs involved. The media will run a seemingly endless stream of stories, complete with graphs and information on the national debt and budget, in order to highlight the inability of the nation to pay for such a policy. We could then counter with something like: Ok, then why don't we at least check the backgrounds of prospective senators and presidents? That's not a large number of people, especially when one considers the amount of power these people will wield. Also, just about every applicant to a mid-level government job, like those in the State Department, FBI and CIA, goes through a pretty extensive background check. So why not the guys who can send us to war? If that is still too much for our adversaries to stomach, we compromise. Ok, since that's too much to ask for, how about the one guy who can launch a nuclear strike against our enemies? This would be hard for them to argue against. After all, when you look at it that way, it does not sound like too much to ask for. And then we have them right where we want them. No more Obamas.

Monday, June 28, 2010

5 to 4 ruling equals Treason

The Supreme Court has ruled to abide by the Second Amendmant--barely. A 5-4 rulling is dispicable. There is no reason why the rulling should not have been unanimous. The 4 dissenters have shown that they are not judges, but political idealogues. Once again, the left displays its allegiance. Their interests are not those of real Americans.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Like Flies on #2

Today a lot of noise has been made concerning Obama's strange ability to attract bugs and rodents. Apparently, he has been swarmed by flies, bees, and even rushed by a rat. Many of the more colorful interpretations of these event suggest that this is due to Obama being the Lord of the Flies. I'm not too sure about that. I might agree to the idea that he's a golem, an animated creature made from the corpses of a dozen men, whose slowly rotting flesh attracts these critters. But a demon? No way.

I think that this peculiarity has more to do with the natural inclinations of the pests in question. Flies recognize, and are attracted to, the smell of...let's just say animal waste. So, it should not surprise anyone that such critters would swarm around someone who his so full of B.S.

Friday, June 18, 2010

A Victor's Peace

It looks like the Right is going to make some big gains in November. If so, the Left will very likely employ scorched-earth tactics prior to the change in power and then resort to portraying themselves as victims afterwards. The American people will be exposed to a series of editorials by the state-run media referring to an undemocratic "Republican dictatorship" and how poor little Obama should be allowed to push through policies regardless of his status as a lame-duck president.

We can not allow this to have the intended effect. We must maintain a tome of grievances. We must ensure that the newly elected conservatives hold true to their promises. We must make sure that everything that this effeminate puppet has pushed through is repeal led.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Symbolism Matters

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article dealing with the construction of a Muslim mosque near the site of the ruined World Trade Center. The author cited Daisy Kahn, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, as describing the structure as a positive symbol of friendship and understanding between New York’s “moderate” Muslim community and the rest of the city’s citizens.

That statement is only partially correct. The mosque is a symbol, but it has nothing to do with friendship. This building is slated to open on the tenth anniversary of 9-11. Obviously, the planned structure is meant to serve as a symbol of a Muslim victory over the cultural capital of the United States. This is a modern version of the replacement of the Holy Cross on top of Hagia Sophia with the Muslim Crescent after the fall of Constantinople (A.D. 1453).

The New York Community Board’s near unanimous approval of this proposed structure only reinforces the Muslim view of this nation’s citizenry. They see westerners as corrupt and weak. They have already overrun the enfeebled socialist governments of Europe. Now they are turning their attention toward the United States. This is just another step toward their goal of global domination.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Bush and the National Guard

I was doing some research on the early New Deal and some modern historians when I came across this on Donald Brand's web-site:

What do you really know about George W. Bush's time in the Air National Guard? That he didn't show up for duty in Alabama? That he missed a physical? That his daddy got him in? News coverage of the president's years in the Guard has tended to focus on one brief portion of that time - to the exclusion of virtually everything else. So just for the record, here, in full, is what Bush did: The future president joined the Guard in May 1968. Almost immediately, he began an extended period of training. Six weeks of basic training. Fifty-three weeks of flight training. Twenty-one weeks of fighter-interceptor training. That was 80 weeks to begin with, and there were other training periods thrown in as well. It was full-time work. By the time it was over, Bush had served nearly two years. Not two years of weekends. Two years. After training, Bush kept flying, racking up hundreds of hours in F-102 jets. As he did, he accumulated points toward his National Guard service requirements. At the time, guardsmen were required to accumulate a minimum of 50 points to meet their yearly obligation. According to records released earlier this year, Bush earned 253 points in his first year, May 1968 to May 1969 (since he joined in May 1968, his service thereafter was measured on a May-to-May basis). Bush earned 340 points in 1969-1970. He earned 137 points in 1970-1971. And he earned 112 points in 1971-1972. The numbers indicate that in his first four years, Bush not only showed up, he showed up a lot. Did you know that? That brings the story to May 1972 - the time that has been the focus of so many news reports - when Bush "deserted" (according to anti-Bush filmmaker Michael Moore) or went "AWOL" (according to Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee). Bush asked for permission to go to Alabama to work on a Senate campaign. His superior officers said OK. Requests like that weren't unusual, says retired Col. William Campenni, who flew with Bush in 1970 and 1971. "In 1972, there was an enormous glut of pilots," Campenni says. "The Vietnam War was winding down, and the Air Force was putting pilots in desk jobs. In '72 or '73, if you were a pilot, active or Guard, and you had an obligation and wanted to get out, no problem. In fact, you were helping them solve their problem." So Bush stopped flying. From May 1972 to May 1973, he earned just 56 points - not much, but enough to meet his requirement.
Then, in 1973, as Bush made plans to leave the Guard and go to Harvard Business School, he again started showing up frequently. In June and July of 1973, he accumulated 56 points, enough to meet the minimum requirement for the 1973-1974 year. Then, at his request, he was given permission to go. Bush received an honorable discharge after serving five years, four months and five days of his original six-year commitment. By that time, however, he had accumulated enough points in each year to cover six years of service. During his service, Bush received high marks as a pilot. A 1970 evaluation said Bush "clearly stands out as a top notch fighter interceptor pilot" and was "a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership." A 1971 evaluation called Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot" who "continually flies intercept missions with the unit to increase his proficiency even further." And a 1972 evaluation called Bush "an exceptional fighter interceptor pilot and officer." Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush's service - in The Boston Globe and The New York Times, on CBS and in other outlets - would come out now. Democrats are spitting mad over attacks on John Kerry's record by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. And, as it is with Kerry, it's reasonable to look at a candidate's entire record, including his military service - or lack of it. Voters are perfectly able to decide whether it's important or not in November. The Kerry camp blames Bush for the Swift boat veterans' attack, but anyone who has spent much time talking to the Swifties gets the sense that they are doing it entirely for their own reasons. And it should be noted in passing that Kerry has personally questioned Bush's service, while Bush has not personally questioned Kerry's. In April - before the Swift boat veterans had said a word - Kerry said Bush "has yet to explain to America whether or not, and tell the truth, about whether he showed up for duty." Earlier, Kerry said, "Just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question." Now, after the Swift boat episode, the spotlight has returned to Bush. That's fine. We should know as much as we can.

