:::insert bullshit here:::As you can see, it was quite eloquent and served as a rather stirring explanation as to why the same man who just two months ago could "no more disown his pastor than he could disown the black community" can somehow suddenly disown his entire church. Smooth move, Barry. Very genuine this "new politics" of yours seems to be. Very honest and forthcoming.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Obama Quits Trinity Church of Christ
In a very "ah, screw it!" kind of moment, Barack Obama finally washed his hands of Trinity Church of Christ of which he had been a member for some 20 years. Or tried to at least. Below is the text of his speech:
Making Use of YouTube
Energy is an issue everywhere!!! Including CT-2
Go to www.sullivan2008.com and learn more about helping get Sean Sullivan to Congress!
Go to www.sullivan2008.com and learn more about helping get Sean Sullivan to Congress!
Just Give It Up Already
In a society that says "we're all winners" Hillary Clinton just refuses to quit. She said the other day on a Montana Radio Conference Call that she believed the nominee of the Democratic Party would be known by next week. Next week? Seriously, we all have known that her campaign was over for a LONG time. Sure, suprises happen, preachers cause Hell, Bill sticks his foot in his mouth left and right but we all know what is about to happen.
In other news I fly out to Washington for the summer so my posts won't be all that freuent but I am hoping to contrast the perspective from Connecticut and the Northeast with that of our nations capital. It is always said that Washington does not know America, I guess I'll find out.
Friday, May 30, 2008
In The Know
Here's a list of what's goin on in Texas and across the nation so you can be In the Know...
Susan Sarandon threatens to leave the country if John McCain is elected. Who wants to help her pack??? More importantly, is it possible for her to take Michael Moore, Matt Damon, Al Franken and every other annoying Hollywood person with her?
Michael Hayden head of the Central Intelligence Agency informs us that al-Qaeda is largely on the outs...that's a good way to start the weekend.
Al Franken shocks democrats in his bid for Senate while admitting that the Internet is a “terrific learning tool. He states that the internet helped his 12 year old son write a 6th grade report on bestiality…
The Crucible Part II in Ballywood. Women accused of herecy in India are being burned publicly at the stake...where's John Proctor when you need him? Or Daniel Day Lewis? I'd settle for that.
Marines in Fallujah in trouble for handing out coins with Biblical sayings written in Arabic on them.
Move over Dream Girls! The dynamic trio of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean are putting pressure (again) on delegates to choose (again) which side they are going to be on (again)…who knows I’ve always heard time number 23,486,786,485,224 is a charm!
The DNC is both morally and financially bankrupt as they scramble to put together their Shindig in Colorado.
Secretary of State Coni Rice met with legendary musical group Kiss this week. I smell a reality show! Move over Flavor of Love...Flavor or Rice sounds better.
Oh Barry! Someone! Get this man a Priest! One who isn't going to go on the record and say something stupid and further harm his chances of winning the Oval Office...on second thought...don't.
Boyd Richie, Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party endorsed Barack Obama yesterday.
"Like Mother, Like McClellan. Scott McClellan’s mom, or better known to Texas as “One Tough Grandma” or “the chick to who lost to Rick Perry” or Carol Keeton Strayhorn, sounds off on her sons book.
That's your fix of In The Know for this week...keep comin back for more updates here on RightUpFront!
Susan Sarandon threatens to leave the country if John McCain is elected. Who wants to help her pack??? More importantly, is it possible for her to take Michael Moore, Matt Damon, Al Franken and every other annoying Hollywood person with her?
Michael Hayden head of the Central Intelligence Agency informs us that al-Qaeda is largely on the outs...that's a good way to start the weekend.
Al Franken shocks democrats in his bid for Senate while admitting that the Internet is a “terrific learning tool. He states that the internet helped his 12 year old son write a 6th grade report on bestiality…
The Crucible Part II in Ballywood. Women accused of herecy in India are being burned publicly at the stake...where's John Proctor when you need him? Or Daniel Day Lewis? I'd settle for that.
Marines in Fallujah in trouble for handing out coins with Biblical sayings written in Arabic on them.
Move over Dream Girls! The dynamic trio of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean are putting pressure (again) on delegates to choose (again) which side they are going to be on (again)…who knows I’ve always heard time number 23,486,786,485,224 is a charm!
The DNC is both morally and financially bankrupt as they scramble to put together their Shindig in Colorado.
Secretary of State Coni Rice met with legendary musical group Kiss this week. I smell a reality show! Move over Flavor of Love...Flavor or Rice sounds better.
Oh Barry! Someone! Get this man a Priest! One who isn't going to go on the record and say something stupid and further harm his chances of winning the Oval Office...on second thought...don't.
Boyd Richie, Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party endorsed Barack Obama yesterday.
"Like Mother, Like McClellan. Scott McClellan’s mom, or better known to Texas as “One Tough Grandma” or “the chick to who lost to Rick Perry” or Carol Keeton Strayhorn, sounds off on her sons book.
That's your fix of In The Know for this week...keep comin back for more updates here on RightUpFront!
Maxine Waters: Diary of a Stupid Black Woman
Doh! Maxine Waters accidentally let the cat out of the bag. She actually said (out loud) that Democrats ultimate goal is the "socialize" the oil industry. First, the video and her senseless, mindless and moronic searching for the right words. Wadda dumbass.
Nothing can be more painful than watching a Democrat actually try to find something more stupid to say. But there she is, in all her brain dead glory, struggling to find something more retarded than "let's socialize the oil industry". She couldn't think of anything more ridiculous, so instead she just dumbed it down so that Chairman Conyers could understand, saying "this liberal will be about taking over, and the government running all of your companies." Bravo, madame Waters, how stupendously stupid! And the way you even made yourself look like an idiot, it was simply breathtaking. Very convincing performance. The only missing element was a little head bobbing, followed up with some finger snapping in a kind of "oh no you dih'int" kind of way. You know, like typical black people do.
::::standing O::::
Nothing can be more painful than watching a Democrat actually try to find something more stupid to say. But there she is, in all her brain dead glory, struggling to find something more retarded than "let's socialize the oil industry". She couldn't think of anything more ridiculous, so instead she just dumbed it down so that Chairman Conyers could understand, saying "this liberal will be about taking over, and the government running all of your companies." Bravo, madame Waters, how stupendously stupid! And the way you even made yourself look like an idiot, it was simply breathtaking. Very convincing performance. The only missing element was a little head bobbing, followed up with some finger snapping in a kind of "oh no you dih'int" kind of way. You know, like typical black people do.
::::standing O::::
Vets For Freedom Slam Obama
No commentary on this one. I'll let the veterans speak for themselves.
The only thing I'd ask is that all of you share these with friends and family.
The only thing I'd ask is that all of you share these with friends and family.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Terrorphobia
Just when you think it can’t get any worse, liberals just keep on talking. This weeks front-runner for RUFs “Idiot of the Week” , which for the record is always a very close race as we do have a LOT to chose from given the selection, is American Interest writer John Mueller.
Mueller’s piece “Terrorphobia: Our False Sense of Insecurity” makes ridiculous claims that are so far from the truth they could only come from a liberal train of thought.
He states that President Bush “garnered great political benefit from the terrorism scare”. First of all, Sept. 11 was not a scare. It was an attack our country, our fellow Americans and our ideology. Secondly, any acclaim that President Bush received after that day was well deserved as he faced on one of the darkest times in our nation with grace and steadfast resolve. I remember sitting at home that day thinking to myself “Thank God Gore didn’t win”. Thirdly, if anything the Presidents approval ratings because of the war in Iraq are a constant issue to the Democratic Party, because they are sooo low. C’mon Dems, you can’t have it both ways. To say he benefited from the attack is both blatantly offensive and disgusting.
He further goes on to (incorrectly state) that: “There have been no al-Qaeda attacks whatsoever in the United States since 2001”.
Not for lack of trying:
-Jose Padilla, May 2002: attempted to smuggle a dirty bomb into O’Hare Airport in Chicago. He was later found guilty of conspiring with Islamic terrorist groups and was convicted by a jury in 2007.
-Sahim Alwan, Yahya Goba, Yasein Taher, Faysal Galab, Mukhtar al-Bakri, and Shafal Mosed (Lackawanna Six) pled guilty in 2003 to proving to support al-Qaeda and attempting to attend a terrorist training camp.
-Iyman Faris, May 2003, pled guilty to providing material and conspiring with al-Qaeda to commit terrorist attacks in the US by way of the blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge.
- The Virginia Jihad Network, June 2003 – connected to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and convicted for violating the Neutrality Act.
- Dhiren Barot, August 2004, was the leader of a terrorist cell who had made plans to attack the NY Stock Exchange and a plethora of other financial institutions through out the country.
- Assem Hammoud, July 2006, linked to al – Qaeda and admitted to plotting to attack the underground New Jersey transit system.
- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was captured in March of 2003 and is charged with being involved with multiple terrorist attacks and is one of Osama bin Laden’s senior operaters. He admitted to aiding in the plot that took place on 9/11.
These are a few of the examples of attacks that were planned by individuals who were linked with al-Qaeda but were thwarted by our law enforcement agencies. The point Mueller makes sounds almost as if we should feel BAD for capturing these individuals and stopping the attacks before they happened. Should we have let them take place so he can have an argument to stand on?
He goes on to write “No true al-Qaeda cell has been unearthed in this country”…the majority of the examples I’ve just provided contradict every bit of his last statement.
His last and final argument on this matter is sketchy at best: “the homegrown ‘plotters’ who have been apprehended, while perhaps potentially somewhat dangers at least in a few cases, have mostly been flaky or almost absurdly incompetent”. Wait. I thought we hadn’t yet “unearthed” any terrorists in this country? His last statement is a complete and full contradiction of his previous statement. C’mon.
He goes on to equate the terrorist “scare” with the Communist “scare” in a feeble attempt to make an argument stick. Communism stopped by Reagan, terrorism combated by George W…and you point is what exactly? Oh yes, Republicans do it better. We knew that.
Of course he touches base on the Patriot Act, which anyone who is familiar with the Social Contract knows where I’m going with this… we (as a nation) give up certain freedoms to our governing bodies in order to ascertain a level of protect or security that we would not be able to get on our own. There’s no way I can monitor the country on a daily basis and keep a look-out for terrorists. I don’t have the resources, ability, or know –how…so I give up some of my freedoms in order to have the Dept. of Homeland Security take care of that on my behalf. Now each time I pick up a cell phone I am fully away of the governments ability to listen in…on my conversations about shoes, Indiana Jones, Stephanie Meyer or where I am going to dinner. I know that they are not going to waste their time with lil’ ol’ me. Now, if I were to pick up the phone and use words like “bomb”, “fire”, “attack” , “WTC” , “White House” or “Jihad” then yeah I’d have agents knocking down my door, and rightly so. Is this NEW to anyone besides Mueller??? The fact remains that all the attempted attacks I previously mentioned were thwarted because of our governmental agencies working with resources like the Patriot Act.
Let’s face it. Everyone knows that the War on Terrorism, much like the War on Drugs, will never truly be won. That doesn’t change the fact that we have a moral obligation to fight. We don’t fight because we think we can win. We fight because it’s the right thing to do. We fight because we have an obligation to our country, every free democratic nation, to fight injustice and protect the innocent as well as our freedoms. Mueller couldn’t be more wrong, or liberal for that matter.
Mueller’s piece “Terrorphobia: Our False Sense of Insecurity” makes ridiculous claims that are so far from the truth they could only come from a liberal train of thought.
He states that President Bush “garnered great political benefit from the terrorism scare”. First of all, Sept. 11 was not a scare. It was an attack our country, our fellow Americans and our ideology. Secondly, any acclaim that President Bush received after that day was well deserved as he faced on one of the darkest times in our nation with grace and steadfast resolve. I remember sitting at home that day thinking to myself “Thank God Gore didn’t win”. Thirdly, if anything the Presidents approval ratings because of the war in Iraq are a constant issue to the Democratic Party, because they are sooo low. C’mon Dems, you can’t have it both ways. To say he benefited from the attack is both blatantly offensive and disgusting.
He further goes on to (incorrectly state) that: “There have been no al-Qaeda attacks whatsoever in the United States since 2001”.
Not for lack of trying:
-Jose Padilla, May 2002: attempted to smuggle a dirty bomb into O’Hare Airport in Chicago. He was later found guilty of conspiring with Islamic terrorist groups and was convicted by a jury in 2007.
-Sahim Alwan, Yahya Goba, Yasein Taher, Faysal Galab, Mukhtar al-Bakri, and Shafal Mosed (Lackawanna Six) pled guilty in 2003 to proving to support al-Qaeda and attempting to attend a terrorist training camp.
-Iyman Faris, May 2003, pled guilty to providing material and conspiring with al-Qaeda to commit terrorist attacks in the US by way of the blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge.
- The Virginia Jihad Network, June 2003 – connected to the Taliban and al-Qaeda and convicted for violating the Neutrality Act.
- Dhiren Barot, August 2004, was the leader of a terrorist cell who had made plans to attack the NY Stock Exchange and a plethora of other financial institutions through out the country.
- Assem Hammoud, July 2006, linked to al – Qaeda and admitted to plotting to attack the underground New Jersey transit system.
- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was captured in March of 2003 and is charged with being involved with multiple terrorist attacks and is one of Osama bin Laden’s senior operaters. He admitted to aiding in the plot that took place on 9/11.
These are a few of the examples of attacks that were planned by individuals who were linked with al-Qaeda but were thwarted by our law enforcement agencies. The point Mueller makes sounds almost as if we should feel BAD for capturing these individuals and stopping the attacks before they happened. Should we have let them take place so he can have an argument to stand on?
He goes on to write “No true al-Qaeda cell has been unearthed in this country”…the majority of the examples I’ve just provided contradict every bit of his last statement.
His last and final argument on this matter is sketchy at best: “the homegrown ‘plotters’ who have been apprehended, while perhaps potentially somewhat dangers at least in a few cases, have mostly been flaky or almost absurdly incompetent”. Wait. I thought we hadn’t yet “unearthed” any terrorists in this country? His last statement is a complete and full contradiction of his previous statement. C’mon.
He goes on to equate the terrorist “scare” with the Communist “scare” in a feeble attempt to make an argument stick. Communism stopped by Reagan, terrorism combated by George W…and you point is what exactly? Oh yes, Republicans do it better. We knew that.
Of course he touches base on the Patriot Act, which anyone who is familiar with the Social Contract knows where I’m going with this… we (as a nation) give up certain freedoms to our governing bodies in order to ascertain a level of protect or security that we would not be able to get on our own. There’s no way I can monitor the country on a daily basis and keep a look-out for terrorists. I don’t have the resources, ability, or know –how…so I give up some of my freedoms in order to have the Dept. of Homeland Security take care of that on my behalf. Now each time I pick up a cell phone I am fully away of the governments ability to listen in…on my conversations about shoes, Indiana Jones, Stephanie Meyer or where I am going to dinner. I know that they are not going to waste their time with lil’ ol’ me. Now, if I were to pick up the phone and use words like “bomb”, “fire”, “attack” , “WTC” , “White House” or “Jihad” then yeah I’d have agents knocking down my door, and rightly so. Is this NEW to anyone besides Mueller??? The fact remains that all the attempted attacks I previously mentioned were thwarted because of our governmental agencies working with resources like the Patriot Act.
Let’s face it. Everyone knows that the War on Terrorism, much like the War on Drugs, will never truly be won. That doesn’t change the fact that we have a moral obligation to fight. We don’t fight because we think we can win. We fight because it’s the right thing to do. We fight because we have an obligation to our country, every free democratic nation, to fight injustice and protect the innocent as well as our freedoms. Mueller couldn’t be more wrong, or liberal for that matter.
Purple Hearts distributed for PTSD
I ran across an article in the
Army Times regarding the issuing of Purple Hearts to individuals suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) sustained during combat. This appears to be the origin of much debate…
It seems to be that many members of the military want to continue distributing the award based on "singularly meritorious act of fidelity service" and that "a wound which necessitates treatment by a medical officer and which is received in action with an enemy, may, in the judgment of the commander authorized to make the award, be construed as resulting from a singularly meritorious act of essential service”.
Although I do think that PTSD is a real side effect of battle, and deserves as much attention as other combat related injuries, I do not believe that a Purple Heart should be award solely on that basis. Personally, a few members of my family have been diagnosed with PTSD and they agree that what they endured during battle, although seen in my eyes as courageous as well, does not merit a Purple Heart.
It is my opinion that another medal, if the case need be, should be created to honor those individuals, but simply sticking them under the umbrella of the Purple Heart recipients, does not work to fit what George Washington meant when he created it.
John Stavast survived nine different North Vietnamese POW camps over his six years in captivity…
G.R. Williams was at Pearl Harbour, aboard the battleship West Virginia during the day that will forever live in infamy …
Roy Benavidez a Purple Heart and Medal of Honor recipient, came out of the Vietnam War as the most decorated veteran who served during that time.
Let us know what you think…should the requirements for the Purple Heart be changed to include servicemen and women suffering from PTSD?
Army Times regarding the issuing of Purple Hearts to individuals suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) sustained during combat. This appears to be the origin of much debate…
It seems to be that many members of the military want to continue distributing the award based on "singularly meritorious act of fidelity service" and that "a wound which necessitates treatment by a medical officer and which is received in action with an enemy, may, in the judgment of the commander authorized to make the award, be construed as resulting from a singularly meritorious act of essential service”.
