A new Gallup Poll finds continued low levels of public support for both Congress and President George W. Bush. Twenty-nine percent of Americans approve of Congress, down slightly from last month’s reading (33%) and this year’s high point of 37%, while Bush’s approval rating is holding steady at 33%.
How can this be? I thought we sent president Bush a message last November. I thought the new congress was carrying out the will of the people.
According to the May 10-13, 2007, Gallup Poll, 29% of Americans approve and 64% disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job. Congressional approval is down 4 percentage points since last month, and is 3 points lower than the 32% average measured during the first five months of the year.
The truth is the American people don’t want defeat in Iraq and these poll numbers show that. The Democrats campaigned on the Republican culture of corruption, now we are seeing the Democrats that have been caught in the culture of corruption.
They campaigned with no ideas. They waited until George W Bush took a side on an issue and then took the opposite side. Opposition is not a campaign platform. The American people are seeing how void of ideas the Democrats are now that the have to legislate.
From Harry Reid:
“We’ve not, on this side of aisle, lost sight of the fact the American people have concluded the president’s Iraq policy has failed and we’re demanding a new way forward,” said Reid, of Nevada, who a few weeks ago concluded the Iraq war was “lost.”
Since when do the American people declare victory or defeat in a war? This is just insane that someone like Harry Reid can make a comment as ludicrous as that. The American people have declared loss, it’s time to surrender? What about the generals running the war. The intelligence they have mustn’t be as good as the intelligence the people are getting from the mainstream media.
If you really believe what you said Sen. Reid than just defund the war and end this big game you are playing with our soldiers lives. Bring them home now. Stand up for what you believe in, or do you not believe in anything? You know Americans don’t want to lose so you are trying to play both sides of the fence.You are trying to look tough on the war by setting timetables for defeat, yet trying to look like you are not abandoning the troops.
The latest example of that is this:
U.S. Senate Democrats want to spell out a time frame to withdraw combat troops from Iraq, but might offer President George W. Bush power to waive the deadlines, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Monday.
Now they are going to propose a timetable for defeat but the president doesn’t have to follow it. What does this do. It does nothing, all they are doing is wasting time and energy trying to handcuff the president while our soldiers are in the field risking their lives for this country.
As you can tell I am getting sick and tired of all this talk from American Democrats who say that America can’t win. I am sick of being told America is the cause of all the problems in the world. I am sick and tired of Democrat candidates being more interestted in winning the white house than the war.
You can read the whole article here.
This has to be the most under-reported stories in the mainstream media in years. The fact that six terrorists were arrested in the final stages of a terrorist plot on Fort Dix. This is a hard target, the fact that they feel bold enough to try and hit a hard target shows how much damage the anti-war, anti-Bush crowd has done to the security of this country.
The other aspect that is not being reported at all is that three of these terrorists were illegal aliens. This just shows us how dangerous our open border policy is. We have no idea who is sneaking into the country. This is truly scary.
Now, on to how this plot was stopped. You can read the whole article here. A teenage store clerk was asked to make a copy of a DVD by the terrorists. He saw on the DVD that they were calling for Jihad and praising Allah. He knew that this was very suspicious behavior, but he had reservations about reporting it:
“Dude, I just saw some really weird s-,” he frantically told his co-worker. “I don’t know what to do. Should I call someone or is that being racist?”
His first thought was that even though the DVD contained very suspicious activity, he was afraid he would be called a racist. This is where political correctness has taken us. It doesn’t matter that all the terrorists are Muslim, he was still afraid to report the terrorists because they are Muslims. We are supposed to be vigilant and report suspicious activity while at the same time we are supposed to deny who we are at war with. Thank God his buddy convinced him he had to report it:
The fellow employee tried to calm his friend and told him that if what he saw terrified him so much, he should tell the police.
The teen first consulted with a manager before making the 911 call.
It still took two other opinions for the clerk to do what he knew was right because he felt so guilty about what he perceived as racial profiling.
