Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Why This Conservative Thinks Charles Barkley Is Right

4 comments
Sir Charles has been catching some serious flak from the conservative blogosphere for his comments about conservatives being "fake Christians." If you haven't seen the interview with Blitzer ... you can watch it below before you continue reading this post.


Frankly, conservatives should cut him some slack for saying he's voting Democrat because he doesn't like the direction Republicans are taking the country. Especially since many conservatives, and registered Republicans, feel the same way and are doing the same thing this next election to "prove a point", and that is exactly what they did the last congressional election. Conservatives were fed up with Republicans abandoning their principals, and they didn't like the direction Republicans were taking the country.

If you are familiar with Charles Barkley's political rants in the past ... you know damn well that Sir Charles holds many conservative beliefs, and has openly stated we wants to run for office as a Republican. He also holds many liberal beliefs as well ... many of these come from the disinformation the MSM has been putting out for years. In other words ... if I were to sit and talk with Barkley about those issues I could probably change his mind. If you were to classify his political affiliation .. he is a moderate who leans right ... as most Americans are.

Rush Limbaugh has stated that moderates are liberals in hiding, or cowards afraid to pick a side. I love Rush, but he is dead wrong on this issue. Most Americans have conservative values, but maintain at least a few liberal ideals. Hence ... most Americans are moderates who lean to the right.

Barkley makes his case against conservatives by stating he has no problem with gay marriage, and he is pro-choice. He addresses how hypocritical religious conservatives are, to him, because they often behave in a manner that is actually against the teachings of Christ and the bible. That's where Barkley makes his statement that is getting him in trouble with conservatives. He essentially said that these conservative Christians are "fake Christians" because they don't forgive others, and they judge other people harshly if they don't agree with their point of view. He is dead on accurate.

Unfortunately, Sir Charles ignorantly lumps the majority into the minority. When he stated that he gets sick every time he hears the word conservative ... he makes the mistake of attacking conservatives rather than religious zealots. He apparently doesn't draw a distinction between Republicans, conservatives, and the religious right. This is a grave error, and it has led to conservatives retaliating for being attacked. Even though Barkley wasn't knowingly attacking true conservatives at all.

One of the major mistakes that we conservatives continue to make is that we don't do enough to distinguish ourselves from Republicans. Nor have we taken the proper, and necessary, measures to separate ourselves from the religious right. By religious right I don't mean people who are religious, I mean bible thumping zealots who don't stand for conservative values, and are barely distinguishable from a cult. These groups of "Christians" are dangerous, and should be shunned by those of us who have authentic Judeo/Christian values.

It is important that you understand while reading this that I am not talking about all people of religion. I am only speaking of the fanatics. Those who blindly follow their faith the way they are told to follow it rather than how God and Jesus instructed. These people are, in fact, the biggest hypocrites in this country as Barkley accurately stated in his interview.

As a talk show host I have had many discussions of a religious nature, and have been extremely disturbed by many of my conversations with so called "Christian" listeners ... including priests, pastors, etc. I've not only been disturbed as a conservative, but as a Christian myself to the intolerance of others, elitism, hypocrisy, and downright vitriol that many of these callers convey to me.

One such example came when I had been discussing Islam in schools. There were some cases where teachers were teaching the Muslim religion to students in their class without parents knowing about it, and the many instances of schools accommodating Muslim students while refusing to extend the same courtesy to Christian students. Naturally, I was enraged that these events were taking place. It is not only against the law to teach religion in public schools, but we had a Muslim teacher indoctrinating their students in order to convert them to Islam. As to be expected, I fielded dozens of calls for over an hour from angry Christian parents who were railing on about how wrong it was to try to convert students in the classroom to a different religion than that of the child and their family. I naturally agreed with all of them because they were right. No outside force, especially a teacher, has any right to attempt to coax children away from their family's religion ... period.

Literally the next day I had another story with the same exact plot. A teacher was forcing a religion upon their students without the parents knowing about it, and many parents were rightfully upset with the teacher attempting to convert their children to the teacher's religion. To my utter horror I took call after call from listeners who were angry with me for attacking the teacher. I couldn't figure it out. It was the same exact story as the day before. You had a teacher who was forcing a specific religion upon their students against parents' wishes, and the parents were rightfully angry about it. There was literally no difference between the two stories ... except one. While the story the previous day was a Muslim teacher indoctrinating students ... the story this day was a Christian teacher indoctrinating students. To make matters worse, I took calls from several people who had called the previous day to express their outrage at a Muslim talking about Islam in class. Only now they were supporting the Christian talking about Christianity in class. Why would they be ok with one religion indoctrinating kids against parents' wishes, and opposed to the other? There is only one explanation. They are intolerant hypocrites.

Another issue where this hypocrisy reared its ugly head was only a couple of weeks ago. My co-host frequently says "oh my God." I do also, but to a lesser extent. I would like to point out that we are both Christians (her more so than me), and this was never done out of malice. However, a listener wrote a letter to our boss complaining about the use of that phrase. My boss responded by saying we didn't mean anything by it, and it is just the way we talk ... it's no big deal. By boss received an angry response containing a lot of CAPITAL LETTERS, and explanation points!!!!!!!!!! This guy was saying that it was a big deal, we needed to respect and abide by the ten commandments, and something about us being evil I think. In other words, this zealot was offended by our use of the phrase "oh my God", and demanded we be censored until we fell in line with the ten commandments. He did not tell me which version of the ten commandments he wanted me to abide by. Just so you know ... there are several versions more than the traditional two we are most familiar with. Clearly he has never read the bible or studied the teachings of Christ. Nor does he hold the Constitution in any regard, and he is clearly intolerant of other belief systems. If you don't agree as he does ... you must be silenced. That is the attitude Charles Barkley was talking about.

