Harry Reid says the Surge is not Working
Harry Reid still is trying to hold on to this notion that the surge isn’t working, despite the evidence. We are talking about the man who said, “the surge has failed” before the surge even began, so this isn’t terribly surprising. Maybe he should talk to John Murtha about that. Murtha, after coming back from Iraq, had to grudgingly admit the surge IS working, before he spun it into the Democrats new strategy for defeat, which is that Iraq won’t be winnable because the Iraqi government will fail.
Even while saying that the surge “has not accomplished its goals,” Harry Reid is forced to admit the surge might be working:
However, Reid acknowledged that the surge might be responsible for reducing the violence in the war-torn country.
Oh really, you think? Isn’t that what the surge was designed to do? Slow the violence and stop a brewing civil war? That is what I thought sending more troops into a war was supposed to do. It seems to me that if you can stop or slow the enemy from attacking you during a war you are completing a neccessary and fundamental part of warfare. This sounds like success to me.
Harry Reid, as well as all the other Democrats, is walking a tightrope here, and it may come back to bite them in the end.
He was careful not to give the strategy too much credit and instead blasted Republicans for being “committed to an open-ended war in Iraq.”
That is the problem moving forward for the Democrats, they have put themselves in a situation where good news on the war is bad news for them. In this article Harry Reid uses the new Democrat talking points of the war cannot be won because Iraq will never be a solvent government. They are now forced to admit that America can win the war, but that Iraq will not be able to handle it after we leave, so we must leave now.
In their eyes we must withdraw now because they don’t want to see George Bush be right on the issue of the Iraq war. They would rather lose the war to hand George Bush a loss, than win the war and hand America a victory. So now, when congress comes back from recess, the Democrats will once again start crafting legislation designed at surrendering the war in Iraq.
I find this horrible.
Global Warming Causes Everything Bad in the World
The American Thinker had an article the other day in which they talked about a website called numberswatch. On this site thay have compiled over 600 links to stories about what will happen if we don’t change our ways.
The American Thinker has posted the links to all of these articles which blame everything from Agricultural land increase, (wouldn’t that be a good thing?), to Yellow fever on global warming.
You can check it out here.
Hillary Clinton Booed in Iowa
This has been a tough couple of weeks for Hillary, even with her single handedly ending the hostage crisis in her New Hampshire campaign headquarters. This all started with her inept answer to handing out driver’s licenses to illegals question at the debate, and she has continued to spiral downward among stories of her planting questions at her campaign stops, to her planting questions at the Republican debate. Dwindling poll numbers in early primary states must have the whole campaign staff on edge.
Her latest debacle came in Iowa, at an event where she was unable to attend because of weather, she had to call in instead. Then came a question about amnesty for illegals. Oh-oh.
The senator was asked if she would “make a decision to give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship” during her first 100 days in office. Clinton responded saying, “I have been favoring a plan to citizenship for years. I voted for it in the Senate, I have spoke out about it around Iowa and the country and in my campaign. And as president comprehensive immigration reform will be a high priority for me.”
This answer brought her some boos, but it got worse.
The man repeated his question about the first 100 days. Clinton replied, “Well you’ve to get congress to pass the legislation and the president to do as much as possible, which I will do.”
To which she received an even louder round of boos. The American people do not want anything to do with amnesty for illegals, yet all the Democrat candidates, and John McCain, support this policy.
This issue is a major issue in my opinion, and it is a major issue with the American people. Americans by and large don’t want to reward criminals who come across our borders by making them citizens. This is one big reason why we need to elect a Republican, other than John McCain or Mike Huckabee, for president next year. If we hand the whitehouse over to a Democrat, with a Democrat majority in the house and senate, it’s hello amnesty.
If Hillary, Obama, or Edwards is elected we will run the risk of losing our country to illegal immigrants. Amnesty will be granted and we won’t be able to stop it.
I only hope Americans will look at the big picture, and not let their dicontent for the Iraq war cloud their vision of our future. If they don’t we may head down a path we will never recover from.
Read the ABC article here.
Congress Looking at a Federal Ban on Junk Food in Schools
Federal lawmakers, who apparently have nothing better to do, are looking at banning candy, soda, fats, and salt from school menus. This will be a FEDERAL ban on schools selling these items. That sounds like an open and free society, doesn’t it.
