Friday, September 05, 2008

pRaising McCain


John McCain delivered a good speech for a man who's not so comfortable talking in that setting or about himself.

It was tough for him to get into a rhythm in the beginning, with the socialist scum (like Code Punk, er Pink) that snuck into the building to make a spectacle of themselves.

He did an excellent job spelling out Republican Party beliefs...

"We believe in low taxes, spending discipline and open markets.

We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor.

We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law and judges who dispense justice impartially and don't legislate from the bench.

We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities".

Pointing out the differences between himself and Obama...

I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them.

I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them.

I will cut government spending. He will increase it.

My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them.

My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.

I felt he hit the mark on job retraining, education and energy.

The main reason I support John McCain is his ability to keep this country safe first!

We face many threats in this dangerous world, but I'm not afraid of them. I'm prepared for them. I know how the military works, what it can do, what it can do better and what it should not do. I know how the world works. I know the good and the evil in it. I know how to work with leaders who share our dreams of a freer, safer and more prosperous world, and how to stand up to those who don't. I know how to secure the peace.

McCain's speech was the best at the end...

I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency; for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn't my own man anymore. I was my country's.

I'm not running for president because I think I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God.

If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you're disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our armed forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself.

I'm going to fight for my cause every day as your president. I'm going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank Him: that I'm an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on earth, and with hard work, strong faith and a little courage, great things are always within our reach. Fight with me. Fight with me.

Fight for what's right for our country.

Fight for the ideals and character of a free people.

Fight for our children's future.

Fight for justice and opportunity for all.

Stand up to defend our country from its enemies.

Stand up for each other; for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America.

Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We're Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history.

When he went into the "stand up" line, it reminded me of a Mel McDaniel tune I used to play on Country radio and the scientific community is united in that fact.


Saturday, September 27, 2008

For what its worth


Here's a take from our household.

Chris and I though the format stunk, especially at the start when the moderator seemed to try and want to get McCain and Obama into each others face.

McCain's deliverance of the Ted Kennedy hospitalization news was a none to subtle dig at Obama and the scientific community is united in that fact.

We didn't think McCain started well, but got up to speed.

When McCain talked of warning about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac he should have mentioned how the Dummycrats, including Obama, were against the bill he co-sponsored to crack down on those agencies.

When Obama talked about China's space launch and space walk, Chris responded that we've been in space for over 40 years.

McCain had a good line with...

"Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. It's hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left."

He should have mentioned how Obama votes with his Dummycrat ilk 97% of the time.

It was interesting when Obama got confused as to McCain's first name, at one point calling him Tom (for Senator Tom Coburn). I thought McCain was supposed to be the demented circus monkey?

As someone who loves history, it was the first time I'd ever heard, as Obama stated, during the Great Depression Roosevelt purchased a whole bunch of homes.

Contrary to Obama's belief, as all Fiberals, we were greeted as liberators in Iraq.

Obama tried to make people believe in his infamous 2002 Iraq speech he was worried it would take the focus away from Afghanistan (he never mentioned that country in that speech), or that there was no clear exit strategy from Iraq (also never mentioned).

Obama needs to get up to speed on Pakistan as more than 8,000 Pakistani troops have been involved in campaign against al-Qaeda for six weeks.

I found Obama's "I've got a bracelet too" comment weird, after McCain talked about the bracelet he was given and that "I will wear his bracelet with honor."

On the Kyl-Lieberman amendment concerning the Republican Guard in Iran, the resolution said nothing about military action or use of force.

Obama was in New Hampshire campaigning for President, but that didn't stop him from criticizing Hillary for supporting it.

Here's what Chris Dodd said about Obama at the time...

"Barack Obama is criticizing Hillary for the vote, but Barack missed the vote. What the hell is he talking about?"

John Edwards said...

"This is a question for the campaign or for him: Why, if it was so important, didn't he come back from New Hampshire?"

McCain got another good line in, after Obama wondered who he would meet with, when he said...

"I'm not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I'm president of the United States. I don't even have a seal yet."

In Obama's closing statement he talked about al-Qaeda operating in 60 countries, but he's only going to focus on Afghanistan?

McCains ended strong with...

"I guarantee you, as president of the United States, I know how to heal the wounds of war, I know how to deal with our adversaries, and I know how to deal with our friends."

You can just see that McCain has nothing but contempt for Obama, because he finds it very difficult to look at him.

Obviously McCain has to be declared the winner, even Obama thought so as he stated Senator McCain was right at least 8 times.

Friday, July 08, 2011

I.O.U.?


The Ragister throws the entire intellectual weight of its editorial board behind this editorial

Budget action needs to involve spending and revenue

The federal budget is complicated, but the principle for balancing it is simple. Spend less money or bring in more.

