Friday, February 29, 2008

"Chemical Ali" To Meet With Saddam

In Hell:

Iraq's presidential council has endorsed the execution within a month of Saddam Hussein's cousin, known as "Chemical Ali," for his role in the 1980s scorched-earth campaign against Kurds, officials said Friday. But it spared the life of two other officials amid Sunni protests that they were only following orders.

The approval by Iraq's President Jalal Talabani and two vice presidents was the final step clearing the way for Ali Hassan al-Majid's execution by hanging. It could now be carried out at any time, a government adviser and a prosecutor said.

Al-Majid was one of three former Saddam officials sentenced to death in June after being convicted by an Iraqi court of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity for their part in the Operation Anfal crackdown that killed nearly 200,000 Kurdish civilians and guerrillas.

Al-Majid was nicknamed "Chemical Ali" for ordering poison gas attacks that killed thousands.

Couldn't happen to a nicer person.

Who Says Guns Deter Criminals? The Law Enforcement Alliance Of America Does

From World Net Daily:

When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1966, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.

And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.

The arguments come in an amicus brief submitted by the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, whose spokesman, Ted Deeds, told WND there now are 92 different law enforcement voices speaking together to the Supreme Court in the Heller case.


"Guns save lives," the brief said. "In the hands of law-abiding citizens, guns provide very substantial public safety benefits. In all 50 states – but not the District – it is lawful to use firearms for defense against home invaders. The legal ownership of firearms for home defense is an important reason why the American rate of home invasion burglaries is far lower than in countries which prohibit or discourage home handgun defense."

The brief said handgun ownership reduces the number of confrontational home invasions, so "the total U.S. violent crime rate [is reduced] by about 9 percent."

Read the rest at the link.

This is probably one of the top 5 cases the Supreme Court has ever heard. Montana officials sure think so.

Thursday, February 28, 2008

It Depends On What The Meaning Of "Change" Is

How many times have you heard it? Change. While it is true the majority of Americans do want change, most do not agree on the direction of change we need. I want things to change. The only thing is, I am sure the change I want is 180 deg. from the change Obama and Hillary want. And it is probably 145 deg. from the direction McCain wants to go.

So here is my idea of change:

1) I want to be able to watch a candidate give a speech and not keep repeating over and over "stop trying to pander to as many different groups as you can". I want to see them look right at the people and tell them what they truly believe.

2) I want a candidate that wants to honest to goodness cut my taxes and let me keep as much of my money as possible. And by this I mean permanently! I don't want a temporary cut of my taxes. I want them eliminated to the largest extent possible.

3) I want a candidate that will stop spending my money like crazy. This country cannot keep spending like it does and not see serious problems come from it. A million here, a billion there, for every little thing that comes along. It needs to stop. Spend our money wisely.

4) I want a candidate that will leave me alone so I can handle my own affairs. Let me take care of me. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government has a responsibility to provide for me. The government is here to ensure I have the opportunity to succeed, not to ensure that I do. Leave that part to me. If you are not willing to do what it takes to ensure you succeed then move to Europe.

5) I want a candidate that will put decisions about my health in the hands of my doctor and myself. Does the system need some change? Yes it does. But should we give the government control of making our health decisions for us? NO! Name one program the government runs fairly, efficiently, or effectively. Hurry I am waiting.

6) I want a candidate that is willing to accept all of the bill of rights. Freedom of press, speech, religion as well as the most important one- the second. Without it the others will soon disappear.

7) I want a candidate that is concerned with the sovereignty of the United States. Being nice and having good relations with other countries is important. But at the end of the day we need to worry about us.

8) I want a candidate that will close our borders, and control the amount and the kinds of people that enter this country. We also need to ensure companies are following the laws about who is legal to work in this country. We cannot keep supplying for our people and Mexico's.