I felt I had a topic with this guy's letter so I read it on the air, and asked for feedback. I asked if the listeners were offended by our use of the phrase "oh my God", and I urged religious leaders to call in as well. While most of the calls were from sensible people, who identified themselves as Christians, defending Heather and myself ... some were not so understanding.

After taking several calls saying it was no big deal, and people should stop being so over sensitive ... I started getting calls from those over sensitive types. The first lady said that it offended her greatly to hear me use the lord's name in vain. She said that I should never say "oh my God" again because there are people who listen to my show who will be offended. So I should stop saying the phrase because I might offend someone. I then asked her if I should never talk about Mohammed again because that offends Muslims greatly. Her response illustrated just how hypocritical the overly religious can be. She said "she didn't care what Muslims thought." Oh really? "What is the difference between offending Christians, and offending Muslims," I asked. She had no answer for me, and continued to say that my saying "oh my God" offended her. I then asked why I should care about offending her if she didn't care about offending Muslims. She ran out of ways to deflect my question, and finally caved by saying that I should never talk about the prophet Mohammed. So now I've been censored twice!

From there I took the obvious stance that I should not say a whole host of things because it may offend listeners. I can't insult liberals, commies, education, or anything else. Do you have any idea how many people I offend when talking about the war, or when I mention disgusting fat bodies? To hell with that garbage. I may as well quit being a talk show host.

I did receive several more calls from people who felt offended by the phrase "oh my God" (including my mother-in-law) ... none could offer me a reason why it was ok to offend some, but not others. Some even attacked my beliefs, and said as a Christian I was required to respect the ten commandments or I wasn't a "real Christian." Which is strange because Christ specifically forbade such insults. Still I was confident that if I could get a religious leader to call in they would defend me. Surely a priest, or pastor, would understand that God will not send you to hell for speaking such a phrase. After all, God is not God's name ... it's his title. How can I take the lord's name in vain if I'm not even saying his name? Finally, my prayers (get it) were answered, and a pastor called in. I don't know which Christian denomination he came from.

Now was my time to be vindicated! We common folk are easily lead astray by such nonsense, but a man of God would surely agree with me about the hypocrisy of it all. As it turns out ... we common folk are lead astray by those who are in positions of leadership in our religion. While this pastor was very nice ... everything he said had a message of intolerance of different beliefs whether he knew it or not. He said it was ok to offend Muslims because their God was a false God. Only his God was the real God, and therefore was the only one we need be concerned with offending. I countered with "with all do respect ... your God is not my God." To which he replied that there was only one God, and that was his God. "Funny," I replied. "My God says the same thing." We went back and forth like this for a few minutes, and while it was always friendly we made no headway. He simply was incapable of conceding that other belief systems should be equally as respected as his version of Christianity. Again, Charles Barkley's points have been made for him simply by allowing these "Christians" to speak on their own behalf.

These are the people that Sir Charles was talking about when he called the "fake Christians." So are they indeed fake Christians? That's a tough question that can be debated for centuries with no conclusion. No doubt there are horrible "fake Christians" who are nothing more than oxygen thieves on this planet (i.e. the Westboro Baptist Church). However, these people I illustrated above are decent people. They are hypocrites yes, and intolerant, but still decent people who are entitle to their beliefs. So what would make them "fake?" Well, that can only be answered by personal opinion. Which is exactly what morals are in the first place ... nothing but an individual's personal opinion. To not respect and tolerate other people's beliefs who differ from yours is a violation of the teachings of Christ. Jesus told his disciples to go forth and spread his message, but he warned them to be respectful of others' beliefs. He did not want his disciples to insult and attack other people's beliefs. Clearly the Christians I've written about today do not adhere to that message at all. It's all about them, and their beliefs ... all others be damned. While that may not be enough to call them "fake Christians" ... an outsider like Barkley could easily interpret it that way. It is important to note that he isn't entirely mistaken either.

Some of you religious types are no doubt upset by the way I'm addressing this issue. To you, I say, that's why I don't go to church anymore. Man is no longer concerned with doing things the way that Jesus or God would want. Churches have become too much about getting as many people into their congregation as possible. This is done by fear, and by attacking other belief structures ... including other Christians.

You'll notice that many of the Christians who disagreed with me cited that their God was the one true God. The problem is that while Christians believe in one God ... it's not the same God. You heard me correctly ... Christians don't even worship the same God. History is chalk full of Christians separating from their church, and forming a new church, because they refused to believe that their God would be the deity portrayed to them by their old church. Some Christians believe Jesus IS God, and others that he is the son of God (I'm in the latter), some think God is compassionate, but still some other say God is a vengeful, mean-spirited, bigot.

