The Democrat anti-war fraud…
…is the title of this piece by Terence Jeffrey.
Harry Reid and Russ Feingold have proposed proposing a bill if the president vetoes the Iraq war surrender bill. This bill is said to cut off all war funding and end the war. But if read carefully it does not do that.
According to this article:
Language in the supplemental specifies: “After the conclusion of the 180-day period for redeployment the secretary of defense may not deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than the following: “(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. Armed Forces, (2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions, (3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations with global reach and (4) Training members of the Iraqi Security Forces.”
Feingold-Reid uses slightly different wording to authorize keeping troops in Iraq for the same general purposes. For example, it would authorize U.S. troops to go after “international terrorist groups” in Iraq, as opposed to “terrorist organizations with global reach.”
Yet neither bill specifies exactly how many troops may stay in Iraq. They merely specify what those troops may do.
Ironically, some of those functions might require more troops. For example, the Iraq Study Group report, often lauded by congressional Democrats, suggested a surge in the number of U.S. troops training the Iraqi military. “Such a mission could involve 10,000 to 20,000 American troops instead of the 3,000 to 4,000 now in this role,” the report said.
So their bill sounds allot like the strategy already in place by the Bush administration, yet they peddle it off as a bill to end the war. And they condone a troop surge according to the last excerpt from the article. Of course they support a troop surge, they approved the nomination of Gen. Patraeus knowing he was in favor of the surge that they now rail against.
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy, or is it just me?
Hillary Clinton Finishes 4th in moveon.org straw poll
This doesn’t mean much but is interesting anyways. Hillary finished fourth in a straw poll held by moveon.org. Obama finished first, followed by Edwards and Kusinich. This is interesting because the presumed front-runner appears to be struggling. Moveon.org is a powerful part of the left wing. They may be ultra left wing fringe players, but that is who the Democrat candidates have been playing to. If Hilary can do no better than fourth with this group it may not look so good for Mrs. Clinton.
Moveon.org is very well funded and if they use this and future polls to endorse a Democrat candidate, Mrs. Clinton will have to move even further left to satisfy this group.
The Unintended Consequences of Ethanol based fuel
Now that America is pushing for ethanol based fuel we are going to start seeing the effects of this.
If you take away a resource from one area and use it in another area there has to be consequences. They are using corn to make alternative energy which on the surface seems like a good idea. The problem is if you use corn for fuel there will be less corn available for food. This increased demand on corn will drive the price of corn up. As you will see in the article this will also drive the price of meat up because corn is used for feed.
So while this measure is designed to help make us less dependant on foreign oil, it will hurt us in other necessary areas of life.
Of course this will make PETA and all the other animal rights activists happy because in their mind it will deter the American people from eating meat, unfortunately this will affect America’s poor as food prices are expected to rise 3.5% this year as a result.
More on PBS pulling its Documentary on Terrorism
More on PBS cancelling the documentary entitled “Islam vs Islamists” can be read here.
You can read my first post about this here.
Whether PBS pulled the documentary because of their political leanings or because of their fear to offend the terrorists, it really doesn’t matter. What does matter is that America has lost the will to fight and win a war. Lost the will to defend what we believe in.
It’s a sad day when our ideals and beliefs are under attack and we just sit there and take it. Appeasement hasn’t worked in the past, and will never work.
In this way the Iraq war is like Vietnam. Not in the way Democrats like to portray it but in the aspect of America losing its will, it’s resolve.
If September 11th didn’t wake up America, nothing will. All the great Americans that went into battle and delivered us victory after Dec. 07, 1941 must be shedding a tear right now.
Did you ever wonder why we don’t hear more Muslims come out and condemn radical Muslims for their terrorist activity? It makes you wonder, do they actually condone it, or are they scared to speak out for fear of retribution?
Well PBS was supposed to air a documentary titled “Islam vs Islamists” that would have shown us how the moderate Muslims feel about terrorism. It was going to show us how Muslims are silenced by the radicals through intimidation.
The documentary has been cancelled. Why? Because it depicts the terrorists in a bad light. Yes, you read that right, it depicts the terrorists as bad guys.
