War Protesters Burn US Soldier In Effigy
I am tired of hearing Democrats and war protesters say they support our troops, they just don’t support the mission. And they say support the troops by getting them out of Iraq. These people do not support the troops. At a war protest in Portland, protesters burned a US soldier in effigy, as well as an upside-down American flag.
And just in case you still say we can’t question their patriotism, the held up a banner that said FUCK THE TROOPS. This banner also had a yellow ribbon with a slash through it.
This is so despicable I can’t even put my feelings into words right now. It’s one thing to be against war, nobody want’s to be at war, but it is another to show the utter contempt and disdain for our soldiers fighting for the protester’s freedom. If it wasn’t for the soldiers these people wouldn’t be free to collect their government check while protesting, they would have to get a job like the rest of us.
These people have no respect for the fact they live in the greatest country in the world. They believe we cause all the world’s problems.
Of course there is no media coverage!
SO,I DO QUESTION THEIR PATRIOTISM, as well as their intelligence.
I am so furious right now I can’t write any more about this.
Here are the pictures.
Banning Light Bulbs To Stop Global Warming
Every time you think you have heard it all about global warming there’s more.
Here is the latest, we must ban light bulbs to save the planet. Is there any doubt that the true agenda here is to legislate every aspect of your life. Cars, cow farts (we must become vegetarians to save the planet), BBQ grills, it goes on and on.
From cnsnews.com:
Bill to Ban Regular Light Bulbs Introduced in House
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
(CNSNews.com) – A Democratic lawmaker has introduced a bill that would ban the sale of traditional incandescent light bulbs – which are less energy-efficient, prompting claims that they contribute to “global warming” – one day after a colleague told a press conference that legislating a ban would be a “last choice.”
As Cybercast News Service reported last week, Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) held a news conference Wednesday calling for more efficient lighting options, and Manzullo said “the last thing we want to do is force legislation down people’s throats.”
One day later, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) introduced legislation that would set target dates for certain types of light bulbs to be prohibited for sale in the United States. Read more…
Al Gore Violates Senate Committee Rules
From epw.senate.gov:
Al Gore Continues to Demand Special Treatment
Posted By Marc Morano – 8:08 PM ET – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov
From behind the scenes on Capitol Hill: Former Vice President Al Gore, despite being given major preferential treatment, has violated the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee’s (EPW) hearing rules.
Gore first demanded to be granted an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement to the Senate EPW Committee for Wednesday’s (March 21) global warming hearing scheduled for 2:30 pm ET.
(See “FULL COMMITTEE: Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming” )
The GOP minority on the EPW committee agreed to the 30 minute opening statement.
But then Gore demanded a waiver of the EPW committee’s 48 hour rule that requires all witnesses before EPW to submit their testimony in advance. The GOP minority on the EPW committee then agreed to waive the 48 hour rule in favor of allowing Gore to submit his testimony 24 hours before the hearing.
But in a breaking news development on Capitol Hill — the former Vice President has violated the new 24 hour deadline extension by failing to submit his testimony – even with the new time extension granted to Gore.
As of 8pm ET Tuesday evening, the testimony still has not been received by EPW, a clear violation of committee rules.
The word on Capitol Hill says not to expect Gore’s testimony to the Senate EPW committee until Wednesday (March 21) — the day of the hearing.
It appears that Gore does not believe the same rules apply to him that apply to every other Senate EPW witness.
The question looms on Capitol Hill: Is Gore delaying the submission of his testimony until the very last moment because he fears it will give members of the EPW committee time to scrutinize it for accuracy?
Walid Muhammad bin Attash admitted in a military hearing that he engineered the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. Let us hope he was treated more humanly than the 17 sailors he killed were. After all, we probably tortured him into making a false statement, right Rosie.
I have heard that our soldiers are Nazi’s, and run soviet gulag type operations at gitmo from Dick Durbin, so this is probably a coerced confession.
We need to get the ACLU down there to make sure their rights aren’t being violated, after all they are humans too.
Seriously though, there are many people in this country that believe these terrorists have the same rights as American citizens, and that our constitution applies to them, which it doesn’t. The Geneva convention doesn’t even apply to them, they don’t wear a uniform, that denies them Geneva convention rights in itself.
These people need to be brought to justice for the crimes against humanity they have performed.
Here is an article about Walid Muhammad bin Attash’s confession.
Coservative Double Standard In The Media
Click here for a great article that illustrates the double standard in the culture of corruption. When Democrats are caught in a scandal they just delay the proceedings and nothing seems to happen to them. William Jefferson, Harry Reid, John Murtha, all high ranking Democrats who have major ethics problems and nothing is being done about it. Perhaps this is the Republican’s fault for not being relentless on this. Meanwhile Republicans are forced to resign before due process is received. Tom Delay, Mark Foley step down before guilt has been proven. Pehaps this is the Republicans fault also. Maybe Republicans hold themselves to a higher standard than Democrats hold themselves to. So when an issue comes up Republicans step down in order to maintain the intergrity of the party.
