Hillary Clinton Admits a Terror Attack Would Help Republicans
During a speech last week Hillary Clinton said the following:
“It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world,” she said.
First, she is the one politicizing terror now. She shouldn’t even be thinking about what party an attack would help, she should tell us what she would do if America was hit again. Democrat candidates lashed out at her for this, rightly so.
“Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States,” said Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, who is challenging Clinton for the nomination.
“If we’re talking about America being attacked, the last thing we should do is be engaged in political calculation,” added rival John Edwards. “I strongly disagree with what [Clinton] said.”
She is saying a terror attack would help the Republicans. She was trying to say that Republicans have made the world less safe by the actions the president has taken following Sept. 11th. Actions the Democrats also voted for, lest we forget. She was essentially trying to say, if we get hit again it would be Bush’s fault. I agree with her on two things she said. Read more…
Video: An Open Mind
This is a great video titled: An Open Mind. I found this video very powerful, it’s about the fallacy of keeping an open mind about radical Islam.
HAT TIP: Dragon Lady’s Den
Democrat Candidates Up the Attacks on Hillary Clinton
With Hillary pulling even further ahead in all of the national polls, the other Democrat candidates appear to be upping their attacks on her.
First we had Michelle Obama say this, “If you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the White House.”
Now we have John Edwards trying to outdo that comment by saying this, “The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale. The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent,”. This is a direct attack on the Clinton administration as president Clinton essentially rented out the Lincoln bedroom for large donations.
Is there any doubt who Michelle Obama was talking about? It was Hillary. Is there any doubt who John Edwards was talking about? It was Hillary. In my opinion these are both legitimate issues, and they should be addressed. If you think Hillary’s private life should be left private, and should not be an issue, I will give you that point, but only if Rudy’s family life, Fred Thompson’s younger wife, and Mitt’s Mormonism are also not an issue. That is not going to happen. Those Republican candidates personal issues will be splashed across the front pages up until the election. However the Democrat candidates (or their spouses in the Obama’s case) are backing off these statements even as I write this.
Obama said on behalf of his wife’s comment, “The whole thing about Hillary has been completely fabricated,” Obama added. “You guys have got to get it off your minds.”
John Edwards later denied he was talking about the Clintons.
Who then, were Obama and Edwards talking about? It is obvious they were talking about Hillary. So why would they backtrack on their statements? They have to be afraid of the Clinton campaign war room. They know that the Clintons are ruthless politicians and will do anything to regain their power and they turned tail and ran away from their comments. I would have more respect for them if they stood by their comments. Then again, Obama didn’t even have the courage to make the comment himself, he had to send his wife out there so he wouldn’t be accused of picking on a girl.
What kind of leaders would these two men make if they cannot stand up to the fire of the Clinton war room for comments they made? If they back down from Hillary, how can they stand up to the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
One of the mantras we have been hearing from the Democrat party is that the Iraq war is the same as the Vietnam war. Many Democrats have proclaimed that the Iraq war is George Bush’s Vietnam. Today the president turned the table on the Democrats and compared Iraq to Vietnam.
“One unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America’s withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like ‘boat people’, ‘re-education camps’ and ‘killing fields’.”
Mr Bush added: “In Vietnam, former allies of the United States and government workers and intellectuals and businessmen were sent off to prison camps, where tens of thousand perished. Hundreds of thousands more fled the country on rickety boats, many of them going to their graves in the South China Sea.”
Needless to say, the Demodrats weren’t too happy with this. This is part of the history of the Vietnam war that the Democrat party is all too willing to forget. When they talk about the comparison between Iraq and Vietnam they conveniently forget what happened when Democrats gave up during the Vietnam war.
The United States had sent a new general to take over command in Vietnam and we seemed to be turning the corner. The Democrats feeling the mounting pressure of the anti-war left finally cut off funding and brought an end to the war just as progress was seeming to be made. Sadly we may be making the same mistake. General Petraeus seems to be turning the tide of the war even as Democrats call for surrender. This is eerily similar to Vietnam.