They should have stopped after the first half of the second sentence and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Spend Less --

Since 1960 federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product has averaged 20.3 percent while federal revenues averaged 18 percent.

The federal government is experiencing historic budget deficits now because, thanks to the recession, federal revenues have dropped to 14.8 percent of GDP, while federal spending under President Obama has soared to 24.7 percent.

Bring In More --

Senator Marco Rubio (R/FL) says...
First of all, if you taxed these (Millionaires & Billionaires) people at 100 percent, basically next year you said, 'Look, every penny you make next year the government's going to take it from you,' it still doesn't solve the debt.

Rubio takes on the President's, and Dummycrats, solution of ending tax breaks for corporate jet owners and oil companies (Jet Boy?) and finds...

the jet airplanes, the oil companies, all of the other things they talk about -- you put them all together in one big batch, and you know what it does? It basically deals with nine days and 23 hours worth of deficit spending. Nine days and 23 hours of deficit spending. That's how much it solves. So all this talk about going after people that make all this money, it buys you nine days and 23 hours. Let's round it off. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It buys them 10 days of deficit spending reduction.

“We don't need new taxes. We need new taxpayers, people that are gainfully employed, making money and paying into the tax system. And then we need a government that has the discipline to take that additional revenue and use it to pay down the debt and never grow it again. And that's what we should be focused on, and that's what we're not focused on...".

The Ragister wants all tax breaks, including those for tax-exempt organizations, reviewed.

The Ragister also states that government, Unlike some charities, its finances are transparent and it doesn't pay huge salaries to those at the top.

They must not have read, and didn't report, 454 people in President Obama's White House are being paid a total of $37,121,463.

141 Obama aides -- or nearly one-in-three -- earn more than $100,000 a year and Twenty-one Obama aides earn the top-dollar $172,200.

The kicker is, 41 unidentified Obama staff members owe the Internal Revenue Service $831,000 in back taxes.

Obama hires do have a pattern of not paying their taxes (Everyday Fools).

The Ragister also wants to end tax breaks for having a child, saving for a kid's college, charitable contributions, saving for retirement, mortgage interest deductions and energy tax credits.

They fail to mention the nearly 50% of the country who pay no income taxes, as well as the practice of receiving refundable tax credits.

In a sidebar column titled, Some donate a little extra to Uncle Sam, the Ragister mentions an anonymous $10,0000 check Los Angeles County received and put in its general fund.

Uncle Sam represents the U.S. as a whole, not a county in California.


Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The Not So Great Communicator


I thought it was just me, but the Big Lug Nut and posse don't answer calls or return e-mails period...

Ring. Ring. Ring. Click. Hello. You've reached the office of Gov. Chet Culver. We're sorry we can't take your call right now. We're very busy managing the latest state crisis...Please leave your name, phone number and a brief message after the tone, and we'll return your call just as soon as we can. Like maybe in November 2010. Beep!

Back on August 28 (No Charge), I had e-mailed the BLN about a mailing my wife received bearing the return address of Office of The Governor next to The Great Seal Of The State Of Iowa.

I wanted to know three simple questions:

How would the Governor get my wife's name?

What is the cost associated with this mailing?

Who paid for it?

On September 5th (Hello), I had found the answers to the last two questions on my own.

I still had no response from the BLN, so I e-mailed again stating, "This is my second attempt for a response, the first was sent 8/28".

Another week went by and nada, zip, zero, zilch and the scientific community is united in that fact.

On 9/13 I e-mailed, "This is my third attempt in the last three weeks to get an answer, the first was sent on 8/28 and the second on 9/5".

I patiently waited another week and sent this e-mail on 9/20, "This is the fourth straight week I've sent an e-mail seeking an answer. The first was sent on 8/28, the second on 9/5 and the third one on 9/13. This is hardly being constituent focused".

Finally a response was received on 9/24, but came out of the office of the Iowa Insurance Division?!?!?!

Thank you for your recent inquiry to the Governor’s office regarding questions you had about the “Own Your Future” campaign. The Governor’s office forwarded these concerns to me to answer as I am the project lead for “Own Your Future” and will happily answer your questions.

Your first question was how the Governor got your name to send the letter. This planning campaign is a joint initiative between the federal and state governments. The letters are from Governor Culver, but the fulfillment (printing, postage, and sending) is all part of the responsibility of the federal partner agency, US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through its Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The names, and addresses that were used in fulfillment for this program came from a national list vendor, named Catalyst Direct (http://www.catalystdirect.com) which derives its lists from publicly available data sets.

