He's in New York City.
Ahmadinejad.
The "leader" of Iran is in the Big Apple for the annual UN confab. This "leader" of Iran wants to demolish the country of Israel. He supports terrorists across the Middle East. Many believe he was a ringleader in the 1979 attack on the American Embassy in Tehran. The Iranians violated international law by breaching the US embassy and further violated the sacred rights of diplomats by holding Americans hostage for 444 days. That score is still unsettled, in my opinion. Iran ignores UN resolutions and continues to develop nuclear weapons.
Now the American taxpayers are paying for security for this Iranian "leader"!!
Columbia University invited the "leader" of Iran to speak. Free speech is great as we all know. But do Iranians have free speech?
If it were 1940 would Columbia University invite Hitler to speak?
Ahmadinejad wanted to lay a wreath at the WTC site.
That would be like Hitler laying a wreath at one of his death camps.
What is happening to the world?
Have "educated" people lost their sense of right and wrong?
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Norman Hsu
Do you know Norman Hsu (pronounced Shoo)?
Not personally, of course, but do you know who he is? He has been in the news recently.
Hsu's claim to fame is his political fundraising for Democrats. As far as I know Hsu does not donate money to the elephant people. Hsu donated almost a million bucks to H. Clinton's campaign. Once it became publicly known Hsu was a fugitive from justice - running Ponzi schemes and making illegal donations to Democrat politicians- the H. Clinton gang decided they really did not know who Hsu was.
Huh?
Hsu gave H. Clinton almost a million $$ (and other Democrats lots of money also) yet the H. Clinton people expect us to believe they do not know who he is! I was born at night, but it was not last night!
It is like deja vu all over again. It reminds us of the Clintons's actions in the 1996 campaign where they took contributions from foreign sources and others in violation of campaign laws. The Clintons were fined and slapped on the wrists while some of the fund raisers went to jail.
And again -just as in 1996 -the mainstream media permits the Clintons to get away with these illegal actions.
Compare the media's handling of the Norman Hsu scandal to their handling of the Jack Abramoff scandal if you want to see the liberal double standard at work.
No surprise there!
Not personally, of course, but do you know who he is? He has been in the news recently.
Hsu's claim to fame is his political fundraising for Democrats. As far as I know Hsu does not donate money to the elephant people. Hsu donated almost a million bucks to H. Clinton's campaign. Once it became publicly known Hsu was a fugitive from justice - running Ponzi schemes and making illegal donations to Democrat politicians- the H. Clinton gang decided they really did not know who Hsu was.
Huh?
Hsu gave H. Clinton almost a million $$ (and other Democrats lots of money also) yet the H. Clinton people expect us to believe they do not know who he is! I was born at night, but it was not last night!
It is like deja vu all over again. It reminds us of the Clintons's actions in the 1996 campaign where they took contributions from foreign sources and others in violation of campaign laws. The Clintons were fined and slapped on the wrists while some of the fund raisers went to jail.
And again -just as in 1996 -the mainstream media permits the Clintons to get away with these illegal actions.
Compare the media's handling of the Norman Hsu scandal to their handling of the Jack Abramoff scandal if you want to see the liberal double standard at work.
No surprise there!
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
General Petraeus
Well, the Democrats tried to make General Petraeus look bad as they normally do with members of the military. My observations of the hearings -both House and Senate - revealed a cool, calm, and controlled Petraeus. Heavens know the general must have wanted to smack many of the silly liberal politicians up-side their heads. H. Clinton all but called the general a liar.
Can anyone imagine a US Senator during World War II calling Gen Ike a liar? There were many many dreadful mistakes made durinng WWII but the politicians were of a better quality than those of today.
Many liberals and most Democrat politicians do not understand the War on Terror (Wot). Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Schumer, and others either do not understand what is at stake in the WoT or they do not care. Expediency appears to be their main concern as they cannot see past the next TV interview.