As I have written in the past, this is the Democrat’s idea of legislating. Ban, ban, ban, that is all the Democrats know how to do. If they ban something, they feel like they have done their job.
While they may have good intentions, and are trying to save the children (and who can argue with doing it for the children?), or at least pretend they are trying to save the children, the truth is, it is none of their busness what my children eat at school.
What Democrats either forget, or ignore is the fact that if I don’t like what my child is offered at school, I have the option of sending him to school with a lunch that I made for him. I don’t need the government coming in and trying tell me what to feed my boys.
This is just another example of the government coming in and regulating my child’s behavior. Another attempt at taking away the rights of the parents to raise their child the way they see fit.
I will admit that while I was in high school I spent my lunch money on two Hostess apple pies and a chocolate milk almost every day. The exception was on Friday’s when the school served bacon burgers. I thought most of the other meals sucked, so I went the snack food route. I lived to talk about it. It didn’t kill me.
Now, I prefer that my children eat better than I did when I was in school, but I don’t need the government telling my children they need to eat better. THAT IS MY JOB. Stay out of my life. Stay out of my family’s lives. I will take care of my own children, thank you.
New Hampshire Union Leader Endorses John McCain
Cross Posted at Grizzly Groundswell
Yesterday I read in the Union Leader that in the Sunday edition of the Union Leader that they would endorse a candidate for president. Well, they have endorsed John McCain. I have to say I am a little surprised. I had a gut feeling that they would endorse Mitt Romney. I knew they would probably endorse a Republican. They endorsed Jim Coburn over John Lynch for governor, and it appears as if the editorial department of the Union Leader and myself were the only ones to vote for him. I suppose this is a safe pick for them. They didn’t go out on a limb and endorse a lower tier candidate, and they don’t look like front-runners by picking Mitt or Rudy.
I don’t agree with this endorsement at all. My biggest issues with McCain are the campaign finance bill he authored with Russ Fiengold, and the immigration amnesty bill he authored with Ted Kennedy. Those are two Democrats that Republicans should never work with in my opinion.
I have to say that the endorsement,which you can read here, does make a good case for him based on his courage and character.
I admire John McCain as a war hero, but I won’t be voting for him for president.
Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell
We already know that Hillary Clinton plants questions on her campaign stops, we already know that Hillary Clinton planted a question at the Republican debate, so is it too much to wonder if this whole New Hampshire hostage crisis in New Hampshire was staged. I mentioned in my first post about this crisis that this was perhaps a publicity stunt. She has been falling in the polls and needed a boost. After reading this article about the whole ordeal, there is no doubt in my mind this whole thing was staged.
Let’s look at some excerpts from the article I linked to above from breitbart to get a feeling of why I believe this crisis was staged.
When the hostages had been released and their alleged captor arrested, a regal-looking Hillary Rodham Clinton strolled out of her Washington home, the picture of calm in the face of crisis.
The image, broadcast just as the network news began, conveyed the message a thousand town hall meetings and campaign commercials strive for—namely, that the Democratic presidential contender can face disorder in a most orderly manner.
She strolled out of her home in Washington, over 500 miles away, and she was calm and collected. They are making it sound as if she was actually taken hostage. Or that she is the one that convinced the man to come out of the building and saved all the hostages. The ordeal ended and she strutted out just in time for the network news to start. Coincidence, I think not.
It was a vintage example of a candidate taking a negative and turning it into a positive. And coming just six weeks before the presidential voting begins, the timing could hardly have been more beneficial to someone hoping to stave off a loss in the Iowa caucuses and secure a win in the New Hampshire primary.
Is that so? The timing couldn’t have been better for someone falling in the polls. You don’t say. Coincidence, I think not.
the woman striving to move from former first lady to the first female president was eager to convey that she knew the traditional lines of command and control in a crisis, even if the events inside the storefront on North Main Street were far short of a world calamity.
She needed something like this to show how she would react in a time of crisis, and that she knew how to react in crisis because she has no experience. She just happened to get it right before the primary season started. Coincidence, I think not.
Along with taking charge while giving the professionals free rein, Clinton offered up a third dimension to her crisis character: humanity. She said she felt “grave concern” when she first heard the news of the hostage-taking.
“It affected me not only because they were my staff members and volunteers, but as a mother, it was just a horrible sense of bewilderment, confusion, outrage, frustration, anger, everything at the same time,” Clinton said.