So, you see, we Christians aren't unified on our God. Yet some of us feel the need to ally ourselves with other Christians to attack other religions simply because we are Christians. In doing this we ally ourselves with people who literally believe in a different God than we do, but we don't even realize it. Even though the Christian Gods share a singular history ... different Christian denominations believe in a completely different personality for their deity. In other words ... the Catholic God is different than the Baptist God. The only thing that unites Christians (other than the Christian value system) is that we believe Jesus was more than just a man or prophet.

Don't think for a second that I'm saying Christian denominations should not stick together when attacked by outsiders because we don't share the same interpretation of our God. The war on Christianity is very real, and we need to combat it. We just have to understand that Christianity does not have a singular belief system. Much like Sunni, Shia, and Wahabists don't share a unified view of Islam, but they are all still Muslim.

This is where we conservatives come in. We are caught in the middle of all this nonsense. Most of us are religious to an extent, but not bible thumpers. We are more tolerant that the religious right of those who are different, and we are far more intellectual than emotional than our zealot counterparts. Yet we continue to allow them to make the rules, and fight all of our battles for us. Guess what ... they are losing those battles. If true conservatives were to take over the abortion debate from the religious right ... it would be a done deal by now. The only reason we still have abortion is because we allow our side to play the religion card rather than using sound science to defeat the issue, and we are losing the debate. Every time religion is used in an abortion argument ... that person will lose. Why? Religion is irrelevant to the population when talking about political issues. They don't like having someone else's religion shoved down their throat.

What other issues has the religious right failed to have any success? How about homosexuality. I've talked about gay marriage dozens of times on my show, and I always get the same response from conservatives. They support civil unions with all the legal protections of marriage, but they don't want it called marriage. It's that simple of an issue. Unfortunately, the bible thumpers have made this an all or nothing issue that violates the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution. When it comes to homosexuality in schools our extreme right friends have also failed. Rather than focus on science, studies, and family involvement they constantly make it a religious issue. All of this behavior only serves to paint Republicans, conservatives, and the average person of faith as bigoted, oppressive, cold-hearted monsters. All while accomplishing virtually nothing.

That type of perception among the population is what leads to people like Charles Barkley turning on true conservatism, and attacking us. Certainly Barkley is mistaken in who he is targeting for criticism, but ultimately it is our fault as conservatives for allowing the fringe extreme right to speak on our behalf. We are as guilty as Democrats for allowing liberals to take over their party. It's too late for them ... their party is already gone, but we have time. We conservatives call ourselves the silent majority, and we are just that ... silent.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

McCain Votes Against Ban On Waterboarding

0 comments


While waterboarding is not torture, and I agree with his vote ... he has some explaining to do. Especially because of this exchange on waterboarding at the YouTube debate.


This appears to be a way for McCain to try to show the conservative base that he will listen to them, and is a true conservative. In other words, he's trying to shore up support so we don't stay home on his ass.

Think Progress:

Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon.

He voted no on the Intelligence Authorization Bill which contained a provision from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) that bans waterboarding.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Ron Paul Says Some Crazy Stuff In This Interview

8 comments

Some highlights include him explaining why he has flip flopped on the border fence, Amber Alert is unconstitutional, the North American Union is real, it is not kidnapping to take a minor across state lines without the parents knowing, and tip toeing around the neo-Nazi money while denying giving part of Alex Jones' donation back.

Run time is 10 minutes.



To download the interview yourself go here. It's on the right hand side in podcasts.

I know I'll get emails about the border fence thing, but Paul has flip flopped on that several times. His website says he wants physical barriers on the border, but earlier this month he told Stossel he didn't like the border fence.

Also, his denying having any knowledge of returning campaign donations before was laughable. Here is the story.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Think You Know Which Candidate Best Represents Your Views? Take This Quick Quiz To Find Out Who You Should Support In 2008.

1 comments
I hope everyone had a great Christmas. I love getting people to sit down and take typology tests to find out what their "true" political affiliation is. Most liberals are more conservative than they thought, and the same goes for conservatives. They just need an objective method sorting through the issues.

I ran across this little quiz (2 minutes tops) that will compare your beliefs with the entire 2008 presidential field. You may think you are supporting the candidate that best represents your views, but you might be wrong. I was slightly off in my thinking. I have had Fred Thompson as my number one guy for a while now followed closely by Duncan Hunter. Well, according to the quiz I had that backwards ... who knew.

Here's my full results.

  1. Hunter 68%
  2. Thompson 63%
  3. Romney 58%
  4. Huckabee 55%
  5. Giuliani 53%
  6. McCain 45%
  7. Paul 40%
  8. Richardson 23%
  9. Edwards 15%
  10. Obama 15%
  11. Biden 13%
  12. Clinton 13%
  13. Gravel 13%
  14. Dodd 8%
  15. Kucinich 5%

Take the quiz yourself and post your results in the comments, and let us know if you were surprised by the results.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Viva La Revolution ... Lieberman Endorses McCain

1 comments
Complete shock and awesome! H/T (Hotair) ...

Friday, December 14, 2007

Republicans Are Able Stop Ban On Waterboarding

0 comments
YEESSS! KEEP HOPE ALIVE!

