About Me

Name: Republiservative
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Negative Confessions Good, PATRIOT Bad: And Other Democrat Oxymorons.

I was chuckling over the irony re H.R. 1955, The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 under proposal by Democrats, and which would require DHS to monitor anybody a State or town thought had ideas they didn't like, not just talk that's ALREADY subject to monitoring under PATRIOT but ONLY IF ANY KIND OF terroristic colloquy or soliloquy in contents as one expects from militants and mafias, making it of interest to  just say ask Daley what happens to transit funds or have a vote trail.

Then today MoveOn emailed a PSA re how bad all Bush policies are; to same I replied:
 
"I remember other Dem groups, like NDN, earlier saying "we have no obligation to bail Bush out of any budget or other issue", which meant just say no. Well, as the within PSA shows, Bush has failed to send States and towns money and if he did and they never use it as intended so what...send more anyway; if Bush won't help you, why should we; and if "former" Dem Ann Coulter says she's just railing against Islam generally to help help secure victory in Virgil Goode's district (as if he needs help) or to jab at Obama's religion, it's just coincidence that as Dems say Bush has failed diplomacy "pro-Bush" Coulter didn't notice Muslims are Europe's Hispanics, taunts like hers get Dem-Laden dressed to say she's typical of Bush and "Nazi" troops, while Dems call Qaeda freedom fighters, and it could be some French or British leaders might turn against Bush to placate fears over all the Muslims in Europe. It's not just officials and corporations who need a sense of responsibility, we ALL do...and MoveOn et al who just do anything they can to get their way indeed do undercut trade and diplomatic efforts, even if they then failed to consider beyond their own political gains. I stand with President Bush and our troops in all things diplomatic and trade, as not working to undercut ALL hopes of ANY President's future diplomacy based on distrust of the USA simple might further make MoveOn's and Dem's Socialist high taxation society wholly unnecessary."
 
Also today, PFAW emailed a PSA saying they're looking for a new PFAW head who might help them address the tattered Constitution most immigrants and nationals see have been caused by BUSH via his requiring locals to bluster/raise pays/misspend while Congressional Dems fight subfederal accountability tooth and nail:
 
"Well, Bush and any successor(s) are not responsible for subfederals who mispend or "dieu et mon droit, le etat c'est moi" their way through local developments on their own, any more than Bush or such is responsible for MoveOn PFAW and certain Dems telling the globe Qaeda are innocent freedom fighters as "former" Dem Coulter et al say "exterminate all Muslims based on faith" all in erosions of trust in the USA Presidents CANNOT be held accountable for generating. I wish PFAW luck in their search for their own new leader, and only hope they will be blessed with someone who isn't just another Soros worshipping how being part of inculcation for ushering in Socialist-like personal power trumps all love for your country and all its inhabitants...i.e., one hopes America can do better than a casino economy and better-you-than-me raw survivalism."
 
I remain supportive of Conservatives, and of Bush initiatives...on balance, not ONCE have Bush or Conservatives attempted to damn me in any nature, even intimidation or character assasination, just because I expressed my thoughts.
 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Patsiche Of Bills And Treaties Means To Me.

Amongst those generic PSAs I recive from a litany of political efforts are Democrat groups, officials, and PACs asking for support to blindly push for Democrats on bare grounds "GOP in in contest area, GOP MUST be bad influence, vote Dem, see all gold and securtiy and equity and dreams be yours....yeaaarrrggghhhhhh!!!!", or perhaps like a sports team fave, we're just supposed to vote for the best perfomers whether or not they, like Academy Award winners, have any actual tether to what would serve or even be public interest.
 
Now, even those in the GOP know I like to ask tough questions of THEM, and I find I'm not flicked away over time for the mere doing of same; in the non-Conservative and often Democrat arenas, it's as if all plugs are pulled on you for asking or opining anything other than a belief that whatever Dems say must be taken as just shrewd ways to get in like a steamroller past the GOP gatekeepers, Dems of course then freed to not actually do what they've said on Congress floors or otherwise but unleash wealth and jobs and ad infinitum for ALL of us, let alone this or that collectivized group(s) as PC dictates; um, so we forget that's never happened before, or that what then they've said as pre-election rodomontade will be ignored by foreign powers seeking useful idiots re not including the USA in global commerce or events?
 
Dems and non-Conservatives currently rush about selling us essentially that the entire globe hates the USA, based you see on Bush failed policies; they're hard-pressed at present to prove that up beyond Islmaic terrorists hating us Carter to date, so it seems Dems are pushing for a pastiche of bills and treaties combining to say if the USA doesn't just surrender to forces only Dems at present can see, and further so naturally accept the dictates of ANY even remote and tiny nation that demands our commerce, jobs, housing and resources, we shall be extinguished by the entire world massed against us as one...ah, finally a Dem offering of why they believe in a Freudian interpretation of the doctrine of determination re domestic affairs, drafted along Herman Goering's line that if you tell a people they're under attack they'll follow you blindly. 
 
Yet, heck...you can't even get Mid-East nations to agree with each other between themselves without diplomacy; and Ghana is about to launch attack, too, perhaps? Japan is aiming silos at us? The list goes on and on re debunking the world's ready to strike unless DREAM, SCHIP, and LOST go through....a pastiche creating little more than a USA that accepts sit-at-subprime or government-owned-home folks gone green without jobs and hoping they can get that next refi, while the rest of the world goes about life and we all live on their fumes and lees.
 