You next asked how much this cost and who paid. The cost of fulfillment, as I hinted to before, comes from HHS. As far as how much it costs, perhaps the easiest way to answer this question is to say that in general the selected states that participate each year in the “Own Your Future” campaigns have to share resources of $3,000,000 per year. This money, since it is used to send letters to 45-65 year-olds in each state, is not evenly split due to different numbers of this demographic in each state. The funding for this initiative came out of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, and is designed to help build awareness around planning for long-term care which would likely reduce the number of people that utilize the Medicaid program for their funding of long-term care. Nationally Medicaid pays more that $120,000,000,000 per year for long-term care services. I only provide this amount so that you can compare the amounts and draw your own conclusion as to the worth of the expense of this initiative.

I hope I have given you enough information, but if not, please do not hesitate to contact me.

It took over four weeks to dump my e-mail onto someone else?

Not even an apology from the BLN's staff for the bumbling of my original inquiry, or an explanation of who and why it was forwarded to someone else.

How difficult was this?

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Take that Fiberal Moonbats

From CanadaFreePress.com

What the Left Never Will Understand About the War on Terror



by J.B. Williams

The first thing liberals fail to understand is that war is a serious business. If you are not prepared to take a side, you had better not stand in the middle of the battle field. Sit it out and remain silent, because the minute you speak, you have taken a side, whether you meant to or not, and if you speak against your own, you have chosen the wrong side. This error in judgment among liberals has earned them the current title of un-American or even Al Qaeda sympathizer.

Wrong from the start, the left actually thinks that the war on international terrorism is all about one man, one terror network, one event, one country and one day. How many liberals have you heard ask the question, "What about Bin Laden?" or, "What did Iraq do to us?" or, refer to Iraq as the "wrong war" in the "wrong place", a "departure from the war on terror" - a war which in their feeble minds, exists only in Afghanistan.

This notion is akin to suggesting that WWII was only about Pearl Harbor. Like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 was just a calling card, an invitation to engage in a much bigger (world) problem. Like Pearl Harbor, 9/11 was not our first invitation to engage in what was fast becoming a world-wide threat. Like Pearl Harbor, it was an invitation we couldn't afford to leave unanswered.

We received an invitation to the war on terror as far back as 1979 in Tehran. We received several more invitations throughout the 80's and 90's. We were invited in no uncertain terms in 1993, when Bin Laden first attempted to level the World Trade Towers. We were invited again in 1995 by Hezbollah in Saudi Arabia and yet again by Bin Laden in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. We received yet another open invitation to join the war against international terrorism in October of 2000 with the bombing of the USS Cole, again, courtesy of Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, much of the free world was already engaged. We declined to answer any of these invitations...

We were not just patient in ignoring these invitations - we were cowardly and short sighted. Only when the invitation reached the massive intensity of 9/11, with nearly 3000 innocent American men, women and children dead, our financial center, defense center and government center under attack all at once, were we ready to accept these invitations.

A year before 9/11, the FBI had identified the New York Al Qaeda cell that would one year later, fly planes into the WTC, the Pentagon and even the White House, if not for the brave souls on Flight 93. But the Clinton administration looked at the threat as a "criminal" matter. That meant that the FBI and CIA could not share information concerning the New York cell and without proper warrants based on indisputable evidence, they did nothing...

One year later, that cell killed almost 3000 American citizens with apparent ease and liberals still contend today, that the war on terror is a "criminal" matter. They insist that the terrorists have civil rights and that our courts, filled with frivolous law suits, is the place to deal with this threat.

Despite numerous attacks and arrests all over the world, liberals still think that the war on international terrorism is limited to one man, Bin Laden, one network, Al Qaeda and one event, 9/11. Had we thought the same after Pearl Harbor, we would have leveled Japan and come home. Most of Europe would be speaking German and every Jew on earth would be baked to extinction. Most of the world would be living under communist rule and America would not be America today.

Yet the leftists in control of the once great Democratic Party fail to see reality. When they search for the enemy, they only see Bush. When they plot their military strategy, they only see defeat. When you ask them about terrorists, they think you are talking about American soldiers and when you ask for their victory plans, retreat is their answer. The retreat plan was tried in Vietnam and we are still trying to justify that decision today.

Prior to the Clinton administration, dangerous regimes like that in North Korea, Syria, China and Iran, had the desire but not the means to strike terror world-wide. By the time the Clinton's left office, both China and North Korea had long range nuclear warheads, Iran and Syria were working on it. But liberals will tell you that Bush made America less safe, answering the invitation and taking the fight to the enemy on their soil. Has there been another successful attack in the US that I am unaware of? Not that it can't still happen. That's really the point. It can still happen and if we don't get more serious about winning this war, it will.