Although I do think that PTSD is a real side effect of battle, and deserves as much attention as other combat related injuries, I do not believe that a Purple Heart should be award solely on that basis. Personally, a few members of my family have been diagnosed with PTSD and they agree that what they endured during battle, although seen in my eyes as courageous as well, does not merit a Purple Heart.
It is my opinion that another medal, if the case need be, should be created to honor those individuals, but simply sticking them under the umbrella of the Purple Heart recipients, does not work to fit what George Washington meant when he created it.
John Stavast survived nine different North Vietnamese POW camps over his six years in captivity…
G.R. Williams was at Pearl Harbour, aboard the battleship West Virginia during the day that will forever live in infamy …
Roy Benavidez a Purple Heart and Medal of Honor recipient, came out of the Vietnam War as the most decorated veteran who served during that time.
Let us know what you think…should the requirements for the Purple Heart be changed to include servicemen and women suffering from PTSD?
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Obama's Fairytales: "My Uncle Liberated Auschwitz"
UPDATE: Since this posting, FoxNews has covered this story.
It was a moment the media will likely not cover and you will probably not find anywhere but here on the blogosphere. Barack Obama is now claiming to have had an uncle that liberated Auschwitz. Here's the video, so's all you liberals don't think we're making this up.
That would be impressive, except it sounded a little bit peculiar to our friends over at Ace of Spades. Their Purple Avenger points out some interesting facts:
Big thanks to Justin Higgins at ROTR.
It was a moment the media will likely not cover and you will probably not find anywhere but here on the blogosphere. Barack Obama is now claiming to have had an uncle that liberated Auschwitz. Here's the video, so's all you liberals don't think we're making this up.
That would be impressive, except it sounded a little bit peculiar to our friends over at Ace of Spades. Their Purple Avenger points out some interesting facts:
Auschwitz of course is in Poland. It was liberated by the Red Army on Jan 27 1945. Poland, on most maps is usually placed to the east of Germany, although we may need to investigate the geography textbooks the Messiah used as a child...Oh. My. GAWD! Does it never end with this guy? Someone do some fact checking to see if this man even has an uncle. I have a hunch he made that up, too. Unfortunately, Scott "I Crave Attention" McClellan's book is getting all of the coverage. Oh well. This, too, will come out in time.
The Allies were wrapping up the battle of the bulge in late January of 1945 -- the Rhine crossings were still well into the future when Auschwitz was liberated. The first, the Remagen railway bridge which was discovered intact, was crossed on March 7 1945.
Of course it goes without saying that the media has thus far failed to call the Messiah on this apparently obviously outrageous lie. Unless Obama's "uncle" was serving in the Red Army, its a pretty safe bet he was many hundreds of miles from Auschwitz on its day of liberation.
Big thanks to Justin Higgins at ROTR.
Glorified Furniture
Our friendly neighborhood liberals over at BurntOrangeReport feel compelled to praise State Rep. Juan Garcia in HD 32, claiming he’s one of the “strongest voices” in our Texas legislature today. Fascinating.
A strong voice he may be---but the real question is: Is anyone listening?
In 2007 out of the 15 pieces of legislation that Garcia managed to scramble together two of them managed to make it by their respective committee’s and onto the legislative floor.
Although Garcia’s website boasts his agenda as being increasing: public resources, public safety, and public education, his record doesn’t show him being successful in that arena. Sure it’s easier to sit back, let someone else draft of legislation and vote on it. Anyone (liberal) can do that. But to be a catalyst for change and work tirelessly to make it happen, is quite another thing.
Now, I don’t want to be overly harsh. I do owe Representative Garcia my thanks for allowing counseling for jurors (oh! we can't forget about those alternate jurors as well!) who've experienced trama in the courtroom. That’s something I’ve so desperately longed for---because truly, who cares about funding for education, lower taxes, or adding money onto the CHIP? Pft, not me and certainly not Garcia and for that I am thankful (note sarcasm).
As much as I’d like to continue into Garcia’s record, there’s not much there… sadly the award for most useless State Rep. still must go to Joaquin Castro for being the main author to 19 pieces of legislation in 2007. Two of which were passed.
My personal favorite was HB 1479.which made the print larger and more readable in rebate forms and attempted to do away with all that legal mumbo-jumbo on the back of those pesky forms. THANK HEAVANS! Just the other day while out shopping during my Vegas vacay weekend I was thinking (Russ cue the music please):
“IF ONLY there were someone, a brave Harvard graduate, who could release me from the confines of my retail imprisonment! If only there was another way to handle these troublesome rebate forms! WHY GOD WHY?” Just then I realized duh, CastroTWIN powers UNITE! (Wonder Twins were so much cooler)
It’s good to know that in a tight shopping squeeze you’ve got Castro and Garcia ready to lend a (useless) hand.
Raise your glasses my fellow Texans and salute two of our most “valued” legislators, or as I like to call them, "Glorified Furniture".
Texas deserves better. We deserve better.
//ends rant//
A strong voice he may be---but the real question is: Is anyone listening?
In 2007 out of the 15 pieces of legislation that Garcia managed to scramble together two of them managed to make it by their respective committee’s and onto the legislative floor.
Although Garcia’s website boasts his agenda as being increasing: public resources, public safety, and public education, his record doesn’t show him being successful in that arena. Sure it’s easier to sit back, let someone else draft of legislation and vote on it. Anyone (liberal) can do that. But to be a catalyst for change and work tirelessly to make it happen, is quite another thing.
Now, I don’t want to be overly harsh. I do owe Representative Garcia my thanks for allowing counseling for jurors (oh! we can't forget about those alternate jurors as well!) who've experienced trama in the courtroom. That’s something I’ve so desperately longed for---because truly, who cares about funding for education, lower taxes, or adding money onto the CHIP? Pft, not me and certainly not Garcia and for that I am thankful (note sarcasm).
As much as I’d like to continue into Garcia’s record, there’s not much there… sadly the award for most useless State Rep. still must go to Joaquin Castro for being the main author to 19 pieces of legislation in 2007. Two of which were passed.
My personal favorite was HB 1479.which made the print larger and more readable in rebate forms and attempted to do away with all that legal mumbo-jumbo on the back of those pesky forms. THANK HEAVANS! Just the other day while out shopping during my Vegas vacay weekend I was thinking (Russ cue the music please):
“IF ONLY there were someone, a brave Harvard graduate, who could release me from the confines of my retail imprisonment! If only there was another way to handle these troublesome rebate forms! WHY GOD WHY?” Just then I realized duh, CastroTWIN powers UNITE! (Wonder Twins were so much cooler)
It’s good to know that in a tight shopping squeeze you’ve got Castro and Garcia ready to lend a (useless) hand.
Raise your glasses my fellow Texans and salute two of our most “valued” legislators, or as I like to call them, "Glorified Furniture".
Texas deserves better. We deserve better.
//ends rant//
Rick Noriega Forgets His Fellow Soldiers
Trailing in the polls and desperately trailing Senator John Cornyn in campaign funds, Lt. Col Rick Noriega, Democrat challenger to Sen. Cornyn, is already taking his marching orders from Harry Reid and the Democrat leadership. Yesterday, Memorial Day, Noriega published an editorial in the Houston Comical...um, I mean, Chronicle. But it wasn't about the sacrifices made by military personel of today or years gone by. It wasn't about courage, valor or bravery. Nay, it had little to do with any of those things. Instead, Mr. Noriega used it as an opporutunity to to showcase himself, lie about Senator Cornyn's positions and just generally make an ass of himself. BigJolly at LoneStarTimes has the story:
Now, what are the words I'm looking for...it's right on the tip of my tonge...OH yes! "Politcal opportunism". Mr. Noriega is the one who should be ashamed of himself for such shrill demogoguery for nothing more than a few more campaign dollars. As our own Aaron Schwitters points out, the GI Bill in question greatly weakens our military's ability to retain talented and highly trained soldiers, something Mr. Noriega must be aware of. We can only assume he's stupid or that he simply doesn't care for the truth.
I was hoping that in having a former Lt. Colonel as a candidate, we would at least be faced with an honorable challenger for Mr. Cornyn. But it looks like that was a pipe dream. Just more useless drivel from just another shameless Democrat.
Mr. Cornyn, on the other hand took the opportunity to praise our soldiers and honor their sacrifice.
In an outrageous display of placing personal ambition above common decency, the Democrat candidate for U.S. Senate from Texas walked all over the graves of the men and women that gave their all for our country. On a day that was designed to give us pause and to honor those men and women, Lt. Col. Rick Noriega chose to draw attention away from them and to himself.The article, which gives us a grim picture of what a Noriage Senate career would look like, says in part "It is reprehensible that Cornyn supports keeping our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but refuses to provide for our soldiers once they return home. As a public servant, as a soldier and as a Texan, I am ashamed of Cornyn’s continued efforts to deny our troops the benefits they earned defending the United States."
