Tag Archives: John Kerry

The Economics of Jealousy and Hypocrisy

Bookmark and Share    On the issue of taxes, there a  few politicians and Parties have more of the  market on hypocrisy than do Democrats. A vast majority of those who play the role of your biggest so called “fighters for the common man” ironically happen to be among the wealthiest and most removed segments of society from the plight of the working class.

The fact is that of the 535 seats in Congress (435 in the House and 100 in the Senate), 44%, or 237 of them, are millionaires. In whole, only 1% of the entire American population are millionaires, so clearly there is an alarming disparity that exists between the face of America and the Congress that represents it.

This is not to suggest that legitimately accumulated wealth is a bad thing. Quite the contrary. Wealth is a good thing, especially when you do the right thing with it and do others right by it. But the existing gap between wealthy Americans and the wealthy Americans representing their needs in Congress is of some concern. I mean, at some point, as we all have, you must begin to wonder how in touch Congress is with the people whose concerns they represent.

The left has spent decades playing off of this question. They have used it to play a sometimes successful game of class warfare that is designed to divide and conquer by feeding off of one of the most debased and unchristian instincts there is ———– jealousy. Much of the Democrat Party tries to make voters believe that wealthy Republicans are out of touch rich men who are trying to prosper from the toil and sweat of the working class. This is the argument that has helped to advance socialism throughout the world. But that argument never quite mentions the fraud and benefits which is extended to the bureaucrats who are placed in charge of spreading that wealth and it also neglects to address the unsustainability and inherent mediocrity and lack of excellence that comes with such a system in the areas of productivity and quality of life.

Yet Democrats often get away with their class warfare tactics.

It is easier for a poor man to blame his lot in life on someone else. For Democrats that finger of blame for ones lot in life is pointed at Republicans as they paint members of the G.O.P. as fat cat business interests in their exclusive country clubs, hob knobbing with the rich and famous..

But the truth is that as most Democrats point their fingers at Republicans, while admittedly almost evenly split, the majority of the wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats. And even if that were not the case, it is the majority of those same finger pointing liberals who do their damnedest to hide their wealth, cheat the system, live above the laws they create for others to follow and evade what Vice President Joe Biden called, their “patriotic duty”………paying taxes.

Take Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters.

These are just two of the latest cases of tax evading hypocrites on the Hill today.

Both led the fight for socialized healthcare, both exempted their own congressional healthcare plans from the 3,000 page federal healthcare boondoggle that they wrote, both are wealthy, both have benefited from skirting the very regulations they draft and support and both are now being charged with unethical conduct regarding the way they have hidden and added to their wealth. This would bring into play another very unchristian value————greed.

Their greed and their desire to promote the economic politics of jealousy and class warfare have played a critical role in the way that the liberal leadership of the Democrat Party has crafted legislation and to be more exact,………crafted  bad legislation.

But beyond the likes of Rangel and Waters, there exists an incredibly strong history of liberal hypocrisy on the issue of wealth and attempts to paint Republicans as the Party of the rich.

Take one of the most beloved political families in the world……..The Kennedy’s

The son’s of Joe, a swindling financier whose greed built a political dynasty and drove his sons to value power more than people, have all been wealthy, country club liberal elitists. They run around with, party with and play with the rich and famous while wining and dining the media elite who eat out of their hands and then sing their praises in print and on the airwaves. All of them have built their careers on the plight of the common man. Yet while they perform this play on the political stage, they have done everything from kill to cheat and avoid accountability.

But while the Kennedy’s are a prime example of the liberal class warfare hypocrisy that exists in the Democrat Party, they are far from alone.

Of the 10 wealthiest members of Congress, 8 are Democrats;

Jane Harman (D-CA) – $377,275,000,
Herb Kohl (D-WI) – $265,629,996,
Mark Warner (D-VA) – $346,085,992,
John Kerry (D-MA) – $258,959,049,
Jared Pelosi (D-CO) – 566 $265,609,998,
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) – $128,416,002,
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) – $101,856,020
Diane Feinstein (D-CA) – $101,849,018

All eight of them have done their best to paint themselves as the toughest fighters for working families that ever existed and claim that the G.O.P. is simply for the rich. Yet when it came time help the working man, these rich limousine liberals have all failed to alleviate the tax burden that weighs down a families ability to achieve financial security and oppresses their ambitions for economic freedom and prosperity.