But again, because Dems say we WILL have absolutely every nation at once destroy us unless we accept Chavez for oil (he's a pal, he gives gas and oil so cheaply...oh, that's right, our multi-pocketed Frias is a Socialist dictator who NATIONALIZED all resouces and production, so he pays nothing to produce...most generous), turn from all other fuel to ethanol grown and produced only outside the USA, have a Socialist society, understand we must never work again, and function as if all elected officials combine to form the so-and-so coulmn of the Fourth International of the World Socialist merely tending us to main Socialist dictates, they now stand on LOST, as if President Bush cannot have troop funding without it (and how the heck is Bush so expensive over the next ten years, even though way under Dems' proposed $3.5 TRILLION at minimum tax increase, anyway?).
 
All LOST would do is this: turn over rule and taxation, without input and need to receive taxes back, to any nation on earth who sends a bill, no otehr "validity" of bill sent; boy, THAT would eclipse even the $3.5 trillion hike, huh?; presently though, Dems use it to hook their GOP friends across the aisle and USA public into believing we must do SOMETHING to show this hateful world the USA has no ill intents, and surrenders and offers up its people regardless of immigrant/national status and resources to any for the asking, even if pleasing to bin Laden...must avoid drafts and war, ya see; of course, in 2008, that waters down amongst usual mudslinging-a-minute to "Folks, Bush and the GOP just have got the world really upset because they're not honoring treaties, and we Law Party Dems promise you our simple compliance with ALL treaties will bring so much opulence to common folks so vote all Democrats and save the USA and world....yeeeaaarrrrrrggggghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!".
 
I respectfully submit, however, that then after 2008 and a Democrat or other sweep on such grounds, what most likely seems probable is: A) the USA begins to spend untold credit at untold costs in a Socialist serfdom like the world has never seen paid for only by USA inhabitants simple, or B) Democrats refuse to honor such pastiche of giveaways, thus becoming the very thing they accuse Bush and the GOP of doing...only Dems ARE promising the world populations, and so setting it up for provocation and foreign manipulation continuing domestic status quos when apparent Dems were kidding. Well, at least that plays to inevitability of a sort and is one consistency with non-Conservative PSYOPS.
 
Wherefore, I continue to support Conservatives for 2008, in that most Democrats and non-Conservatives have not yet convinced me that their political transmogrified to  legislative agenda could ever lead to better jobs, healthcare, arts and sciences, more exports AND imports of goods, or cogent stewardship of national security, the national debt, or promises to and dreams of ALL the people of earth contemplated by the framers of the United States Constitution. 
 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Tell Rights-Given Workers To Get LOST.

This morning I received the within following verbatim text in form of e-petition from the American Conservative Union; aware of other LOST factors and having researched within-cited ACU terms on my own, I concur with the opinion of the American Conservative Union re LOST and respectfully here following present said ACU text with my endorsement thereon, said text being, to-wit:

"I find it difficult to believe that Members of the United States Senate are still trying to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

Advocates of the treaty say all the objectionable efforts have been eliminated. But that's simply not true.

For example, here’s what Doug Bandow of the CATO Institute says:

"Unfortunately, the revised treaty retains many of its original flaws. There is still a complicated multinational bureaucracy that sounds like an excerpt from George Orwell's "1984": At its center is the International Seabed Authority. The Authority (as it calls itself) supervises a mining subsidiary called the Enterprise, ruled by an Assembly, Council, and various commissions and committees. Mining approval would be highly politicized and could discriminate against American operators. Companies that are allowed to mine would owe substantial fees to the Authority and be required to do surveys for the Enterprise, their government-subsidized competitor."

Passage of the Law of the Sea Treaty will force us to surrender our sovereignty, force our corporations to kneel and pay tribute to an international tribunal composed of the hate-America crowd and restrict our access to natural resources, thus compelling us to buy from land-locked third world countries.

Why should we surrender rights currently reserved to our federal government and to the states? Fight this treaty! Scuttle LOST!"

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Zeal To Re-Educate Christians And Jews Untethered To Terror War.

You know, when it comes to making all religion sound as if it's a right-wing poison, PFAW is right up there with many Democrats...such folks even prior to the Bush first term at first tried to equate their squishing of ALL religious congregations on grounds same might be linked in religious philosophies to bin Laden-like holy wars or civil wars against alleged apostate USA elected and appointed officials at all levels.
 
Now such folks just say ALL congregations of Christian and Jewish orientation need to be stepped on to not provoke Islam since ALL Muslims hate any idea of Hell (diplomatic consequences being applied to ANYONE), and adopting the Leftist agenda and by coercion or otherwise inducing more and more Christian and Jewish preachers to preach Mohammed's view of Christ as non-divine and to teach there is no God telling us to fear ANY Hell or behave with concern for others, it's not "Betrayus" and Bush watering down Islamic terrorism and Iran bluffs, it's the way some Democrats and non-Conservatives are pushing religious appeasement of merely coincidental Islamic values that keeps our children safe...even if Islam DOES have a version of purgatory, only Laden-like Islamic terrorists urge killing of Jews and Christians on account of religion simple, and bin Laden terrorists could care less what any country is or is not doing re its own people.
 