I was hoping the Dems would blast General Petraeus (a sure loser for the Dems) - we all know they wanted to blast him - but their collective memory of the beating they received at the hands of Lt. Col North restricted their tongues. It is clear to me the Democrat plan was to have their surrogates - the nuts at Moveon.org and the other nuts at the other Loony Left asylums do their dirty work.
The NY (Bad) Times (sic) ran a full page ad by the Moveon gang which assassinated the character of General Petraeus. The general has devoted his life to serving the nation with honor whereas the nuts at Moveon.org or George Soros has done WHAT? for the nation.
Just what has Soros and the gang at Moveon done to make the United States or the world a better place?
Hmmmmmmmmmm?
The bottom line is the Democrats would be 100 percent behind the WoT (of which Iraq is one part) if a Democrat, any Democrat, were in the White House. It is simple as that.
Partisan politics rules in Washington, DC.
Can anyone imagine a US Senator during World War II calling Gen Ike a liar? There were many many dreadful mistakes made durinng WWII but the politicians were of a better quality than those of today.
Many liberals and most Democrat politicians do not understand the War on Terror (Wot). Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Durbin, Schumer, and others either do not understand what is at stake in the WoT or they do not care. Expediency appears to be their main concern as they cannot see past the next TV interview.
I was hoping the Dems would blast General Petraeus (a sure loser for the Dems) - we all know they wanted to blast him - but their collective memory of the beating they received at the hands of Lt. Col North restricted their tongues. It is clear to me the Democrat plan was to have their surrogates - the nuts at Moveon.org and the other nuts at the other Loony Left asylums do their dirty work.
The NY (Bad) Times (sic) ran a full page ad by the Moveon gang which assassinated the character of General Petraeus. The general has devoted his life to serving the nation with honor whereas the nuts at Moveon.org or George Soros has done WHAT? for the nation.
Just what has Soros and the gang at Moveon done to make the United States or the world a better place?
Hmmmmmmmmmm?
The bottom line is the Democrats would be 100 percent behind the WoT (of which Iraq is one part) if a Democrat, any Democrat, were in the White House. It is simple as that.
Partisan politics rules in Washington, DC.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Invested in Defeat
Have we ever seen a political party invest so much political capital in defeat in Iraq as the Democrats have done? Never in American history with the exception of the Democrats during the Civil War has a party been so committed to a negative outcome in a military confrontation.
What will the Democrats say to General Petraeus? Will they accuse him of wearing rose colored glasses? Will the Democrats grill the general over the political failures -to date- of the Iraqi government? Will the Democrats ignore the clear signs of positive changes in Iraq?
Why has the Democrat Party adopted the "Lose at all costs" approach to the conflict in Iraq? Sure, there are still many problems to solve in Iraq. Sure, the country is divided along tribal, religious, and regional lines. And it is an open question whether the Iraqi government, the current government and future governments, can unite all the factions into a coherent functioning national government. But why have the Democrats taken the negative road in this struggle? Do they think the American people want defeat in Iraq. A portion of the Democrat base surely wants the United States defeated in Iraq just as the same portion invested heavily in the US defeat in Vietnam. That explains a lot about the Democrat Party. Many of the current leaders in the Democrat Party cut their political teeth on the American defeat in Vietnam. Just ask John Kerry. The Iraqi situation reminds them of their fixation on Vietnam.
But the main reason the Democrats invest in defeat in Iraq is because of George Bush. Success in Iraq means Bush gets credit for vision, for military actions. for courage, for diplomacy, and for doing the right thing. Democrats cannot allow that to happen.
What will the Democrats say to General Petraeus? Will they accuse him of wearing rose colored glasses? Will the Democrats grill the general over the political failures -to date- of the Iraqi government? Will the Democrats ignore the clear signs of positive changes in Iraq?