They have opposed such things as making an increase in the child tax credit permanent. They refused to pass a bill that would have cut all income tax rates and make other tax cuts of $958.2 billion over 10 years and convert five tax rate brackets, which range from 15 to 39.6 percent, to a system of four brackets with rates of 10 to 33 percent.

They have rejected efforts to require a supermajority to raise taxes and protect working families from the never ending rising costs of the government bureaucracy and attempts to oppose making income taxes flatter and lower.

And these are not reforms that could be simply defined as effecting only the rich. These were reforms designed to directly impact working families and the common man that they claim to be the defenders of.

But beyond the voting records which indicate just the opposite when it comes to proving who the real defenders of personal economic freedom really seems to be, are the far fetched attempts that Democrats and their Party make in trying to claim whose side they are really on. Not only are they the same rich and powerful enemy that they try to make Republicans out to be, they are true hypocrites of their own messages who are far from understanding of the plight of the working class.

Take John Kerry, the Democrat Party’s former standard bearer, who fell into wealth after marrying the power hungry wife and heir of deceased Pennsylvania Senator John Heinz’s fortune.

After Teresa Heinz inherited her husbands ketchup fortune, she maintained her Washington, D.C. power base and tax writing authority by marrying incumbent liberal Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Kerry then shared in the wealth and the two ran for the presidency of the United States. Much of the Kerry-Heinz campaign was based on typical Democrat class warfare which described George W. Bush and the G.O.P. as the wealthy corporatists who robbed from the poor to give to the rich. But during that campaign, he and his wife neglected to mention that in their own family, making money from the workers in their corporation was a good thing and to them, wealth was something that you married into and sheltered in schemes that evaded taxes.

For instance. Take the case of the 76 foot Heinz-Kerry luxury yacht.

Keeping it docked in The senator’s home state of Taxachusetts would have meant that he had to dip into his wife’s purse and dole out a minimum of half a million dollars in taxes to Massachusetts. So what did Kerry do. He kept his yacht, the “Isabella” in the much more relatively tax friendly neighboring state of Rhode Island. And had it not been for a public disclosure of the creating docking arrangement, Kerry would have avoided the expense. But instead the failed presidential nominee had to resign himself to telling the press that he promised to bring his yacht back home and eventually the proper state taxes that he owed on it.

John Kerry, Maxine Waters, Jane Harman, Charlie Rangel and the rest of the liberal elitists who makeup the Democrat establishment are truly divisive hypocrites. Each and everyday they preach the virtues of the working class. They speak of how the wealthy are ruining this nation and how the rich Republicans are co-conspirators in a plot to rob the common man of his just desserts. They preach socialism and tout its virtues, yet they spend their time out of the public eye cheating the system and accusing others of the crimes they are guilty of.

Do both sides of the aisle have their share of wealthy members of Congress? They sure do. But the difference is that Republicans do not pretend that wealth is a bad thing. Republicans do not use an unholy greed for power and money to divide people and to inspire jealousies that form the foundation for economic policies of oppression and limited opportunities. Republicans are not ashamed of any wealth that individuals may have. They are not hypocritical leaches who are chowing down on caviar while writing speeches that claim the wealth creators of America are forcing everyone else to crumbs.

John Kerry once said “Values are not just words, values are what we live by. They’re about the causes that we champion and the people we fight for.” But apparently, the values that John Kerry and many of his wealthy and powerful liberal friends live by are not the values that most hardworking Americans live by. The values of greed and deceit are those which Americans try to avoid and this November, we will see exactly how many Americans feel that way.

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

Kennedy Wants Partisan Appointment To Fill His Senate Seat

Bookmark and Share As we all have come to know, sadly, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts is suffering from brain cancer.

Ted Kennedy.......a partisan prick till the end.This is not something that warrants any response which falls short of our prayers for the Senator’s ability to overcome his cancer and not endure any suffering and pain as he deals with it.

Regardless of my admitted disdain for Senator Kennedy’s personal and political record, his health is not a matter to joke about. Compassion must rule in times like this and it is not to be played politics with.

At least that is what I believe.

Senator Kennedy however does not think so.

Faced with his own mortality and being forced to miss most of this legislative session due to his illness, the seven term senator now seeks to play politics and leave that as his final legacy.

Fearful that the senate seat he has safely held for Democrats for over 47 years might become occupied by a Republican once his body is removed from it, Senator Kennedy has written Democrat Massachusetts state legislative leaders and Democrat Governor Deval Patrick and asked that they enact legislation which would change the state’s existing laws which forces a special election to be held to fill any vacancies.