Okay, spare me the BS now. I can’t take this anymore. She was 500 miles away, she had nothing to do with the situation, other than staging it, she didn’t help in the process, she didn’t do anything but wait until the news started and then strut her stuff out to the camera and tell us how great she handled it.
This whole thing appears contrived to me to help out a struggling candidate who just happens to have one of the greatest political machines behind her. We all know the Clinton’s are as dishonest as they come, I don’t need to list everything they have done here, so how far-fetched is it to think that they set this whole thing up?
Hell, the far left loonies believe that George W Bush was the mastermind of September 11th. They believe that scenario is feasible. Wouldn’t it be a hell of allot easier to plan this hostage crisis to help Hillary’s campaign?
Coincidence, I think not.
Man Charged with Attempted Murder for Trying to Give his Girlfriend an Abortion Drug
Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell
This is a story about a man now being charged with attempted murder for attempting to kill a fetus. You know, that mass of tissue that is not life according to the pro-choice crowd.
On Thursday, Manishkumar M. Patel, 34, of Appleton, was accused of slipping the drug(RU-486) to the woman without her knowledge. He was charged with seven felonies and two misdemeanors, including attempted first-degree intentional homicide of an unborn child.
How can you be charged with killing something that isn’t life? That is a good question if you ask me. Here is the answer:
Wisconsin is one of 37 states with a “fetal homicide” law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Under the 1998 law, anyone who attacks a pregnant woman and injures or kills her fetus could face life in prison.
Okay, I am going to try to say this without sounding like too much of an asshole. Attacking a pregnant woman is about the most despicable, disgusting crime a person can commit, but how can it be a crime to do harm to the unborn child if that child is not life according to the pro-choice crowd?
This was not a case of a woman being attacked, this was a case of the father of the baby not wanting the baby. If this woman had decided to have an abortion she would not have committed a crime, neither would the doctor who performed the procedure. So what this really comes down to is WHO decides to kill the unborn. If it’s the woman, it’s her choice, if it’s the man, it’s murder.
While I find the actions of this man reprehensible, how did he comitt attempted murder? He simply tried to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. But it was the man who didn’t want the pregnancy here, not the woman. What’s the difference? An unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted pregnancy, right?
If abortion is a choice than both parties should have the choice. Either it’s murder or it is not.
It’s not that hard to understand.
Hostage Crisis at Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire Campaign Headquarters
As everyone has heard by now, there was a man who bought some road flares and went into Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters here in New Hampshire and took several hostages. I just wanted to take a few moments to let my readers know that I had nothing to do with this. Even though Rochester is very close to where I live, I was at work at the time.
Being a functioning, contributing member of society, I have to work for a living. Isn’t it ironic that the very type of person who is the base of the Democrat party is the type of person to carry something like this out? An unemployed, mentally deranged, person is exactly the type of person that the left panders to. His mental problem probably has him living off the government, and he has to attack the cash cow?
By the way, and answer this question honestly. Did anyone besides me think that this whole thing may be a publicity stunt? The thought crossed my mind, did it your’s?
John Murtha Admits the Surge is Working
Well, well, well. John Murtha has just returned from Iraq and he had a little something to say. THE SURGE IS WORKING!
That’s right, John Murtha was forced to admit after coming back from Iraq that the surge is working. This is the same man who wanted to slowly but surely deny our troops the means necessary to fight the war with his “slow bleed” plan to end the war by denying our troops funding for equipment a little at a time.
“I think the ‘surge’ is working,” the Democrat said in a videoconference from his Johnstown office, describing the president’s decision to commit more than 20,000 additional combat troops this year.
However, Murtha got the new talking points memo that I discussed here, and still will use the new talking points as a reason to withdraw from Iraq.
But the Iraqis “have got to take care of themselves.”
That is the new mantra of the left ever since it became impossible for them to claim that the war is lost. They now claim that Iraq will never be politically viable, so we must withdraw. One can only wonder when we hear the Democrats say that Iraq won’t become politically viable, do they mean the Iraqi government, or do they mean for the Democrats themselves?
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Suggests that Barack Obama Made Illegal Campaign Donations in New Hampshire
Hillary’s campaign is suggesting that Barack Obama has tried to illegally buy votes from elected officials here in New Hampshire.