Why has the Democrat Party adopted the "Lose at all costs" approach to the conflict in Iraq? Sure, there are still many problems to solve in Iraq. Sure, the country is divided along tribal, religious, and regional lines. And it is an open question whether the Iraqi government, the current government and future governments, can unite all the factions into a coherent functioning national government. But why have the Democrats taken the negative road in this struggle? Do they think the American people want defeat in Iraq. A portion of the Democrat base surely wants the United States defeated in Iraq just as the same portion invested heavily in the US defeat in Vietnam. That explains a lot about the Democrat Party. Many of the current leaders in the Democrat Party cut their political teeth on the American defeat in Vietnam. Just ask John Kerry. The Iraqi situation reminds them of their fixation on Vietnam.
But the main reason the Democrats invest in defeat in Iraq is because of George Bush. Success in Iraq means Bush gets credit for vision, for military actions. for courage, for diplomacy, and for doing the right thing. Democrats cannot allow that to happen.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Who is the Real Environmentalist?
Read this and decide who is the "real" green person concerned about the environment.
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern “snow belt,” either. It’s in the South.
HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house contains 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on an arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee.
It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
So whose house is gentler on the environment?
Yet another story you WON’T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post.
Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it’s truly “an inconvenient truth.”
If true, indeed, inconveient for Algore.
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern “snow belt,” either. It’s in the South.
HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house contains 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on an arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee.
It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also known as “the Texas White House,” it is the private residence of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
So whose house is gentler on the environment?
Yet another story you WON’T hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the Washington Post.
Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it’s truly “an inconvenient truth.”
If true, indeed, inconveient for Algore.
Summer Recess
Aaaahhhh!
Congress is out of town for the month of August so I can breath easier for a few weeks. No threats to raise taxes, no political high jinks, no publicity stunts, no mad rush to the TV cameras, and praise be even if it is only for a short month.
I wish Congress would take more time away from Washington. Why do we, the American people, need Congress in town for months and months? If Congress fulfilled its basic duties and stopped the silly partisan games, the American people might think more highly of it. Last report I heard Congress's approval rating was 18. President Bush's rating was 31. Thirty one is higher than 18, at least using old math.
So Congress, do us a favor and stay away.
Congress is out of town for the month of August so I can breath easier for a few weeks. No threats to raise taxes, no political high jinks, no publicity stunts, no mad rush to the TV cameras, and praise be even if it is only for a short month.
I wish Congress would take more time away from Washington. Why do we, the American people, need Congress in town for months and months? If Congress fulfilled its basic duties and stopped the silly partisan games, the American people might think more highly of it. Last report I heard Congress's approval rating was 18. President Bush's rating was 31. Thirty one is higher than 18, at least using old math.
So Congress, do us a favor and stay away.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Predictions
Want to make a weather prediction?
Go ahead. Do it.
When it comes to predicting hurricanes, your guess (why not just write numbers 1 -20 on paper, put them into a pot, and select one) is as good as the experts. And perhaps more accurate.
Last year some expert "predicted" a total of 17 or 18 hurricanes based on his scientific knowledge of weather patterns and his feel for political correctness. Last year not a single hurricane touched the United States if my old memory serves me correctly.
This year the "expert" predicted 17 hurricanes with a likely five being severe storms.
As of today -7 August 2007- not a single hurricane has been sighted in the western hemisphere.
Where did they go?
Maybe the hurricanes did not get the memo from Algore saying global warming causes more hurricanes and more "severe" hurricanes.
I predict the sun will rise tomorrow.
Go ahead. Do it.
When it comes to predicting hurricanes, your guess (why not just write numbers 1 -20 on paper, put them into a pot, and select one) is as good as the experts. And perhaps more accurate.
Last year some expert "predicted" a total of 17 or 18 hurricanes based on his scientific knowledge of weather patterns and his feel for political correctness. Last year not a single hurricane touched the United States if my old memory serves me correctly.
This year the "expert" predicted 17 hurricanes with a likely five being severe storms.
As of today -7 August 2007- not a single hurricane has been sighted in the western hemisphere.
Where did they go?
Maybe the hurricanes did not get the memo from Algore saying global warming causes more hurricanes and more "severe" hurricanes.
I predict the sun will rise tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