Currently, upon the creation of a vacancy, a special election must be called within five months and the winner of that election fills out the remainder of the unexpired term of the office in question.

Strangely, Massachusetts use to have a system which allowed the Governor to appoint someone to fill vacancies. But in 2004 when Massachusetts Senator John Kerry became the Democrat nominee for President, Ted Kennedy spearheaded an effort to change that to the current statutes that require a special election to fill out unexpired terms.

At the time, Kennedy was concerned that if Kerry was elected President, upon being sworn into office, Kerry’s senate seat would be vacant and the existing laws would have allowed the Governor of Massachusettes to appoint someone to replace Kerry in the Senate.

In 2004 that Governor was Mitt Romney, a Republican.

So with pure partisanship coursing through his veins, Ted Kennedy fought to have the law changed and adopt the current special election requirement. Back then he justified it as good government, an example of true democracy that allowed the people to choose their representative.

The law was changed and Ted Kennedy’s partisan sentiments were eased knowing that once elected President, John Kerry would not be replaced in the senate with the choice made by a Republican Governor.

Only thing is John Kerry failed to win the presidency so the hullabaloo Kennedy made was for naught.

But five years later it is not Kerry’s senate that is in question. It is Teddy’s own seat that there are concerns over. Five years later and Massachusetts also now has a Democrat governor. So Kennedy has flipped-flopped on what he once saw as good government policy and wants to change the law back so that the Governor fills vacancies instead of the people doing that in a special election.

Two things come to mind here. First, as I always assert, Democrats are hypocrites. They demonstrate it every chance they get and Ted Kennedy’s sudden change of mind on this issue helps to reflect that determination.

The other thing that comes to mind is this. If the liberal lion of the senate is so concerned about who will occupy his seat after him and the service that person will provide to the people of his state, why does he not resign now? After all, his condition has already left Massachusetts at a disadvantage. Senator Kennedy has missed countless votes and is incapable of maintaining a full and productive schedule.

I have heard people use the phrase “over my dead my body” but never quite as literally as Ted Kennedy whose dead body will literally have to be removed from his senate seat before it is vacated.

The man has been in the U.S. Senate for longer than my own age. He has been there for more than 47 years, more than the lifetime of many, and now while unable to fully serve the people of his state, he still refuses to retire.

For all of you have a problem with “professional politicians” Ted Kennedy is your poster boy.

But put aside, for a moment, his addiction to power and think about this.

Does Ted Kennedy really want this drive to change the way Massachusetts fills vacancies to be one of his last demonstrations of public service? Does he really want to cap off his career with a self promoting, partisan maneuver that seeks to consolidate partisan political power?

I would hope that in the closing days of my life, my last breaths would convey and promote a message more noble than a call for some slick and sleazy political maneuver.

It is sad to see a man so representative of the Democrat Party act so hypocritically and insincerely as the curtain gets drawn on the twilight of his career. It is sad that as one of his final acts, Ted Kennedy chooses to be manipulative and partisan rather than sincere and patriotic.

Public service is a wonderful thing. Too bad Ted Kennedy is demonstrating characteristics that give it a bad name. It is too bad that he seeks to leave public office by making it seem like a game rather than a respectful effort.

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

With Hindsight, Armchair Generals Still Say Saddam Should Have Been Spared

Bookmark and Share    There are those who, till even this day, base their entire political being on the claim that the war in Iraq was wrong and had no legitimate foundation behind it . Some even join with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and claim that we lost the war.

wotThese isolationists and leftists maintain, that there was absolutely no reason for the United States to focus any military attention on Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the days, months and even years after 9/11.

With creative flair, they refer to 9/11 as a ploy and claim that supporters of Operation Iraqi Freedom simply used 9/11 as an excuse. Others delve deeper and extrapolate that the true reason behind the overthrow of Hussein was a corporate conspiracy spearheaded by oil interests led by Haliburton. Others say it was a family matter that involved the revenge of one presidential son of another President who Saddam once tried to assassinate.

Putting aside theoretical liberal reasoning for Republican support of the Iraqi war and their tendency to believe that Republicans do not care about the lives of those who carry the war out, what these people fail to realize and comprehend are facts. They fail to accept the reality of the time.

Most basic to the reality that they deny is the fact that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the policy of the United States since 1991. Initially we urged the people of Iraq to do it. Unfortunately those we hoped to do so, such as the Kurds, are also the people we left hanging and they paid dearly for it.