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

CNN Says White Ron Paul Supporter Not "Diverse" Enough To Ask Questions At Debate

0 comments
Yeah I know ... the CNN debates are over. This is true, but while the planted questioners are worthy of discussing for the remainder of the election ... there is one story that has not been heard by the country. Truth is, this story is actually far WORSE than the Democrat plants at both the Republican and Democrat CNN debates. Why? It shows the hypocrisy of CNN to allow Democrats to ask Republicans questions while not allowing the reverse. This story also shows exactly how racist CNN really is in the name of "diversity."

It all got started in the lead up to the CNN Democrat debate here in Las Vegas, NV. A College of Southern Nevada environmental class wanted to ask the Democrat candidates about alternative fuels. The class is called "Science Fiction vs. Fact: The Politics of Global Warming." The question submitted by the class was chosen as a question to ask the Democrat candidates, but there was a problem. Terrell Potter, 21, was to be the student to ask the question, but CNN didn't like that.

Review Journal:

CNN had chosen a question sent in by a College of Southern Nevada environmental class. The students in the class "Science Fiction vs. Fact: The Politics of Global Warming" posed an alternative energy question that the network found suitable. But it didn't find student Terrell Potter, 21, to be the right messenger.

Potter said he is a registered Democrat who voluntarily told CNN he had donated to the presidential campaign of libertarian Republican Rep. Ron Paul. Was he sunk merely because of the donation, or because that while he is a student of biodiversity, he is just too caucasian for prime time? What if Mr. Potter happened to be black? Would CNN have overlooked the donation? What if the donation had come from his mother?

Now the article is written by Erin Neff, a typically distasteful opinion writer who hates Republicans and often is caught lying, or at best not checking her facts. However, she is dead on in this piece. She makes all the right connections, and it is well worth the read.

Because it was Erin Neff writing the piece I had to get independent corroboration, and I did indeed find it in a letter to the editor of the Review Journal. The writer? Monica Brett, the Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the College of Southern Nevada, and the professor of Terrell Potter.

Here is her letter on the CNN fiasco involving her students:

My students submitted a question to CNN for consideration at tonight's presidential debate at UNLV. An e-mail came back asking if one of my students would be happy to present this question at the debate. No criteria was listed.

I then told my students to nominate someone. I watched as they put democracy into action. After the selection process was complete, I contacted CNN and they first asked if he was "diverse." I was then told that CNN wanted to represent "diversity." When I mentioned his ethnicity -- he was white -- I was told that there was no "guarantee" he would be called upon.

The next thing I knew, CNN phoned me with an urgent message. "We have a problem," I was told. "Because your student mentioned that he gave money to (GOP presidential candidate Rep.) Ron Paul, we cannot have him ask a question. Nor can we now have any of your students ask. Why did you select him?"

Needless to say, no one at CNN looked at the quality or importance of my students' question. It is an insult to what this country stands for to censor somebody due to what party he currently is "considering" supporting. Can't a Democrat ask a Republican a question -- and vice versa? How else can we make politically informed decisions?

Monica Brett

LAS VEGAS

THE WRITER IS AN ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT THE COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA.

There is a couple of things we need to consider here.

  1. Why is CNN ok with Democrats (including members of Hillary's official campaign) asking Republicans questions, but it's not ok for someone supporting a Republican candidate to ask Democrats questions?
  2. Why should Terrell's race have been a factor?
  3. Why did CNN then forbid anyone else in the class to ask the question?
  4. And why were they so curious as to why the class chose Terrell to ask the question?
  5. Finally, if CNN was able to do the proper research, and background check, on Terrell ... how is it that prominent Hillary Clinton personnel always "trick" CNN at all of their debates. They always claim they had no idea that these people were prominent Democrats associated with Hillary. This also raises the question of why non of the Youtubers could be identified for who they really were by CNN when it took bloggers literally no time to do so. Clearly CNN has displayed to ability to conduct the proper background checks with regards to Terrell.

Without a doubt ... CNN should be banned from conducting anymore debates for at least the next two presidential elections.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Ron Paul Says Surge Failed, & We Lost In Southern Iraq

3 comments
Scroll Down For Updates ... I Have The Video Of Paul Endorsing Sadr, Saying The Surge Failed, & We Lost ...

This guy is becoming even more of an idiot than I thought. It's ok to want out of Iraq, but it's another thing to lie about it in order to get votes.

He was properly smacked by McCain for his comments. To which Ron Paul supporters tried to boo McCain, but were drowned out with cheers for McCain as McCain schooled Paul on the facts of Vietnam.

I will post video as soon as I have it, and the latest numbers of a decline in violence in Iraq. Which Paul says is because the Brits are pulling out of Basra. Problem is that the violence in Basra declined 80% WHILE the Brits were there. They are pulling out because there is no more need for them there.

Update:

Here is a graph that shows the decline in violence in Iraq since the surge.

H/T: Gateway Pundit ...



  • Violence in Iraq is down by 50%.
  • Civilian casualties in Iraq are down by 60%.
  • Baghdad casualties are down by 75%.
  • Basra violence is down by 90%.
  • Terrorist attacks in Iraq are down by 80%.
  • IED attacks down by 55%.
  • Average daily attacks down by 42%.

The numbers were taken from Aljazeera, DefenseLink, and Investor's Business Daily.

Here is a link to confirm those numbers further, and below is a video from the Pentagon Channel (courtesy of Amy Proctor).