This is from the article linked above:
Apparently PBS is so afraid of even appearing to say some Muslims’ actions are problematic that they would rather suppress the whole show than deal with the truth.
Is this unbelievable? They would rather cancel the show than admit that some Muslims are terrorists. This is scary, now do you understand why I say political correctness will destroy us? We can’t even name our enemy.
Democrats don’t want to deal with the truth.
Here is an example about how racist comments are okay with liberals as long as the target is a conservative. Liberals are tolerant of every person regardless of race, color, and sexual orientation. They are even tolerant of criminals. They always portray criminals as victims. Either of a bad up bringing, or of the American system not being fair to them. Something must have driven them into crime, it’s not their fault.
But when it comes to being Conservative, all bets are off. They are not tolerant of political orientation. If your political orientation is conservative you are a political deviant, and you can be attacked regardless of race,color, or sexual orientation.
Condoleezza Rice was depicted as a monkey in cartoons, one of the most blatant racial indignities that can be thought of.
Mark Foley was demonized for being gay, remember the pages were of legal age.
One can only wonder about the outcry we would hear if Alberto Gonzalez were a Democrat and it was Republicans attacking him.
So there is definitely a double standard when it comes to liberal leaders and minorities. Democrats like to keep minorities down so they can keep promising to help them get up. All the while this ensures that they will still vote for them based on promises.
Promises they never deliver on.
Sen. John Kerry may have Stretched the truth about Embryonic Stem Cells during Senate Debate
During the Senate’s debate on federal funding of stem cell research it seems as though John Kerry may have twisted the truth a little bit. He spoke about a mouse being cured in Massachusetts using embryonic stem cells. There was a couple of problems with his statements though. One is that the mouse was never cured from an immune system problem, it’s immune system was partially restored. The second issue was that the stem cell were not embryonic cells they were adult stem cells.
Now either he was ignorant of the facts in this case or he deliberately mis-represented the facts of the case to further his agenda. Either way, it doesn’t matter, it still makes him look bad. Either he spoke on an issue without the facts or he lied. Which is worse?
Giving his history, like coming back from Veitnam and testifying that he saw American soldiers torturing people when he never actually saw this activity, I know which option I’m going with in his latest Senate debate.
Katie Couric and CBS in Plagiarism Scandal
It looks as though CBS is up to their old tricks again, having plagiarized an article from the Wall Street Journal.
I have to give them some credit though, they seem to be trying to change their ways. They have gone from forging official United States documents to simple plagiarism, so they are slowly getting better. I think with a little more hard work and determination they will be able to totally rehabilitate themselves from their criminal activity.
At least this event was just a story about libraries that they stole.When they forged the documents it was a blatant attempt to lie to the people and bring down a sitting president all in the attempt to relive some of what they consider their glory days- Watergate.
Liberal Democrats are turning on Nancy Pelosi
Read about it here.
They believe she is governing from the center. Can you believe how far left they must be if Nancy Pelosi seems like a centrist to them?
A law was passed in 2005 in S. Dakota that requires an abortionist to tell a woman an abortion will end a human life before she has an abortion. This law is being challenged by Planned Parenthood, and will be heard by the 8th circuit in St. Louis. This court decision will be very interesting because it will address the issue of whether or not an abortion ends a human life. You can read about it here.
The Family Research Council has filed a motion to have Planned Parenthood’s right to challenge this law dis-allowed:
“Someone who has a financial stake in performing abortions should not be allowed to represent women in a case challenging women’s right-to-know laws,” said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which filed the brief on behalf of the FRC.
“Because an abortionist may earn a profit from women who abort their pre-born children, Planned Parenthood should be disqualified from representing the interests of women,” he said.
In November, South Dakota voters rejected a state law banning all abortions, except to save a woman’s life, by a margin of 55-45 percent.
This means that in the event that Roe vs. Wade were overturned abortion would still be legal in S. Dakota. The little secret here is that if Roe vs. Wade were overturned it would not make abortion illegal, it would turn the issue over to the individual states where it belongs. Because S. Dakota voted down banning abortions, abortions would be legal in S. Dakota.