In 1995, under President Clinton, the C.I.A. organized a covert coup to topple Saddam Hussein. It failed.

Three years later, still acknowledging the threat that Saddam Hussein posed, in 1998, President Clinton signed into law a congressionally approved bill called The Iraqi Liberation Act.

Through it all, Democrats and Republicans alike agreed on few things other than the fact that an Iraq led by Saddam Hussein was an Iraq that threatened American interests, Mid East peace and international security.

Other small factors included things like cease fire agreements and United Nations resolutions.

After the original Gulf War, Saddam signed treaties promising to stop the production and procurement of WMD‘s. He made a commitment to permit UN weapons inspectors to verify that he was not in breach of these treaties and he was also not allowed to oppose our enforcement of U.S. no-fly zones. Yet for the twelve years after the Gulf War, Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire agreement that he had with the U.S.. Additionally, he denied weapons inspectors proper access to establishing proper inspections. He also repeatedly shot our aircrafts in the no-fly zones and violated seventeen Security Council resolutions regarding weapons development and procurement.

I would contend, that if the American word is to mean something in the world, we should have removed Saddam immediately following the very first time he violated the cease fire agreement that we had with him. That would have eliminated his threat back in late 1991. But we didn’t.

I would contend that we had reason to topple Saddam after he defied the very first UN resolution regarding inspections. But we didn’t.

Instead we allowed him to skirt the terms that were established to contain him and render his ability to be a threat ineffectual.

It wasn’t until after 9/11 that America realized that the risks we faced were great and the threats that exist are serious.

Up until 9/11, aside from shooting back on an Iraqi jet that fired at us outside of an established no-fly zone in Iraq, a failed C.I.A. backed coup, a continuous string of disregard for UN violations and inability to enforce proper weapons inspections and a signed congressional act calling for the liberation of Iraq, we did little more than provide lip service to the agreed fact that Saddam Hussein was a danger and needed to be eliminated.

President Bill Clinton said on February 4, 1998, “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line”

On December 16, 1998 high liberal lord Al Gore said, “If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons”.

Around this same time, based on information collected by the Clinton administration, long before anyone could even accuse the Bush administration of falsifying facts, Nancy Pelosi said ” Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of WMD technology which is a threat to countries in the region and has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process”.

According to liberal lion, Ted Kennedy in an interview on October 6, 2002…….”Saddam Hussein is a dangerous figure. He’s got dangerous weapons”.

Shortly after that, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd stated ”The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked upon on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities”

Before his campaign for the presidency of the United States was official, a previous liberal standard bearer of today’s liberal Democrat party, John Kerry said, ” Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime…..He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction….So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”

It was rather obvious that Saddam needed to go and that fact never changed. Years later, even after there being no weapons of mass destruction found, other evidence of sinister intentions does exist. The discovery of over 500 degraded missile casings designed to carry deadly chemicals actually supports such conclusions.

Then there exists the evidence of what Saddam was known to actually be doing.

Leading Iraqi inspectors and figures with the International Atomic Energy Agency stated “there was evidence that the Iraqis continued research and development “right up until the end” to improve their ability to produce ricin. “They were mostly researching better methods for weaponization,”

They add “Iraq did make an effort to restart its nuclear weapons program in 2000 and 2001, but that the evidence suggested that the program was rudimentary at best and would have taken years to rebuild, after being largely abandoned in the 1990’s….”

All of this points to the fact that there was little disagreement regarding Saddam Hussein between both Democrats and Republicans and there was little to distinguish any difference between the Bush administration or the Clinton administration when it came to Iraq.

All except for one.

After the devastating results of 9/11 materialized, the administration of President George W. Bush decided to take action. President Bush decided that lip service was no longer a good enough strategy when it came to eliminating threats.

That explanation produces a knee-jerk reply from the left and isolationists. To that, like Pavlov’s dog, they jump to their feet and scream “but Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorists”.

An oversimplification of events might make their stale reply seem rational but a scratch of the surface of that shallow argument reveals the truth, which those who make that claim, refuse to accept.

Although there has been no connection between the 19 terrorists who participated in the hijacking of the airplanes that produced 9/11, there is no denying that they were terrorists and as a result, on September 20th, 2001, President Bush declared a War On Terror and in a speech to the nation he said, “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.…”

Keeping that in mind, even though none of the 19, 9/11 hijackers came through Iraq, there is no doubt that, through Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists with a so-called “global reach”. The list of terrorists that fall into this category includes, but is not limited to:

Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993
Khala Khadr al-Salahat, who created the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland
Abu Abas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan before he reentered the insurgency that followed the post Saddam days of Iraq”.