This clerk deserves a medal for stopping this plot yet if any of these terrorists happen to get off there is a very real chance he could be sued. The ACLU and CAIR are suing on behalf of the flying Imams who were acting very suspicious on a plane and even arranged themselves on the plane the way the Sept. 11th terrorists did. Now the people who reported the activity are being sued. Congress is even trying to pass legislation to protect people who report suspicious activity. The fact that they have to pass this type of legislation is disheartening.
I can only wonder, if the story of the flying Imams was in the news before this plot would the store clerk dared to report the Fort Dix six? Probably not.
We are supposed to be in a war on terror, we are supposed to be vigilant. Yet if we report suspicious activity involving Muslims we can be sued for liable. This is political correctness gone awry. This needs to be stopped. It’s outright dangerous.
I only wish the American politicians and American people were as strong as the Iraq people. Sadly we are not. America’s politicians have already said the war is lost, we can’t win. Someone needs to tell the Iraqis that. They seem to be much stronger than the politicians in Washington, and they are the ones in harm’s way.
Yet the Iraqi political class is showing a lot more courage than the American political class. They risk assassination. Our politicians risk electoral defeat. Yet it is our politicians who panic–and do so shamelessly and abjectly. And stupidly. Do the Republicans who want Bush to cut and run really think they would benefit if Iraq were to blow up, with U.S. troops helplessly standing by watching the slaughter, the full spectacle of American defeat unfolding before the American people?
There it is. Electoral defeat. The American politicians are more interested in getting elected than what is right for America. They would rather win re-election than do what is best for the country and fight the terrorists until they are defeated.
As for the Democrats, they are in a way less abject. Most of them simply believe the war is lost, or that it should be lost, and want to throw in the towel. The day after panicked Republicans descended on the White House, almost three-fourths of the House Democrats voted to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within 90 days. The rest of the Democratic caucus–with a handful of exceptions–embraced a slower-bleed defeat, presumably seeking a bit more political cover.
The key phrase here is that most Democrats believe the war is lost or should be lost. They have no faith in the American soldier, in fact they have nothing but disdain for the military unless they are providing humanitarian efforts that don’t have the United States interests in hand. Political cover in a time of war? Despicable.
Only one Democrat–now an “independent Democrat”–called them on their vote: Joe Lieberman. As the members of his party voted for defeat, he took to the Senate floor to plead for full funding of our troops: “Only a couple of months ago, the Senate confirmed a new commander to implement a new strategy in Iraq, General David Petraeus. That new strategy is now being implemented, and it is achieving some encouraging, if early, signs of success. . . . Yet, now many in Congress would pull the plug on this new strategy and thwart the work of our troops before they are given a fair chance to succeed. I am aware that public opinion has turned against the war in Iraq. . . . But leadership requires sometimes that we defy public opinion if that is what is necessary to do what is right for our country. . . . Al Qaeda itself has declared Iraq to be the central front of their larger war against our way of life. . . . Our judgment can be guided by the polls and we can withdraw in defeat. [But] no matter what we say, our enemy will know that America’s will has been broken by the barbarity of their bloodlust–the very barbarity we declare we are fighting, but from which we would actually be running.”
The senate confirmed Gen. Petraeus knowing that he was in favor of the troop surge, and then they decided to oppose the troop surge. Was this whole thing orchestrated by the Democrats to make them look good if the surge failed? I don’t know, but they confirmed a general who they knew was in favor of a troop surge and then opposed the same surge. It sounds like they were riding the fence to me.
It is George W. Bush’s historic mission to stand in the way of such a disgrace. And he can prevail. Surely this nation will not, at the end of the day, follow the path of defeat-embracing Democrats or poll-fearing Republicans
You can read the whole article here.
A professor at ERAU used a week of classes to debate the whole aspect of manmade global warming. During this week he showed Al Gore’s Inconvenient truth, and The Great Global Warming Swindle.