The question is: Did Obama, or his campaign, essentially try to buy support from local elected officials and political activists in New Hampshire and elsewhere by having Hopefund make contributions to these officials and local party committees in key early-voting states?
The Clinton campaign is raising that question after numerous reports that Hopefund — which is supposed to be separate from, and unaffiliated with, the Obama campaign — remained very active even after he announced his candidacy for president.
Here is where the problem lies for Obama, at least has far as Hillary is conserned:
It has given more than $180,000 to local Democratic groups and candidates in the early-primary and caucus states, and $73,000 of that went to New Hampshire officials and committees this year.
Federal Election Commission regulations forbid a PAC, in its “independent expenditures,” from coordinating its giving with the candidates the PAC is promoting or the candidate’s campaign committee. If they do coordinate, it is considered an in-kind contribution to the candidate and must be limited to $5,000.
Let’s look at some of the New Hampshire Demorats who received money from Obama.
The Hillsborough County Democratic Committee received $1,000 from Hopefund in August. Chair Chris Pappas, a Clinton supporter, said the check was presented to him at a meeting by committee member Roberto Fuentes, a volunteer for the Obama campaign.
“The way it was given to us was that it was money from Sen. Obama, and everyone recognized that,” Pappas said.
So Clinton appears to be upset that Obama’s campaign gave money to a Clinton supporter. She sees this as an attempt to buy a vote away from her.
Hopefund contributed $2,500 to Rep. Paul Hodes in October 2006 and then $5,000 in June, shortly before Hodes endorsed Obama. He has said his support was unrelated to the gifts. The PAC gave Hodes $4,000 more on Sept. 27.
Paul Hodes even felt compelled to state that he isn’t endorsing Obama because of the gifts he received. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton is on to something here.
Rep. Carol Shea-Porter received $2,500 from Hopefund in early November 2006, $5,000 in June 2007 and $4,000 in September. She has so far remained neutral in the primary race
My moonbat representative has not yet committed to a candidate, she is taking a page out of New Hampshire’s moonbat governor John Lynch’s playbook. Don’t give a position until it is absolutely necessary.
For local politicians and committees, there is a long list of 2007 Hopefund donations. Committee to Elect House Democrats received $15,000; Friends of a Democratic (state) Senate, $15,000.
Hopefund gave $1,000 each to campaign committees for Executive Councilor Bev Hollingworth and Sens. Lou D’Allesandro, Iris Estabrook, Maggie Hassan and Kathy Sgambati, now all Clinton supporters, and Harold Janeway, Jacqualyn Cilley and Martha Fuller Clark, who are Obama supporters.
D’Allesandro said yesterday he didn’t get the impression that there was an ulterior motive.
“I was surprised when the check came in the mail,” he said. “But it’s not unusual to get a donation. There were no strings attached.”
There were no strings attached? Ask Hillary about that, she seems to believe there was a vote attached. And last but not least is the governor.
Gov. John Lynch’s committee received $6,000. His wife this week endorsed Clinton. U.S. Senate candidate and former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen’s “friends” committee received $5,000 on Oct. 2, long after Shaheen’s husband, Bill, was named a national co-chair for Clinton
That seems to have backfired, hasn’t it? While the governor says he will remain neutral, his wife joining the Clinton campaign tell us all we need to know.
To be honest with you, I have no idea if something shady was going on here. But there is one thing I do know, and that is that the Clinton’s are experts when it comes to campaign finance corruption. If there is one thing the Clinton’s know about it is corruption and cover ups. So if Hillary says there were violations here, I believe her. That may be the only time I ever write the words if Hillary said it, it must be true. I can almost guarantee you that I will never type those words again here.
Now that I think about this a little more, there is one other thing that Hillary knows quite a bit about on this issue. And that is the whole idea of buying votes. Perhaps her campaign didn’t go about it the same way she claims that Obama’s campaign has, but she has been attempting to buy votes this whole campaign.
She has attempted to buy votes everywhere she campaigns through all of her entitlement programs. She has pandered to every group she speaks to and promised them money if she is elected. Is this not buying votes? She has admitted that she has so many ideas (entitlement programs), that the country cannot afford her. And she laughed about it.
So yes, on these two issues, she knows of what she speaks, I am going to, “GULP”, take her for her word on this.
Somebody please slap me!
Read the Union Leader article here.
