Premature Nomination

Really? Could it be over so soon? This has been like a 6 month Christmas for Republicans... The Democrats are a Party that cannot lose who have elected a candidate that cannot win, and the Republicans are a party that cannot win that have elected a candidate that cannot lose. I really hope Billary drags this to the Credentials Committee at the Convention. Denver, here we come! Her campaign has already said even if Obama reaches the *new magic number of delegates, he still won't have enough, and they are willing to appeal. Oh please, God, let it happen. Remember people, this is good for the party. So good, that the percieved nominee has been losing by 30 and 40 point margins in the final primaries. Generally, if a party is united, don't they generally drift toward the percieved nominee? At least, that's how the Republican's and most people generally term "Unity". The Democrats ploy that the Republicans aren't united is bogus. McCain currently has 89% of Republican support, while Obama only has 74% of Democrat support. Watching the Democrat Party this Primary Season has been like a family watching their house burn: "Oh, gee. Look! The house is on fire!" and they just sit there with their chins in their hands. I think this about sums it up:
And you know, I agree with this woman. Geraldine Ferraro as well. Race trumps gender everytime. This is why Obama has been doing so well. If a 1/2 term WHITE senator had said "I want to be your President, America.", any reasonable person would have laughed him back to his Senate seat. If a sizeable chunk of Hillary supporters are harboring these same feelings, they have hell to pay come Novemeber 2nd.

A Trinity of Racists

Howard Dean said Republicans are race-baiting when they question Obama's judgment about his associates when they bring up the fact he sat in the pews of Trinity United Chuch for 20 years. Really, Mr. Dean?! You say the REPUBLICANS are race-baiting for raising questions of judgment on a candidate who happens to be black? Well, let's see what your side had to say in defense of this outrage:

Dole-ing Out the Punches

Bob Dole gave Scott McClellan his two cents on McClellan's opportunistic and traitorous book. McClellan deserves the criticism. If he had a problem with the Bush Administration, it is his duty to speak out or resign. By looking back on this as retrospect makes him highly uncredible. He makes sweeping accusations, but provides no facts to back up his charges. He complains of the politics of old in the preface, but uses the same style politics in the book. Of McClellan, Dole said: "There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don’t have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in a message sent yesterday morning. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits and, spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique." He went on to say: "In my nearly 36 years of public service I've known of a few like you," Dole writes, recounting his years representing Kansas in the House and Senate. "No doubt you will 'clean up' as the liberal anti-Bush press will promote your belated concerns with wild enthusiasm. When the money starts rolling in you should donate it to a worthy cause, something like, 'Biting The Hand That Fed Me.' Another thought is to weasel your way back into the White House if a Democrat is elected. "That would provide a good set up for a second book deal in a few years" That would have taken integrity and courage but then you would have had credibility and your complaints could have been aired objectively," Dole concludes. "You’re a hot ticket now, but don’t you, deep down, feel like a total ingrate?" Dole is absolutely right. People who complain about things they were a part of after the fact, and doing the exact things they are complaining about later are despicable. He as of last April defended the War in Iraq. He wasn't there for the military ramp-up before the war, so had would he know that the Bush Administration lied for political expediency to go to war? Especially considering the CIA, and most of our allies and the UN Security Council all said that Saddam had WMD's. McClellan is a disgrace. He's either to whimpy to speak for himself and has no courage of his convictions, or is a weasel in it to make a buck. Either way, he deserves no respect from anyone.

Liebermann Goes Barry Picking

Joe Liebermann has hammered Barack Hussein Obama on the issue of talking to Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and Cuba's leaders. Asking what would have been thought about Reagan if he had decided to sit down unconditionally with the USSR. The fact is Barry, you are a hypocrite. Saying you deplore terrorism, but are willing to talk to the personal financier's of terrorism is ludocrious. To expect that you can somehow be creative enough to change the minds of those who have called the US and it's allies, namely Israel, the roots through which evil spreads is plain-and-simple stupid. And, no, it's not the same as Kennedy and Reagan. Kennedy was thought weak by the Russians at the time, leading to the Berlin Wall and later the Cuban Missle Crisis. You sir, are aiming for another Bay of Pigs. Reagan had strong precedents set for which he would sit down with the Former Soviet Union. And, you sir, are no Ronald Reagan. He knew how the world worked because of political experience. You think growing up in different parts of the world and studying abroad make you qualified to deal with the Rouge Nations of this Earth? By that standard, so are most elitist college students. You are a fool to think that negotiations work with these countries. The last time we tried to negotiate with the Mullah's of Iran under your buddy Carter, we got a Hostage Crisis. You are a reckless politician. You are a reckless human being. Your judgment is that of a five year olds, and you have the gall to think you can lead the most powerful nation of the world? For shame!

The Polar Bear Killed Oil

The Polar Bear has made it's way onto the Threatened Species List. This means horrible news for any future oil exploration in the Arctic. The people behind this push to put the "poor Polar Bear" are the same Global Warming nuts that want to blame all the Cyclical Climate Changes on man and his toilings. Now that the Polar Bear is considered "threatened", any and everywhere the Polar Bear lives is now off limits to oil exploration. Let's get to the facts: 1. The Polar Bear is NOT Threatened. In the 1970's, there were only 5,000 Polar Bears. Today, there are 25,000 Polar Bears. Sounds very threatened, doesn't it. 2. This is about oil. The Pro-Global Warming lobbies have now successfuly put the Arctic, especially ANWR, off limits for oil exploration. The main arguement from these groups was that the Polar Ice Caps are melting and the Polar Bear can no longer get food or has a place to live. The Arctic Ice Shelf is now at its LARGEST level in 35 years, and is the 2nd largest amount of ice since records have started being kept. But, because the left and their Church of Global Warming want to damn those who they say are killing the planet and the poor, vastly-expanded population of Polar Bears, oil exploration has now been deemed as "dangerous" to the Polar Bear and its way of life. Eco-nuts like this are only trying to put the Polar Bear on the list as a way to starve the world of its vast oil resources. $5.00 Gas, here we come. So long Freedom, hello Ahmadinejad.

Let's Get JUDICIAL! JUDICIAL!

The California Supreme Court today overturned the ban on gay marriage. This, of course, after the California State voters decided that marriage was between a man and a woman back in 2000. Prop 22 was decided as "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." That SHOULD have been the end of it. But, as with the history of California and it's liberal activism ideology, the high court decided it is also now the high legislature. Since when did a court get the power to dictate legislation? Courts are supposed to look into the constitutionality of current laws, not reshape them as they see fit. The people of California had decided this issue, and now the court has decided to play state Congress. Gov. Schwarzenegger has now said that he in fact WON'T sign a ban on any gay marriage bill that would come to his desk. After he has said that he WOULD sign such ban.(Although, could we really has expected as much? You don't win the Governorship in California as a Republican unless you're a R.I.N.O.) The California Supreme Court has overstepped its bounds, and now it appears, the only way for the liberals to put in their activist legislation and ideas into working policies is use the good ol' activist court.

The War between the Branches

When did Congress' list of enumerated powers come to include being in control of foreign policy and the military? I thought those powers were given to the EXECUTIVE BRANCH by the Founding Fathers? Then again, the party in control of the Congress have always shown disdain for anything in the Constitution they don't like. Like that pesky 2nd Amendment, the "Life" part of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", the religion part of the 1st Amendment(excluding all non-Christian religions), as well as the speech part of the 1st Amendment when it comes to speech they find "offensive", "divisive", or could "create a hostile environment". Congress only has the ability to declare war. They gave the President war time powers. It was almost unanimous in the vote for a war declaration. If the Congress didn't want to go to war, why did they declare it? The President HAS to return troops home after 90 days without an official declaration. Why didn't they wait it out? Because, being the hypocrites the Democrats are, they are the ones who agreed with the information at the time. They all saw the same intel seen by the President, and 2 of the most prominent Anti-War politicians said it was beyond a doubt that Saddam had WMD's.(see Democra-mentia post). The President is the one who determines foreign policy, and he is the one who runs the military. That annoying little power given to him by the Founding Fathers. It isn't the Congress' responsibility to determine if a war is a victory or loss, especially when we are winning. It isn't their right to dictate how the military is run. This Congress needs to look at their job outlined in that piece of paper called The Constitution. The Legislative Branch exists to create the laws, not be the Commander(s) in Chief.

Oliver Stone's Twist

Oliver Stone is set to begin production on his film, W., about George W. Bush soon. Now, considering Stone has spoken glowingly of the end of Bush, should we take him or his film seriously? The fact is, history's leaders are judged after many, many, MANY decades and generations after the fact. This is jumping the gun to interject personal hatred into a lame-duck president while Americans still harbor feelings of resentment and anger against him. Of course, all of Stone's films have been box-office flops, but still, he isn't going to be "objective". Many Bush biographers have looked at pieces of "leaked" script and said it was riddled with inaccuracies, making Bush look like he ran the White House like and frat house and he cared more about watching Sport's Center on ESPN than he did about running the country. It's been called "daring" and "cutting-edge". No it isn't. People are already sick of Bush, so why do you need to remind those who are sick of him that, yes, they are infact sick of him? It's like making a movie on the horrors of stomach flu. We know it's bad, and these people think they "know" George W. Bush is the root of all evil throughout the world. Hollywood obviously knows more about foreign policy and running the most powerful nation in the world waaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy more than those who actually ARE running it. So, we should definatley listen to them. The same people who feined over Castro. The same people who have shown admonishment for anything the US does around the world, when it pertains to protecting the US's and its allies interests.

Don't Interrupt Him! He's on the Chair with the Rope as we Speak!

The Democrats right now are essentially sitting back and doing nothing as the house burns. Just staring at it in awe, while failing to turn on the hose. They are calling each other racists, and bigots, and Gun-toter's, and Bible-thumping Zealots, and Xenophobes, and whiners, and weak, and liars, and cheaters. And all of this may be true, but all of it is being directed at each other for a change. Normally, such terms were flung at Republicans. We were the racists and bigots, because we wanted to enforce immigration laws. Gun-toter's because we know gun-control laws don't work against criminals and only take guns out of law abiding citizens hands. Zealots because we believe in a higher being, and not a higher governmental power. Whiners because we criticized the uppity liberals. Liars because there turned out not to be WMD's. Cheaters because Bush won more electoral votes in 2000, but lost the popular vote by a few thousand votes. But, now the tables have turned. The Democrats' chickens are coming home to roost. They're now subjecting each other to the kind of things they have subjected Republicans to for decades. The difference is, while this untied Republicans against the liberal folly, they have fallen apart when left to their own vices and subjected to their own style politics. A Party divided against itself, Cannot stand. Their party is being held hostage by the far-left and traitor wings of that party, and they are falling hard. The Democratic Party is now Rome, and boy is it in decline. They have lower approval ratings than, wait for it.... GEORGE W. BUSH! The most unpopular president in this nations 232 year history! They were supposed to "clean up the Republican mess" and "end the war". So far, they've done nothing. In fact, they've actually gathered up the Republican mess, and made it their own. Remember when they had a "comprehensive plan" to lower gas prices? Gas has skyrocketed ever since they got to power, and the best thing they can think up is buy more oil. OPEC isn't giving us enough oil. The same people who say we need to be energy independent. This explains the Democratic Congress' plan for fixing the energy problem: The environmental wing of the party is holding that problem hostage. Nothing is acceptable. The Democrats are now the do nothing party, and hopefully the American people will wake up and realize how much better the country does under Conservative Rule.

The Billary Bomb Fallout, and Things To Pack for Denver

Lately, it seems the "Party of the People" has become the "Party of the Know-Betters". This race is now down to the Super Delegate's decision being the end-all, be-all for this primary race. And they have continually been riding the Obama momentum wave. Why? Hillary still has a size able chunk of the pledge delegate share, and has actually more popular vote than Obama, when you count "actual" instead of "official" states. She is proving to be able to get the reliable, bread-and-butter base of the Democratic Party... the working class and women. This is the most reliable voting bloc in the General Election for the Democrats. Blacks, First Timers, Young People, College Educated folks, and College Students only come out to decide who the women and working class get to vote on. They almost never come out in time for Election Day in November. Obama's base, the primary-only voters, are the same base McGovern carried; the Black vote, the Young vote, the First Time vote, and the College Student/Educated vote. And we all remember the blow-out McGovern had when he became president in 1972. Oh, wait, no he didn't. Almost everyone on the Democratic side is calling Obama the presumptive nominee, including McGovern! Yet, as of now, he only has a slight lead in pledge delegates, which will only count for him on the first ballot if this thing(God Willing) goes to the convention in August. The Clinton campaign already plans to wage a Super Delegate campaign after the final primaries, and will go to August if necessary. Hillary has nothing to lose and everything to win. We Republicans are sitting pretty and quiet on this for two reasons: Either Hillary Clinton will end up blowing up the Democratic Party. Or, they will go with Obama who is now the candidate of gaffes and poor associations and judgment. Hillary will end up alienating the Black vote, and Obama won't get the Reagan Democrats, and McCain polls better with Independents. Plus, Obama's claim of "working across party lines" is a lie. He is one of the most reliable senators to vote with the left fringe wing of the party. Hillary made a point to work across party lines once she got to the Senate in 2000, and mention any of the issues facing us today, and McCain's name comes up as the most likely to work across the aisle. Why Hillary let Obama have the bi-partisan tagline is beyond me, since she actually has been bi-partisan and Obama has been the MoveOn, Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Kennedy, Pelosi, Moore vote. Either way, in a year when a Republican should be behind by 10-20 points in the polls, McCain is ahead almost daily.

Democra-mentia

"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, November 17, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"The president led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence."- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, January 21, 2004

"Americans are questioning why the administration went to war in Iraq when Iraq was not an imminent threat, when it had no weapons..."- Sen. Ted Kennedy, April 6, 2004

A Wright Does Not A Right Wing Pastor Make

For all the loony left, allow me to make one thing very clear: A 20 Year Relationship with a Racist, Traitorous, Anti-American Reverend does NOT equal an unsolicited endorsement. John McCain didn't call John Hagee his "spiritual mentor" and say "I can no longer reject him, than I can my own Grandmother". John McCain has openly criticized Hagee BEFORE Hagee endorsed McCain. Rev. Wright, on the other hand, had the ear of a presidential candidate for 20 YEARS!!! And we are expected to believe that after 20 years, nothing rubbed off onto Barack "Barry" Hussein Obama? We are supposed to believe that even though his pastor made outrageous claims about America, he still saw fit to stay in that church and still considered him a "spiritual mentor"? We are supposed to believe that Wright was taken out of context up until he legitimized himself in his speeches to the NAACP and National Press Club, and THEN he wasn't the "man I met 20 years ago"? Either Obama has the poorest judgment of near anyone in the world, or he is flat-out lying about Wright. Either way, he is dangerous, and needs to be kept out of the White House at all costs.

To The "Faux News" Morons, In The Event of My Untimely Death...

Why is Fox News so intimidating to you idiots? Are you afraid of actual debate, and TRUE free speech... that being expressing political values, not showing aborted fetuses as "art". Liberal idiots control 90% of the media. The only media Conservatives are allowed on are Fox News, the Washington Post, and the Internet. But you're version of fair is only letting the American people hear what you have to say. Liberal ideas sound good on the surface, and once people delve into them, the more unpopular they become. Conservative ideas are shunned as "anti-progress, racist, bible-thumping, gun-toting, lunacy", until you delve into them and the more people are exposed to them the more they agree with them. This whole left-wing shut-out of Fox News by The Kaily Kos, Moveon.org, The Huffington Post, and others only exists because they can't control the content of what is said. For them free speech is being openly traitorous, tyrannical, and calling children "choices" and sexuality for everyone to see "human nature". Conservatives idea of free speech is speaking your mind on political views.