Let's not forget that Iraq has just asked us to stay indefinitely while kicking the UN to the curb. This happened just days after AQI's last stronghold in Iraq was taken by the coalition.

As AQI is running for their lives ... 6000 Sunnis just signed up with the coalition to cut off their escape routes.

I've been telling you for a while now about the progress in Iraq before, and since, the surge.

It's bad enough that Ron Paul believes in conspiracies, opposed Amber Alert, thinks it's ok for minor children to be taken out of state to get abortions without the parents knowing, is a huge porker, and don't even get me started on his views of the CIA and FBI. He's got to tone down the lies about Iraq, and focus on potential conflicts in the future.

As soon as I can find video of Ron Paul saying we lost ... I'll post it.

Update 2:

Here is the transcript for the debate when Ron Paul said the surge failed.

"Already, part of their country has been taken back. In the south, they claim the surge has worked, but the surge really hasn’t worked. There’s less violence, but al-Sadr has essentially won in the south.

The British are leaving. The brigade of Al Sadr now is in charge, so they are getting their country back. They’re in charge up north — the Shia — the people in the north are in charge, as well, and there’s no violence up there or nearly as much."

I've seen a few people post my story in full around the net (please provide a link back to me), and I've been reading comments from RP supporters saying how violence went down because the Brits left. Not so, and here's the proof.

As you can see, when the Brits initially pulled back violence went up. What Paul and his supporters keep neglecting to tell you is that we only maintain control of Iraqi territory until the Iraqis can take over security there. This is hardly an empirical strategy Rep. Paul.

I outlined how much of Iraq is being turned over to Iraqi forces here.

The Brits pulled back because Basra was always a relatively safe place in Iraq due to the low diversity level, and the Iraqis were ready to take control there. So they did, and they kicked the crap out of the Shiite militia to restore order. That's the template for Iraq. Once the Iraqis are ready ... let them do the work, but they have to be ready. If we pull back when they aren't ready ... the results will be disastrous.

Paul also said that Sadr won in souther Iraq. This shows a complete lack of knowledge on Paul's part. Not only has Sadr not won ... his forces are in shambles.

After Sadr went into hiding shortly before the surge, his forces split into rival factions. He would later reemerge to attempt to reunite his militia, but a particularly nasty battle for Sadre's forces in Karbala forced him to call for a 6 month cessation of hostilities so he could repair the damage done to his organization.

Hardly the actions of someone who was victorious.

Finally, I found the video from the debate where Ron Paul says the surge failed, we lost, and seemed to endorse a Sadr victory in Basra as a good thing.


Oh, and Rep. Paul, those people in the north are called the Kurds. They want us to stay, and it isn't a good sign to have a presidential candidate that can't identify who the Kurds are. Especially with the issues between Kurds and Turkey.

Here's another video where Ron Paul talks about his $4.3 million raised on Guy Fawkes day. The question and answer start at 1:38 into the vid.


Paul forgot to mention that a decent chunk of that money came from Stormfront, a white supremacist group, and whether or not he's returned any of the racist's money. Since he cited the full $4.3 million ... I doubt he's refunded anything.

Here's a link about the Paul/Stormfront connection.

Another.

Here's a vid with Stormfront radio.


You get the idea.

I am in no way saying that Paul is a racist, but racists have latched onto his campaign, and he is not preventing their support from reaching his campaign funds. Nor is he denouncing them.

It is also important to note that while the honcho at Stormfront only donated $500 ... he and other racist groups lobbied for Paul in mass for the 5th of November fundraiser.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Breaking News: Vice President Cheney In Hospital For Irregular Heart Beat

0 comments
I'm watching Fox News right now and they just broke in that Cheney is in the hospital for an irregular heart beat involving the upper chambers of the heart. He was admitted because of a lingering cough from a cold.

They will try a form of treatment in which they will shock Cheney's heart. This will stop his heart temporarily, and hopefully his heart will restart and beat normally.

It won't be long now before the liberal sites start hoping that his heart doesn't restart again.

Best wishes to Cheney and his family.

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Of The 41 Dems Demanding Rush To Apologize ... 39 Of Them Refused To Condemn Personal Attacks On The Honor & Integrity Of Our Troops Last Month

0 comments
I've spent the last two days pointing out this hypocrisy on my show, and blogged about my call to Sen. Reid's office here in Vegas.

Last month the Senate voted on the Cornyn Amendment which not only condemned the "Betray Us" ad, but it also condemned any personal attack on the honor and integrity of our troops.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Several Senate Democrats refused to strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of our troops. They were:

  1. Akaka (D-HI)
  2. Bingaman (D-NM)
  3. Boxer (D-CA)
  4. Brown (D-OH)
  5. Byrd (D-WV)
  6. Clinton (D-NY)
  7. Dodd (D-CT)
  8. Durbin (D-IL)
  9. Feingold (D-WI)
  10. Harkin (D-IA)
  11. Inouye (D-HI)
  12. Kennedy (D-MA)
  13. Kerry (D-MA)
  14. Lautenberg (D-NJ)
  15. Levin (D-MI)
  16. Menendez (D-NJ)
  17. Murray (D-WA)
  18. Reed (D-RI)
  19. Reid (D-NV)
  20. Rockefeller (D-WV)
  21. Sanders (I-VT)
  22. Schumer (D-NY)
  23. Stabenow (D-MI)
  24. Whitehouse (D-RI)
  25. Wyden (D-OR)

Of the 25 above who refused to condemn personal attacks on our troops (because many of them engage in personal attacks themselves) ... only Bingaman and Feingold refused to sign Harry Reid's letter demanding that Clear Channel repudiate Rush Limbaugh for his words which Harry Reid called attacks on:

"The courage and character of those fighting and dying for him and for all of us."