Given those names alone, bringing the overthrow of Saddam Hussein into the War On Terror was, and still remains, a legitimate part of the greater battle.

After 9/11, to have ignored Iraq and allowed Saddam to continue to rule with impunity would have been an irresponsible continuation of doing nothing more than offering dire warnings about what could happen and presenting legislation symbolic of what we should do to prevent it from coming to fruition.

In its wake, armchair generals, with more hindsight than foresight, took to calling this front misguided and a diversion. Yet what diversion was created? A diversion which attracted other terrorists to take up arms and flee to Iraq like flies to flypaper.?

Some will falsely claim that our efforts in Iraq gave opportunity to a resurgence of Taliban forces in Afghanistan. They will falsely claim that our decision to fight in Iraq put us in the position of fighting two different failed wars.

Those who make such claims are not just wrong, they are lying.

First of all, neither war has been lost. The coming fulfillment of our goals in Iraq has enabled President Obama to continue the same policy set in motion by the previous administration. Secondly does anyone believe for a minute that our efforts in Afghanistan would be any further ahead than they are now, had Saddam Hussein still been an active protagonist in the region?

Given his history, his continued intentions, ever present risk and consistent defiance of the international community and agreements with the U.S., no effective attempts to combat terrorism beyond mere words, could have been undertaken without neutralizing and removing Saddam Hussein from the equation. After more than a year of trying to achieve that goal through diplomacy, force was resorted to. That was a decision Saddam Hussein made. The opportunity to avoid military action was always there for him and he was the one to reject it.

In the end the United States had two choices. Either finally do something about Saddam Hussein and eliminate the threat he posed and the proliferation of terrorism that he afforded opportunity to, or, once and for all put action behind our words and eliminate the threat and reduce the risks that we spoke so much about for over a decade.

In a post 9/11 government our government chose to act. Rather than risk having to react to another disastrous terrorist plot that claimed more innocent lives, we chose to prevent it.

The benefit of that decision is immeasurable, at least to us. We will never be able to count the lives spared by the removal of Saddam Hussein. We will not know how many future surprise attacks were prevented from occurring but what we do know is that there will be no more assisted or arranged terrorist or state sponsored attacks by Saddam.

We do know that a beachhead for democracy is developing in the heartland of intolerance in the Middle East. We do know that millions of Iraqi are now tasting freedom and for the first time in generations are living either in less fear or no fear. We do know that in addition to all the previous facts which gave reason to removing Saddam Hussein, others existed as well. Such as his support of Palestinian suicide bombers and his prompting of two regional wars. But in addition to that, Hussein’s oppression and extermination of his own people is justification in and of itself. Such humanitarian reasoning justified our actions in places like Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Haiti during the Clinton years. Why that alone is not enough cause for our actions in Iraq is an example of liberal hypocrisy.

Yet till this day, there are those who try to paint our actions as irresponsible, imperialistic forays of greedy, misguided political folly. They try to claim the Republican party who nominated a President that carried this action out is a party that has lost sight of its purpose.

Well to them I make it clear that the Republican party has not lost sight of our purpose, our beliefs or of what is important. The decision to include Iraq in the War on Terror is one that we stand by today as steadfast as we did on the day that Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched.

We are proud of the fact that Republicans finally achieved what, for too long, many only spoke about. We are proud to not excuse away the abuses of Saddam Hussein and ignore his treaty and cease fire violations. We are proud of the fact today, we are not having to add Saddam into an already complicated enough risk equation that involves Iran, North Korea, China, an erratic Russia and the still existing sources Islamic radicalism and terrorism.

Utopian romantics may try to argue how better off we would be had we ignored the facts and allowed Saddam Hussein to remain a player. They will calculate the immediate financial cost of the war and claim it to be the source of our great economic debt. In doing so, what they leave out of their equation is the long term cost that we would still be paying to continue countering Saddam Hussein. They also leave out the price we would be paying as it relates to the lives at risk or lost had Saddam continued with his ambitions.

What these deniers of truth fail to do is acknowledge the fact that America can no longer simply talk about what needs to be done to protect ourselves. We must do things to protect ourselves. What these liberal leaning, apologists for jihad refuse to do is admit that they would have been the first to crucify a Republican President had he not prevented Saddam Hussein from successfully enabling or carrying out any other terrorist related event. But we did, so now their need to point fingers of blame to anyone but themselves causes them to point blame, not at he who made such events possible, but at he who made them less likely.