In that urging people to fear USA relgions generally per se neither feeds nor diminishes nor otherwise has impact upon the war on terror, I continue to applaud the diplomatic and martial accompishments of President Bush and General Petraeus.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Reasons To Oppose House-Senate Energy Bill.

I saw today that a woman has been elected to head Argentina, and she ran on a campaign to address poverty and create jobs; that might be a rejection of Lula, if the new president means jobs for citizens in a free trade sense, not just meting out mental health and critical necessity estimations for drifting crowds...Lula was a pal of Chavez (also a make of no-trail vote machines), so we don't know just from election results and no other data, the kind which transcends mere gender.

I saw today Lake County IL gas is averaging $2.99 all of a sudden, adding Chavez oil buyers have been leading the pack before today, as if a reverse price war which can bolster Chavez in his Mid-East ambitions and get the USA population to blame Bush for high prices (even though lower throughout the whole Iran-Mid East affair until Citgo et al rose). In this sense, and having read and agreed with same, I wish to add my endorsement to the within following paragraphs, same entirely as received in e-petition intent from the American Conservative Union, and being, to-wit:

"As your constituent, I urge you to oppose the House-Senate Conference Energy Bill.  As you know, now that the House and Senate have passed separate bills, there are plans to draft a final version behind closed doors.  No matter what is in the final version, it will include provisions that gravely threaten our energy security and reduce domestic energy supply.

The House bill includes tax increases that will discourage any efforts to expand our domestic production of oil and natural gas.  On top of taxes, there are provisions to discourage expansion of our refining capacity and prevent the production of natural gas from known large reserves. 

The Senate bill threatens our ability as consumers to meet our energy needs.  A mandate to reduce oil consumption by 10 percent flies in the face of our own government projections of a need in future years for 30 percent more oil and natural gas than we have today. While the so-called “anti-price-gouging” provisions sound good, these kinds of price controls reflect the same type of thinking that led to fuel shortages and gas lines in the 1970s.

Mandates for massive increases in ethanol and other biofuels use will send the price of corn and feedstock for livestock soaring, which could lead to consumer product inflation and endanger the health of our economy. [Signatory's Note: many States, like Illinois, declare that they have developed and will continue to develop their farmlands into New Urban subprime communities mostly made up of housing, not being interested in lower cost rejuvenation of poor soil, so reduced farms just means trading foreign hands from supply of petroleum to supply of biofuel, further to interests who would only sell to us if we had no real military, defenses, police, or commerce/jobs of our own and ally to Communist or Mid-East extremist elements.]

This bill is a hodgepodge of failed ideas from the past that might satisfy some special interests in Washington, but will leave American consumers high and dry when it comes to our energy needs.  This bill would also threaten our energy security for years to come. 

Please do not give in to demands to just “pass an energy bill” regardless of what is in it, and make every effort to join with others in putting a stop to this disastrous legislation."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary Or Barack Would Cinch GOP Win.

I recall years ago Senator Clinton, including when she was last First Lady, always parading about saying what's been going on re domestic agendas was all at the insistance of some...to quote her..."vast right-wing conspiracy"; recalling that even now some Democrats remain Conservatives, Ms. Clinton obviously wanted to weave between partisan lines with such opinion and thus become the salvation therefrom.
 
I do indeed believe that it would send the wrong message to the world if Senator Obama obtained to his party's nomination or Vice Presidential candidacy selection, only in that he has made such a public record of appeasement to even al-Qaeda and anyone foeign at all who so much as bluffs anything at all.
 
The rest of the Democrat contenders are too outre per se, on top of being pronounced nihil obstat by Howard Dean, to stand a practical chance against the GOP as personalities.
 
Wherefore, as someone who's going to busy campaigning the heck out of himself for Conservatives in 2008, I would say Senator Clinton's roots and attempted campaign weed growth will stem from augmenting that somehow the Socialist agenda she embraces really isn't hers at all, but an appeasement of "vast conspiracy" she and whatever co-candidate will at least "put drag on if elected"; Obama will focus all rhetoric to simple "hatred" of his immigrant name, Muslim religion, and racial makeup...which of course is false, in that his own speeches against our flag and worth of respect composite USA populations deserve are enough; I would caution to be prepared that Senator Obama's MoveOn crowd inter alia will extract a mere part of the Muslim religion...a non-belief in Hell (and therefore consequences for actions or failure to act per diplomacy)...as a third-person way to suggest Israel (Shaol) and Christians (Hell) are "mocking" Islam by contesting there is a place where deific judgment or release is awaited...yet Islam itself says for the truly wicked there IS a wailing and gnashing of teeth for a short to very long time, even if not called Hell; if Team Obama or Donkeyhead generally attempt(s) such ruse to further say thus demanding nations face consequences for poor global citizenship also provokes Islam even if not against Muslim nations, to me there would be little in it except appeasement of Qaedan Muslims and a wholly untrue "basis" for accepting bluffs from non-Muslim nations. That is, Jimmy Carter national security. 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran Now Led By PACIFISTS?