Perhaps Reid should apologize for all the times he insulted the military.

So what exactly is the difference between honor and integrity, and courage and character? Why is it that these Dems are willing to condemn attacks on courage and character, but not honor and integrity? Of course we all know the answer to that ... politics. You'd have to be a fool to not think this is a strategy to build support for the fairness doctrine. For crying out loud, Levin admitted he only read the part of the transcript that Media Matters gave him.

Let's not forget that Media Matters was started by Center for American Progress who was founded by John Podesta, former chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton. You should also know that Hillary had a part in creating both organizations.

Clear Channel told Reid and his minions to go jump in a lake in this letter.

Far more important to the political wrangling going on for the fairness doctrine is the fact that Reid is demanding that Rush apologize to Jesse MacBeth. Whom Rush was specifically talking about on his show at the time. Why would the Democrats support such a character as MacBeth?

He is a proven phony (hence phony soldier), who is now an admitted and convicted phony. He also completely discredited Iraq Veterans Against the War. MacBeth was allowed to speak at IVAW rallies, and was a poster boy for their organization for a time. Yet this group that proclaims to be veterans didn't catch the falsehoods in MacBeth's statements, and image?

How can you trust them to be an honest organization again? The picture below is from their website, and is their featured soldier profile right now. This guy is claiming to be still on active duty?


Notice some things missing?

Harry Reid's political career is coming to an end. You now all know what we in Nevada have known for a long time about this guy. The only reason he was reelected last time was that Nevadans were hoping he could stop Yucca Mountain (which he helped bring here in the first place), but he's done nothing to make that a reality. Reid is nearly done with politics, but we will have to deal with his son, Rory. Don't you guys worry about that ... we'll take care of business on our end this time.

If the Dems are going to constantly act like spoiled children, and get caught lying, there may be hope in 2008. Problem is that too many people do not pay attention to all of this, and will not be prepared to cast their vote for the right candidate. In the meantime, we must keep up the good fight and fight for our troops against this slander so they can continue to make the great progress they've been making overseas.

Friday, August 31, 2007

Sen. Craig ... & Why Innocent People Plead Guilty

1 comments
Now that you've heard the audio of Sen. Craig's interrogation ... do you believe he's innocent, or guilty? Take the poll at the top right of this page.

If you haven't heard the interrogation yet ... go here (about 8 minutes).

I've been talking about this the past couple of days on my show, and found that many people now believe Craig to be innocent after I played the interrogation for them. For me the most important part is what is said in the first 1 1/2 minutes.

From the beginning Craig proclaims his innocence, but expresses that he does not want to fight the cop in court, and he must make that flight. The cop makes it very clear that if he pleads guilty this will go away quietly, and he won't contact the media.

Whether Craig is innocent, I don't know. However, it was a poor decision to plead guilty because there is no way in hell he would have been found guilty in any court of law. There is no evidence at all against him ... other than his plea ... which really doesn't mean much (I'll explain in a bit).

One thing I've been saying since this story broke is that at best this is shotty police work, and extremely unprofessional. Law enforcement never conducts a sting without any form of audio or video confirmation that there was a crime. Yet no standard police tactics used in sting operations were used in this case. I find this highly suspect. The officer could have been fitted with a camera to record the "foot taps" which would have proven his case. Instead, it's down to the word of these two men with no concrete evidence.

There was also, literally, no law broken. That scares me. People have been saying we are moving towards a "Minority Report" society for some time, and cases like this prove them correct.

There was no illegal exposure, or solicitation. Even prostitution stings require video, and for the 'John' to provide money. Merely asking for sex is not enough to arrest. It is not against the law to ask someone if they'd like to have sex (if that's what happened) ... there is only a law against them having sex in a public place, or offering to pay for sex ... neither of which happened. So Sen. Craig may have potentially broken the law had he found a willing partner, but he also may have taken his partner back to a hotel room. We just don't know, and he broke no law. Yet he was forced to decide to fight this publicly or plea when he committed no crime.

For those of you who find it impossible that an innocent person would plea guilty ... I have a reality check for you. Innocent people plead guilty ALL THE TIME! Case in point ...

Truth In Justice:

A defendant's actual innocence is more important than a guilty plea, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled today in siding with a man who admitted to sexual assault only to later produce evidence that would exonerate him.

Defense attorneys hailed the ruling as critical to keeping the justice system open to defendants who are convicted but can later prove their innocence.

The court had already determined that a defendant can appeal when new evidence contradicts a guilty verdict during trial. But it hadn't decided what to do with someone who pleads guilty to a crime. The court ruled 5-4 on a case from Dallas County. The defendant's new claim of innocence, with the evidence to back it up, outweigh his previous guilty plea, the court said.

Punishing an innocent person violates due process, the court majority said in an opinion written by Judge Tom Price. "The purpose of criminal proceedings is to separate the guilty from the innocent," Price wrote. "The guilty plea process is not perfect." Wesley Ronald Tuley went to trial on aggravated sexual assault charges in 1997.