9) I want a candidate that will cut our dependence on foreign oil. We need to take advantage of our own resources. Drill it. In case you did not know the whole ethanol thing is destroying our economy. Food prices are sky rocketing and the production of this product is just as bad for the environment as oil. I agree that something needs to be done, but let the private sector take care of it. ( see no.4)

I don't think I am going to be excited about the "change" that we are going to see, do you?

These are just a few ideas I have for "change". Feel free to add your own in the comments.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

What do you think?

What do you think when you see this?:

I don't have a huge problem with this. Of course, he should have known this was going to happen. The fact that he goes to a foreign country and "kisses up" a little just puts him in line with most of the other politicians in Washington.

It is a little "iffy" doing this at a time of war with soldiers that wear this uniform, but we know what he thinks about the war.

My problems with Barack H. Obama has to do with the issues. I think he would badly damage this country should he get the opportunity to become president.

John Stossel: Guns Save Lives

This is a great article on guns:

It's all too predictable. A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks.

The editorial board wants "the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth."

As usual, the Times editors seem unaware of how silly their argument is. To them, the choice is between "carefully controlling guns" and "arming everyone to the teeth." But no one favors "arming everyone to the teeth" (whatever that means). Instead, gun advocates favor freedom, choice and self-responsibility. If someone wishes to be prepared to defend himself, he should be free to do so. No one has the right to deprive others of the means of effective self-defense, like a handgun.

Read it all at the link. The money quote from the article:

..."If someone gets into your house, which would you rather have, a handgun or a telephone? You can call the police if you want, and they'll get there, and they'll take a picture of your dead body. But they can't get there in time to save your life. The first line of defense is you."

I heard a discussion the day after this shooting on the radio. Sorry, I can't remember who it was. One of the people said that an armed citizen might have been able to prevent, at least, some of the deaths. The other person raked them over the coals for politicizing the topic so close to the time of the shootings. I guess that all depends on which side of the topic you agree with.

It is a simple fact that an armed citizen is safer in these situations than an unarmed one.

Friday, February 22, 2008

Why We Need To Insure Iran Does Not Go Nuclear

Forget about the threat to Israel for a minute. We know what would happen there. Read this:

Two more Iraqis with false Bulgarian passports were detained by Mexican officials in Monterrey – bringing the total to four this month.

Wisam Gorgies, a 34-year-old man, and Rana Nazar Peyoz, a 26-year-old woman, reportedly flew from Madrid and landed in Monterrey, according to reports in two Mexican newspapers today.

Following questioning, the pair admitted they intended to reach the United States. They were taken to Saltillo in the state of Coahuila, for final determination of their status.

They claimed to be fleeing the war, but the last time I checked there wasn't a lot of war related activities going on in Iran. Look we all know how easy it is to get into this country. Given that the next president will not do anything to curtail this, we must not allow rouge countries to get nukes.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Hillary Says Something I Agree With, Sort Of

I know it is hard to believe. In tonights debate she was talking about illegal immigration. She said: “We need a path to legalization to bring the immigrants out of the shadows.” (not what I agree with) She went on: “If they committed a crime, they should be deported. But a path to everyone else.” (this is what I agree with) I will go along with this 100%. If they committed a crime deport them! A path (to citizenship) to everyone else. Of course, the number of people on that path would be nil, since it is a damn crime to enter this country illegally.

Red Skelton Explains The Pledge of Allegiance

It looks like Red knew what was coming:

H/T: A Soldier's Prespective

Montana Officials Claim Second Amendment Rights Are Clear

From World Net Daily:

Montana officials are saying that the United States already has resolved any questions about the 2nd Amendment's application, defining that "any person" has the right to bears arms.

That's the issue at hand in a pending U.S. Supreme Court case originating in the District of Columbia, where authorities have banned handguns under the claim that such a limit is "reasonable" and therefore enforceable even given the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment.


"If the Supreme Court were to accept the Solicitor General's line of argument, D.C.'s categorical gun ban of virtually all self-defense firearms could well be found to be constitutional. ..."

He warned such a precedent to affirm any and all gun restrictions if they are considered by a judge to be "reasonable" would place those rights on the lowest rung of the constitutional ladder.