Such people may continue to call opposition to their denial of facts extremists and they may try to evangelize their message by exploiting those whose lives were lost in the War On Terror but they do so at the risk of taking responsibility for the next terrorist attack that their ways fail to thwart.

Bookmark and Share



6.00 G-Had TV. Morning prayers.
8.30 Talitubbies. Talitubbies say “Ah-ah”. Dipsy and Tinky-Winky repair a Stinger missile launcher.
9.00 Shouts of Praise. More prayers.
11.00 Jihad’s Army. The Kandahar-on-Sea battalion repulse another attack by evil, imperialist, Zionist backed infidels.
12.00 Ready, Steady, Jihad! Celebrities make lethal devices out of everyday objects.
12.30 Panoramadan. The programme reports on Americas attempts to take over the world.
13.30 Xena: Modestly dressed Housewife. Xena stays at home and does some cooking.
14.00 Only Fools and Camels. Dhal-Boy offloads some Chinese rocket launchers to Hamas.
14.30 Green Peter. The total of Kalashnikovs bought by the milk bottle top appeal is revealed.
15.00 Madrasah Challenge. Two more Islamic colleges meet. Bambah Kaskhain asks the questions.’Starter for ten, no praying.’
15.30 I Love 629. A look back at the events of the year, including the Prophet’s entry into Mecca, and the destruction of pagan idols.
16.00 Question Time. Members of the public face questions from political and religious leaders.
17.00 Koranation Street. Deirdrie faces execution by stoning for adultery.
17.30 Middle-East Enders. The entire cast is jailed for unislamic behaviour.
18.00 Holiday. The team go on pilgrimage to Mecca. Again.
18.30 Top of the Prophets. Will the Koran be No.1 for the 63,728th week running?
19.00 Who wants to be a Mujahadin? Mahmoud Tarran asks the questions.
Will contestants phone a mullah, go ‘inshallah’, or ask the Islamic council?
20.00 FILM: Shariah’s Angels. The three burkha-clad sleuths go undercover to expose an evil scheme to educate women.
21.30 Big Brother. Who will be taken out of the house and executed this week?
22.30 Shahs in their Eyes. More hopefuls imitate famous destroyers of the infidel.
23.30 They think it’s Allah over. Quiz culminating in the ‘don’t feel it the Mullah’ round.
0.00 When Imams attack. Amusing footage shot secretly in mosques. The filmers were also secretly shot.
00.30 a.m. The West Bank Show. Arts programme looking at anti-Israel graffiti art in the occupied territories.
01.30 Bhuffi the Infidel Slayer. 
02.00 A book at bedtime. The Koran. Again.


Filed under politics


antpresidentbushdeparts2whitehousebltnfaadgnllThere remain only a few hours left in the presidency of  George W. Bush. For eight years he has given us his best. There were some low points but there were fewer than the media and liberals would have you believe.

Katrina was a low point but even that, President Bush really can’t take all the blame for himself . But for liberals, President Bush was there scapegoat.

Hurricane Katrina ravaged Mississippi every bit as much as it did Louisiana, yet Mississippi, under the leadership of Republican Governor Haley Barbour, did not encounter the same long duration of recovery or mishandled evacuations that  Louisiana  did.

Mississippi’s local leaders did not decide to park their buses on low lying surfaces as did New Orleans’ Democrat Mayor, Ray Nagin.

No, Mississippi’s first line of defense in natural disasters, their local governments, the governments closest to the people, came through and were every bit as prepared as they told the federal government that they were. Not so in New Orleans though.

But a liberal bias from the media helped to make Hurricane Katrina President Bush’s fault.

Shortly after the events of Hurricane Katrina many left leaning conspiracy theorists also claimed that Hurricane Katrina and a few of its devastating predecessors were the product of Japan where the Japanese government was inventing a new weapon that increased the intensity of tropical storms into category 5 hurricanes and directed them to land masses that they targeted.

Many of the same people who made this claim gave blame to George Bush. That should tell you something.anthurricane20katrina20image

Although Katrina may not have been Bush’s fault, the recovery effort in Louisiana does get blamed on him and to a degree that is acceptable. But I guess, on the other side of the coin, the successfully rapid recovery in Mississippi warrants some credit for President Bush?

Putting aside the blame game of Hurricane Katrina, there are two things that when grading this presidency, bring his average down.