It is not only sad that this man was forced to plea guilty to a crime he didn't commit, but it is more sad that 4 judges were not willing to overturn his guilty plea after he proved his innocence.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

In the criminal justice system, defendants in federal court can be convicted one of two ways -- by pleading guilty or after a trial.

Those who choose to admit their guilt are often "rewarded" with lesser sentences.

Those who choose to take advantage of their Constitutional right to trials are often "penalized" with harsher sentences.

Prosecutors argue that guilty pleas are essential, and without them the system would be crippled by thousands of cases backlogged for trial. Further, they think that defendants who take responsibility for their crimes deserve to benefit.

Defense attorneys and some academics, though, argue that the system is so skewed that most clients are forced to accept pleas, knowing that if they take their chances at trial and lose, they will face sentences that are at least 25 percent higher.

Some view it as a "trial penalty." Others look at it as a "plea reward."

"However you prefer to frame it, if you go to trial [and lose], closer to the full wrath of the law will be brought down upon you," said John H. Kramer, a former director of the U.S. Sentencing Commission.

The article then provides an example of a couple who were charged with a crime. One plead guilty, and was sentenced to six months house arrest. The other went to trial, and was given 33 months in prison ... big difference.

Would you plead guilty to avoid 33 months in prison when you know you will only face 6 months at home? You likely would, but just in case you are telling yourself that you wouldn't ... take into account that 1/6 juries get the verdict wrong in this country. Did that change your mind?

By pleading guilty, a defendant receives an automatic sentence reduction of at least two levels, and sometimes three. In some cases, that means a 35 percent reduction in prison time before anything else is even considered -- like cooperating with the government or other mitigating circumstances.

A 35% reduction in punishment is pretty enticing if you have a family, and good job.

Carmen Hernandez, first vice president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, calls guilty pleas "the bane of our existence."

"As a defense attorney, you're caught between a rock and a hard place," she said.

Defendants often weigh the consequences they face -- even if they are not guilty -- and choose to plead just to avoid the possibility of an increased prison term, she said.

"The incentive is so great that it's hard to stand on principle and say 'I'm not going to do it,' " Ms. Hernandez said.

She also thinks that by avoiding jury trials, there's less of an effort to "keep the system honest."

"If the government had to try every case, maybe they'd be more selective in the cases they prosecute," said Ms. Hernandez, who worked as a federal public defender for 16 years.

And when defendants plead to the charges against them, prosecutors are not forced to prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt, she added.

Nationally, for fiscal year 2004, 95.5 percent of the 51,666 (federal, not state) convictions were reached through guilty pleas. That means that only 2,316 U.S. District Court cases across the country went to trial.

95.5% of all convictions are guilty pleas, and we know for a fact that several of them are innocent. Most will never be allowed to prove their innocence, however, because unlike the Texas case mentioned above ... most guilty pleas are permanent.

Mr. Kramer, who now teaches at Penn State University, believes the American court system has been acclimated to processing guilty pleas.

"It's a perfectly laughable system," he said. "The prosecutors love it. The message is any sane defendant, guilty or innocent, ought to do the prosecutor's bidding."

Congress keeps increasing possible criminal penalties and establishing mandatory minimum sentences, which in turn give prosecutors more leverage to convince defendants to plead guilty, Mr. Alschuler said.

"We keep jacking up penalties to induce guilty pleas," he said.

"We have built up an opportunity for prosecutors to pile on," added Mr. Kramer. "It is a significant armament in the prosecution."

Naturally, the prosecutors disagree, and like the system. The defense attorneys also go too far in saying that all cases should go to trial. We just don't have the resources for that. That ruling in Texas has the right idea. You should be free to plea guilty if you don't have the evidence to defend yourself in court, but you should be allowed to retract that plea once you do have the evidence so you can defend your innocence. That is the only fair way of doing things.

That is why I see no problem with Craig retracting his guilty plea to defend himself. He clearly states several times during the interrogation that he wants this to go away, and the cop tells him it will ... if you plead guilty. Well, it went away for 3 months, but is very public now. Therefore, Craig should be allowed to withdraw his plea, and take his chances in court. Given the release of the interrogation ... Craig would win his innocence in such a case.

Michael Vick fans should also watch the Craig case closely. If Craig succeeds ... you may see Vick withdraw his guilty plea at some point in the future to fight his charges.

Note:

I am not saying Vick is innocent, or guilty. Frankly, I would not be surprised either way. I do have many questions about the case, and I'm not convinced that Vick is guilty. Other than the word of 3 people (some already back in jail on other charges) that now only face 25% of their original sentence because they are fingering Vick ... there isn't any concrete evidence. At least not made public. That may mean that Vick will take his chances in court at a later date, if Craig is successful, as long as he can build his own case.




Friday, August 24, 2007

Ted Nugent Unhinged (NSFW)

0 comments

When libs do this sort of thing there is usually a backlash from members of the audience. It will be interesting to see if Ted faces any adverse reaction. At least you know he's politically active when you buy his tickets.

CAT SCRATCH FEVER!




