The first tangible results of the soaring U.S. popularity triggered by the leadership of the Democratic Party’s “surrender-to-anyone” policy and George W. Bush’s “placate-the-idiots-in-Congress” policy are in. Iran and Hamas have been emboldened, and now they control the Gaza strip. For the first time since 9/11, the terrorists are winning. Way to turn the tide of the war, Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, and President Bush. Was this the change America voted for in 2006? Happy Flag Day.
When Israel pulled out of Gaza 3 years ago, it was in its own interest, declaring that the area was indefensible. Israel was right, apparently. The result will be a clarification of Palestine’s actual position, a single voice with a single objective – the destruction of Israel.
This will, in turn, lead to an escalation of Palestinian attacks on Israel. Israel will defend itself, be condemned by the both the world and the Democrats in Congress for trying to stay alive, and the world will be sucked in. The bad guys will be gleeful as they send their pawns to inglorious death, and the good guys will be kicking, screaming, wringing their hands, and wasting valuable time searching their souls and consciences.
Israel’s decision was based on a number of assumptions, the most important of which was continued and unwavering U.S. support. Since we are in the process of figuring out how to renege on our commitment to the citizens of Iraq, can our commitment to Israel be far behind. Not to renege would violate the Congressional surrender policy. Since they have now made war inevitable, they had better start formulating their surrender strategy now unless they want to look something other than stupid for a change.
Enter Joe Lieberman, the only person in the federal government talking sense and speaking his conscience. Take out Iranian nukes, he suggests, before they exist. For most Democrats in Congress and virtually all liberals, this ought to make perfect sense. It is nothing more than political abortion – kill the nukes in the womb, so to speak. It is a second chance to relive 1938 all over again. President Bush had better re-grow some cojones (At least he had some at one time, unlike Congress.), and the world had better start listening to the only member of Congress making sense, working for America, and speaking his conscience.
Side note on Lieberman: I hereby officially forgive Joe Lieberman for his “not guilty” vote on Clinton’s impeachment, even though I still disagree with it.
Showing posts with label pelosi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pelosi. Show all posts
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Saturday, May 5, 2007
The Iraqi Parliamentary Vacation
So the Iraqi Parliament wants to take a vacation. From what, exactly are they taking this vacation? I’ve seen some blogs implying that they have been on vacation for the past few years. I have seen others calling this a “2-month, Bush-style” vacation. Well you all might just want to take a step back and grow up for a few minutes.
Let’s talk about Bush first. It doesn’t matter how long his “vacations” are. They aren’t vacations as we at the bottom know them. They are work-at-home days. The press camps out on his lawn, not far from where Cindy Sheehan protests, while his staff and cabinet prepare him for a press conference every few days. If any of you out there do any less that that on YOUR vacation (and you and I both know you do a lot less) then please just shut up about Bush’s vacations. However, Bush is not entirely without fault in the Iraq vacation matter, as we will see shortly.
As we try to Americanize the Iraqi government, what is the example the U.S. Congress provides? It took a 2-week Easter vacation. The Democrat-led Congress left town after half-passing a bad surrender bill that everyone in the world knew had no chance at all of being signed into law. Anyone care to guess who the first people were to whine about the Iraqi Parliament following suit? Yup. It was leaders of the Democrat-led Congress. Score one more for the U.S. Congress.
Now back to Bush. As I wrote in my 3/31/07 article “Congress Doesn't Even Disgrace Itself Well” the President could have called an emergency session of Congress to get this urgent work done, thus depriving Nancy Pelosi of her Syrian vacation. He didn’t. His de-facto support of the Congress’ disgraceful vacation further sent the message to Iraq that this is an OK thing to do.
I would be curious to know when the founding fathers of the United States went on vacation. I doubt that there were many during the revolutionary war and was unable to find any, although I am not enough of a scholar to say definitively that there were none. If anyone knows, please share.
Perhaps the poetic justice on the subject of an Iraqi Parliamentary vacation is found in the following question(s) to Parliament members. Where will you go on vacation? Syria (You might want to get some tips from Nancy Pelosi)? Iran (I think Vladimir Putin might have some info you could use.)? Israel (You might get killed by your fellow mosque-goers.)? Please let us know where you went and how that worked out for you, especially if you were able to make it back alive.