Michelle Obama's "America Plan"

As we all know, politicians' spouses generally serve as surrogates for the candidates. They're sent out to speak for their spouse, and recently Michelle Obama made so very telling comments on her, if not her husband's, thoughts on wealth and taxes. At a North Carolina campaign stop April 8th, Mrs. Obama said: "The truth is most Americans don't want much. Folks don't want the whole pie. Most Americans feel blessed to thrive a little bit... but that's out of reach for them. The truth is, in order to get things like Universal Health Care and a revamped Education System, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."Why, welcome back Karl. How's Mrs. Marx been?The sad truth is, we spend more money per student than any other country, only second to Switzerland, and what do we have to show for it. Our public school system doesn't need MORE money, it's over funded and then at least a 1/3 of that money gets wasted. The top 10% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of the tax bill, while the bottom 50% pays only 3% and the bottom 48% GET MONEY BACK!!!A few weeks ago, Michelle Obama had complained that she and her husband had a hard time paying for their children's piano lessons. I'm sure it must be difficult when you only make a minuscule $500,000/year. Either you then agree the government is taking too much money, or you simply can't organize and execute a simple budget. Either way, I don't want to see the Obama's in the White House.From her UCLA speech, February 3rd, Mrs. Obama said: "...And Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your division, that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better, and that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, and uniformed." Nothing like Totalitarianism dressed up with Oprah's trims and trappings. It would be one thing if she were calling for 300 million self-reliant informed individuals. Instead, she wants 300 million cheerleaders for a messianic Presidency.

If Punk Rockers Truly Hated Big Government, They'd Be Conservatives(Thanks Ann)

Something I’ve struggled to understand is while Punk Rock preaches that government is too large, has too much power, and too much control over personal choice, they continually align themselves with the left. Conservative Republicans want to reduce the size of government and its spectrum of control over it’s citizens. The left has constantly monopolized private institutions, or has at least tried, i.e. Universal Government-run Health Care, and tried to take away personal choices of those who have elected them for the collective "good" of society. (And, I know alot of Punk Rock music preaches of Anarchy, but the Punk Rockers who get politically involved. Generally, they want to say they are "Libertarians", but most came out in support of Kerry in 2004. So, unless Kerry is a Libertarian, Punk Rock runs Blue.) Sacrifice your individualism for collectivism rears its ugly head. Is it odd I vote Republican and listen to: Green Day, The Distillers, Rancid, Bad Religion, The Clash, The Ramones, Operation Ivy, Misfits, Queens of the Stone Age, Nine Inch Nails, Mindless Self Indulgence, Flogging Molly, Dropkick Murphys, Transplants, Sourpuss, Lars Frederiksen and the Bastards, Black Flag, Anti-Flag, The Offspring, Goldfinger, The Casualties, Social Distortion, Minor Threat, Cheap Sex, Agnostic Front, Hole, NOFX, Bikini Kill, Rammstein, Pennywise, Millencolin, The Bouncing Souls, Tsunami Bomb, The Vandals, Eagles of Death Metal, Babes in Toyland, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Auf der Maur, Bring your own Pet, The Hives, Garbage, Nirvana, Lunachicks, The Unseen, F-Minus, Strung Out, The Suicide Machines, Mustard Plug, Reel Big Fish, Beastie Boys, L7, 7 Year Bitch, Courtney Love, Clay Pigeon, Nekromantix, Blondie, Jack Off Jill, U.S. Bombs, Lower Class Brats, The Adicts, UK Subs, The Vibrators, Sham 69, The Aquabats, Satanic Surfers, Marcy Playground, Junkie XL, The Mighty Mighty Bosstones, The Planet Smashers, Negative Approach, The Adolescents, 7Seconds, The Descendents, Dead Kennedys, Samhain, BALZAC, T.S.O.L., Danzig, Suicidal Tendencies, Common Rider, Bomb the Music Industry!, Choking Victim, Bid D and the Kids Table, Left?ver Crack, No Use for a Name, The Pixies, and many others alike?