Monday, August 13, 2007

Rove Steps Down

0 comments
I know, I know, everyone is doing this story. Nor do I need to put in the effort to quote what some of the prominent liberal blogs are saying about the situation. Just read the story HERE if you haven't already.







Friday, July 20, 2007

After Arguing Like Children ... The Senate Agrees To Have Vote Removed From Record

0 comments
Wow, this is embarrassing. Not only did the Senate (supposed to be the more dignified of Congress) behave like immature children, but then they had a vote removed from the public record.

Fox News:

A brawl over presidential pardons punctured the normally courtly ambiance of the Senate on Thursday night, but Republicans and Democrats agreed to bury the hatchet and erase the evidence before the sun rose Friday.

In the heat of a partisan spat, Democrats forced a vote on a nonbinding measure to instruct President Bush not to pardon former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. But there's no record of the 47-49 vote in the daily record of congressional proceedings — or anywhere else.

That's because senators agreed less than an hour later to undo their vote and pretend it had never happened.

So what was this super secret vote all about? Clinton, and Libby, and pardons! Oh, my!

The debate took a dubious turn just after dinnertime, when Republicans brought up a number of unrelated amendments that Democrats decried as politically motivated.

They included an unsuccessful bid by Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., to bar the Federal Communications Commission from reinstating the so-called Fairness Doctrine that would require broadcasters to balance conservative and liberal content. Another failed amendment by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., would have required secret ballot elections for the formation of unions, instead of making it optional — a direct challenge to organized labor, a source of strong Democratic political support.

Democrats retaliated with their own partisan salvo, the Libby pardon resolution.

"Regrettably, if you are going to shoot this way, we have to shoot that way," Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., said as he brought up the "sense of the Senate" measure.

What followed was a scene more commonly witnessed on the other side of the Capitol in the more raucous House. As senators hooted and brayed amid calls of "Regular order!", Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. pointedly noted that it's against Senate rules to call an amendment politically motivated.

After Salazar's amendment failed, Republicans took their turn, offering a nonbinding resolution deploring the actions of Bill Clinton for issuing pardons to the likes of his half brother Roger, and clemency for members of a Puerto Rican nationalist group blamed for bombings in the 1970s and 1980s.

"If the Senate has decided to go into debating the appropriateness of future pardons, there is plenty of material to go around on past pardons," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader.

Before that could happen, though, the two leaders cut a deal to defuse the tension. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. said his side would take back their Libby amendment — including zapping the vote from the record — if McConnell took back his Clinton swipe.

With that, the Senate got back down to business and completed the education bill in the wee hours of Friday morning.


Cheney Will Become President This Saturday!

1 comments

The moment so many of you out there have dreaded will arrive this Saturday. Vice President Cheney will become President of the United States.

CNN:

President Bush will undergo a routine colonoscopy Saturday, and will transfer power to Vice President Dick Cheney during the procedure, expected to take about two and a half hours, the chief White House spokesman said.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Friday, July 13, 2007

Ron Paul Says U.S. May Stage Terrorist Attack, References Gulf Of Tonkin

4 comments
This is too funny (h/t Hotair)

Ron Paul asserts that we are in "great danger" of a Tonkin Gulf incident about 1:50 into the clip.

My question is, of course, which ship is he referring to in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The USS Maddox was, in fact, attacked by N. Vietnamese P-4 boats, and has the video and damage to prove it.

However, the attack 2 days later on the Turner Joy did not happen, and has been attributed to an overzealous radar man still nervous about the attack on the Maddox two days before.



Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Is Fred Thompson Anti-Abortion ... Part Deux?

0 comments
I was the first to tell you all this about Fred Thompson's abortion history. You can read about that HERE.

Now a video providing more evidence that Fred may have flip-flopped a little on abortion has surfaced.





Senate Subpoenas White House, & Cheney

0 comments
UPDATE:

Well, this boring story just got very interesting. It seems wiretapping may have allowed the US to catch a major Mexican forgery scam designed to provide fake documentation that illegals were in the US long enough to qualify for amnesty.



I know it's a bit boring, and meaningless, but it is a big story today.

AP:

The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed the White House and Vice President Dick Cheney's office Wednesday for documents relating to President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program.

Also named in subpoenas signed by committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D- Vt., were the Justice Department and the National Security Council. The four parties have until July 18 to comply, according to a statement by Leahy's office.

The committee wants documents that might shed light on internal disputes within the administration over the legality of the program.

They are still looking for illegal activity that doesn't exist. I'm tired of talking about the issue to be honest.



Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Compare The Question Of The Two GOP Debates

0 comments
We all know that the first GOP debate was a debacle, and most likely organized to be a debacle by MSNBC. There were foolish questions, inappropriate questions and flat out disorganization. It was like watching a junior high school debate with a bunch of kids who've never debated before. Fox clearly showed everyone that they are the better news organization with this second debate. They also showed why they have a hell of a lot more viewers than MSNBC.

I ran across this link on Hotair from National Review. It is a video comparison of the questions asked at both GOP debates so you can see who the real news organization is, and who the bias advocacy group is. Enjoy.





Thursday, April 19, 2007

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran?

0 comments

WTF?

I think I might be a little more disturbed by the hellish nose blowing.






 

Copyright 2008 All Rights Reserved Revolution Two Church theme by Brian Gardner Converted into Blogger Template by Bloganol dot com