The first is his delay in approving the surge that his own Secretary of State urged for a year before he finally accepted it.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice  had been advocating for more troops in Iraq. It was a strategy called “clear, hold and build”. It was also the same strategy that Senator John McCain called for.

Clear, hold and build was successfully used by Col. H.R. McMaster in the Iraqi city of Tal Afar. The strategy called for door to door operations that cleared insurgents from the city along with an ongoing troop presence in each neighborhood that was cleared. Once this was achieved residents felt secure, and U.S. troops were able to begin rebuilding there. Wherever this strategy was conducted, it worked. The resurgents were gone and our continued presence there, prevented them from returning. As a result, citizens no longer lived in fear and life began to flow unimpeded by terror and violence. To carry out clear, hold and build, more troops were required. But increasing the number of troops was not something the administration wanted to advocate for. Although it was required in order to successfully carry out clear, hold, build the administration was afraid of the reaction to such a call.

The President flinched in this area. It was one of the few instances where he allowed public perception to make him second guess his policy judgment. After Viet Nam, we should have learned that if you are going to enter into a fight, throw everything you have into it from the onset. Otherwise don’t get into the fight.

In the case of Iraq, we held back. Had we went along with the surge from the beginning, we would have avoided the upsurge in violence that led to the waning of support for the war effort.

The other area of deep negative impact on this administration was the financial collapse that brought on the current economic crisis.

President Bush does not get blamed for causing the collapse, but it happened under his watch and it should not have.

The President, through his advisers, should have seen this coming and helped to avoid it.

He should have aggressively turned back some of the policies which led to the overextended loan practices which ultimately tied up loans and the markets.

Many of the policies that brought us to this point were from Bill Clinton’s administration.

Clinton‘s National Homeowners Strategy was a financial scheme that promoted insanely low down payments and coerced lenders into giving mortgage loans to first-time buyers with unstable financing and incomes.

It was a way to increase home ownership. That is an admirable motive but as usual, the liberal mentality, forced government to do that which it should not have done. Essentially, the Clinton era initiatives that forced government action on private sector interests led to the need for government to take over FannieMae and FreddieMac. This is not to say that private sector greed and bad business practices did not add to the wrong minded government policy, it did, but what happened here is that government solutions to one problem, created another . Now, ironically, the government which helped to create this problem is having to solve it
As for George Bush, this all came to a head under his watch. For that he must be blamed.

So we have the recovery effort in Louisiana, delaying the surge in Iraq and not avoiding the economic crises that we are in, all helping to lower the average of this administrations grade.

I have two more things to add though.

One is immigration.

On immigration President Bush was most inept. On this issue his positions were no where near appropriate for the leader of a sovereign nation.

antgall_texmex_giThe Presidents refusal to accept that illegal immigrants are participating in illegal conduct that needs to be prosecuted was a horribly blundered policy and it is one that has not helped to solve our border security problem or alleviate the continued problem of illegal immigration.

The other issue I hold against President Bush is his administrations inability to articulate their cause in a way that appealed to the people convincingly.

The administration had been doing quite well in it’s first two years when the voice of the President came from then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Once Ari Fleischer left and Scott McClellan entered the picture, the White House lost any sway with the press or the public.

This President was great with messages when we were in crisis and he had the people’s attention, but in between crisis his message was jumbled and unconvincing. That, for this administration, was half of the battle and after Fleischer left they lost it.

On the upside President Bush has many, much wrongly maligned, initiatives to help bring his grade up.

Their was his “Faith Based Initiative” which allowed government to accept the involvement of religious institutions in helping out. Faith based initiatives were no longer penalized or denied by the federal government because of religion. It was something long over due in America, especially in an America where religion is not to persecuted against.

There was “No Child Left Behind”.

This policy was one which had universal support except for some extremist fringe players and teachers union.. But not willing to give credit where credit was due, liberals charged that President Bush backed out of his No Child Left Behind policy by under funding it.

Truth be told, federal education spending is at record levels so that argument doesn’t swim.

There are many other policies such as the Medicare prescription drug benefit, enacted in 2003. It triggered competition between drug companies and wound up costing less than expected.

The Bush tax policy is also to his credit. He didn’t ask for lips to read on this issue, he simply created no new taxes and when he did not reduce them he held the line on them. I only wish he could have added drastic spending cuts to that.