The so-called "Party of the People"

When a Democrat says: "I'm pro-choice", what they mean to tell you is: "I'm pro-abortion". The Democratic Party doesn't believe in choice, or at least allowing choices to be allotted to anyone but themselves. The Republican Party is the TRUE pro-choice party. The Democratic Party has cornered the minority voting bloc, as well as many a female voter, and the gay vote. But it is Republicans who truly stand up for the minorities, women, and gays. On the Minority contingent, as it relates to choice: 1. Democrats claim to stand up for Minorities. Wrong. Democrats are against allowing school-choice vouchers. How does this apply, you may ask? If Democrats truly were for Minorities, they would be for school-vouchers that allow parents to choose where their children go to school. For Minority Parents, this is especially important, since most live in the inner cities and their children are crammed in large classes in poor schools. They have no educational opportunities to succeed. If Minority Parents could choose to put their children in better schools, ones outside of the city, they very likely would. On women, Democrats say they don't see gender. Yet for some reason, they pander to the emotions of voters, rather than treating them as individuals who can think for themselves. Women are more emotional than men, and the Democrats know this. They use the words "Hope" and "Change" to describe their campaigns, rather than hard facts. They act as if their electorate is too stupid to understand policy, so they play on the fears and anxieties, as well as the optimism, of their voting base. Women are much smarter than men. I am a man who will acknowledge this. So, why is it the Democrats feel they need to run on emotion rather than policy? On the gay issue. Gay men and Gay Couples have a higher median income than do Straights and Straight Couples. They live in larger houses, in more upscale neighborhoods. The Democrats say they care about Gays and Gay Rights. When actually, according to the facts, they only stand for Gay Marriage. I have no problems with Gays, I just think that they shouldn't trample on the tradition and sanctity of marriage. The Democrats, on the other hand, are in favor of higher taxes for wealthier Americans. Considering Gays and Gay Couples make more than Straights and Straight Couples, they are very much Anti-Gay(except when it gets them votes).

The Democratic Nominee Tradition

Apparently, Obama is the EXACT reason why the Dems have Super Delegates. He is now the fatally flawed candidate, and Hillary now appears to be the Iron Horse. I admit, up until the Pastor-gate story, I wanted Hillary for McCain to run against. She is the polarizing figure Republicans needed to get the lead out and get to the polls. But now, Obama's life of poor associations and questionable judgements has come to make him the new Hillary, in terms of polarization. Let us not forget the unrepentant Weatherman, Bill Ayers. And that pesky little comment Obama thought would never come out about the Gun-toting, Bible-thumping, Xenophobic Bitter Bigots in small towns across the US, but are only these things because they don't have a job right now. It appears the Democrats love to have the loser, and Obama is the loser. He has the hideously liberal voting record to prove it. He is the McGovern, the Mondale, the Dukakis, the Kerry of our time. He is carrying McGovern's exact same voter base: First Time Voters, Young Voters, College Students and Black Voters. And Hillary knows this. Clinton's plan 4 and 8 years out, and presumably, she would rather Obama be damaged to where McCain wins and she run again 2012. And apparently, the Democrats have given, yet again, the Clinton's what they want. Watching this race unfold is disgraceful. The MSM wants to play up Obama as the ONLY agent of change. The only change either of the Democrats, and especially Obama, offer is "relative change". Compared to Bush, yes, they are a "change", but only in regards to Bush. Not one candidate is offering Newt Gingrich's "Real Change", by starting the change of the way Washington is run. Obama is also on the skids because he started out saying that he wasn't a "Regular Washington Politician". Instead, preferring "Elected Public Servant", he has shown that when push comes to shove, he will in fact play politics as usual. Once he came back on a Clinton attack, the entire basis of his whole campaign went down the tubes.