Let’s talk about Bush first. It doesn’t matter how long his “vacations” are. They aren’t vacations as we at the bottom know them. They are work-at-home days. The press camps out on his lawn, not far from where Cindy Sheehan protests, while his staff and cabinet prepare him for a press conference every few days. If any of you out there do any less that that on YOUR vacation (and you and I both know you do a lot less) then please just shut up about Bush’s vacations. However, Bush is not entirely without fault in the Iraq vacation matter, as we will see shortly.
As we try to Americanize the Iraqi government, what is the example the U.S. Congress provides? It took a 2-week Easter vacation. The Democrat-led Congress left town after half-passing a bad surrender bill that everyone in the world knew had no chance at all of being signed into law. Anyone care to guess who the first people were to whine about the Iraqi Parliament following suit? Yup. It was leaders of the Democrat-led Congress. Score one more for the U.S. Congress.
Now back to Bush. As I wrote in my 3/31/07 article “Congress Doesn't Even Disgrace Itself Well” the President could have called an emergency session of Congress to get this urgent work done, thus depriving Nancy Pelosi of her Syrian vacation. He didn’t. His de-facto support of the Congress’ disgraceful vacation further sent the message to Iraq that this is an OK thing to do.
I would be curious to know when the founding fathers of the United States went on vacation. I doubt that there were many during the revolutionary war and was unable to find any, although I am not enough of a scholar to say definitively that there were none. If anyone knows, please share.
Perhaps the poetic justice on the subject of an Iraqi Parliamentary vacation is found in the following question(s) to Parliament members. Where will you go on vacation? Syria (You might want to get some tips from Nancy Pelosi)? Iran (I think Vladimir Putin might have some info you could use.)? Israel (You might get killed by your fellow mosque-goers.)? Please let us know where you went and how that worked out for you, especially if you were able to make it back alive.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Pelosi?
You should be – whoever you are. If you’re not you should be seriously questioning what is wrong with you. If you can’t do that by yourself, then get help. Once you have completed this first step, you have a duty to ask yourself what is wrong with those who do not yet fear this woman as you do. So in the interest of providing you that help, assuming you need it, and of getting this country back to having a reasonable line of succession and having a reasonable Congress, let me help you with a few observations.
Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away from the Presidency of the United States. And one of those heartbeats, despite its strength of mind and character, grows increasingly fragile as time passes. You should now have a sense of constitutional urgency about the situation.
Nancy Pelosi recently visited Syria – a terrorist state and enemy of the U.S. – for what? She says she was bringing the Presidents message. Well, the President is a big boy and is capable of delivering his own message. Better yet, he has Condoleezza Rice, whose job it is to deliver the Presidents message and does it better than anyone else. Here is the message “We don’t talk to terrorists.” By going at all, she acted to rescind the message – not deliver it. We, here at the bottom, understand this message. Some at the top – like the Speaker of the House – apparently don’t. If she does, she is lying about it. Either way, she doesn’t belong in a position of power in our government. You should now have a picture of a confused, back-stabbing liar. Convinced yet?
OK, I’ll continue. She is now talking about visiting the terrorist government of Iran. Does she have a list of terrorists that she needs to contact? It would have helped if she had published that list during the campaign – more honest too. I am a little surprised that she hasn’t visited Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro yet, but we have time and Fidel hasn’t been all that well lately. You should now have a picture of a dishonest politician who did not reveal her real agenda during her campaign. Convinced yet?
No? OK. All this exists against the backdrop of refusing to pass a war-funding bill capable of being signed into law before her Middle-Eastern vacation to aid and comfort America’s enemies, which, of course could not be postponed for the purpose of passing decent legislation. Passing legislation? Yes, her job - the one that she doesn’t much care to be bothered with. You should now have a picture of a woman unable and/or unwilling to do her own job, but who is hell-bent on making sure she keeps others from doing theirs, thinking that will make her look good.
So why am I not as critical of Harry Reed in the Senate? I am; he is her partner in incompetence and publicly has supported her undermining of foreign policy at the expense of our troops and their mission. He has also pushed a similarly nonsensical bill through the Senate. But he’s not the one who is two heartbeats away from the Presidency.