In this case the Democrats need to stop victory, or any good news for that matter, from happening because they have invested their political capitol in America losing this war. Losing this war is their goal.
Today the president came out and reminded the American people what happened after we surrendered in Vietnam, and what will lie ahead of us if we surrender now. It’s about time.
New Hampshire To Raise Gas Tax by at Least 28 Cents?
In a time when the Democrats are using the price of gas as a political issue it seems strange that Democrats would raise the gas tax. But that is what is being talked about in New Hampshire. It would seem that the Democrats don’t really care about the price of gas, but who is profiting from it. Big oil profits, bad, big government profits, good. The government makes more money per gallon of gas than big oil does, but that is not enough, they need more.
Why does New Hampshire need more money from gas taxes?
As the state struggles to find money to fix bridges and highways, the equivalent of nearly two of each three cents in state gasoline taxes is diverted from road construction.
Because the government is taking money that the state constitution says is supposed to go to infrastructure and using it for liberal social programs. One cent out of every three is going to infrastructure. This is just wrong.
The Executive Council needs to produce an updated 10-year plan by mid-December for Gov. John Lynch and the Legislature to consider.
O’Leary said there is no way to complete the current plan on time without a gas tax increase of between 28 cents and 32 cents, and toll hikes of up to $1 in some locations.
I thought these liberal Democrats, such as governor John Lynch cared about the little people. WRONG, who would a thirty cent increase in the gas tax hurt the most? The little people. John Lynch claims he opposes raising the gas tax, but he also opposed gay marriage before signing a civil union law that is gay marriage.
Instead of cutting spending and being fiscally conservative, John Lynch has raised about every tax,under the code word fees, that he could get his greedy little fingers on but it wasn’t enough to pay for our roads. Now we need to raise taxes even further?
It is time to cut the liberal social policies, put the money back into the roads that belongs there and leave the average New Hampshire resident’s pocket book alone.
If you vote for a politician that promises to cut down on wasteful spending and expect them to follow through on this promise, you have another thing coming. Excpecially if that politician is a Democrat.
One of the issues that Shea-Porter and Hodes campaigned on was cutting porkbarrel spending. Well that didn’t seem to happen. This is what they have voted for:
$2 million for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New YorkThe National Mule and Packers Museum in Woodlake, Calif. ($50,000)
The Doyle Center for Manufacturing Technology in Pittsburgh, Pa. ($1.5 million)
The National Drug Intelligence Center in Johnstown, Pa. ($39 million)
The Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure in Johnstown, Pa. ($1 million)
The Alaska Native Education Equity program ($34 million)
You can read an editorial about this here.
Being in the United States Illegally is not a Crime, so Says the Kansas Court of Appeals
According to this article a Kansas court has ruled that just being in the United States ILLEGALLY is not a crime. If you are in the country illegally, how can it not be a crime? Maybe I am a retard as quantumd suggests in his comments on a couple of my previous posts, maybe I have low reading comprehension skills as he also suggests, but I thought illegal meant illegal, and if you did something illegal it was a crime. What am I missing here? Quantumd, please enlighten me, I would send you a trackback, but you leave me no link. Okay, to hell with quantumd, now on to an important subject.
If you can get past the border guards and into the United States, you’re no longer violating the law, according to a Kansas Court of Appeals decision.
While it is illegal to enter the country without the proper documents and permissions, it is not necessarily illegal to be in the country.
In its opinion, the court explained that Congress had implicitly created the distinction: “While Congress has criminalized the illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime unless the illegal alien has previously been deported,” said the opinion.
Okay, I am going to try and make sense of that last opinion. The court said that “Congress has criminalized the illegal entry into this country, it has not made the continued presence of an illegal alien in the United States a crime unless the illegal alien has previously been deported.” So why then would someone have been previously deported if it’s not a crime to STAY here illegally? If I read this correctly, and as quantumd has pointed out to me, I may not be, you must catch the person as he is entering the country illegally in order to deport him/her. If they get past the guards ILLEGALLY they can stay here ILLEGALLY LEGALLY.