Now, what are the words I'm looking for...it's right on the tip of my tonge...OH yes! "Politcal opportunism". Mr. Noriega is the one who should be ashamed of himself for such shrill demogoguery for nothing more than a few more campaign dollars. As our own Aaron Schwitters points out, the GI Bill in question greatly weakens our military's ability to retain talented and highly trained soldiers, something Mr. Noriega must be aware of. We can only assume he's stupid or that he simply doesn't care for the truth.
I was hoping that in having a former Lt. Colonel as a candidate, we would at least be faced with an honorable challenger for Mr. Cornyn. But it looks like that was a pipe dream. Just more useless drivel from just another shameless Democrat.
Mr. Cornyn, on the other hand took the opportunity to praise our soldiers and honor their sacrifice.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
OMG! Like patriotism is so totally last season...gawd.
I was prompted to write this based on another similar story I read earlier today.
My parents recently purchased a home in Northwest San Antonio. My dad, a Vietnam Veteran, used his VA Home Loan to purchase the house they always wanted and rightfully deserved.
After settling in my dad put up his flag pole---the same one we’ve had in every house I’ve ever lived in. We fly the American flag on a regular basis and a POW-MIA flag during appropriate holidays. My dad was approached by a member of the mandatory Home Owners Association (HOA) and said that some concerns were raised at the last HOA meeting with regards to “that damn Mexican’s” flag pole.
My dad was surprised considering this has never been an issue in any other residential area we’ve lived in. Apparently some members thought it “brought down the value” of the property and surrounding properties. My dad then proceeded to thank our neighbor for the heads-up and told him that he was more than willing to tell the person with the complaint where they could shove the flag pole. Good ol’ dad. Later on that week, before the members of the HOA my dad stated that he went at the age of 18 to fight for our country to protect our individual freedoms and rights and he would continue to honor our country and our servicemen and women by flying that flag whenever he saw fit, regardless of the HOA standards or any complaints. He then dared the person with the complaints to tell one of our other neighbors to remove both her American flag and her Marine Corps flag which she flies daily after he son died in Iraq last month. The room fell silent.
My dad, as well as our neighbor who lost her son, now fly the flag freely and without complaint and likewise the gentleman who raised the complaint against my father is free to display his “Hillary for President” yard sign.
Call me old fashioned but Patriotism is always in style. Thank – You to all our servicemen and woman who continue to fight for our freedom and the freedoms of others. We appreciate your bravery, service and commitment. I say thanks not because it’s the day after Memorial Day, simply because it’s Tuesday and ya’ll deserve to hear it everyday.
My parents recently purchased a home in Northwest San Antonio. My dad, a Vietnam Veteran, used his VA Home Loan to purchase the house they always wanted and rightfully deserved.
After settling in my dad put up his flag pole---the same one we’ve had in every house I’ve ever lived in. We fly the American flag on a regular basis and a POW-MIA flag during appropriate holidays. My dad was approached by a member of the mandatory Home Owners Association (HOA) and said that some concerns were raised at the last HOA meeting with regards to “that damn Mexican’s” flag pole.
My dad was surprised considering this has never been an issue in any other residential area we’ve lived in. Apparently some members thought it “brought down the value” of the property and surrounding properties. My dad then proceeded to thank our neighbor for the heads-up and told him that he was more than willing to tell the person with the complaint where they could shove the flag pole. Good ol’ dad. Later on that week, before the members of the HOA my dad stated that he went at the age of 18 to fight for our country to protect our individual freedoms and rights and he would continue to honor our country and our servicemen and women by flying that flag whenever he saw fit, regardless of the HOA standards or any complaints. He then dared the person with the complaints to tell one of our other neighbors to remove both her American flag and her Marine Corps flag which she flies daily after he son died in Iraq last month. The room fell silent.
My dad, as well as our neighbor who lost her son, now fly the flag freely and without complaint and likewise the gentleman who raised the complaint against my father is free to display his “Hillary for President” yard sign.
Call me old fashioned but Patriotism is always in style. Thank – You to all our servicemen and woman who continue to fight for our freedom and the freedoms of others. We appreciate your bravery, service and commitment. I say thanks not because it’s the day after Memorial Day, simply because it’s Tuesday and ya’ll deserve to hear it everyday.
Jimmy Carter: One of History's Greatest Monsters
Conservative pundit Jonah Goldberg often jokes that Jimmy Carter is history's greatest monster. It's a line that's ha-ha funny because it's absurd on it's face--whether you hate Jimmy Carter or... um, really hate him, he's a generally harmless old podunk fart, right?
Well, unfortunately it seems Jimmy is doing his best to live up (down?) to his moniker.
First, Jimmy made the news by meeting with the leadership of a violent terrorist organization, Hamas. Then, Jimmy, drawing from his widely-respected expertise in Persian-American relations, called for a return to normal trade relations with Iran (private aside to liberal readers: that's sarcasm--Jimmy Carter's weakness and failure in dealing with the Iranian's caused American deaths).
But all of this is just merely ignorant and annoying. Like a yippy pomeranian barking at the foot of the table during dinner, the adults just ignore it and move on with business.
Now, Jimmy Carter, who hasn't stood for election to anything since 1980 (when voters chose to make him a pensioner), insists on injecting himself into nuclear politics in the middle east by releasing Israel's nuclear secrets? Oh, this is precious. I wouldn't trust Jimmy Carter with an extra scoop of tapioca pudding at the Hokey Cokey Old Folks' Home, but he's trying to handle nuclear weapons proliferation, specifically in the middle east region of the world? A failure his whole life, but he's going to take on that issue, specifically. It's not as if another failure there would be particularly costly, right? (liberal readers: see first private aside)
It's truly ironic that a leader like Ronald Reagan was criticized as senile and an "amiable dunce" while still accomplishing so much for our nation. And Jimmy Carter, who failed his entire term at the helm, may not be senile in the slightest, but he is not an agent of the United States government. He should not be representing us or involving himself in foreign affairs, outside of attending funerals. Because as it stands right now, the policies he's pushing abroad are going to create a great deal more funerals. I fear that someday Jimmy's label as "history's greatest monster" will not be some absurd joke, but accepted fact.
Well, unfortunately it seems Jimmy is doing his best to live up (down?) to his moniker.
First, Jimmy made the news by meeting with the leadership of a violent terrorist organization, Hamas. Then, Jimmy, drawing from his widely-respected expertise in Persian-American relations, called for a return to normal trade relations with Iran (private aside to liberal readers: that's sarcasm--Jimmy Carter's weakness and failure in dealing with the Iranian's caused American deaths).
But all of this is just merely ignorant and annoying. Like a yippy pomeranian barking at the foot of the table during dinner, the adults just ignore it and move on with business.
Now, Jimmy Carter, who hasn't stood for election to anything since 1980 (when voters chose to make him a pensioner), insists on injecting himself into nuclear politics in the middle east by releasing Israel's nuclear secrets? Oh, this is precious. I wouldn't trust Jimmy Carter with an extra scoop of tapioca pudding at the Hokey Cokey Old Folks' Home, but he's trying to handle nuclear weapons proliferation, specifically in the middle east region of the world? A failure his whole life, but he's going to take on that issue, specifically. It's not as if another failure there would be particularly costly, right? (liberal readers: see first private aside)
It's truly ironic that a leader like Ronald Reagan was criticized as senile and an "amiable dunce" while still accomplishing so much for our nation. And Jimmy Carter, who failed his entire term at the helm, may not be senile in the slightest, but he is not an agent of the United States government. He should not be representing us or involving himself in foreign affairs, outside of attending funerals. Because as it stands right now, the policies he's pushing abroad are going to create a great deal more funerals. I fear that someday Jimmy's label as "history's greatest monster" will not be some absurd joke, but accepted fact.
Monday, May 26, 2008
RNC Launches New Web Ad
The Republican National Committee is nailing Obama's balls to the wall on his comments regarding ending the cuban embargo and meeting with terrorists without precondition.Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing us use the national security card throughout this campaign. "Naive", as used here, is the perfect word to describe Barack Obama on the matter of national security. Whatever fairytale land Barack Obama is living in will come crashing down around him once one of these murdering thugs stabs him in the back.
I can't wait to watch him embarass himself in the debates against John McCain. It will be truly amusing to see.
I can't wait to watch him embarass himself in the debates against John McCain. It will be truly amusing to see.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Indiana Jones and the Communist Revolt
If you are undecided for whether to go to the new Indiana Jones movie, hopefully THIS will convince you. It appears that members of Russia's communist party are trying to boycott this movie because it undermines their cause. So go see Indiana Jones. In fact see it two or three times.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Read Carefully Next Time...
Matt Glazer of BurntOrangeReport successfully displays his inability to comprehend the needs of the US military. In his piece “Cornyn Responds to VoteVets” he attacks Senator Cornyn and argues in favor of the Webb-Hagel GI Bill. Contributor for RUF Aaron Schwitters, outlined the Webb-Hagel Bill perfectly in his piece "The Democrat Poison - Pill for the Military".