Another high point in this administration was the appointment of two supreme court justices, one being the chief justice.

antaliThe appointments of  John Roberts  and  Sam Alito  were remarkably good choices. Neither had any judicial or ant070628_juris_johnrobertsexpersonal blemishes and neither see the role of the judiciary to be one that makes law but rather interprets it. Add to that their relative youthful ages and the Roberts and Alito appointments to the bench will have a profound on our great nation for decades to come.

The next greatest achievement of the administration was twofold. It involves The War On Terror and Iraq.

Despite charges that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, the two are entwined together as violent threats.

Pre-Saddam Hussein Iraq did not send to us the pilots that took nearly 3,000 Americans in one day but it had intentions just as dire.

Saddam did not have any tangible links to 9/11 but he did have links to terrorist, including several who dabbled with Al Quaeda and he did continuously break and defy the cease fire agreement that he signed after the first Gulf War. Combine that with the fact that everyone from  Bill Clinton  and  Al Gore  to  John Kerry  and  Ted Kennedy  swore that Saddam was a threat and you had every reason in the world to eliminate Saddam Hussein.

After 9/11 George W. Bush realized that we must eliminate threats before they eliminate us and so he took out the threat known as Saddam Hussein.  In doing so not is democracy being brought to the Middle East but the power and richness of freedom is being delivered to a people that have long since forgotten what independence offers.

Add to that that you can say what you want, but we no longer have to worry about any threat Saddam intended, and for that I thank the President.

I also Thank him for the second part of this  War On Terror  effort.   Under his watch not another single attack occurred on mainland territory since 9/11.

Now if you want to blame Katrina on Bush because it happened during his watch you must also credit him for there being no more attacks under his watch. And when you think about, more attacks occurred under Bill Clinton then George Bush, so I thank President Bush for that as well.

The final most valuable thing brought to life under President Bush goes back to exactly four years ago.

In his inaugural address , after being sworn in for the second time, President Bush stated:

America has need of idealism and courage, because we have essential work at home – the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.”

He went on to articulate a policy that directed the United States to end tyranny in the world as we know it.

Now some may have seen that as a declaration of war by him but most read it the right way.

He went on to say………“We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.”

antbush-2innAll who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.:”

The speech has since been forgotten by most but it has not been forgotten by me and hopefully President Barack Obama will also remember it..

In its entirety, the address presented the essence of what it means to be an American and it captured the most important role that America must play in this world as its current, last remaining superpower.

For me it Bush’s second inaugural address was the foundation for our greatest doctrine ever, the doctrine to achieve and true freedom and peace.

When you have the time, click here and read the speech. You will be moved and you will understand our place in this world.

The bottom line…….

President Bush is a good man and was a good President. He will not go down in history ranked along side of Washington or Lincoln nor will he be lumped together with Franklin Pierce or Jimmy Carter.

Ultimately, I believe George W. Bush warrants a B-.

Many on the left will now assault me for giving that grade but I base George Bush’s presidency on the truth of reality not on the lies and distortions that they have spent the last eight years perpetuating and when you add that to the retrospect of history, I believe George W. Bush’s name  will slowly rise to its proper placement among American presidents.

That is something that will take time.

As President Bush recently put it, “they’re still debating and writing about how good or bad George Washington was, so I assume the same will happen to me”.


Once upon a time, in a village, a man appeared and announced to the villagers…

… that he would buy monkeys for $10 each.

The villagers seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the forest, and started catching them. The man bought thousands at $10 and as supply started to diminish, the villagers stopped their effort.

He further announced that he would now buy at $20. This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they started catching monkeys again.

Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back to their farms.

The offer increased to $25 each and the supply of monkeys became so little that it was an effort to even see a monkey, let alone catch it!

The man now announced that he would buy monkeys at $50! However, since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would now buy on behalf of him.

In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers. ‘Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has collected. I will sell them to you at $35 and when the man returns from the city, you can sell them to him for $50 each.’

The villagers rounded up with all their savings and bought all the monkeys.

Then they never saw the man nor his assistant, only monkeys everywhere!

Now you have a better understanding of how the stock market works.

Submitted by Dick, Williamsport, Md.

Bookmark and Share

 RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite

Take the new POLITICS 24/7 Poll

RedWhiteBlue.gif picture by kempite 

Be Sure To Sign The Petition To


Sign the Online Petition – Repeal The Automatic Pay Raise That Congress Is Receiving

Pass The Link On To Family, Friends and Co-workers


Bookmark and ShareDigg!

Leave a comment

Filed under politics