I was chuckling over news in USA MSM that Democrats have vowed to keep bringing back SCHIP and DREAM for incessant re-votes, as they're sure almost all Americans, regardless of status, would love to relieve Hispanics et al of the stigma of criminality areas greedily lapping for legal housing/healthcare immigrants imbued by calling themsleves Sanctuary States and Cities, as if ALL imigrants just squeeked in to commit mayhem around doing jobs at say amusement parks with ever-mounting OSHA violations (jobs Americans won't do, ar-ar!); to not want illegals is to be racist/nationalist/protectionist/isolationist, and further, who but a puke would even think States need to be accountable for monies they'd get via the deeply flawed SCHIP...has anyone but a Federal or GOP party EVER not used cash properly? And I understand from Dems that most of us in the USA welcome State-only casinos, healthcare, housing, no equity of any nature, the suing or jailing of those even who comply with laws generally, and the place-by-place decision of who's critical to a community or not.
 
Yes, certainly laughable rodomontade. But then, this morning on CSPAN's American Journal, inter alia, I heard some participants say Iran is peaceful in wanting nukes, Israel is a bully, and the USA has no credibilty due to Bush and his gosh-darned WMD thingy about Hussein. Aw, now what can I do except blanket-endorse Democrats and joing Obama saying Qaeda is good and how do I spit on troops properly and tar and feather elephants and get groovy vibe clothes while doing so comrades.....oh, wait a minute...as a Conservative, I don't cave to mere devil's advocacy.
 
I recall a history with post-Shah Iran. First, in 1979, Iranian and other Islamic jihadist fundamentalists led an armed revolution against the Shah of Iran, then an important ally to the USA and others. These rebels seized USA Embassy personnel and threatened to kill them if the USA or anyone else tried to aid the Shah against rebellion; Democrat Jimmy Carter, then President, said "oh, all righty then!"; a year or so later, hostages STILL in jihadist control, some noted GOP and militarists devised a way to let the jihadists think they got what they wanted (weapons) for hostages, but could be rushed once Carter saw the hostages he fretted freed. In go the arms, out come the hostages; "okay Jimmy, swarm, swarm, swarm!!!"; "um, Jimmy, Jimmy? Jimmy, where are you, Jimmy?"; Jimmy was beginning to criticize the GOP for aiding a terrorist organization, rather than swarming in. Neat how Dems use diplomacy as a moot yet double-edged sword, isn't it?
 
Now, all along, Iranian jihadists have ALWAYS called Israel a Zionist pig farm that needs wiping off the earth; it's not new for Mymood Alibabjihad or even Bush, either one. In fact, such folks always have denied the Holocaust, until recently usually restricted to their belief killing Jews is no holocaust. So much for Iranian peace mongers Israel bullies.
 
Hussein played poker, which like Iran to Carter worked as well or better as if he DID actually have the WMD he wouldn't let ol' U.N. inspectors, not even Hans Blix, verify as there or not. Even Senator Durbin was so adamant, during Clinton, that Hussein be removed on non-WMD grounds; but now, somehow Dem activists at least tell us calling poker bluffs, rather than giving in to demands as if the WMD were there, has hurt Bush chances of success with diplomacy, leaving "righteous" jihadists the only option but to attack us or our troops with America in the bad.
 
I support the Texas style poker of George Walker Bush; caving in to every lunatic bluff abroad could lead to say Brueni saying it has WMD so bend over, world, and would actually impede diplomatic pressure on say Darfur which would then nessecitate the very military bloodshed Dems say they don't want; also, in general, diplomacy where everybody else runs around saying "we surrender! Will you join our list of governments who 'loan' the USA money to raise sovereign pay and a Socialist society but not trade or jobs? You could send your folks next, if so!" sounds not only like consequence-free diplomacy but like the ultimate in useful idiocy.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Democrats Forming Toothless Diplomacy Echo Chamber.

Today I received an e-PSA from Senator Durbin's office re progress of the 110th Congress, which PSA in part represents that via enacting so much 9/11 Commission aracna and ephemera, Democrats have tightly protecetd us as much as anyone humanly can from foreign attacks or other discomforts to our civilian lives.
 
To be sure, those enactments don't hurt national security. But as a VoteVets e-PSA today in the name of retired General Wesley K. Clark (member Center For American Progress, by the way, a Clinton think tank, and Clark's WESPAC for years has said "Help Wes Clark Elect Democrats") obviated to me, slandering Bush for ignoring or not complying with foreign bullies if they don't like counter-offer diplomacy is not just partisan, it's actually Clark and crowd's way they must have proceeded their whole careers and pray to do so again. 
 
To Votevets' PSA I replied:
 
"The within VoteVets PSA, and one assumes Senator Webb's BornFightingPAC and such, will become their own echo chamber against the sitting USA President (not needing, by circumstances of Mymood Alibabjihad and folks like Vladimir Putin, to be named Bush) and any President following Bush in saying the USA must NEVER attack Iran or engage if the USA attacked; how can a man who rose to four-star command, and another who rose to Secretary of the Navy, stand there and say with straight faces no consequences for failure to follow UN or USA or both diplomacy will get anyone anywhere with bullies? I recall the resolute ways John F. Kennedy and Ronald W. Reagan dealt with the most dangerous bullies, and how George H.W. Bush said "the day of the dictator is over", and how George W. Bush...a true North Star re consistancy of military conduct...had more respect even from Putin and Iran's leaders before some started spitting on our flag, our people re worth of respect, and bending over backwards with every business, defense, and resource treaty appeasement, which seems only to make bullies demand more. For such reason apparent well after the 2006 election cycle and all previous, I reject all artful and handwringing rodomontade geared to inculcate falsely that surrender is necessary or evasive of discomfort in USA civilian life, and I support President Bush in yes pushing for diplomacy at all times (even if conlict arose) but letting Iran or anyone else know there must be consequences for bullying the USA or any other nation(s)."
 