Kevin McLaughlin, spokesman for the Cornyn campaign responded to the ad released by VoteVets.org. McLaughlin states: “The anti-war crowd is determined to use our men and women in uniform for their political advantage, even if our nation security is jeopardized in the process”. This drew criticism from both VoteVets and BurntOrangeReport. Perhaps McLaughlin was referring to the fact that the VoteVets PAC was created for the purpose of electing vets with the same mentality as their board members into public office. And for the record: YES you can be in the military or served in the military and be against the war. ::Coughs:: John Kerry ::Coughs:: This statement remains obviously true regardless of the “NUH-UH!” logic used by the writers at BurntOrangeReport.
Although VoteVets, BurntOrangeReport, and Cornyn challenger Rick Noriega would like you to believe that the Webb-Hagel Bill would benefit our servicemen and the military it’s easy to see how it would actually do more harm than good.
In a press release dated 05/14/2008 VetsforFreedom.org, a nonpartisan organization compromised of combat veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, came out in support of the revised GI Bill, the McCain-Graham Bill. They accurately state: “The McCain-Graham Bill substantially increases monthly educational benefits and could be implemented immediately; while the Webb Bill would take over a year to implement and would require a new layer of Pentagon bureaucracy. The McCain-Graham Bill also rewards troops who remain in the military providing strong incentives for our best and brightest to continue their service and support a growing force.”
Both Schwitters and VetsforFreedom accurately depict the advantages of the McCain-Graham bill. You’d think the retired and active military individuals from VoteVets and Noriega himself would understand the strategy behind the bills and see that the one that makes the most sense for our military, servicemen, and our country is the one that rewards those individuals for their commitment rather than giving an incentive to leave which would inherently cripple our military. Perhaps they are trying to get back to the downscaled version of the military that Clinton ingeniously (note sarcasm) instituted in the 90’s. Assuming the Webb-Hagel Bill does not make it, it is not the end of the line for our servicemen. The disability benefits provided by the VA allow them, and their children to receive a monthly allowance and pays for College and Continued Education tuition for them and their dependants up to 100% after they have been given their 100% disability status. President Bush recently demanded that they loosen the restrictions on declaring 100% disability allowing more of our servicemen and women to attain this.
Although this bill is important I firmly it is equally important to recognize The VA budget boost approved by President Bush of $3.7 million. This will help to increase the number of facilities available and expand numerous other benefits available. Additionally, his decision to expedite the process for those servicemen who have applied for combat related disability benefits has had a profound impact on those who have applied for disability through the Office of VA. Now when applying for disability your claim will be reviewed and determined within a six month period allowing you to get the help you need when you need it the most. And for all the complaining we hear from the wacky left they fail to mention the fact that the number of homeless vets has gone down 21% in the last two years as a result of the policies and practices implemented under the current Administration according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
With this being said it’s easy to see why Cornyn backs the McCain-Graham bill…because it actually helps our military and our servicemen.
Kevin McLaughlin, spokesman for the Cornyn campaign responded to the ad released by VoteVets.org. McLaughlin states: “The anti-war crowd is determined to use our men and women in uniform for their political advantage, even if our nation security is jeopardized in the process”. This drew criticism from both VoteVets and BurntOrangeReport. Perhaps McLaughlin was referring to the fact that the VoteVets PAC was created for the purpose of electing vets with the same mentality as their board members into public office. And for the record: YES you can be in the military or served in the military and be against the war. ::Coughs:: John Kerry ::Coughs:: This statement remains obviously true regardless of the “NUH-UH!” logic used by the writers at BurntOrangeReport.
Although VoteVets, BurntOrangeReport, and Cornyn challenger Rick Noriega would like you to believe that the Webb-Hagel Bill would benefit our servicemen and the military it’s easy to see how it would actually do more harm than good.
In a press release dated 05/14/2008 VetsforFreedom.org, a nonpartisan organization compromised of combat veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, came out in support of the revised GI Bill, the McCain-Graham Bill. They accurately state: “The McCain-Graham Bill substantially increases monthly educational benefits and could be implemented immediately; while the Webb Bill would take over a year to implement and would require a new layer of Pentagon bureaucracy. The McCain-Graham Bill also rewards troops who remain in the military providing strong incentives for our best and brightest to continue their service and support a growing force.”
Both Schwitters and VetsforFreedom accurately depict the advantages of the McCain-Graham bill. You’d think the retired and active military individuals from VoteVets and Noriega himself would understand the strategy behind the bills and see that the one that makes the most sense for our military, servicemen, and our country is the one that rewards those individuals for their commitment rather than giving an incentive to leave which would inherently cripple our military. Perhaps they are trying to get back to the downscaled version of the military that Clinton ingeniously (note sarcasm) instituted in the 90’s. Assuming the Webb-Hagel Bill does not make it, it is not the end of the line for our servicemen. The disability benefits provided by the VA allow them, and their children to receive a monthly allowance and pays for College and Continued Education tuition for them and their dependants up to 100% after they have been given their 100% disability status. President Bush recently demanded that they loosen the restrictions on declaring 100% disability allowing more of our servicemen and women to attain this.
Although this bill is important I firmly it is equally important to recognize The VA budget boost approved by President Bush of $3.7 million. This will help to increase the number of facilities available and expand numerous other benefits available. Additionally, his decision to expedite the process for those servicemen who have applied for combat related disability benefits has had a profound impact on those who have applied for disability through the Office of VA. Now when applying for disability your claim will be reviewed and determined within a six month period allowing you to get the help you need when you need it the most. And for all the complaining we hear from the wacky left they fail to mention the fact that the number of homeless vets has gone down 21% in the last two years as a result of the policies and practices implemented under the current Administration according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
With this being said it’s easy to see why Cornyn backs the McCain-Graham bill…because it actually helps our military and our servicemen.
McCain Narrows It Down To Three Veep Candidates?
According to the IHT, McCain may have narrowed his Veep pick down to three GOP governors. Charlie Crist of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and my hero, the Stormin' Mormon Mitt Romney.
Sources are saying that Crist and Jindal have already accepted invitations to meet with McCain at his Arizona ranch, and GOP insiders say that Romney is also slated to meet with Johnny Boy. Romney's people had no comment. Uh huh. Hopefully this means there is a real shot for Mitt to end up on the ticket, despite his huge disagreements with McCain on some key issues.
I'm not too fond of Charlie Crist, but Bobby Jindal has proven to be a hugely successful governor of Louisiana even before completing his first term. I would be totally happy to see him on the ticket with McCain and he does a particularly nice job balancing out the age factor. His place on the national ticket would also help to secure Louisiana for John McCain, which could also spell trouble for Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu, who is already facing an uphill battle in her battle against State Treasurer John Kennedy.
With the exception of Crist, I think either of these canidates would offer a huge burst of energy to the McCain campaign. I would love, LOVE, to see Mitt Romney back on the campaign trail, and it would make me, and many many many others, much more enthusiastic about this election.
Please, John, make the right decision.
Sources are saying that Crist and Jindal have already accepted invitations to meet with McCain at his Arizona ranch, and GOP insiders say that Romney is also slated to meet with Johnny Boy. Romney's people had no comment. Uh huh. Hopefully this means there is a real shot for Mitt to end up on the ticket, despite his huge disagreements with McCain on some key issues.
I'm not too fond of Charlie Crist, but Bobby Jindal has proven to be a hugely successful governor of Louisiana even before completing his first term. I would be totally happy to see him on the ticket with McCain and he does a particularly nice job balancing out the age factor. His place on the national ticket would also help to secure Louisiana for John McCain, which could also spell trouble for Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu, who is already facing an uphill battle in her battle against State Treasurer John Kennedy.
With the exception of Crist, I think either of these canidates would offer a huge burst of energy to the McCain campaign. I would love, LOVE, to see Mitt Romney back on the campaign trail, and it would make me, and many many many others, much more enthusiastic about this election.
Please, John, make the right decision.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Can't Hillary hear that fat, fat lady singing?
Billary gave an impassioned speech in Boca Raton Floridy in attempts to gain delegates in both Florida and Michigan.
In her speech she states that her campaign’s struggle to succeed at this task is similar to ending slavery. Clinton goes on to say: that it is also similar to “fighting racial discrimination at the ballot box” she stated.
“This work to extend the franchise to all of our citizens is a core mission of the modern Democratic Party” Clinton adds.
Let’s rewind to 2000 when Condoleezza Rice spoke at the Republican National Convention shall we? Rice recalls: “The first Republican that I knew was my father John Rice. And he is still the Republican I admire most. My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would no register him to vote. The Republicans did”.
For those of you who read my Right Up Front (RUF) yesterday, you’ll know of the several other examples that exemplify the Republican Party and its history with African Americans and Hispanics.
If Clinton truly wants to be a part of that history, perhaps she should consider switching parties rather than likening her pathetic excuse for a campaign to the Civil Rights Movement.
In her speech she states that her campaign’s struggle to succeed at this task is similar to ending slavery. Clinton goes on to say: that it is also similar to “fighting racial discrimination at the ballot box” she stated.
“This work to extend the franchise to all of our citizens is a core mission of the modern Democratic Party” Clinton adds.
Let’s rewind to 2000 when Condoleezza Rice spoke at the Republican National Convention shall we? Rice recalls: “The first Republican that I knew was my father John Rice. And he is still the Republican I admire most. My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would no register him to vote. The Republicans did”.
For those of you who read my Right Up Front (RUF) yesterday, you’ll know of the several other examples that exemplify the Republican Party and its history with African Americans and Hispanics.
If Clinton truly wants to be a part of that history, perhaps she should consider switching parties rather than likening her pathetic excuse for a campaign to the Civil Rights Movement.
More On Obama's Iran Comments
Yesterday, we reported here on RUF that Barack Obama made the incredibly stupid comment that Iran "doesn't pose a serious threat", calling it a "tiny country". We posted the video as well as commentary here.
Michelle Malkin, writing for National Review Online, then brought us this information today. Apparently, the day after Barack made those comments, he said (one presumes with a straight face, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”
He's either stupid or he's a liar. He could also be both, but either way he does not meet any criterion for being president. His foreign policy positions are as misguided and dangerous as, well, something that is completely and utterly misguided and dangerous. And his domestic policy initiatives are not anything close to being something new or fresh. It is the same old thing we would expect from any Senator rated as that body's most liberal member.
The truth is that, once elected, Barack Obama will label anyone who does not agree with him a divider, and anyone who supports his position a uniter. His will not be an administration built on compromise, but on stubborn utopian principles that only frustrate the hyper-partisan nature of politics and divides us as much as any far left wing president would. Mark my words, a President Obama will be one-termer with nothing to show for his massively expensive campaign other than massive foreign policy failures and humiliation.
Michelle Malkin, writing for National Review Online, then brought us this information today. Apparently, the day after Barack made those comments, he said (one presumes with a straight face, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”
He's either stupid or he's a liar. He could also be both, but either way he does not meet any criterion for being president. His foreign policy positions are as misguided and dangerous as, well, something that is completely and utterly misguided and dangerous. And his domestic policy initiatives are not anything close to being something new or fresh. It is the same old thing we would expect from any Senator rated as that body's most liberal member.
The truth is that, once elected, Barack Obama will label anyone who does not agree with him a divider, and anyone who supports his position a uniter. His will not be an administration built on compromise, but on stubborn utopian principles that only frustrate the hyper-partisan nature of politics and divides us as much as any far left wing president would. Mark my words, a President Obama will be one-termer with nothing to show for his massively expensive campaign other than massive foreign policy failures and humiliation.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
We Can Win, In Some Places, Not All
Tip O'Neil the former Speaker of the House said "all politics is local." This statement is as true today as it was when O'Neil said it in the 1980's. Republicans need to stop running national campaigns with their House races and instead talk the local talk. Talk about Iraq only when asked and instead bring the conversation back to the local issues that your constituents care about; taxes, jobs, economy, gas prices. If we talk about these issues and bring them to the voters in a localized way we can actually hold a few seats and who knows, maybe even pick up a few???
Here's the latest video from the Sean Sullivan Campaign, so check it out!
Here's the latest video from the Sean Sullivan Campaign, so check it out!
Politico all wrong
Jim Vandehei & Josh Kraushaar of Politico.com have managed to keep the race issue alive in 2008 with their (misleading) piece GOP fails to recruit minorities.
So yesterday we had whining liberals sad about Hillary not making it because she’s a woman and today we’ve got whining liberals mad that the GOP doesn’t have “enough” brown people in office.
My question to Mr. Vandehei and Mr. Kraushaar is when was this piece when their dear beloved Clinton was in office? How many minorities did he appoint to his cabinet? None certainly as successful, respected, knowledgeable, and outspoken as Secretary of State Rice or Colin Powell. Additionally, look at all the work Mel Martinez has done for the party but of course, why mention that as that would be antithetical to the headline.
“In all fairness, Republicans have never been very good at attracting strong minority candidates, especially African-Americans”. In all fairness? Give me a break.
The following is taken from the Texas GOP website:
Since Republicans became the statewide majority in 1994, 8 minority Texans have held statewide office; yet in the 122 years that Democrats controlled the State (18721994), only 4 minority Texans held statewide office.
The Texas Republican Party was formed on July 4, 1867, in Houston by 150 African Americans and 20 white Texans.
2 of the first 3 statewide leaders of the Republican Party of Texas were African American.
The first 42 African Americans elected to the Texas Legislature were Republicans.
When the Republicans became the majority in the Texas Legislature in 1869, they established a system of free public schools to educate all the children of the State—something Democrats had refused to do.
The first faith-based program was proposed in the 1870s by African American Republican Senator Matthew Gaines.
When Democrats recaptured Texas government in 1872, Democrat Governor Richard Coke’s election was described as “the restoration of white supremacy.”
President George W. Bush was the first president to appoint an African American as Secretary of State (Colin Powell). He also appointed blacks as National Security Advisor (Condoleeza Rice),
Secretary of Education (Rod Paige), and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Alphonso Jackson). In his second term, he appointed the second African American Secretary of State (Condoleeza Rice).
With new programs established by President Bush, African American home ownership is at an all-time high.
Of the 5 African Americans who have ever been U.S. Senators, 3 were Republicans.
The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery passed Congress with the support of 100% of Republican members but with only 23% of the Democrat members.
When the 14th and 15th Amendments extending civil rights and voting rights to African Americans passed, not even 1 Democrat in Congress voted for those amendments.
Since Republicans became the statewide majority in 1994, 8 minority Texans have held statewide office; yet in the 122 years that Democrats controlled the State (1872-1994), only 4 minority Texans held statewide office.
It took Democrats 114 years to elect a single Hispanic to statewide office. The Democrat establishment later tried to defeat him because he was too conservative.
Under Republican leadership, 5 Republican Hispanics have held statewide office. Currently, Victor Carrillo serves as a commissioner of Texas’ powerful Railroad Commission, and Justice David Medina serves on the Texas Supreme Court. Others who have moved into even higher positions include Al Gonzales, appointed by President George W. Bush as U.S. Attorney General and Tony Garza now serving as Ambassador to Mexico.
When the Republicans became the majority in the Texas Legislature in 1869, they established a system of free public schools to educate all the children of the state something Democrats had refused to do.
In 1998, Republican Governor George W. Bush created the Office of Border Initiatives, which facilitates trade and investment opportunities for Texas communities and companies along the border.
In 1999, Republican Lt. Governor Rick Perry established the first ever standing Committee on Border Affairs to address needs along the Texas Mexico border.
In 2001, Anglo Democrat men comprised only 20% of all Texas House members, but were named to 36% of all chairmanships by the Anglo Democrat Speaker. Hispanics were shortchanged because their support was taken for granted by the Democrat elite.
In 2003 however, Hispanics received approximately a 5% increase in chairmanships by the Republican Speaker of the House.
As of October 2004, Governor Perry has appointed over 300 Hispanics to different state commissions.
Under the administration of Republican Governor Rick Perry, state agencies have invested more resources in the 32-county border region than under Democrat leaders at any time in history.
In traditional liberal style…why would we bother digging deeper to find the truth when it makes them look worse? And why look worse when you can simply look ignorant, naïve, or misinformed.
So yesterday we had whining liberals sad about Hillary not making it because she’s a woman and today we’ve got whining liberals mad that the GOP doesn’t have “enough” brown people in office.
My question to Mr. Vandehei and Mr. Kraushaar is when was this piece when their dear beloved Clinton was in office? How many minorities did he appoint to his cabinet? None certainly as successful, respected, knowledgeable, and outspoken as Secretary of State Rice or Colin Powell. Additionally, look at all the work Mel Martinez has done for the party but of course, why mention that as that would be antithetical to the headline.
“In all fairness, Republicans have never been very good at attracting strong minority candidates, especially African-Americans”. In all fairness? Give me a break.
The following is taken from the Texas GOP website:
Since Republicans became the statewide majority in 1994, 8 minority Texans have held statewide office; yet in the 122 years that Democrats controlled the State (18721994), only 4 minority Texans held statewide office.
The Texas Republican Party was formed on July 4, 1867, in Houston by 150 African Americans and 20 white Texans.
2 of the first 3 statewide leaders of the Republican Party of Texas were African American.
The first 42 African Americans elected to the Texas Legislature were Republicans.
When the Republicans became the majority in the Texas Legislature in 1869, they established a system of free public schools to educate all the children of the State—something Democrats had refused to do.
The first faith-based program was proposed in the 1870s by African American Republican Senator Matthew Gaines.
When Democrats recaptured Texas government in 1872, Democrat Governor Richard Coke’s election was described as “the restoration of white supremacy.”
President George W. Bush was the first president to appoint an African American as Secretary of State (Colin Powell). He also appointed blacks as National Security Advisor (Condoleeza Rice),
Secretary of Education (Rod Paige), and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Alphonso Jackson). In his second term, he appointed the second African American Secretary of State (Condoleeza Rice).
With new programs established by President Bush, African American home ownership is at an all-time high.
Of the 5 African Americans who have ever been U.S. Senators, 3 were Republicans.
The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery passed Congress with the support of 100% of Republican members but with only 23% of the Democrat members.
When the 14th and 15th Amendments extending civil rights and voting rights to African Americans passed, not even 1 Democrat in Congress voted for those amendments.
Since Republicans became the statewide majority in 1994, 8 minority Texans have held statewide office; yet in the 122 years that Democrats controlled the State (1872-1994), only 4 minority Texans held statewide office.
It took Democrats 114 years to elect a single Hispanic to statewide office. The Democrat establishment later tried to defeat him because he was too conservative.
Under Republican leadership, 5 Republican Hispanics have held statewide office. Currently, Victor Carrillo serves as a commissioner of Texas’ powerful Railroad Commission, and Justice David Medina serves on the Texas Supreme Court. Others who have moved into even higher positions include Al Gonzales, appointed by President George W. Bush as U.S. Attorney General and Tony Garza now serving as Ambassador to Mexico.
When the Republicans became the majority in the Texas Legislature in 1869, they established a system of free public schools to educate all the children of the state something Democrats had refused to do.
In 1998, Republican Governor George W. Bush created the Office of Border Initiatives, which facilitates trade and investment opportunities for Texas communities and companies along the border.
In 1999, Republican Lt. Governor Rick Perry established the first ever standing Committee on Border Affairs to address needs along the Texas Mexico border.
In 2001, Anglo Democrat men comprised only 20% of all Texas House members, but were named to 36% of all chairmanships by the Anglo Democrat Speaker. Hispanics were shortchanged because their support was taken for granted by the Democrat elite.
In 2003 however, Hispanics received approximately a 5% increase in chairmanships by the Republican Speaker of the House.
As of October 2004, Governor Perry has appointed over 300 Hispanics to different state commissions.
Under the administration of Republican Governor Rick Perry, state agencies have invested more resources in the 32-county border region than under Democrat leaders at any time in history.
In traditional liberal style…why would we bother digging deeper to find the truth when it makes them look worse? And why look worse when you can simply look ignorant, naïve, or misinformed.
Obama: Iran Not A "Serious Threat"
Calling Iran a "tiny country" and claiming that the nuclear seeking nation only spends 1/100th of what the U.S. does on defense, Barack Obama has written off the threat posed by Iran as silly and nonexistent. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you a moment in stupidity.
Ed Morrisey from Hot Air has a great response, which includes this number:
His glaring inexperience and lack of knowledge when talking about foreign policy is not only gross, its dangerous. What kind of American president sits down to tea with likes of Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. When talking about history, he draws on two events that are totally perpinduclar to one another and then calls them parallel. The only thing more disgusting than watching him say these things is listening to his glossy-eyed, zombie-like supporters applaud blindly while his eloquantly worded garbage drifts into their ears, clouding their own sense of what they know to be true with the corrosive muck of intellectual flattery.
John McCain is too honest to tell people what they want to hear just to make them feel smart. And that will be one of our biggest challenges this year. How can so many claim to want the truth while they willingly embrace a lie.
Ed Morrisey from Hot Air has a great response, which includes this number:
Listen to Obama talk about the “common interests” supposedly shared between the US and the Iranian mullahcracy. What interests would those be? The destruction of Israel, the denial of the Holocaust, the financial and military support of Hamas and Hezbollah, or the killing of American soldiers in Iraq? And please point out the presidential-level, unconditional contacts that brought down the Berlin Wall. Our “common interests” didn’t exist between the East German and American governments; they existed between the people of East Germany and America in the promise of real freedom. When the Soviet power structure imploded, it was the people of East Germany who tore down the wall, not Mikhail Gorbachev, who watched it happen impotently.Obambi lacks even the most elementary knowledge of history, and his rhetoric, while polished, still only hides the worn out boot of Democrat foreign policy and liberal theory that despots can be negotiated with, freedom isn't for everyone and America is the real enemy.
His glaring inexperience and lack of knowledge when talking about foreign policy is not only gross, its dangerous. What kind of American president sits down to tea with likes of Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. When talking about history, he draws on two events that are totally perpinduclar to one another and then calls them parallel. The only thing more disgusting than watching him say these things is listening to his glossy-eyed, zombie-like supporters applaud blindly while his eloquantly worded garbage drifts into their ears, clouding their own sense of what they know to be true with the corrosive muck of intellectual flattery.
John McCain is too honest to tell people what they want to hear just to make them feel smart. And that will be one of our biggest challenges this year. How can so many claim to want the truth while they willingly embrace a lie.
Monday, May 19, 2008
McCain's VP List Update
I will give my quick top 6 choices for McCain's VP:
6. Kay Bailey Hutchison- She is a strong conservative with moderate appeal. This may be a possibility especially if the Dems are forced to have Hillary Clinton for their VP.
5. Lindsey Graham- Listen to McCain talk about national security and making sure that is the number one issue. Then imagine Graham standing next to him as he talks about national security. It is easy to picture.
4. Mitt Romney- I have dismissed Romney as a possibility before because of the contentious nature of the campaign. But with his fund raising ability and support from the base, McCain may embrace his former rival for the spot. I mean, it worked for Reagan.
3. Mike Huckabee- Huckabee and McCain played pretty well off each other during the campaign. The main problem I have with this pick is that it would indicate McCain is still worried about capturing the Evangelical Republicans.
2. Charlie Crist- His late endorsement may have put McCain over the top in Florida. They are good friends, and he comes from a state that Republicans must win to keep the Presidency in our hands.
1. Tim Pawlenty- Still the number one choice as he is a rising GOP star with solid conservative credentials in a state that Republicans still have a chance to win. Plus do not underestimate how much of a part loyalty plays a part for McCain. When McCain's ship was sinking in the summer of '07, Pawlenty stood beside him.
Still Possible:
Condi Rice
Sarah Palin
Rob Portman
Haley Barbour
Not Gonna Happen:
Mark Sanford- Unpopular Conservative in South Carolina of all states
Colin Powell- He doesn't want to hold public office anymore
Bobby Jindal- Too young, and he should help Louisiana for a little bit first
Rudy Giuliani- May have a cabinet position, but he just doesn't seem to fit on the ticket
General David Petraeus- He needs to keep leading our troops in the Middle East
6. Kay Bailey Hutchison- She is a strong conservative with moderate appeal. This may be a possibility especially if the Dems are forced to have Hillary Clinton for their VP.
5. Lindsey Graham- Listen to McCain talk about national security and making sure that is the number one issue. Then imagine Graham standing next to him as he talks about national security. It is easy to picture.
4. Mitt Romney- I have dismissed Romney as a possibility before because of the contentious nature of the campaign. But with his fund raising ability and support from the base, McCain may embrace his former rival for the spot. I mean, it worked for Reagan.
3. Mike Huckabee- Huckabee and McCain played pretty well off each other during the campaign. The main problem I have with this pick is that it would indicate McCain is still worried about capturing the Evangelical Republicans.
2. Charlie Crist- His late endorsement may have put McCain over the top in Florida. They are good friends, and he comes from a state that Republicans must win to keep the Presidency in our hands.
1. Tim Pawlenty- Still the number one choice as he is a rising GOP star with solid conservative credentials in a state that Republicans still have a chance to win. Plus do not underestimate how much of a part loyalty plays a part for McCain. When McCain's ship was sinking in the summer of '07, Pawlenty stood beside him.
Still Possible:
Condi Rice
Sarah Palin
Rob Portman
Haley Barbour
Not Gonna Happen:
Mark Sanford- Unpopular Conservative in South Carolina of all states
Colin Powell- He doesn't want to hold public office anymore
Bobby Jindal- Too young, and he should help Louisiana for a little bit first
Rudy Giuliani- May have a cabinet position, but he just doesn't seem to fit on the ticket
General David Petraeus- He needs to keep leading our troops in the Middle East
Hillary forces her way onto the ticket?
There has been a recent rumor going around that with Hillary Clinton's chance to be President in 2008 being about the same as my dream of batting clean up for the St. Louis Cardinals behind Albert Pujols (I still have the dream, but it isn't happening), her supporters may vote for her for VP at the convention regardless of who Obama really wants.
Imagine this, Obama selects an older, more experienced person such as Joe Biden for his VP nominee before the convention. All of the Democrats coalesce around Obama, but when it comes time for the delegates to cast their vote for Vice President, Hillary Clinton gets 45% of the vote. That just doesn't sound good if you are a Democrat. Even though I don't think Obama will pick Clinton for VP, this scenario looms over the Democrats finding a way to exit the convention divided.
I will admit, that with the way the election is looking right now, the Democrats will have a distinct advantage in the House and Senate races. However, we have been fortunate as Republicans to have the most electable candidate we could put up against Obama. We have somebody that steals the independent support he counts on, and can even keep many of the "Reagan Democrats" on our side. We will have a champion for fiscal restraint, states rights, strong defense, judges who interpret the Constitution, and free trade.
Imagine this, Obama selects an older, more experienced person such as Joe Biden for his VP nominee before the convention. All of the Democrats coalesce around Obama, but when it comes time for the delegates to cast their vote for Vice President, Hillary Clinton gets 45% of the vote. That just doesn't sound good if you are a Democrat. Even though I don't think Obama will pick Clinton for VP, this scenario looms over the Democrats finding a way to exit the convention divided.
I will admit, that with the way the election is looking right now, the Democrats will have a distinct advantage in the House and Senate races. However, we have been fortunate as Republicans to have the most electable candidate we could put up against Obama. We have somebody that steals the independent support he counts on, and can even keep many of the "Reagan Democrats" on our side. We will have a champion for fiscal restraint, states rights, strong defense, judges who interpret the Constitution, and free trade.
More Excuses...
As the race for the democratic nomination continues to favor Obama, Camp Hillary and her network affiliates at New York Times continue to make excuses for her campaign.
Not surprisingly, the excuse of the day is that she is be denied a seat at the Oval Office, not because of an intern in a blue dress, but simply because she is a woman (which this writer for RUF would like conclusive genetic evidence of, as I still have my doubts).
Doris K. Goodwin, Presidential Historian commented: “strategic, tactical things that have nothing to do with her being a woman…” are the reasons for her failure to beat Obama for the Democratic Nomination. Surely Ms. Goodwin couldn’t be referring to Hillary’s lack of experience, do nothing work ethic in Congress, inability to raise enough money to rival her opponent, or the inability to shake her shady past with her sorry excuse for a President husband. Poor Billary.
One can only assume that Jodi Kantor, writer of this piece, sympathizes with Billary with lines like: “And Mrs. Clinton seemed to channel the lives of regular women, who often saw her as an avenging angel”. Someone hold my hair back while I throw up please. AVENGING ANGEL? Minion of Satan would be more apropos. Kantor goes on to draw stories from women who have been denied jobs or placed in certain positions simply because they are women…”They always gave us the clerical jobs…” Judith Henry states. The mere fact that Clinton has managed to survive as long as she had is a clear indication of the lack of sexism in our great country.
Should she be handed the office of the Presidency simply because she is a woman? Qualified or not?
As a woman, my answer is a resounding (hell) No!
“Cynthia Ruccia, 55, a sales director for Mary Kay cosmetics in Columbus, Ohio, is organizing a group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, of mostly women in swing states who plan to campaign against Mr. Obama in November. ‘We, the most loyal constituency, are being told to sit down, shut up and get to the back of the bus.’ She said”.
On behalf of the RUF (and I’m certain a number of other Republicans as well) we’d like to say THANK YOU to Mrs. Ruccia for making our job in November just a little bit easier.
Not surprisingly, the excuse of the day is that she is be denied a seat at the Oval Office, not because of an intern in a blue dress, but simply because she is a woman (which this writer for RUF would like conclusive genetic evidence of, as I still have my doubts).
Doris K. Goodwin, Presidential Historian commented: “strategic, tactical things that have nothing to do with her being a woman…” are the reasons for her failure to beat Obama for the Democratic Nomination. Surely Ms. Goodwin couldn’t be referring to Hillary’s lack of experience, do nothing work ethic in Congress, inability to raise enough money to rival her opponent, or the inability to shake her shady past with her sorry excuse for a President husband. Poor Billary.
One can only assume that Jodi Kantor, writer of this piece, sympathizes with Billary with lines like: “And Mrs. Clinton seemed to channel the lives of regular women, who often saw her as an avenging angel”. Someone hold my hair back while I throw up please. AVENGING ANGEL? Minion of Satan would be more apropos. Kantor goes on to draw stories from women who have been denied jobs or placed in certain positions simply because they are women…”They always gave us the clerical jobs…” Judith Henry states. The mere fact that Clinton has managed to survive as long as she had is a clear indication of the lack of sexism in our great country.
Should she be handed the office of the Presidency simply because she is a woman? Qualified or not?
As a woman, my answer is a resounding (hell) No!
“Cynthia Ruccia, 55, a sales director for Mary Kay cosmetics in Columbus, Ohio, is organizing a group, Clinton Supporters Count Too, of mostly women in swing states who plan to campaign against Mr. Obama in November. ‘We, the most loyal constituency, are being told to sit down, shut up and get to the back of the bus.’ She said”.
On behalf of the RUF (and I’m certain a number of other Republicans as well) we’d like to say THANK YOU to Mrs. Ruccia for making our job in November just a little bit easier.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
O'Reilly's Nonsense On California Gay Marriage
Bill O'Reilly gave us his two cents recently on the California Supreme Court's ruling that the gay marriage ban in that state, which was approved by the voters of California in a ballot initiative, was unconstitutional. And, of course, Bill gave us the typical anti-gay line about "activist judges" overriding the will of the people and "inventing rights". As both a conservative and a gay man, I am astonished at my fellow conservatives' lack of constitutional knowledge or what the function of the courts is.
In Bill's world, "four judges overruled the will of the people" because "they wanted gay marriage" (the same court that overruled Gavin Newsome when he granted gay marriage in his city). Nevermind that this same logic could be applied to Brown vs. Board of Education, to say nothing of any other Supreme Court ruling that has ever overturned any law in any state. The California Supreme Court, like any Supreme Court, is tasked with many things, chief among which is to determine if the laws of the state are consistent with the rules, groundwork and rights granted in the constitution of that state. The fact is that just because a majority of Californians want to dismiss the constitution of that state, a mere ballot initiative is not the legal to do it. That requires a constitutional amendment, which anti-gay marriage gropus across the state are now scrambling to pass.
Why do so many conservatives, who pride themselves on their constitutional muster, seem to know so little about what constitutes "inventing rights" and what constitutes "upholding the law". Simple bans on gay marriage without a constitutional amendment violate most state constitutions, and it certainly violates the U.S. Constitution.
Wake up, fellow Republicans. You're making yourselves look ridiculous.
In Bill's world, "four judges overruled the will of the people" because "they wanted gay marriage" (the same court that overruled Gavin Newsome when he granted gay marriage in his city). Nevermind that this same logic could be applied to Brown vs. Board of Education, to say nothing of any other Supreme Court ruling that has ever overturned any law in any state. The California Supreme Court, like any Supreme Court, is tasked with many things, chief among which is to determine if the laws of the state are consistent with the rules, groundwork and rights granted in the constitution of that state. The fact is that just because a majority of Californians want to dismiss the constitution of that state, a mere ballot initiative is not the legal to do it. That requires a constitutional amendment, which anti-gay marriage gropus across the state are now scrambling to pass.
Why do so many conservatives, who pride themselves on their constitutional muster, seem to know so little about what constitutes "inventing rights" and what constitutes "upholding the law". Simple bans on gay marriage without a constitutional amendment violate most state constitutions, and it certainly violates the U.S. Constitution.
Wake up, fellow Republicans. You're making yourselves look ridiculous.
Where Things Stand
Like a bad relationship gone sour the Republican Party is suffering, badly. A friend of mine was at NRCC Offices in Washington on Wednesday the day after the Mississippi Congressional race and she told me it was like a morgue in there. With 3 straight house seat losses most folks think that the GOP will lose upwards of 20 house seats this November, another devastating defeat.
The Republicans need to reevaluate themselves, bring back fiscal discipline and actually stand for something; simply voting against the Democrats solves nothing, but rather we need leadership that will truly tackle the issues that need to be addressed.
The repertoire of the GOP can be a good one, but what is it? We are not the party of Ronald Reagan anymore and anyone thinking we ever will be again is delusional. During the Republican primaries you would have thought as though Reagan was the second coming of Christ, that he would rise from the dead and save our party; not happening folks, sorry.
I honestly believe we need to get more in line with the George H. W. Bush way of leading and stop acting like tough guys pounding our chests. Cowboy diplomacy stopped being cool in 2003, let’s move on.
The Republicans need to reevaluate themselves, bring back fiscal discipline and actually stand for something; simply voting against the Democrats solves nothing, but rather we need leadership that will truly tackle the issues that need to be addressed.
The repertoire of the GOP can be a good one, but what is it? We are not the party of Ronald Reagan anymore and anyone thinking we ever will be again is delusional. During the Republican primaries you would have thought as though Reagan was the second coming of Christ, that he would rise from the dead and save our party; not happening folks, sorry.
I honestly believe we need to get more in line with the George H. W. Bush way of leading and stop acting like tough guys pounding our chests. Cowboy diplomacy stopped being cool in 2003, let’s move on.