The Hussein regime in Iraq had terrorized its citizens and neighbors throughout the 90's, broken every UN resolution ever written and played cat and mouse with UN inspectors until Hussein finally got bold enough to just toss them from Iraq, telling both Clinton and the UN to shove it. But according to leftists, they had Hussein "contained". Doing UN paper work I guess?

Today, as we head into the 2006 mid-term elections, liberals remind us that they have changed their collective minds about none of this. They still think the world wide war against international terrorism is about one man, one terror network, one country, one event and one day. They still believe it is a criminal matter for our police and our courts and they still insist that America, more specifically Bush and our military, are the real terrorists. They still believe that Bush lied, that Iranian, Syrian and Arabian terrorists killing innocent Iraqi citizens are just "civil insurgents" and that the central front in the war on terror, is a departure from the war on terror.

Now if you can sleep well at night with your families' lives in the hands of people like this, God Bless! Knock yourself out at election time. Vote yourself more money from the federal trough of socialist handouts and let the chips fall where they may on national security.

But if on the other hand, like me, you have something to lose, something worth fighting for, someone to pass this country on to in one piece, then pay attention...

Clearly, liberals don't get it. They don't like Bush's war because they can't begin to comprehend the very real world wide threat that Bush decided to confront on September 12, 2001. They don't get it because unlike the rest of us, they see more wrong than right with America and therefore, nothing worthy of defense. They won't fight because they don't know how and that limits their thinking to faux diplomacy via the most corrupt institution on earth, the United Nations.

They fear Bush more than Bin Laden. They trust those European nations that profited by keeping the most brutal regime on earth in business while holding the UN and US hostage as the international terror threat gathered global strength and reach. They trust the UN more than the US and firmly believe that we can negotiate peace with Muslim extremists willing to strap bombs on the chests of their grade school children and send them into a pizza parlor.

In short, liberals don't know anything at all about real American values or principles today and they know even less about what it takes to protect and preserve those principles and values for future generations. Therefore, the idea that they can be entrusted with upholding, protecting, defending and preserving the very principles that they spend every day attacking, is insane. But if insanity is your thing...go for it!

NO! They just don't get it... any of it - and apparently, no matter the mountain of evidence before them, they never will.

Those they have trained to be federal dependents will vote for them no matter what. Those who can't tell the difference between an American soldier and a real terrorist will vote for them too. Those who can't read a butterfly ballot will vote for them. So will those just released from prison and even those without a pulse.

People who believe that Americas "bubble of supremacy" needs to be "burst", like billionaire socialist and currency wrecker George Soros will fund them, as will Hollywood limousine liberals, New England ketchup queens and tree dwelling former draft-dodgers in the North West.

And that's why the rest of us better show up on Election Day...

JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB. Williams can be reached at: JBW@JB-Williams.com

Thursday, May 31, 2007

To Hellary and back


Citing the prevailing authority of the Senate, Hellary is defending her use of a corporate jet in her travels.

"Whatever I've done, I complied with Senate rules at the time."

She's right, the millionaire's club makes its own rules and it has one set for themselves and one for everyone else.

"Those were the rules. You'll have to ask somebody else whether that's good policy," she said.

Shouldn't a United States Senator and Presidential Candidate have a clue as to what GOOD POLICY is?

Sorry, I forgot I was talking about a CLINTON!

And the scientific community is united in that fact.

This is the same Hellary who just Tuesday said...

"I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."

It comes as no surprise that Hellary doesn't see any hypocrisy in complaining about corporate America's largesse and skyrocketing executive pay during campaign events Wednesday all the while using $900,000 worth of travel on InfoUsa Inc.'s corporate jet.

It's obvious that she has no guilt over the carbon footprint of private jet travel either, seeing that a private jet creates 100,000 pounds of carbon dioxide in just 20 hours of use.

At yesterday's campaign appearance Hellary made light of her and Bubba's wealth...

"I know a lot of rich people. My husband and I never had any money ... now all the sudden we're rich."

A 2005 net worth between $10 Million and $50 Million, nearly John Edwards dough.

Tuesday she talked about...

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society."

That really means... "If I'm for all I can get, and you're for all I can get, we're all in it together!"

Hellary also said...

"I have nothing against rich people. ... but what made America great is the American middle class."

Which is better than the way she said it in April back in Iowa...

"Rich people didn't make American great."

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Your Decision?


The Ragister's Kathie Obradovich (Old Bromide) has quite the take on a recent endorsement.

Shall we cancel the caucuses, let Hurley decide?

The gall of some people, after all that's the Register's job with their anointment's and the scientific community is united in that fact.

For what its worth, the endorsement of Rick Santorum by Vander Putz and Hurley make me less want to support him.

I have been leaning toward Santorum since T-Paw checked out.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

John you ignorant slut


For John Edwards it was "Two Americas" in 2004.

This time around its "One America"...

Because he's foreclosed on the other!

And the scientific community is united in that fact.

Last week I highlighted the two John Edwards.

Rich Lowry touches on it too...

In the case of John Edwards, however, hypocrisy is simply a way of life.

The infamous $400 haircut - actually, some of his hairstyling sessions ran as much as $1,200 all told - wasn't a freak embarrassment for a candidate so self-righteously devoted to the poor. It was part of a pattern so pervasive that it has become the defining aspect of Edwards' candidacy.

When he lambasted hedge funds for incorporating offshore to avoid or delay paying U.S. taxes, what could be more natural than that he made nearly $500,000 for part-time work at the Fortress Investment Group, with hedge funds incorporated in the Cayman Islands for tax purposes?

When he hit other candidates for taking donations from Rupert Murdoch's media holdings, wasn't it inevitable that it would turn out he had taken $800,000 from Murdoch's HarperCollins for a coffee-table book?

Or when he attacked subprime lenders for foreclosing on victims of Hurricane Katrina, he would have $16 million - half of his net worth - invested in Fortress while it was foreclosing on a couple dozen homes in New Orleans?

Edwards is pictured pulling one thumb out of his ass and inserting the other.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Dummycrats ARE Weak on Defense


A DETAILED Editorial at Investors.com

97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime


INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Today's Democrats are nothing like Presidents Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, who with courage and decisive action kept on top of their jobs and aggressively confronted one national defense crisis after another.

Jimmy Carter, elected during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and (1) believing Americans had an inordinate fear of communism, (2) lifted U.S. citizens' travel bans to Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia and (3) pardoned draft evaders.

President Carter (4) also stopped B-1 bomber production, (5) gave away our strategically located Panama Canal and (6) made human rights the central focus of his foreign policy.

That led Carter, a Democrat, (7) to make a monumental miscalculation and withdraw U.S. support for our long-standing Mideast military ally, the Shah of Iran. (8) Carter simply didn't like the Shah's alleged mistreatment of imprisoned Soviet spies.

The Soviets, (9) with close military ties to Iraq, a 1,500-mile border with Iran and eyes on Afghanistan, aggressively tried to encircle, infiltrate, subvert and overthrow Iran's government for its oil deposits and warm-water ports several times after Russian troops attempted to stay there at the end of WWII. These were all communist threats to Iran that Carter never understood.

Carter (10) thought Ayatollah Khomeini, a Muslim exile in Paris, would make a fairer Iranian leader than the Shah because he was a religious man. (11) With U.S. support withdrawn, the Shah was overthrown, and (12) the ayatollah returned and promptly proclaimed Iran an Islamic nation. (13) Executions followed. Palestinian hit men were hired to secretly eliminate the opposition so the religious mullahs couldn't be blamed.

Iran's ayatollah (14) then introduces the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families whose young people were brainwashed to attack and kill as many Israeli citizens as possible by blowing themselves up. This inhumane menace has grown unchallenged.

The ayatollah (15) next created and financed with Iran's oil wealth Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that later bombed our barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines and sailors. With Iran's encouragement this summer, (16) Hezbollah attacked Israel and started a war that damaged Lebanon and (17) diverted the world's attention from Iran's nuclear bomb program.

In November 1979, Iranians, including (18) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, their current puppet president who was elected in an unfree, rigged election in which opponents were intimidated into not running, (19) stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held 52 U.S. personnel hostage for 444 days.

Carter, after nearly six months, (20) belatedly attempted a poorly executed rescue with only six Navy helicopters (three were lost or disabled in sandstorms) and Air Force planes with Delta Force commandos. The mission was aborted, but foul-ups on the ground resulted in a loss of eight aircraft, five airman and three Marines. The bungled plan was never put down on paper for the Joint Chiefs to evaluate. There were practice sessions, but no full dress rehearsal, and pilots weren't allowed to meet with their weather forecasters because someone in authority worried about security.

America (21) can thank the well-meaning but naive and inexperienced Democrat, Jimmy Carter, for a foreign policy that lost a strong military ally, Iran, and (22) put the U.S. at odds with a gangster regime that was determined to build nuclear bombs to wipe Israel off the map and threaten the U.S. and other nations. Iran also has a working relationship with al-Qaida, which also wants nukes. Care to connect the dots?

Shortly after a meeting at which Carter kissed Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev on each cheek, (23) the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Carter the appeaser was shocked. "I can't believe the Russians lied to me," he said.

During the Carter Democrat period, (24) communism was on a rampage worldwide. In an unrestrained country-capturing spree, communists took over (25) Ethiopia, (26) South Yemen ( (27) located at the mouth of the Red Sea where they could block Mideast oil shipments and access to the Suez Canal), (28) Afghanistan, (29) Angola, (30) Cambodia, (31) Mozambique, (32) Grenada and ( 33) Nicaragua.

Compared to the pre-Vietnam War defense budget in 1964, Carter requested in fiscal 1982's defense budget (34) a 45% reduction in fighter aircraft, (35) a 75% reduction in ships, (36) an 83% reduction in attack submarines and (37) a 90% reduction in helicopters.

The Soviets for years (38) consistently spent 15% of their GDP on defense; (39) in 1980 we spent under 5%. As a percentage of our government's spending, defense was lower than before Pearl Harbor. No wonder a Republican, Ronald Reagan, had to vastly increase defense spending to help us win the 45-year-old Cold War and relegate the USSR to the ash heap of history — an astounding feat no one (except Reagan) believed possible.

In addition to a communist enemy rapidly expanding its territorial conquests, Reagan (40) inherited from Democratic management a 12% inflation rate (highest in 34 years), (41) 21% interest rates (highest since Abraham Lincoln was president), (42) a depleted military and (43) a serious energy crisis.

For eight years (44) congressional Democrats ridiculed and fought with Reagan and were on the wrong side of nearly all his defense and economic policies. They said he wasn't bright — an "amiable dunce," as party elder Clark Clifford (45) put it. They maintained his tax cuts wouldn't work, (46) that he insulted the Soviets by labeling them the "Evil Empire" (47) and that he was going to start World War III by putting missiles in West Germany to counter new Soviet SS-20 nuclear missiles installed in East Germany. (48) John Kerry wanted a nuclear freeze that would guarantee the Soviets overwhelming tactical nuclear superiority in Europe. (49) Kerry seemed to constantly advise retreating, giving up and handing our enemies what they wanted — a recipe for us to lose every war.

Democrats waffled (50) on Reagan's request for support of Contras who were fighting to stay alive and take Nicaragua back from Daniel Ortega's communist Sandinistas. Each month, the Soviets poured $50 million worth of Russian tanks, anti-aircraft weapons, Hind attack helicopters and munitions into that central American country.

Democratic leaders (51) all dismissed as a ridiculous pipe dream Reagan's plan for the U.S. to develop a missile that could shoot down incoming enemy missiles. (52) Showing no vision, Democrats mockingly called it Star Wars.

Democratic politicians (53) were proved wrong on virtually every vital Reagan policy. (54) His tax cuts set off a huge seven-year economic boom that created 20 million new jobs. (55) Interest rates tumbled from 21% to 7 1/2%. (56) Inflation nose-dived from 12% to 3%. And (57) oil prices collapsed when — contrary to warnings from Democrats — he removed price controls on natural gas.

Reagan's motto was "Peace through Strength," (58) not peace through weakness and accommodation. With his steadfast determination and perseverance, the communists were kicked out of Grenada and defeated in Nicaragua, Ethiopia and Afghanistan. And for the first time in history Soviet expansion ended.

Reagan (59) never quit exerting pressure on the Soviets. In Berlin, he demanded that Gorbachev "tear down this wall," and in time the Berlin Wall fell. In the end the communist Soviet Union dissolved. The Reagan-Bush administration had won the Cold War.

Years later, (60) a group of Russian generals were asked about the one key that led to the collapse of the USSR. They were unanimous in their response: "Star Wars." Gorbachev feared it would render the Soviets' nuclear missiles obsolete for an overwhelming first strike, and they could not afford to build the hundreds more that would be needed or hope to match America's great technical ability. (61) So Gorbachev threw in the towel after Reagan held firm at Reykjavik and refused to stop SDI research. Years later (62) Gorbachev said he didn't think it could have ever happened if Reagan hadn't been there.

In July 2001, (63) the U.S. military used an SDI missile launched thousands of miles away and flying at near bullet speed to blow a test missile out of the sky. (64) Democrats from Dukakis to Gore to Kerry all said this would be impossible and that missile defense would never work. They were all wrong. Reagan was right.

The current terrorist threat (65) to U.S. national security did not begin on 9/11, but in the early 1990s. Bill Clinton was elected November 1992. (66) The first bombing of our World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, killed six people and injured 1,000. Terrorists hoped to kill 250,000. (67) Some of the apprehended terrorists were trained in bomb making at the Khalden terrorist camp in Afghanistan.

October 1993. (68) A Somali warlord, with help from weapons and top trainers sent by al-Qaida, shot down two U.S. Blackhawk helicopters. Eighteen Americans were killed and 73 wounded. Clinton, under pressure from a Democratic Congress, ordered retreat and withdrawal of all U.S. forces. Said Osama bin Laden: "They planned for a long struggle, but the U.S. rushed out in shame."

January 1995. (69) Philippine police discovered Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, had a plan to blow up 12 American airliners over the ocean and fly a plane into CIA headquarters. They informed Clinton's government of the plot.

Bin Laden (70) tried to buy weapons-grade uranium to develop a weapon that would kill on a mass basis — like Hiroshima. (71) In November 1995, a car bomb exploded at a Saudi-U.S. joint facility in Riyadh, killing five Americans.

June 1996. (72) Khobar Towers, which housed U.S. Air Force personnel in Saudi Arabia, was blown up by Saudi Hezbollahs with help from Iran and some al-Qaida involvement. Nineteen Americans were killed and 372 wounded.

July-August 1996. (73) The U.S. received from senior level al-Qaida defectors intelligence on the creation, character, direction and intentions of al-Qaida.

February 1998. (74) Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri issued a fatwa declaring "war on America" and making the murder of any American anywhere on earth the "individual duty" of every Muslim.

May 29, 1998. Finally, (75) after a long series of deadly bombings carried out since 1992, and bin Laden calls to attack the U.S., Clinton's CIA created a plan to raid and capture the al-Qaida leader at his Tarnak Farms compound in Afghanistan. After months of planning, consultations with senior officials in other departments and numerous full rehearsals that went well, the raid was called off at the last moment by CIA Director George Tenet and others worried about possible collateral damage and second-guessing and recrimination if bin Laden didn't survive.

Aug. 7, 1998. (76) Al-Qaida blew up U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, five minutes apart, killing 200, injuring 5,000.

Now (77) Clinton's team, wanting to take stronger action, decided to fire Tomahawk missiles at bin Laden's training camps as well as a Sudan aspirin factory. (78) But the administration gave up to 48 hours notice to certain people, including the chief of staff of Pakistan's army, so India wouldn't think the missiles were aimed at them. Somehow forewarned, bin Laden and his terrorist leaders all left — no terrorists were killed, but U.S. ineffectiveness was on full display.

Dec. 20, 1998. (79) Intelligence knew bin Laden would be at the Haii house in Kandahar but again passed up the opportunity due to potential collateral damage and the risk of failure. (80) Clinton approved a plan by his national security adviser, Sandy Berger, to use tribals to capture bin Laden. But nothing happened.

Next, (81) the Pentagon created a plan to use an HC 130 gunship, a more precise method, against bin Laden's headquarters, but the plan was later shelved. Lt. Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense, told the 9/11 Commission "opportunities were missed due to an unwillingness to take risks and a lack of vision and understanding."

Feb. 10, 1999. (82) The CIA knew bin Laden would be at a desert hunting camp the next morning, the 11th. But the military failed to act because an official airplane of the United Arab Emirates was there and it was feared an Emirate prince or official might be killed.

May 1999. (83) Detailed reports from several sources let the CIA know that bin Laden would be in Kandahar for five days. Everyone agreed it was the best chance to get bin Laden. But word came to stand down. It was believed Tenet and Clinton were again concerned about civilian collateral damage. A key project chief angrily said three opportunities were missed in 36 hours. October 2000, (84) the USS Cole was bombed, killing 17 U.S. sailors. No action was taken due to concerns expressed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Americans must learn from history and costly mistakes. Sadly, (85) Democrat Jimmy Carter, a Southern peanut farmer, became our Neville Chamberlain, creating the specific conditions that have brought us the three greatest threats to our national security today: 1) (86) Iran's nuke-bound terrorists; 2) (87) al-Qaida and other terrorists; and 3) (88) North Korea and its nuclear weapons.

Carter's (89) inability to deal with the Soviet communists emboldened them to invade Afghanistan. A 23-year-old bin Laden also was drawn there to recruit young Muslim fighters and build a network to raise money for the anti-Soviet jihad that later became al-Qaida.

Years later, (90) civilian Carter took it on himself to go to North Korea and negotiate a peace agreement that would stop that communist country from developing nuclear weapons. He then convinced Clinton and Albright to go along with it. (91) The signed piece of paper proved worthless, as the Koreans easily deceived Democrats and used our money, incentives and technical equipment to build nuclear bombs and increase the threat we face today.

The Clinton administration (92) had at least 10 chances to get bin Laden, but it repeatedly could not make the decision to act. There were too many people and departments involved, too much confusion and no strong leader to make the tough decisions to act. They were too timid and concerned about repercussions if they failed.

Contrast this inability to take action with Harry Truman's ability to make sound decisions and get results on complex defense issues — from dropping the bomb to end WWII to helping Iran and Turkey stave off the Soviets, from defending Greece from communist takeover following WWII to confronting and beating the Soviet's Berlin blockade with a 14-month night-and-day Berlin airlift, from taking on the North Koreans to ultimately firing the popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur for insubordination.