Anyone who does not condemn her vacation activities is complacent in aiding and comforting the enemy, and is not worthy of any position of authority in the U.S. government. This especially applies to anyone of any party running for President of the U.S. Even if you don’t condemn her activities on ideological grounds, you should condemn them on constitutional grounds. This is not her job, and those Presidential candidates who refuse to speak up are saying that it’s OK for the Congress to have its own separate, contradictory foreign policy when they become President (Apparently, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are all OK with that.). Even if you don’t condemn her actions on a constitutional basis, you should at least be suspicious of someone who justifies her anti-American activities with a vacant, robotic stare except when she declares that “…there’s a new congress in town…” Who is the cowboy now?
You should now have a sense of constitutional urgency that a lying politician, unable and/or unwilling to do her own job, interfering with those who want to do theirs, acting like the cowboy Al Gore once accused President Bush of being, and providing aid and comfort to our enemies, is just two heartbeats away from becoming the leader of the free world. Suddenly, the freedom of the good guys appears in greater jeopardy while the freedom of the bad guys looks pretty solid.
Remove Nancy Pelosi!
Responsible politicians will work for Nancy Pelosi’s removal from her position. Republicans should work to convince their counterparts on the other side of the isle. Democrats should realize that she doesn’t represent mainstream Democrats – just the crackpots who voted to remove the U.S. military from contact with schools in San Francisco. If Nancy Pelosi became President, where would the U.S. military be removed from next? Would there be a U.S. military at all? Probably not. The U.S. military was weakened substantially under Clinton, and he wasn’t nearly as radical as Pelosi.
This is dangerous for the top, the bottom, and everyone in-between.
Nancy Pelosi is two heartbeats away from the Presidency of the United States. And one of those heartbeats, despite its strength of mind and character, grows increasingly fragile as time passes. You should now have a sense of constitutional urgency about the situation.
Nancy Pelosi recently visited Syria – a terrorist state and enemy of the U.S. – for what? She says she was bringing the Presidents message. Well, the President is a big boy and is capable of delivering his own message. Better yet, he has Condoleezza Rice, whose job it is to deliver the Presidents message and does it better than anyone else. Here is the message “We don’t talk to terrorists.” By going at all, she acted to rescind the message – not deliver it. We, here at the bottom, understand this message. Some at the top – like the Speaker of the House – apparently don’t. If she does, she is lying about it. Either way, she doesn’t belong in a position of power in our government. You should now have a picture of a confused, back-stabbing liar. Convinced yet?
OK, I’ll continue. She is now talking about visiting the terrorist government of Iran. Does she have a list of terrorists that she needs to contact? It would have helped if she had published that list during the campaign – more honest too. I am a little surprised that she hasn’t visited Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro yet, but we have time and Fidel hasn’t been all that well lately. You should now have a picture of a dishonest politician who did not reveal her real agenda during her campaign. Convinced yet?
No? OK. All this exists against the backdrop of refusing to pass a war-funding bill capable of being signed into law before her Middle-Eastern vacation to aid and comfort America’s enemies, which, of course could not be postponed for the purpose of passing decent legislation. Passing legislation? Yes, her job - the one that she doesn’t much care to be bothered with. You should now have a picture of a woman unable and/or unwilling to do her own job, but who is hell-bent on making sure she keeps others from doing theirs, thinking that will make her look good.
So why am I not as critical of Harry Reed in the Senate? I am; he is her partner in incompetence and publicly has supported her undermining of foreign policy at the expense of our troops and their mission. He has also pushed a similarly nonsensical bill through the Senate. But he’s not the one who is two heartbeats away from the Presidency.
Anyone who does not condemn her vacation activities is complacent in aiding and comforting the enemy, and is not worthy of any position of authority in the U.S. government. This especially applies to anyone of any party running for President of the U.S. Even if you don’t condemn her activities on ideological grounds, you should condemn them on constitutional grounds. This is not her job, and those Presidential candidates who refuse to speak up are saying that it’s OK for the Congress to have its own separate, contradictory foreign policy when they become President (Apparently, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards are all OK with that.). Even if you don’t condemn her actions on a constitutional basis, you should at least be suspicious of someone who justifies her anti-American activities with a vacant, robotic stare except when she declares that “…there’s a new congress in town…” Who is the cowboy now?