How serious are these lawmakers?:

In a joint resolution from the Montana leaders, including Congressman Denny Rehberg, they caution that should the Supreme Court decide to change the U.S. interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and allow those rights to apply only collectively, it would violate the contract under which Montana entered the union as a state.

"The Montana Resolution cautions that a collective rights decision would violate the Montana contract for statehood because when that contract was entered the collective rights interpretation had not yet been invented and the individual rights view was an accepted part of the contract," an announcement from the leaders said.

"A collective rights decision in [the pending court case] Heller would not only violate Montana's contract for statehood, but also Montana's customs, culture and heritage. We hope the Supreme Court will recognize and credit the contract argument, an argument unmentioned in any of the briefs submitted in the Heller case," said Gary Marbut, the president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.

Good for them. I hope there are a lot more states that come out with Resolutions like this. As a matter of fact, I think I am going to write my representatives now. If you feel inclined to do the same, check out the new "Write to Congress" gizmo in the side bar. Just throw your zip code in there and start writing.

Fox News: Duke Lacrosse Players File Federal Lawsuit Against University, City of Durham

From Fox:

More than three dozen current and former Duke lacrosse players filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against the university, saying the elite school "turned its back" on them.

They also are suing the city of Durham and others involved in the case.

The players claim they suffered emotional distress during the since-discredited rape case pursued against three of their teammates.

Lead attorney Chuck Cooper said Thursday the private university refused to support the players to protect the school's image.

"They simply turned their back on these students," said Cooper. "Players have made every effort to resolve these issues with Duke. There is no other course at this point."

Good for them. They were treated like criminals and were not even involved in the case.

McCain Is Between A Rock And A Hard Place

Well it looks like the libs in the MSM are finally ready to go after Senator McCain. I am sure all of you have heard about McCain and the female lobbyist. If not check it out at here.

Senator McCain has a very big problem. He has to try to appeal to the base of the Republican Party all while keeping his support from the moderate and independents. The things that make him popular with the moderates and independents are the very things that is causing the problems with the "base". Sure he will get a lot of support from Republicans because he is not Obama or Clinton, but will it be enough? Right now it could go either way.

One thing is for sure, the courtship with the MSM is over. When push comes to shove the will side with the left every time. So let the fireworks begin. This should be an interesting six months.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Government Controlled Health Care At It's Best

Say you want Universal Health Care:
Created 60 years ago as a cornerstone of the British welfare state, the National Health Service is devoted to the principle of free medical care for everyone. But recently it has been wrestling with a problem its founders never anticipated: how to handle patients with complex illnesses who want to pay for parts of their treatment while receiving the rest free from the health service.


One such case was Debbie Hirst’s. Her breast cancer had metastasized, and the health service would not provide her with Avastin, a drug that is widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay. So, with her oncologist’s support, she decided last year to try to pay the $120,000 cost herself, while continuing with the rest of her publicly financed treatment.

By December, she had raised $20,000 and was preparing to sell her house to raise more. But then the government, which had tacitly allowed such arrangements before, put its foot down. Mrs. Hirst heard the news from her doctor. “He looked at me and said: ‘I’m so sorry, Debbie. I’ve had my wrists slapped from the people upstairs, and I can no longer offer you that service,’ ” Mrs. Hirst said in an interview.

“I said, ‘Where does that leave me?’ He said, ‘If you pay for Avastin, you’ll have to pay for everything’ ” — in other words, for all her cancer treatment, far more than she could afford.

Better to let her cancer spread than to let her buy the drugs she needs to extend her life. In an effort to make everyone equal Mrs. Hirst has to pay the price, with her own health. She could not really afford the drugs but had raised about one sixth of the money and was willing to sell her home for the rest. What has happened to her you ask:

But in a final irony, Mrs. Hirst was told early this month that her cancer had spread and her condition had deteriorated so much she could have the Avastin after all — paid for by the health service. In other words, a system that forbade her to buy the medicine earlier was now saying that she was so sick she could have it at public expense.

Mrs. Hirst is pleased, but only up to a point. Avastin is not a cure, but a way to extend her life, perhaps only by several months, and she has missed valuable time. “It may be too bloody late,” she said.

“I’m a person who left school at 15 and I’ve worked all my life and I’ve paid into the system, and I’m not going to live long enough to get my old-age pension from this government,” she added.

She also knows that the drug can have grave side effects. “I have campaigned for this drug, and if it goes wrong and kills me, c’est la vie,” she said. But, she said, speaking of the government: “If the drug doesn’t have a fair chance because the cancer has advanced so much, then they should be raked over the coals for it.”

This is one story about government controlled health care out of many. This is the kind of thing that I am afraid we are going to hear about in the near future in the good old USA. Do you really want the same people that are destroying Social Security, Medicare and everything else they control in charge of what treatment you get. I think these decisions should be made by my doctor and myself.

H/T: Red State

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Michelle Obama Is Finally Proud To Be An American

Check this statement, from Michelle Obama out:

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country,” she told a Milwaukee crowd today, “and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

Let me just say this: I have always been proud of my country. I know we have some problems, but where else on this Earth would you want to live?

It is amazing to think that any citizen of this country, much less the wife of a Senator could actually say such a thing.

I would like to go on record right now and say that I am against change. I am not saying things could not be better, but every time those asshats in Washington "change" something, it ends up a lot worse than when they started.

Is It "Global Warming" Or "Climate Change"?

We all know about Global Warming, right? Here is some news you won't see in the MSM:

Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years.

"It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday.

"That means that maybe the perennial ice would not go down as low as last year."


"The ice is about 10 to 20 centimeters thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said.

If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand.

Don't worry though, the fear mongers have already started to work this into there argument. You don't hear the term "Global Warming" anymore. Now it is " Climate Change". So let's see, if the temperature goes up, it is our fault. If the temperature goes down, it is our fault. So the experts have no idea what is going on. The only thing they can tell us is it is our fault.

I was listening to Dennis Miller last week and he said something along these lines: The same people that are predicting warmer weather in the year 2050 is the same people who told you it was not going to rain today. Before you start looking 50 years ahead, figure out how to get tomorrow right.


Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mitt To Endorse McCain

Not surprising:

AP Video Republican campaign dropout Mitt Romney agreed Thursday to endorse Sen. John McCain for the party's presidential nomination and ask his national convention delegates to swing behind the party front-runner, according to officials familiar with the decision.

I have contended from the start that the gap between Romney and McCain was pretty narrow. I did vote for Mitt in the primary, simply because he was the only one left that could possibly convince me he was going to act like a conservative. He had not convinced me when he dropped out though. I think all the hoopla about him being the "most" conservative one was wishful thinking. When Thompson and Hunter left the race, so did conservative principals. Except for Paul who is scary as hell when it comes to foreign policy.

I still will not vote for McCain. I know the argument - Anyone is better than he Democrats. I am not so sure McCain would be that much better. Look, a lot of people are saying that we need McCain because of the war. I do not think any of the three candidates with a chance to win are going to be that quick to pull out. I know, I know; Obama says he will. That is pandering. None of them are going to want to be the one that surrenders to the terrorists. Especially when things are going as good as they are. They may use it to get votes, but things change when it is your presidency that takes the hits.

That being said, I am not under the impression that the Dems are not going to screw things up. But I will remind you, McCain wants to shut down Gitmo. He don't want water boarding. This is where I differ from most people. If torturing someone will save one innocent life I am all for it. Not just water boarding either. Pull out the good stuff. You know, he stuff you see on these crazy movies and TV shows. These people will do anything possible to hurt us. We need to use anything possible to ensure they are not given the chance.

Sorry, back to the main topic. Romney is endorsing McCain. McCain is not at all concerned with what conservatives hold dear. It has come out today that McCain is good on taxes. That is good. He wants to cut spending. That is great. I will give him credit where it is due. But he will pull the party further to the left and I can not support him.

Gun Owners Beware Of The Bush Administration

Robert A. Levy calls the brief filed by the Bush Administration a breached promise:

If you think the District of Columbia's ban on all functional firearms in all homes is a reasonable regulation under the Second Amendment, you'll love the friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Bush administration in D.C. v. Heller, now before the Supreme Court.

The Department of Justice's (DOJ) previously stated position is that the Second Amendment secures a right of individuals not restricted to militia service. But astonishingly, the Justice Department now recommends an elastic standard for determining whether a handgun ban is reasonable. According to the DOJ, the courts should consider the nature and functional adequacy of available alternatives. That may sound sensible at first blush, but it could be fatal to the Heller litigation.

Here's the rub: The Justice Department says the Court of Appeals ruling that overturned the D.C. ban might cast doubt on the constitutionality of existing federal legislation, including machine-gun regulations. So the administration urged that Heller be returned to the lower courts for appropriate fact-finding to determine whether rifles and shotguns in the home, as permitted by the D.C. Code, are an adequate substitute for handguns.

That came as quite a shock to those of us who believed the administration's professed fealty to gunowners' rights. What we got instead was a recommendation that could be the death knell for the only Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly 70 years.

Read the rest at the link, please.

This is serious business. If you are a gun owner living anywhere in the US you need to keep on top of this case. This could open the door to the very fear that most, if not all, gun owners have. This could mean the loss of our right to keep and bear arms. Should this not go our way it will, at the very least, be used to attack our gun rights for years to come.

Go here to check deeper into this. And while you are there, sign up.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Back Up And Running

I'm back online now. Thank goodness.

I have some catching up to do. Some interesting stuff I've found so far:

Michelle Malkin - FISA fight: No more band-aids

Moe Lane at Red State - Crunching the Democratic Numbers, 02/13/08.

Hillbilly White Trash - Another scumbag reports to Hell

Hot Air - Hillary’s chickens coming home to roost?

It's good to be back!

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Computer Problems

I am having some problems with my computer. Sorry, and I'll be up and running as soon as possible.

Monday, February 11, 2008

Bush Wants $1.4 Billion To Help Secure MEXICO's Southern Border



The plan is called “The Merida Initiative.” Seems that the White House has had this plan in the works for nearly a year with little congressional input on either side of the border.

We can’t finish our own border fence, properly supply our immigration agents and border patrol with all the equipment and resources they need, or get our house in order. Yet, the Bush administration wants to fork over $1.4 billion to Mexico and Central America–with much of it going into the hands of corrupt law enforcement officials and government bureaucrats who have worked tirelessly to undermine our immigration laws. The funding is tucked into the 2008 supplemental budget.

Read all of Michelle Malkin's post at the link above.

This is one of the craziest things I have heard of in quite some time. The Bush Administration needs to worry about the US, not MexAmeriCanada. This is an insult to the people of this great country. We spoke up and wanted OUR border secure.

Get this:

Naturally, the State Department has taken a lead role. They’ve held meetings in
secret and cut out members of Congress from discussion. You’ll love the explanation for the secrecy: Mexico is “sensitive,” you see. Also, according to one expert, “Mexico is very protective of its sovereignty and very worried about any incursion of U.S. security forces or private contractors—like Blackwater—coming in to train Mexicans.” Yeah, they’re worried about incursions and sovereignty.

So Mexico is very concerned with their sovereignty, but ours don't mean a damn thing.

Get in touch with your Representatives now and let them know this kind of stuff will not be tolerated.

Friday, February 8, 2008

Iran Is Still Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons

According to this report from The New York Times they are:

Iran has reportedly begun to deploy a new generation of machinery to produce nuclear fuel, a development bound to intensify a debate in Washington about whether a recent National Intelligence Estimate accurately portrayed Tehran’s progress toward the ability to build a nuclear weapon.

The testing of the new machinery, centrifuges known as IR-2s, was disclosed by European diplomats and American officials and was reported over the past two days in Europe. The development is expected to be included in a report this month by the
International Atomic Energy Agency about Iran’s nuclear progress, and whether it has finally resolved questions about activities that have led inspectors to suspect that it may be pursuing weapons.

Read the rest at the link.

Of course they are. The sanctions are not working because other countries (even some in the UN) are not following them. These reports should be taken seriously. Iran has been doing everything in it's power to establish itself as a world power. They are not going to stop on their own. It is that simple. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly told us that. He is going to do whatever he wants to do and will not stop until Israel and the US is destroyed. I am not just saying this, he said this.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

It's McCain: Romney Bows Out

Mitt Romney has decided to suspend his campaign:

John McCain effectively sealed the Republican presidential nomination on Thursday as chief rival Mitt Romney suspended his faltering presidential

It looks like the illegals are going to be happy.

Get involved in the local races for Congress and your State. We need as many people as we can to fight off what is coming.

It is a sad day for America.


Good Advise From Michelle Malkin

Every Conservative needs to read Michelle's latest post:

“Quo vadis,” conservatives? It’s the ancient, apocryphal question the apostle Peter asked Jesus while fleeing persecution in Rome. Where are you going? Where do we go from here?

The contest for the GOP presidential nomination is over. The conservative movement is not. Sen. John McCain’s campaign resurrection and Super Tuesday victory leave a diverse group on the Right—from the libertarian Club for Growth to First Amendment defenders to immigration enforcement proponents—dispirited. But the failure to nominate a true Republican unifier does not spell ideological defeat.

On Wednesday, wielding his olive branch like a schoolmarm’s ruler, Sen. McCain told conservatives to “calm down.” My advice is exactly the opposite: Get fired up.

Read the rest at the link above.

She is right. You know I will not pull the lever for McCain. I also will not stay home, and nether should you. With a liberal open borders, Al Gore follower sure to be in the White House (be it McCain, Clinton, Obama) it is important to remember one thing - Congress is going to be extremely important the next four years.

We need to put more pressure than ever on our elected officials to stand up to the next administration. So get fired up and stay fired up.

Something Else to Make You Smile, And Maybe Cringe A Little

Terry Tate:

I think the RNC could use Terry around the office. Just tell him to be on the lookout for RINO's.

Bumper Stickers To Cheer You Up

See Dubya over at the Junk Yard Blog has some funny bumper stickers about the elections up. Check them out here. Just a little taste:

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Super "Bad" Tuesday

By now you know the results from yesterday so I will not post them. I can't bring myself to write them. I will put up the delegate count though:

Republican Delegates (1,191 needed to win nomination)

Candidate Delegates

Mike Huckabee 190
John McCain 613
Ron Paul 14
Mitt Romney 269

Total 1,086

Democratic Delegates (2,026 needed to win nomination)

Candidate Delegates

Hillary Clinton 845
John Edwards 26
Mike Gravel 0
Barack Obama 765

Total 1,636

Those were last updated at 6:15 this morning.

McCain has 613 to Romney's 269. This is bad news for Romney, as well as America. Romney could still pull it off I guess, but that is very unlikely.

It will be interesting to see how many of the people that have said they will not vote for McCain will change their tune. I hope none of them do. It is true that McCain will not win without conservatives. What bothers me is how much the conservatives will lose if they support McCain. For the last 12 years the Republican party is slowly but surely moving away from conservatism. Till now they could count on the conservatives complaining about it, but falling back in line by election time. Eventually it will become neccesary for the conservatives to put a foot to these RINO's backside and let them know we will not follow along behind waiting on whatever scraps they decide to dish out to us. The Republican party gained control of Congress because of conservatism. The party lost control of Congress because they moved away from conservatism.

The thought of Clinton or Obama in the White House makes my skin crawl. But the thought of the Republican party becoming the clone to the Democratic party makes my skin crawl twice as bad. For the good of the party and the country, I will not vote for McCain!

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Israeli Intelligence Agency Disputes Latest US Findings On Iran's Nuclear Program

From Breitbart:

Israel's Mossad spy agency estimates Iran will develop a nuclear weapon within three years and continue to provide rockets to regional armed groups, a newspaper reported on Tuesday.

Mossad director Meir Dagan, in an intelligence assessment presented to Israel's powerful foreign affairs and defence committee on Monday, said the Jewish state would face increased threats on all fronts, Maariv daily said.

Dagan's estimate of Iran's nuclear ambitions differs sharply from an assessment by the US intelligence community late last year that said Iran had mothballed its nuclear weapons programme in 2003.

This is a major problem for Israel. They have to keep a close watch on Iran, while dealing with the reluctance of the US in dealing with Iran's nuclear program. One thing is for sure; we will know when Iran gets a nuke. They will use them. Or they will supply a terrorist organization with one. My only hope is that one does not end up here.

Look people, we need to get our heads out of the sand on this. Iran is at war with us the same as Al-Qaeda is. Whether we want to accept it or not. I understand the desire to have peace over there. The only problem is we do not have a choice in the matter. I know that is hard for a lot of Americans to accept. We will have to deal with Iran in the future. The only question is how much pushing are we going to take before we wake up and deal with this issue.

I know, you are saying we have sanctions against them. The only problem is; the countries that are supposed to be with us on sanctions are still trading with Iran.

Stop Iran now!

Super Tuesday

It's here. The big day. This last couple of weeks have been hard on me. As you all know I do not support any of the candidates that are still in the race.

So I have to decide which one is going to do the least amount of damage to the party. That is the reason I will be voting for Romney today. I still am not excited about it, but at this moment I feel I have to try to help stop McCain.

That being said, I am still not sure I will vote for Romney in the general election. He still hasn't proven to me that he is what he says he is. There is time for him to prove this to me but he will have to convince me that he is not another RINO. Right now that is the impression I get. Why I will exept him over McCain is that McCain has left little doubt about the fact that he is a RINO.

More than likely I will be writing in a candidate in November. If the President of this country is going to lead like a Democrat, then let them BE a Democrat. That way I can raise cain about it and not feel bad because I voted for them.

Monday, February 4, 2008

Congressman Jeb Hensarling On Earmarks

Republican members of the House seem to be getting the message on pork barrel spending:

Two weeks ago, the Republican Conference – under the leadership of Congressman John Boehner – adopted several self-imposed guidelines to begin reforming the broken down earmark process. Though I believe that as Republicans we need to go even further by adopting a full year long earmarking moratorium while significantly changing the earmarking system as we know it today, our House Republican leaders deserve credit for making earmark reform a top priority.

Conservatives consistently make the case that the earmarking process has too often lent itself to the triumph of seniority over merit, secrecy over transparency, and the special interest over the national interest. And though I am disappointed by the refusal of Democrats to work with Republicans to fix the broken earmark system, I can’t say that I am shocked by it. Are you?

After getting smacked during the 2006 election the Republicans are finally coming around to our way of thinking. I hope they can get something done on this. Of course, they are in for a heck of a fight. The Democrats and several Republicans will fight this tooth and nail.

Do what you can. Contact your Representatives.

Mississippi Bill To Bar Restaurants From Serving Obese People?

Of course this will not pass, yet:

"Click to enlarge"

You may laugh but this is how the whole deal with smoking got started. How long before we start paying unbelievable tax for a Big Mac? It took several years for the smoking issue. It looks like they are moving on to the next big problem.
The question I have is - how many of our freedoms are we willing to give up before we say enough? Chances are you enjoy at least one of the following; smoking, fatty foods, soft drinks, drinking, skoal, etc... You know, things that are "bad" for you. A lot of obese people have jumped on the bus to attack smokers. What happens when the shoe is on the other foot? What about drinkers?
Look out, it is coming. It may take a while to develop. But it is coming.