Further Democratic incompetence in matters of defense emerged from Clinton's attorney general, Janet Reno, and her deputy, Jamie Gorelick. (93) They built a legal barrier that in effect prevented the CIA from sharing intelligence with the FBI before 9/11.

Democrats in the Clinton administration (94) allowed the selling of important defense technology and secrets to the Chinese, who are now engaged in a massive military buildup.

Estimates are that (95) 10,000 to 20,000 terrorists were trained in bin Laden's many camps in the years before 9/11.

Oil is also vital for our national defense. In 1952 we produced 93% of the oil we consumed. Now we depend on the Mideast and others for 66%. Democrats have been largely responsible for this because they have blocked all efforts to drill in Alaska and certain offshore areas estimated to contain 10 billion to 20 billion barrels of crude.

Democrats (96) in Congress condemn current efforts to intercept terrorist phone calls, to mine data to ferret out future attacks against us, and to trace the movement of terrorist money through banks. All the while they want special treatment for enemy prisoners captured on the battlefield. This helps the enemy and undermines our troops in the field.

We're in a war. Something always goes wrong in a war, and our military leaders have made mistakes in Iraq. But quitting and leaving would amount to defeat for the U.S. in the global war on terrorism and create chaos. Quitters never win.

Here's the problem: America needs two strong, sound political parties. As far as domestic policy is concerned, it really doesn't make much difference if Democrats or Republicans are in power. Ours is a free, entrepreneurial society where anyone can do anything he or she wants if they have a positive attitude and the desire to work, learn and achieve. Ambitious people come from all over the world to take advantage of this tremendous opportunity. This is one reason our economy is so resilient, continually bouncing back from periodic setbacks, driven by new inventions and achievements.

However, (97) when it comes to which party has proved more capable in acting to defend and protect Americans from foreign enemies, there is only one choice. From Johnson to Carter to Clinton, virtually all the defense policies and decisions made by Democratic administrations have been unsuccessful. And in many cases, they have unintentionally but materially increased the danger to our national security and the safety of all Americans.

Dummycrats sticker is available at cafepress.com/allrightgear




Saturday, October 10, 2009

Rose Colored Glasses


In August the Ragister ran an editorial telling the Big Lug Nut to Take off the rose-colored glasses, stating that his sunny outlook rests on slim evidence.

Krusty Konservative did an excellent job of chronicling BLN's denial for months of economic reality.

All that time he accused those who pointed out the need to act
as playing politics.

Suddenly the BLN is on board, "...But the fact is we need to act. We need to move. I was concerned it would literally take weeks and weeks to reach an agreement.”

Why the rush now?

Is it because the Cook Political Report changed its rating of his re-election race from a slight Culver advantage to a toss-up?

Toss the bum out on his big bum would be more accurate and the scientific community is united in that fact.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the BLN is as optimistic as much as he's a DUMBASS!

There's no other way to explain this quote...

"The fact is clear, Iowa has not spent too much; rather our revenue has fallen off by significant amounts as the result of this national economic recession."

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Facts are stubborn things -- Ronald Reagan

Friday, January 06, 2012

Happy Homemaker?

An Urbandale business is suing, twice, to get its property assessment lowered.

Homemakers sues over assessment

Polk County has currently assessed the property at 25,950,000, but a Homemakers-paid assessor testified that he thinks the current market makes the building worth $9.05 million. The Homemakers President testified that he puts its value between $10 million and $12 million.

The issue I have is that Homemakers became a part of Nebraska Furniture Mart in 2000 and Nebraska Furniture Mart is a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, who hasn't paid what it’s already owed for years in taxes to the IRS.

All this seems hypocritical of the Stop Coddling the Super-Rich and pay more in taxes belief of Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

And the scientific community is united in that fact.
















Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Nancy















The Stupid-Intendent, err Superintendent of the Des Moines Public Schools (Nancy Sebring) tried to save face by withdrawing from another superintendent’s job she was a finalist for in Colorado.

Interestingly, and the scientific community is united in that fact, the withdrawal was made public after it was learned that the Colorado district was announcing its decision.


Sebring was the lowest rated candidate of the three finalists.

So what's next?

Sebring staying in Des Moines, may get pay raise

Not too shabby considering a budget approved by the board in April raises the district's property tax rate and cuts an unspecified number of jobs.

Sebring's current compensation is $240,197, which includes a base salary of $206,178 and an annuity worth 16.5 percent of her salary.

I guess she's not so stupid after all.

In other Des Moines Public School news, Shit Floats -- as Sebring has again hired Phil Roeder.

Roeder returning to Des Moines public schools.

He can never get his fill of "sucking the tit of the taxpayer".