You should now have a sense of constitutional urgency that a lying politician, unable and/or unwilling to do her own job, interfering with those who want to do theirs, acting like the cowboy Al Gore once accused President Bush of being, and providing aid and comfort to our enemies, is just two heartbeats away from becoming the leader of the free world. Suddenly, the freedom of the good guys appears in greater jeopardy while the freedom of the bad guys looks pretty solid.
Remove Nancy Pelosi!
Responsible politicians will work for Nancy Pelosi’s removal from her position. Republicans should work to convince their counterparts on the other side of the isle. Democrats should realize that she doesn’t represent mainstream Democrats – just the crackpots who voted to remove the U.S. military from contact with schools in San Francisco. If Nancy Pelosi became President, where would the U.S. military be removed from next? Would there be a U.S. military at all? Probably not. The U.S. military was weakened substantially under Clinton, and he wasn’t nearly as radical as Pelosi.
This is dangerous for the top, the bottom, and everyone in-between.
Friday, April 6, 2007
The Road to Damascus
First the bad news - Nancy Pelosi has arrogantly followed though on her plan to undermine U.S. foreign policy by lessening the isolation of one of America’s enemies. It has been plausibly argued that this act has provided aid and comfort to all of America’s enemies by virtue of providing aid and comfort to Syria. After all, if she is willing to talk to Syria over the objections of the officials we have elected to actually carry out foreign policy (and, by extension in our democracy, against the wishes of the American people), why would any of our enemies assume she would not talk with them as well? The answer is that they wouldn’t; in fact, they would assume exactly the opposite. When done consciously, aiding and comforting the enemy is the definition of treason. Since I have always doubted the speaker’s consciousness, this is where I must halt my logic. Unfortunately, the damage is the same, conscious or not.
Now the worse news - Statistically, someone in the Democratic Party has to be smart enough to know that these actions aid and comfort the enemy. Whoever that is and however many of them there may be, since they are conscious, they must call for her replacement as Speaker, since her continuing as Speaker would continue to aid and comfort the enemy. I don’t know who they are – but they do, and they have a responsibility to act. If none act, what am I to conclude? Should I conclude that Democrats place partisan politics above the welfare of the country or that none of them are both smart enough and ballsy enough to hold responsible office? I am uncomfortable either way.
Here is the Speakers latest report to the American people. "The road to Damascus is a road to peace."
Well, I guess that depends on who is on the road and what they are driving. If it’s an American-made fleet of tanks driven by anyone on its way to eliminate the current leadership of that once-proud country, then it’s the road to peace. Too often it has been state-supported Hezbollah terrorists driving bomb-delivery trucks toward Israel. That is not the road to peace.
The road to Damascus – Where are Bob Hope and Bing Crosby when you really need them? If Damascus is such a wonderful, peace-loving place, why not take the Speakers activism to the next level? If the Speaker is such a successful ambassador, why not just offer to be the ambassador to Syria, since she seems so anxious to do that job?
Oh yeah, I forgot for a moment – lack of consciousness.
Now the good news – The U.S. Congress, as a body, did no damage today, as its members were either on an undeserved 2-week Easter vacation or overseas meeting with our enemies.
At least, that’s the way it looks down here at the bottom.
Now the worse news - Statistically, someone in the Democratic Party has to be smart enough to know that these actions aid and comfort the enemy. Whoever that is and however many of them there may be, since they are conscious, they must call for her replacement as Speaker, since her continuing as Speaker would continue to aid and comfort the enemy. I don’t know who they are – but they do, and they have a responsibility to act. If none act, what am I to conclude? Should I conclude that Democrats place partisan politics above the welfare of the country or that none of them are both smart enough and ballsy enough to hold responsible office? I am uncomfortable either way.
Here is the Speakers latest report to the American people. "The road to Damascus is a road to peace."
Well, I guess that depends on who is on the road and what they are driving. If it’s an American-made fleet of tanks driven by anyone on its way to eliminate the current leadership of that once-proud country, then it’s the road to peace. Too often it has been state-supported Hezbollah terrorists driving bomb-delivery trucks toward Israel. That is not the road to peace.