So there you have it, you can stay here illegally legally as long as you don’t get caught legally while you are illegally entering the country. Once you enter the country illegally you are no longer illegal.
It makes sense to me, if it doesn’t make sense to you, you must be a bigot. Or a retard, right quantumd.
Another Candidate Announces he will Run for New Hampshire Rep. Carol Shea-Porter’s Congressional Seat
Jeb Bradley has already announced he will run for the seat he lost to Carol Shea-Porter in last November’s congressional election, now we have another Republican who also wants the seat.
Former NH Health and Human Services commissioner John Stephen today announced he is forming a campaign committee to run for the Republican nomination for the District 1 U.S. Representative seat.
Republicans seem to be lining up to challenge for this seat. Carol Shea-Porter appears to be vulnerable amid dismal approval rating. Of course the media in New Hampshire only talks about how Republican senator John Sununu is vulnerable with no mention of Shea-Porter’s vulnerability.
Some quotes from John Stephen:
“Five years ago, I ran for Congress for one reason, to bring New Hampshire values to Washington,” said Stephen. “Since then, what we have seen is a whole bunch of Washington values sent back to New Hampshire.”
“It’s time to take the car keys away from this Congress. We need to get back to low taxes, fiscal discipline and personal freedom and responsibility. These are the values that make New Hampshire great,” he said.
This should make for an interesting primary season for the seat in congress, read the whole article here.
Congress’ Approval Rating Hits a Record Low
A new Gallup Poll finds Congress’ approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll.
Congratulations congress, you have tied a record. Too bad it is a record low. Currently the president’s rating is almost double that. The record low that was tied was from 1992, leading the Republicans to win back the congress.
However this does not make me feel that the Republicans will win back congress. Congress’ numbers have always been low with Republicans, now they are losing support of Independents and Democrats. I believe this is due to the fact that so many people really thought they would end the war. Now the anti-war groups are starting to turn on the congress. I am afraid this will lead to more people showing up to vote more anti-war candidates into power and shift congress further left. I am under the impression that Republicans will lose one more election before the tide starts to turn in their favor. I fear what damage will be done during this period.
Is France Shifting it’s Stance on the Iraq War?
According to this acticle from iht.com, France may be shifting it’s stance on the Iraq war. Now with president Nicolas Sarkozy replacing Jacques Chirac it seems as though France is more willing to take an active role. Not militarily but possibly diplomatically. Jacques Chirac’s policy was to oppose the United States at every opportunity, now the new president seems to be more willing to work with us.
After years of shunning involvement in a war it said was wrong, France now believes it may hold the key to peace in Iraq, proposing itself as an “honest broker” between the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions.
The shift was one of the most concrete consequences yet of the thaw in French-American relations following the election in May of President Nicolas Sarkozy, whose administration no longer feels bound by the adamant refusal to take a role in Iraq that characterized the reign of his predecessor, Jacques Chirac.
Perhaps Sarkozy understands the threat in his country better than his predecessor did. The recent disaffected youth riots should have taught France a lesson. The media called them disaffected youths but in reality they were Muslims who were rioting.
“This is about having an opinion and knowing what positive things one can do and what role France can play in this region,” he said, adding that Iraq was “expecting something” from France.
The United States broadly welcomed Kouchner’s visit to Baghdad this week, saying it was evidence that the world was increasingly intent on bringing stability to Iraq. British and German diplomats also hailed greater French involvement in the country.
A senior official close to Kouchner explained that the French sought a role in political mediation in Iraq, and had no intention to enter the military conflict.
Now that France has a president that wasn’t in bed with Saddam, they will be able to start to work with us. This is positive news from a country that has opposed us during this time. Maybe it is time for me to give France another chance.