Friday, April 16, 2010

From the Politico

March 24, 2010
Categories:Senate .Dems reject amendment to ban Viagra for sex offenders
Democrats killed an amendment by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn to prevent the newly created insurance exchanges from using federal money to cover Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs for rapists, pedophiles and other sex offenders. The amendment failed 57-42

"The vast majority of Americans don't want their taxpayer dollars paying for this kind of drug for those kind of people," Coburn said.

Democratic Sen. Max Baucus urged his colleagues to defeat the amendment.

"This is a serious bill. This is a serious debate. The amendment offered by the senator from Oklahoma makes a mockery of the Senate, the debate and the American people. It is not a serious amendment. It is a crass political stunt aimed at making 30-second commercials, not public policy," he said.

Democrats have defeated every amendment offered by Republicans so far, arguing that any change will kill the bill.

Posted by Chris Frates 08:35 PM

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Graduate School Rant 2

This is the second installment in a series dedicated to pointing out the hypocrisy and stupidity of my graduate school “peers.”

Yesterday, while trying to mind my own business, I overheard some of my classmates discuss important political issues. Here are a few of the brilliant ideological gems that I was forced to endure in less than twenty minutes of exposure to these morons. They are followed by my mostly sarcastic (and somewhat censored) answers:

• “If Americans knew anything about history they would make the connection between Sarah Palin’s rising popularity and the rise of Nazism in 1920s Germany.” Yes, you morons are correct, Sarah Palin and her fans believe in big government and socialism.
• “The Tea Party is nothing more than a collection of extreme right-wing, Bible Belt hicks.” Sure, I guess we should just ignore the massive demonstrations in eastern cities (I didn’t use this one, it belongs to Indentured Pleb, but I should of).
• “The Communist Manifesto is the most beautiful piece of writing ever produced.” Yes, it ranks second only to Mein Kampf in literary genius and is a close (not really that close) second to that text in the number of related murders.
• “Marx can’t be held responsible for what happened afterwards.” I figured that the author of this statement was referring to the 200 million plus murders carried out in the name of Marx and his ideals, but he was unclear, so I only laughed.
• “Scott Brown is not a real Republican. I mean, he posed naked.” Huh? What does posing for a magazine have to do with a person’s political ideology?
• “Europe, thanks to its [socialist] system, is weathering the current economic storm far better than we [North Americans] are.” I reminded the fat little moron who said this that Europe, thanks to the Welfare state, is going under. She didn’t believe me.
But don't take my word for it:
• “Communism is not the problem in Cuba; it’s mostly Castro and the US embargo.” That’s right, the embargo is the problem. Even though Cuba is free to trade with every other nation on the planet, it is our embargo that should be held responsible for the island’s economic problems. After all, Cuba was really bad off before communism turned things around. Just ignore the fact that the Cuban peso was equal in value to the US dollar. That’s Yankee imperialist propaganda anyway.
* And my favorite: "I would not mind paying 40% in taxes if it meant free health care." Aside from the fact that most people with half decent jobs already pay more than 40% in taxes, it seems ridiculous to have to point this out, but if you have to pay higher taxes for "free" health care, then it's not free.

I don’t think that I have to dwell too long on the stupidity of the statements listed above. What does require attention, however, is the scary fact that such “arguments” represent the norm in thinking of even the “better-educated” segments of our population. The leftist media, the democratic teachers unions, and the endless hoard of communist professors have done their work well.

We conservatives are facing an uphill battle. My advice: stand up to these idiots every chance you get, vote for real conservatives, and keep buying ammo.

Wednesday, January 6, 2010