Curiously, those in Clark's camp further demand prosecutions of telecoms who complied with Congress' own laws (yet vouchsafe that "mere" voter trails violate sacred private contracts), imply that saying you're LBGT (married or not married) will entitle you to safety and justice and job protection, that unless you agree to only government-run and provided healthcare you should not expect to work (per Senator Clinton's recent expression via her bill), and that if this doesn't come to pass you can expect those in the Clark camp to keep closing farms and jobs and businesses...and in any event, supplication of all foreign bullies WILL continue, as it's the maximum strength diplomacy Clark campers can stomach as they seek progress for their constituencies.
 
I reiterate, I support the diplomatic efforts of President George Walker Bush including the occasional need to be tough but fair if that is all some understand abroad. What...if some nation doesn't like us having a vegetable garden, or blue shoelaces, or voting, or they're just punks like Qaeda, ignore them until they strike then cave to their demands? Some "progressive" diplomacy, which the other month extended to Oklahoma Democrats saying re Senator Inhofe's near miss of attack in Iraq "So close yet so far".
 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Iran Action Dissuasion PSYOPS.

Today I received an e-PSA from Senator Durbin's office on global warming, telling me that it must even be pointless to resist it is a fact but is tethered less in R&D science to easily upgrade suprime housing (so thinly made the new downgraded Fujita scale took effect here this year) or to let industry...like myriad cars and planes Gore thinks not responsible...simply fiilter better; we must only follow the shut-down mentality, I'm told.
 
To another Durbin PSA today telling me how ethics reform has appeared, I replied:
 
"It may be that some, perhaps Senator Durbin's office, feel I am just a critic or grump with nothing better to do when I correspond; actually, as someone who's held minor elected party positions here and there, and has long been associated with Conservative campaigns and interests, including across diverse socio-economic populations, I try my best to indicate what I as a USA national perceive through my own readings of bills, experience, and discussions with others of the everyday person variety...and just pass it on to leaders for whatever use or non-use they deem fit.
 
Myself, I'd say Senator Durbin's within PSA is essentially correct, and that steps have been taken to upgrade ethics regardless of partisanship. However, one hopes that at some point we're going to hear non-Conservative support for everyday growth opportunities in the USA without regard to who will apply or receive same; all some today seem interested in is this or that type of collectivization into large and sub-groups, and ANY collectivization where a government is sole arbiter of outcomes and inputs de facto is against Conservative free market theory and thus will not see me encouraging its support at-large.
 
I continue to hold forth hope Senator Durbin and other leaders will break free of divisive collectivisms long enough to realize that to date no relevant treaty or social labelling or rights or diminution of the USA/its troops has yet shown tether to their need or reasons their constituents appear to have asked them to do something about the status quo, and believing Conservatives to be the best promoters of social progress will support same and would not oppose even Democrats if they elected to offer more direct free trade, non-USA bashing ideas instead of just never-ending finger-pointing and promulgation of new rights aplenty for things which won't exist due to "appeasements" necessary on grounds only they can see. Playing to a daily litany of horror stories about how so many USA persons are crime subjects and need to be deeply watched (and Dems too watch, in fact often transcending any monitoring complaint they make re Bush) on top of seeking more subprime money or government housing ownership while they don't even want a defense budget to support State National Guard or Darfur et al if Iraq were left, plus inferring the diverse People in the USA don't deserve respect while inferring global insurgency and terrorism ebbs and flows at their will to oppose, some today appear stuck in a rut of contradicting the very enticement to be in the USA they say they want." 
 
I note that PFAW objects to companies getting immunity for past peeking under laws even Dems voted for or wrote which were found un-Constitutional by Courts; apparently though, so many Dems even eclipsing Bush with peek/taser/tow/ban/walk in on powers, partisanship obviously blunts PFAW words that telecoms complied with duties under law and should not suffer "jackpot, see if they'll settle rather than drag out!" suits from desperate filers and their hungry counsel. 
 
Lastly, MoveOn today emailed to say Iran is a good guy Bush just picks on to pick its oil pockets, "just like Iraq"; to same I replied:
 
"Latest malarkey from MoveOn; it's not like too many non-Conservatives were about to spend all that "war loot" on other than their own subprime and closed-opportunity collectivist interests, so why should we care what MoveOn thinks right there? Also, Iran DOES have a general history of Islamic militancy, and under Mymood Alibabjihad wants to be the Kim Jong IL of the Mid-East,  thus a direct threat to the ability of the USA to fuel its own defenses or aid any nations militarily if the diversity of oil producers...including Iraq which the USA DOES NOT CONTROL...basically is Communist China and KGB-led Russia (especially if in the latter their current president breaks his own constitution and runs a third time). Another simple fact: has doing things the non-Conservative, PFAW, MoveOn and similar ways led to greatness so far, or to something closer to ever-expanding foreign flexing the more we seem to roll over?"
 
I support President Bush in the pendency of 2008 elections, as he attempts to show we will engage any threats without hestitancy but seek at all instances, even from strength, to resolve matters globally in mutually respecting and growth-oriented non-violent ways which respect freedom.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ENDA Seems More Collectivist Than Assistance.