Click here to see a voting record analysis of the members of congress running for president. The analysis gives a measure of how the individual members rank in terms of liberal or conservative compared to their piers based on career voting record.
Barack Obama ranks as the most liberal member of congress. Interesting enough is that McCain comes in as the 4th highest conservative, although the article claims he has grown less conservative in recent years. I though he would have been much lower.
The Iraq Surge…And Why Success Upsets Dems
From nypost.com:
By RICH LOWRY
March 20, 2007 — WHEN President Bush announced a surge of troops into Baghdad in January, Democrats pounded him for the folly of putting U.S. troops in the “middle of a civil war.” Two months later, the question is, What happens to a civil war if only one side shows up to fight it?
The Shia militias that had become the main driver of violence in Baghdad are ducking and covering. Militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, perhaps in Iran. His fighters aren’t resisting U.S. troops who have begun conducting patrols in his stronghold of Sadr City. According to Gen. Dave Petraeus, 700 members of Sadr’s Mahdi Army have been detained in recent months.
This hardly means that peace and harmony reign in Baghdad, but it has reduced the killing significantly. If at the beginning of the year anyone had predicted such progress from the addition of just two U.S. combat brigades in Bagdad (six brigades eventually will be part of the surge), he would have been derided as a delusional optimist.
This progress might be transitory, but it illustrates the falsity of a key assumption of Democrats. They prefer to talk of Iraq in terms of a civil war because it suggests that nothing can be done about the violence, that it is running its own hermetic course. Well, it clearly isn’t. What the U.S. does matters. If we hadn’t surged, Baghdad already might have descended into the genocidal fury toward which it was headed earlier in the year.
The other side of the Iraqi civil war – the car-bombing Sunni terrorists – hasn’t stood down, of course. But these are the people that Democrats express a notional interest in fighting. In a January letter to President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said “counterterror” should be one of the “principal” missions of U.S. troops. Sen. Carl Levin wants to restrict U.S. troops to “an anti-terrorist mission to go after al Qaeda in Iraq.”
According to a U.S. intelligence report quoted by The New York Times, captured materials from al Qaeda in Iraq say that the group sees “the sectarian war for Baghdad as the necessary main focus of its operations.” So the Democrats profess to want to fight terrorists in Iraq, and al Qaeda in Iraq is making Baghdad its focus. It would stand to reason, then, that the Democrats wouldn’t want to undermine our effort to control Baghdad. Our counterinsurgency mission there is a counterterrorism mission. It aims to squeeze out terrorists, neighborhood by neighborhood.
Nonetheless, Democrats in the House and Senate are attempting to force our troops from Baghdad, exactly as al Qaeda in Iraq wants. There is an essential symmetry to the goals of Sunni militants and Democrats here at home with regard to the disposition of our forces – the fewer, the farther away from Baghdad, the better (needless to say, for vastly different reasons). In reporting on al Qaeda in Iraq’s strategy, The New York Times notes, “American forces, instead of withdrawing from the capital as the Sunni insurgents had hoped, prepared plans to reinforce their troops there.” Over the strenuous objections of Democrats.
Each side of the domestic debate concerning the Iraq War tends to get stuck in its own self-reinforcing narratives. For Bush and supporters of the war, it was a narrative of success. Negative developments were chalked up as the inevitable difficulties of any war, amplified by the liberal media. Bush broke out of that narrative to order the change of strategy that is the surge.
For Democrats, it is the narrative of defeat. Even as the civil war has de-escalated somewhat in Iraq -weakening the force of the Democrats’ favorite “middle of a civil war” sound bite – and even as the surge has elevated the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq – the enemy that Democrats say they want to defeat – Democratic opposition to the surge has only intensified. Will they oppose it even more if it continues to work?
comments.lowry@nationalreview.com
John Edwards= Carbon Neutral?
Here is an article showing John Edwards dodging questions about his carbon neutral lifestyle. Put this man right up there with Al Gore when it comes to telling us how to live, while living the opposite.
From buisnessandmedia.org:
Presidential candidate promotes carbon caps for business, but carbon ‘offsets’ for himself.
By Dan Gainor
The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow
Business & Media Institute
Call it “Dancing with the Stars”: Global Warming Edition. Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards showed his best dance moves trying to avoid questions about how energy efficient his 28,000-square-foot mansion really is and how much the power bill costs each month.
The March 20 edition of CNN’s “American Morning” showed Edwards hyping global warming, promoting his energy plan that mandates carbon caps and claiming that his new mega-McMansion was actually being operated in a “carbon-neutral way.” He has recently declared his campaign “carbon neutral.”
Edwards also avoided how he holds himself to one standard but wants to hold businesses to another. As anchor Miles O’Brien put it: “One of the keys to your plan is the so-called cap plan which would institute, as it suggests, caps on the amount of carbon dioxide industry can put into the environment.”