The road to Damascus – Where are Bob Hope and Bing Crosby when you really need them? If Damascus is such a wonderful, peace-loving place, why not take the Speakers activism to the next level? If the Speaker is such a successful ambassador, why not just offer to be the ambassador to Syria, since she seems so anxious to do that job?
Oh yeah, I forgot for a moment – lack of consciousness.
Now the good news – The U.S. Congress, as a body, did no damage today, as its members were either on an undeserved 2-week Easter vacation or overseas meeting with our enemies.
At least, that’s the way it looks down here at the bottom.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Congress Disgraces Itself Yet Again, Part 3
I told you I wouldn’t run out of numbers for the many parts of this topic that the House of Representatives seems hell-bent on testing me on. I can count to 3 and a lot higher, and it appears I will need to. They don’t think I can because I’m here at the bottom, but as usual, they’re wrong. However, based on the utterly stupid, self-serving, soul-selling, tax-squandering vote in the House today, it would not unreasonable to ask if the Democratic Party leadership can. But that is not my purpose today.
The Democrat leadership today squandered more of my money to pass a piece of legislation that attempts to turn over the middle-east to terrorists, has no chance of becoming law, persuaded previously sensible members of their party to sell their souls for pork, and will fail to appease the most radical wing of the party – which had to be the real goal, since no other goal is realistically achievable, even on the bizarro planet of Pelosi.
As Nancy Pelosi and her “leadership team” bought the souls of those previously sensible congress-people who once voted their conscience, I wonder if she remembered her pre-election pledge to run the most ethical congress ever. Yeah, right! My guess (and I realize it doesn’t count because I am down here at the bottom) is that since the secular-progressive crowd doesn’t deal in souls except to deny their nourishment wherever possible, they are not really capable of recognizing the sale of one. So apparently, buying and selling souls (or if you please consciences) is perfectly ethical in the 110th Congress.
For those of you up there at the top who sold out today, this was soul-selling. Recognize it. You sold them cheap – ultimately for no gain. You don’t even get the pork you sold them for. Ironically most of the people in the middle-east (you remember, the people you are selling out to their radical, militant, totalitarian neighbors) wouldn’t touch pork, lest they lose their souls.
Maybe there is a lesson there that we can take from Islam and Judaism. I meant the rest of us, of course, not House Democrats and others who ultimately cast votes that favor terrorists.
That’s the very sad view of the U.S.Congress again today here at the bottom.
The Democrat leadership today squandered more of my money to pass a piece of legislation that attempts to turn over the middle-east to terrorists, has no chance of becoming law, persuaded previously sensible members of their party to sell their souls for pork, and will fail to appease the most radical wing of the party – which had to be the real goal, since no other goal is realistically achievable, even on the bizarro planet of Pelosi.
As Nancy Pelosi and her “leadership team” bought the souls of those previously sensible congress-people who once voted their conscience, I wonder if she remembered her pre-election pledge to run the most ethical congress ever. Yeah, right! My guess (and I realize it doesn’t count because I am down here at the bottom) is that since the secular-progressive crowd doesn’t deal in souls except to deny their nourishment wherever possible, they are not really capable of recognizing the sale of one. So apparently, buying and selling souls (or if you please consciences) is perfectly ethical in the 110th Congress.
For those of you up there at the top who sold out today, this was soul-selling. Recognize it. You sold them cheap – ultimately for no gain. You don’t even get the pork you sold them for. Ironically most of the people in the middle-east (you remember, the people you are selling out to their radical, militant, totalitarian neighbors) wouldn’t touch pork, lest they lose their souls.
Maybe there is a lesson there that we can take from Islam and Judaism. I meant the rest of us, of course, not House Democrats and others who ultimately cast votes that favor terrorists.
That’s the very sad view of the U.S.Congress again today here at the bottom.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Air Force Three
Could we please get Nancy Pelosi’s damned plane off the news already?
The White House should now be involved and dictate the solution. It’s the military that reports to the President who is providing the transport. It’s a 3-minute decision – if there is a coherent national security strategy in place – even if the President and his national security team drag their feet.
If that assumed coherent national security policy dictates providing this military protection to Speaker Pelosi to travel home to California, then why would it not be necessary to provide protection to a conference 150 miles away in Williamsburg, Virginia? If there were a terrorist (or other fanatical jack-ass) strike against our leadership structure, she or anyone else targeted would be just as dead if attacked on a trip to Williamsburg as on the way home to California.
This begs the question “Does the use of this military aircraft constitute part of a national security strategy or is it merely another perk of office?" If it is a security measure, then she needs to be protected ALL the time; the protection and accommodation Dennis Hastert had appears to have been appropriate. Any more would be a perk (by my definition of government waste) and would be blatantly breaking the promise to reduce waste under a Democrat Congress. If it is not a security measure, it is a perk, and should be eliminated. Nancy Pelosi should decline the plane and we should all congratulate her on eliminating waste in government and keeping the one reasonable Democrat campaign promise that was made.
She (or one of her people) is correct when they claim she should not be punished for being a woman or for living farther away from Washington than Dennis Hastert. Neither should she be rewarded on either count.
I am very much not a fan Nancy Pelosi, her politics, or her tactics, but she is entitled (and more importantly we are entitled) to whatever security is appropriate to her position. It’s not fun for me to speak in her defense, so I wish that whoever the idiots are that are holding up this legitimate security issue would get off their dead asses and resolve it, or, alternatively, leave public service and leave the resolution to someone competent.
Apparently, the first step is a coherent security strategy – one that you at the top can explain in terms that we here at the bottom can understand.
This is one more in a long list of distractions and sideshows that we at the bottom can’t afford and neither can you at the top. The difference is that we at the bottom know it; you at the top don’t appear to.
Let’s hear what that security strategy is so that after the media has O.D.’d on Anna Nicole Smith, we can move on to the next issue. That would be whether the vocal citizens of San Francisco will protest the presence of the United States Military in their city to protect one of their own and whether they will turn on Nancy Pelosi for allowing this unspeakable invasion.
The White House should now be involved and dictate the solution. It’s the military that reports to the President who is providing the transport. It’s a 3-minute decision – if there is a coherent national security strategy in place – even if the President and his national security team drag their feet.
If that assumed coherent national security policy dictates providing this military protection to Speaker Pelosi to travel home to California, then why would it not be necessary to provide protection to a conference 150 miles away in Williamsburg, Virginia? If there were a terrorist (or other fanatical jack-ass) strike against our leadership structure, she or anyone else targeted would be just as dead if attacked on a trip to Williamsburg as on the way home to California.
This begs the question “Does the use of this military aircraft constitute part of a national security strategy or is it merely another perk of office?" If it is a security measure, then she needs to be protected ALL the time; the protection and accommodation Dennis Hastert had appears to have been appropriate. Any more would be a perk (by my definition of government waste) and would be blatantly breaking the promise to reduce waste under a Democrat Congress. If it is not a security measure, it is a perk, and should be eliminated. Nancy Pelosi should decline the plane and we should all congratulate her on eliminating waste in government and keeping the one reasonable Democrat campaign promise that was made.
She (or one of her people) is correct when they claim she should not be punished for being a woman or for living farther away from Washington than Dennis Hastert. Neither should she be rewarded on either count.
I am very much not a fan Nancy Pelosi, her politics, or her tactics, but she is entitled (and more importantly we are entitled) to whatever security is appropriate to her position. It’s not fun for me to speak in her defense, so I wish that whoever the idiots are that are holding up this legitimate security issue would get off their dead asses and resolve it, or, alternatively, leave public service and leave the resolution to someone competent.
Apparently, the first step is a coherent security strategy – one that you at the top can explain in terms that we here at the bottom can understand.
This is one more in a long list of distractions and sideshows that we at the bottom can’t afford and neither can you at the top. The difference is that we at the bottom know it; you at the top don’t appear to.
Let’s hear what that security strategy is so that after the media has O.D.’d on Anna Nicole Smith, we can move on to the next issue. That would be whether the vocal citizens of San Francisco will protest the presence of the United States Military in their city to protect one of their own and whether they will turn on Nancy Pelosi for allowing this unspeakable invasion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