Some recent progressive PSAs I received same are typical of this "litmus test" philosophy which seems focused more on who some folks like rather than what all the lot of us out here, together with the LBGT or all immigrants or any of us in any combination(s), are supposed to look forward to re things TO be doing or protected in; at any rate, as long as this LBGT thing isn't yet another "special victims, or ala Biblical stories some ram's blood on the doorways of a special group so that bad things coming will pass them and hit everyone else" nature of Leftist origin, fine...but again, I think it's enough to simply say gays and related are not to be excluded from the rights and protections EVERYONE is entitled to...and if some take umbrage with the concept that LBGT people LEGALLY are no different from us, I would find it quizzical some say LBGT should be able to marry like us yet somehow not be part of what the rest are experiencing; whenever PC comes to mean "Pro Collectivist", you're darn sure I'm not such PC.
 
After all, since many LBGT cases involve "proof" of such preference(s) being as subtle as having a wide stance in a latrine masking latent desires, one hopes not only that ENDA won't have a collectivist goal or State or local application, but that it won't encourage non-LBGT men and women to say they are non-heterosexual just to be included in the rights of society or otherwise participate in society...I understand, for example, Senator Clinton would like a bill passed saying all must have government-only healthcare or they cannot be considered for holding even the most menial of jobs, yet the Senator is silent on how to increase job-growing locations in the USA, so "say you want this or you're out" HAS been displayed by modern progressives, same being folks who want the USA to do all these things to surrender to enemies real and largely imagined, as if under fiats of containment from conquerors only they can see...as one progressive, a Senator from my own Illinois, will not wear a flag and per USA MSM today will not hold his hand over his heart during a pledge of alligiance to the USA...even if an official, not mere citizen or private party, charged with such affiance ex officio, indicating his disbelief but not objection the USA exists as the Constitution organized and intended the duties of government.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Roberts Rules Of Order, Please...Not Thoreau's "Empty Words".

The Constitution lays out that any USA President will work for the Congress directly, as well as State goevrnments, and never, ever for the People directly, like say a mere Mayor or alderman. The office of President may be occupied by someone in any year who agrees with or has whatever reservation(s) about this or that passed by Congress, but the Constitution leaves any President only the options of sign bills and do as directed, sign bills and withhold action(s) based on integral operational or Constitutional flaws any White House perceives and thus risk impeachment, or veto or fail to sign any bill and risk the wrath of Congress, which IS a collection of representatives contemplated for election by the People.
 
Most often in modern times, representing the People of their jurisdictions has meant to most in Congress that they should do so in the nature of lawyers on the People's behalf; that is, that they should represent the interests of the People abstractly, so that nation building as those who elect the President favor (States) is the prime Constitutional imperative, the People then of each State to vote as their laws proclaim and effect change at the local level, even if States don't favor spending say one dollar per person to ensure return to accountability in voting machines.
 
It's that kind of distance, pretending each member of Congress is unto a mini-President accountable only to State and local government leaders and to make every convenience for them, that starts many questions, and Democrats and non-Conservatives seem to keep piling it on, putting their own feet into their mouths, as it were, while attempting to diffuse continuing status quo with litmus test hearings and proposals which have no tether to the direction of the nation but seem to say "hey, I'm good personally, don't blame me, it's the only job of Congress to write checks and of the Presidency to pay them".
 
Well, those in Congress who say things like "Bush wants money for some dumb ol' war even Democrats wanted under Clinton, but wants to keep THE CHILLLDDDRRREEEENNNNNNNNN without healthcare at a measely $35 billion" don't help the matter; no sooner does Bush veto dubiously funded SCHIP which would have knocked 77% of people who DO pay for health insurance out of purpose for having paid premiums, and extended benefits to persons over the age of 18 and even $62K a year income all with Democrat adamacy NO accountability as in public record of poor children getting the aid, then the House fail to override veto, than subprime home builders announce bankruptcies, local governments scale back mental health and jail staff expansions as well as hefty raises for themselves, and a number of similar curiosities occur. On this one, it seemed originally Congress wanted to use defense money in toto just to fund SCHIP instead, as they promise less American trade and jobs will be a green way to peace and prosperity, but once the Congress raised the national debt ceiling again, MoveOn was condemned even by Democrats....I don't create ideas, just recite them, and wish only to say even if local budget cuts and homebuilder woes are just coincidental, how does it look, and why create a public panic if none exists since Congress sees no need for such specific bailouts? That may sour some on the GOP, but surely Democrats and Independents in some areas, for no constructive purpose to boot...unless Congress feels it's in the States' and localities' best interests to accept their current card of bills, so States and Cities as applicable should stop working with Bush.
 
Now we have Democrats and others saying DREAM must be passed to invite more people to the USA and not need to bother with more than instant citizenship, which is quizzical not on racial issues but on grounds what are they being swept in to? Ipse dixit, even Democrat leaders say there are or will be all these people who need subsidized or government-owned housing and government-only healthcare presently, and we already are quite a diverse population where relaxed enforcement was not met with Congressional fund withholdings or demands for greater accountability despite requests of nationals and immigrants together (which is understandable, if the prime directive of Congress is to give States and localities what they want on theory locals know better than Congress what localized voters want)...is the actual intent of DREAM just to give States and localities more immediate persons which accelerates need for Socialized healthcare and housing?
 