One student said:
“After watching ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ I was relatively convinced,” Shipley said one day last month in class. “(Al Gore) did a good job in presenting his points very methodically one after the other. They all build up to essentially prove his point.
“After watching ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle,’ my thinking completely changed,” he said. “I kind of did a complete flip-flop.”
That’s what happens when you show both sides of the story, it opens up debate. They problem is that the debate is being stifled on this issue. It’s being stifled for political reasons, carbon emission tax revenue we will be forced to pay and broad government restrictions. We keep hearing the debate is over even though there hasn’t been debate. We hear the science has been settled, that their are a consensus of scientists behind the global warming science.If scientists just have a consensus than it’s not proven fact.
“I fear that attempts are being made to purposefully subvert the public understanding of the nature of science in order to achieve political goals,” he wrote in an e-mail. “Science is not about consensus, and to invoke this raises the hackles of scientists such as myself. The lure of politics and publicity is no doubt seductive, but it nevertheless amazes me that so many scientists have jumped on the bandwagon of consensus science, apparently forgetting or ignoring the sad history of consensus science.”
All you need to do is look at who is pushing this global warming agenda, a politician- Al Gore. That should tell you all you need to know.
The truths of global warming are, if not inconvenient, incomprehensible, Wanliss argues.
“The atmosphere is incredibly complicated, and we know very little about it,” he said. “We are studying a system which is so big . . . we don’t know what all the variables are.”
We don’t fully understand the world we line in, yet we know we are destroying it? How can this be?
That’s what consensus is, a theory not a fact. Until we understand how our world functions we cannot possible know if we are hurting it.
Planned Parenthood Asked Minor to lie About her age so Rape Wouldn’t Have to be Reported
This kind of sounds like entrapment but it illustrates the kind of people we are dealing with in Planned Parenthood. A pregnant eighteen year old girl posed as a fifteen year old who wanted an abortion. Under the law, a statutory rape would have to be reported to the police. The answer? Lie. We must abort this baby with no questions. We must do it for the cause.
California law requires abortion clinics to report instances of statutory rape to police. The age of consent in California is 16.
In covertly-filmed video of the meeting between Rose and an unnamed Planned Parenthood employee, the staffer is heard to tell Rose: “If you’re 15, we have to report it … If you’re not, if you’re older than that, then we don’t need to.”
“Okay, but if I just say I’m not 15, then it’s different?” Rose asks.
“You could say 16,” the worker replies, later adding, “Just figure out a birth date that works. And I don’t know anything.”
Are these the type of values we should be teaching our children? Of course not.
House Democrats are suddenly balking at the tough lobbying reforms they touted to voters last fall as a reason for putting them in charge of Congress.Now that they are running things, many Democrats want to keep the big campaign donations and lavish parties that lobbyists put together for them.
That is the opening paragraph from this article. Funny how that works, isn’t it? Now that they are in power they seem to like the perks that they were denouncing a few short months ago.
The situation concerns some Democrats, who note their party campaigned against a “culture of corruption” in 2006, when voters ended a long run of Republican control of Congress.
With all the scandals that they are trying to sweep under the rug( just read my caught in the culture of corruption posts in the archives for more details), it seems as though this might not be a good time to bring light to the reforms that were promised to the voters. If you really believed they would reform the culture of corruption, or that no Democrats were in the culture of corruption, you’ve got another thing coming.
I know how stupid that sounds, but it is true. Read about it here.
Jodilynn Jacob, 33, and Jennifer Lee Shultz-Jacob, 48, moved in together as a couple in 1996, and were granted a civil-union license in Vermont in 2002. In addition to conceiving the two children with the help of Frampton — a longtime friend of Shultz-Jacob’s — Jacob also adopted her brother’s two older children, now 12 and 13.
But the women’s relationship fell apart, and Jacob and the children moved out of their Dillsburg, Pennsylvania, home in February 2006.
Two women enter into a civil union, they love and care for each other. They decide to have children together. The only problem is… well you know what the problem is. They have a mutual friend who donates sperm to them so they can have children.
They go through a divorce and because they are both woman there is no man to make pay child support, the courts go after the sperm donor, and win.
This is just the beginning.
I have preiously posted about the bid to ban the incandescent lightbulb to stop global warming. It appears as though this may have hit a snag though, you can read about it here.
At a time when fluorescent bulbs are gaining in popularity among global warming activists, politicians and consumers, Brandy Bridges discovered a dark side to energy-efficient lighting.
With Congress and state legislatures considering fluorescent-only legislation, the Prospect, Maine, resident is going against the grain – removing every compact fluorescent bulb from her home just months after installing them as part of a remodeling project.
The decision to take them down was prompted by safety concerns. Earlier, Bridges dropped a fluorescent bulb in her daughter’s room and it shattered, leaving potentially unsafe levels of mercury inside the rug.
As an electrician I know that a fluorescent bulb contains mercury and gasses. I also know that you are supposed to be very careful when handling these tubes. It comes as no surprise that when broken they can be dangerous. I thought this was common knowledge, but by judging the above quote I must be wrong.
The safety issue could become a central part of the environmental/climate change/energy debate, since Congress and 13 state legislatures are considering proposals that would ban or partially ban the older inefficient incandescent bulbs in favor of efficient fluorescent bulbs that the EPA says use about 75 percent less energy while lasting six times longer.
This whole legislation is totally absurd. Do you need any more proof that the whole global warming debate is just a guise to tax and control every aspect of your life? The government telling you what kind of lightbulbs you can use? This is insane.
Consumers should be able to make a free choice,” he said. “If you want to pay for a longer lasting bulb, that’s fine. But a ban would affect the poor and middle class a lot more.”
Some fluorescent bulbs can cost $5 or more, compared to a regular light bulb that costs under a dollar, Lee noted.
And if incandescent bulbs are banned, Lee wondered, would mercury in fluorescent bulbs become the next target of environmentalists?
“They jump on one hysterical bandwagon issue after another,” he said. “If you banned incandescent bulbs, they would have to create a new boogie man. It’s a never ending cycle of environmental hysteria.”
Free choice? We can’t have that, we are to stupid to do what is right. We need to be told how to live.
The hysterical bandwagon, I love that. It’s just one crisis after another, designed to keep the American people on the edge. To make them feel guilty so they can tax them for their excesses.
Hold on to your wallets.
Mitt Romney Fires Back, Calls Al Sharpton a Bigot
During a debate, Al Sharpton questioned Mitt Romney’s faith. Today Mitt Romney defended himself.
He called Al Sharpton an example of how bigotry still exists in America.
“I can only, hearing that statement, wonder whether there is not bigotry that still remains in America,” he said. “That’s an extraordinary thing for someone to say.”
Can you think of another person who could get away with questioning the religion of another? I cannot.
This is the comment that Al Sharpton said:
“As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry about that. That’s a temporary situation.”
This was his explanation:
“The statement by the Mitt Romney campaign is a blatant effort to fabricate a controversy to help their lagging campaign,” Sharpton said in a statement. “In no way did I attack Mormons or the Mormon church when I responded that other believers . . . would vote against Mr. Romney for purely political reasons.”
What are the political reasons for his comment? There are none, he clearly said that people who really believed in God would not vote for Romney. That isn’t saying that Romney doesn’t really believe in God? Of course it is.
Some political analysts didn’t buy Sharpton’s explanation, saying he clearly intended to slam Mormonism.. “I interpreted the statement as the Reverend Al hopping on his high horse to insult people whose beliefs he doesn’t agree with,” said Tobe Berkovitz, interim communications dean at Boston University. “That’s nothing new for the reverend. What is new is that the people he insulted are striking back.”
Exactly, it’s about time someone called out the reverend for who he really is.