But when it comes to Edwards’ own life, he doesn’t cap his carbon efforts, preferring instead carbon offsets. “We have committed to operate this house in a carbon-neutral way, which means in addition to using energy saving devices in the house itself, to the extent that doesn’t cover it, we’re going to purchase carbon credits on the market,” said Edwards.
Such offsets have been big news lately as even the Oscars claimed they were “carbon neutral.” The March 26 issue of BusinessWeek questioned the nature of such offsets and said “some deals amount to little more than feel good hype.”
Former Vice President Al Gore has received criticism for his own carbon offsets, though the media have been supportive. “If more people do it over time, it’s a good thing,” said reporter Russ Mitchell during the “Early Show” on CBS February 22.
During the CNN preview of his new energy plan, Edwards called for both a cap on current carbon dioxide emissions and “reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050, which is aggressive but achievable.”
When O’Brien asked him about jobs going overseas instead of new jobs being created in the United States, Edwards danced again. “Well, the reason first of all is the planet has to survive. So we have a pretty simple question to begin with.” His second point merely asked “How do we deal with this issue in a smart way” and moved into boilerplate about creating jobs.
O’Brien asked about Edwards “getting Americans to conserve more.” Edwards responded with talk of conservation and then requirements. “One of the things that’s going to be required is for Americans to be willing to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles and to be willing to conserve and we want to help them do that.”
When O’Brien asked specifically about his house, Edwards turned into a dancing king. Asked about the cost of energy for the home, Edwards tried several answers:
- “It’s actually not bad.” And followed that up with talk of how energy efficient the home was.
- “I’m not telling you. It’s actually, it’s actually not bad. It’s about three or four hundred dollars, the last one I saw.”
- Following that claim, Edwards backed off a bit and said “the power bill is several hundred dollars a month.”
The article below is an opinion piece that appeared in the New Hampshire Union Leader. The article was uncredited. I was going to blog about this very subject until I saw this article which sums up what I was going to write rather nicely.
Just a little back story first. When Carol Shea-Porter ran for congress she promised an open and ethical congress. She then proceeded to keep her first vote in congress (a vote for majority leader) private, stating something to the effect of that was a family vote, family votes are private. This can only lead us to believe she voted for Murtha, a very ethically challenged congressman. So we can assume, we will never know, that she broke two campaign promises on her first vote.
So here is the article:
ONCE AGAIN, U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter has dodged an important question about the leadership of her own party.
Last fall she refused to state publicly whether she backed Steny Hoyer or John Murtha for majority leader in the U.S. House. Murtha had campaigned for Shea-Porter, and she had called him “a profile in courage.” But he also had questionable ethics, to say the least. It was important for her constituents to know whether she backed the ethical candidate or the one who campaigned for her. She declined to answer.
Now she refuses to say whether she still backs Democratic Party Vice Chairman Ray Buckley for state party chairman. Rep. Paul Hodes withdrew his support for Buckley after viewing a video posted on the Internet last week that shows Buckley saying and doing embarrassing and sexually suggestive things and shows that he had joined an Internet group called “Gays in New Hampshire” that included underage boys. The video contained no evidence that Buckley showed any sexual interest in any member of the group.
All this newspaper could get out of Shea-Porter was a comment from her chief of staff saying that her previous support for Buckley came “before all the stuff happened.”
What does she think now that “all the stuff happened”? Her constituents are left to wonder.
Here is an excerpt from an article that appeared on realclearpolitics.com:
Volte-Face: Not all that long ago, leading Democrats thought arbitrary and rigid timetables were a very bad idea. Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, now-Majority Leader Harry Reid said this:”As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that’s not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don’t want us there, and it doesn’t work well to do that.”Six months later, the now-Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden, put it this way: “A deadline for pulling out … will only encourage our enemies to wait us out.” He added it would be “a Lebanon in 1985 [sic]. And God knows where it goes from there.”
And three months later, the junior Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton, said this: “I don’t believe it’s smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don’t think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you.” (emphasis added)
It’s amazing to me that no one calls them out on things like this. Now these same Democrats are calling for a timetable. They are allowed to change their position to fit the climate based purely for political reasons. Why isn’t anyone in the Republican party calling them on things like this. Maybe they know they won’t get the media coverage so they don’t try. But it has to be brought to the public’s attention.
Mitt Romney is being branded a flip flopper on social issues at every chance Democrats get. You can’t read an article without it being mentioned that he has changed his positions on gay marriage and abortion. Meanwhile the Democrats are allowed to flip flop on something as impotant as national security and no one cares because the media and the Democrats believe that George W Bush is the real enemy. So Democrats are allowed to change their positions to try and make the president look bad and no one will ever point out these inconsistencies.
The rest of the article can be found here, it’s a very good article about the Democrats trying to micro manage a war, without the constitutionality to do so.