Now we're back to war and general defense funding being cut in toto, and the USA caving in to LOST, unless President Bush goes along with SCHIP as vetoed, including refusal to have public record of poor children who'd be served (by the way, are such voices ensuring current poor, not affected by vetoed SCHIP EXPANSION, being cared for, are they left to list all of a sudden?).
 
I agree with President Bush that some should stop using Iraq progress, the war on terror, national security, sovereign rights of ALL nations generally, and related as mere flyswatters to get their own pet projects funded without regard to global security and global economics...as based on real events, not egregious transmogrifications of terms masquerading as elite minimal information problems only the truly gifted can understand...such as: global warming is a science which will bring global peace without stopping vehicle use but stopping all USA commerce (even emission tech research to keep current jobs rolling) to appease people somewhere as will giving away homes and things to people from somewhere to drain whoever of recruits. 
 
I remain unconvinced President Bush doesn't know what he's doing re the Mid-East, and I support his Iraq request as ordinary and usual for the progress nature. The rest I find to be issues for 2008 campaign seasons.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

LOST Should Get Lost.

I have reviewed Senator Cornyn's (R-TX) PSA re the Law Of The Sea Treaty (LOST), including reference to President Reagan's 1982 objections thereto, and I find I can support Senator Cornyn's gravamen.
 
Some say that it would take such treaty to first ever recognize the open seas as the common heritage of all nations, but maybe that should be "some" nations, as the landlocked have never really been the seafaring sorts over human history. Further, for longer than anyone alive today has been around, there's been a common twelve miles from shore limit as to the waters belonging to any nation abutting seas or oceans; all the waters between such limits have always been held the open seas where no particular nation's laws apply. Thus, it seems silly to say or infer that anyone not glomming onto such treaty intent as LOST contains is a Nazi right-wing power monger bent on crippling the open seas for everyone. 
 
Then there's the LOST collateral issue that no subscriber nation can fail to pay taxes set at the United Nations and distributed without regard to rate of contribution; this is sold as Robin Hood "peacemongering", but in reality, China, Russia, and the USA, to name but a few nations, would have to pay and pay without necessarily receiving that much quid pro quo...taxation without representation, the adherence to which in any forms seems prohibited to the USA at least by or through its Constitution; to my readings thereof and dissertations from the founding fathers to date in the legal community, that the non-representative taxation comes at a tangent or in tertiary form upon USA nationals does not seem to render it immune to the Constitution.
 
Some will undoubtedly tell us this LOST treaty would somehow enhance our trade and jobs and peace, because it is U.N. driven; but for the peoples of the USA, China, Russia, and including but not limited to Great Britain, the Middle East, and Australia, it seems...given the distresses many still point to in Africa and other non-European nations despite similar programs...LOST would likely benefit mostly the European Union, without accountability to the peoples of any other nations not receiving benefits of monies raised. Such would hardly seem to spell a recipe for peace, except as a way for Europe to manage abilties for all nations to do anything about anything through setting and draining monetary capabilities. 
 
Wherefore, as Senator Cornyn has raised that LOST is a national sovereignty issue for the USA, and I agree while further saying LOST robs ALL member nations without much more constructive purpose than enrichment of those few who call for and count such monies, I remain in President Reagan's corner on LOST and respectfully submit the Senate should vote "no" to its adoption.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rudderless Left Pushing Fake Litmus Tests Aplenty.

I receive a lot of emails and PSAs from a lot of political groups, and one thing I perceive taking them as a whole is that most from non-Conservatives parrot or deeply sound in just about everything could read on the World Socialist website; I believe that such psychology is to fake say Hu Jintao speaking through a website oracle, rather than say his historically blunt and tough straight-forward way, so we "best appease him" whenever Bush or someone else isn't handy to blame for what you were going to do anyway and just ask the President du jour to cover up, obfuscate, whatever, and whether or not they themselves concur.  
 
The weird science of such claimants, global warming, started out as just a "good" reason for outright saying it's not worth even having R&D to cure alleged harms, just plain have NO industry; now, it seems that on grounds known only to them this crowd says USA supplication if unilaterally so of "green" commands as only the crowd itself (USA political Left) commands, i.e. stay all domestic courses to the max at any costs to national security and debt, somehow world peace will be ours...pure rodomontade usually not even rising to parallel inferences of true science, just parallel inference to the "runes", such as said World Socialist website...such rodomontade includes illusion of a 1960's or greater USA industrial-military edifice filled with swingers, overtime, unions galore, and smokers by the gross, all of which needs to "be tamed down and share with others".
 
With that seeming core of "progressiveness", again driven by a faux Freudian doctrine of determination saying that for whatever reason(s) du jour domestics are permanent except for bloviations passing as "rethought strength, patriotism and debate", we're to assume ALL officials on earth want such scam, so Congress needs to spend 100% of its time peddling fake litmus tests; e.g., where some stand on Barney Franks or the censorship of internet by private companies and the Jena 6 and on and on infinitum becomes the sole social barometer of who's "worthy" to be in office, as if appearing pristine could even entitle you to two to four terms of vacation from Congressional floors or office use until you can retire and leave it to the next generation to play what to some is no more than a personal lottery or "American Idol", in ways "progressive" societies otherwise just sitting around and gambling as sole hope of even surviving...though of course well monitored in rethought progressive freedom...do for themselves.
 
I respectfully submit that when it comes to things like fake litmus tests, Congress should always first decide if it would have jurisdiction to enact whatever private regulation or new personal right of action, and then even if it did, do sufficient State or Federal laws or simply no-statute-required doctrines of law as in Shepard's Causes Of Action to press such allegations...if so, why are so many activists and folks like Soros trying to get restatements of law which STILL require Court actions instead of tying up Congress before Courts were even tried?
 
I support President Bush and Conservatives re 2008,  and believe the best way to show our theories DO work is to simply not stop but debunk the fog of the rudderless Left...especially since always blaming or inferring blame into everyone else can stymie even greater progress on free trade, democratic tenets, and global stability more reliant on diplomacy than outright armed conflicts.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stark Politics A Bit Brinky.

Yesterday, Representative Peter Stark (D-CA) indicated that President Bush doesn't have the money for "children" or the war; one can only presume the gentleman from Fremont means that if Bush is going to make States and Cities and Counties be accountable for proving they spend SCHIP money on children and in the way it's sold via MoveOn, then he can lump actual hurricane victim and child money together with the money to continue in Iraq...further, Mr. Stark says our troops can expect only to get their heads blown off from now on if they stay.
 
I guess some in the global population could sound byte that and hear an inference that global insurgencies and even al-Qaeda ebb and flow based on the bluster of Democrats...especially where folks like Obama say the USA flag is sick and unworthy of pride, and it seems thumbs up or thumbs down from non-Conservatives re Iraq itself ebbs and flows on prospects of non-accountable sub-Federal funds. That sort of impression would undermine our troops' progress, purpose even Democrats and the United Nations wanted Iraq action even under Clinton, and signal even if falsely that insurgencies worldwide have a battering ram against the USA commander in chief and his and allied forces.
 
Then there's the non-Conservative position that things like SCHIP don't need sub-Federal accountability; considering that the DNC website contact page has a drop menu which lists "honest government" as a topic, and considering Democrats loudly proclaim they're for government accountability and transparency, why is wrong to suspect anything just because non-Conservatives adamantly oppose sub-Federal prove-ups of monies spent? How does that make it look when sub-Federals, like Cook County Illinois re its Board, have been asking to add jail guards, add mental health monitors, and raise their own salaries 27% before SCHIP veto vote, without regard or mention of area subprime and other ejectment issues looming, then say they can't pass such a budget as soon as the House sustains the veto? No GOP or Democrat Board member conjures that suspicion, Federal non-Conservatives who are not President Bush do it for them.
 
All armed conflicts from the beginning of history have been results of breakdowns in diplomacy. Once again, we have some who would do whatever they could to undermine anyone anywhere, and even infer they HAVE to close businesses and make mass housing to please Hu Jintao or Putin or the man in the moon as well as adopt a Socialist motif to make it happen...as on grounds known only to them so "going green" unilaterally would bring world peace, there being no such fiat(s) from foreign leaders themselves.
 
If Democrats and non-Conservatives want to stand on the principles of ancient Roman philosopher Helvidius Priscus and insist that Caesar has no rights to require States and Counties and Cities to account what they spend public money upon, they might simply say that and avoid the brinky inferences they draw to national security, our troops, all officials, and diplomacy.
 
I continue to support President Bush as he attempts to work with Congress in finding more direct and positive motion in improving things for as many as he can, and as he works toward helping global issues without expectation any nation(s) would have to do without free trade or would have to capitulate to groups like al-Qaeda.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

SCHIP Veto Protests Invoke More Than One Type Of Heartache.

My email has been geting a lot of MoveOn type PSAs telling me that I should meet this or that urchin who'd be without but for SCHIP as written, as if Democrats tell us SCHIP or we'll never have any healthcare, they'll see to it; the Bruno and Tony inferences are intriguing, but here's what I said when I forwarded such PSAs to my interests:  
 
"We all know SCHIP as vetoed is primarily designed to eradicate private healthcare for an array of purely political reasons. I add that Assistant Majority Leader Durbin's, and candidate Obama's, Chicago just passed via its parks board a ban on smoking at beaches and parks, as the City now wants it a major crime to smoke within 15 feet of children; this is only another leaf on the pile of such smoking bans which already have diminished tobacco use to all but gone in the USA.
 
Well, MoveOn et al, despite their poster children heart tugs, could care less if adults DID get "benefits" (albeit typical Socialist care) or the Fed had to BORROW and distribute as States and Cities deem fit to spend at their own County hospitals...MoveOn, Soros, PFAW, Pelosi, Emanuel, Clinton...none can think of doing anything without complete collectivization, loss of private jobs, medical research and development, and coverages paid for otherwise, nor do they chastise say Cook County Illinois Board President Stroger (Sr. or Jr.) for wanting more subprime housing at the intentional closure of job-producing business, amid, seeking either by borrowed Fed funds or local tripling of taxes and doubling of fees as if wedge tactics to induce the former, the hiring of many more jail and County hospital mental health workers.
 
Where MoveOn and similar tug at our heart strings just to get something where say poor children healthcare would at best be paranthetical to a much different and purely political use of such funds, in a way that results in expanding, per Chicago, publicly-owned casinos, more single women in subprime or government-owned housing, more adoptions by women of foreign children, and higher prison populations and mental health as the only other industry to offer, for such reasons I support the Bush veto of SCHIP as written, and challenge MoveOn and similar to come up with easier and more direct bills to get money to hurricane victims, foreign born, and other poor children already here and to REDUCE the expansion of the class of such needy." 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive