Tuesday, March 20, 2007

War protesters show true colors

"I support the troops, but I don't support this war."

I don't want to hear that crap anymore after what happened this weekend at a recruiting center in Milwaukee.

A group, estimated in number to be between 30 to 40 young men and women, using the pretense of the fourth anniversary of our involvement in the Iraq war to take to the streets in protest decided the best way to send their message of disapproval was to desecrate and vandalize a local army recruiting center. The group, dressed in all black and carrying signs decrying our involvement, stopped in front of the army center and began breaking windows, spray painting the front of the building, lit fires on the side walk, and for the final insult threw bags filled with human excrement into the building.

The left can't claim this was just a group of protesters whose emotions got the better of them, or that it was an unorganized "mob" that just happened to join together. Largely due to tips from witnesses, 21 of these "protesters" were able to be apprehended by local police. They ranged in age from l4 to 24, were male and female, and they came from all over South East Wisconsin.

Thinking about this logically tells us this had to be planned well ahead of time. They were all dressed in black, they had to meet in a location close enough to walk to the recruiting center, but probably the grossest fact that tells me this was planned ahead is that someone (probably more than one someone) had to defecate and then collect/assemble it into those bags thrown into the building.

I know the response from the left is that this is just an isolated group who was acting on their own and don't represent blah, blah, blah. But why is it that only the left has their activism turn violent? The tolerant, compassionate, reasonable, supportive of the little guy left is always the side that turns to violence.

Don't believe me? Tell me this, wasn't it great to see all of the supporters of the war as they gathered peacefully in Washington, DC as a counter to the anti-war protesters? The supporters actually outnumbered the protesters and...what? You didn't see the pictures of the supporters? You also say you didn't even know the supporters were there at all?

That pretty much makes my point about the media bias. They made it sound like this huge group had gathered, but failed to mention at all (or mentioned as an afterthought) the larger group of supporters.

The spokesman for the Army recruiting center made a statement about this group of absolute thugs. His words sum up the arrogance and stupidity of this so called protest group. He said that, "we are here to protect this group's right to protest..."

Let that sink in for a while.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Another Phony Scandal

Here we go yet again. The Media and the Democrats are going crazy again claiming that the Bush Administration is trying to cover up a scandal involving the firing of eight United States attorneys. This happened two years ago at the beginning of President Bush's second term as our President. Some of the attorneys are now crying foul, and the Dem's and the media are all too happy to give them a voice. The media is also bringing up the fact that Harriet Miers, who was the White House council at the time, recommended that Bush fire all 93 U.S. attorneys to start the second term fresh. The media is claiming that this was somehow a huge deal, and that the eight that were fired had "political implications."

Let's stop here and take a breath and look at some facts, again. The media didn't bother to tell us that one of the jobs of the President is to appoint the attorneys, and the attorneys serve "at the pleasure" of the President. If Bush wants to hire and fire the attorneys he can. Of course the appointments are "political" because they serve the President.

Now we are supposed to believe that doing something political in Washington D.C. is a scandal? It is part of the job of the people we elect to be political and do the things we sent them to do in the first place.

Another fact of this that the media completely ignored is that when Bill Clinton was president he fired ALL 93 attorneys. When he did this the media didn't seem bothered by it at all. Clinton was the first President ever to fire all 93 at the same time. Here is a dirty little secret that the media also never told us. The only attorney Clinton actually wanted to get rid of was the one from Little Rock Arkansas. That attorney was in charge of the Whitewater investigation and Clinton wanted to put someone of his choosing in there to end the investigation. Clinton knew that he might be called to question if he only fired that one attorney so he decided to fire them all and claim he just wanted a "fresh start" for his term in office.

Which situation is the actual scandal, and if this was such a huge deal why didn't anyone question Bush's decision two years ago when it happened? The Dem's and the media are desperate to create a scandal of some sort because their goal is to bring down our President before his term in office is over. The visceral hatred of this administration is astounding.

We have come to expect this kind of activity from the other side, but I am getting tired of the Republicans total lack of "back bone" when these false accusations are thrown at them. Attorney General Gonzales has said that "mistakes were made" in this situation. What mistakes? Even the media that has been writing and talking about this have all begrudgingly admitted that "no laws were broken," and "nothing illegal took place." Why then are we apologizing and making it look like we might have done something wrong? Someone from this administration needs to stand up and set the record straight. We need LEADERS!

Part of the problem started when Bush tried his "new tone" when he began his Presidency. He has consistently tried to get along with Democrats, but they don't play that way. It frustrates me that Bush hasn't learned by now that you can not get along with Democrats, and it seems that the rest of the Republican party is distancing themselves from Bush because of the upcoming '08 elections.

The Democrat's, with the help of the main stream media, are able to bring any type of charge against this administration, and it seems that no one has the "stones" to fight back.

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

The Scooter debacle

The main stream media is happier than they have been in a long time after hearing the verdict in the Scooter Libby trial today. The reporting has been nothing short of orgasmic, and if the only information you get is from the MSM you may think that this case has finally proven that the White House lied about intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the case had nothing to do with the war, and the media is perpetuating many lies told not by the administration, but by the clown Joe Wilson.

Some facts are needed in order to put this case in the proper context. These facts are very important but seem to be ignored by democrats and the liberal media.

First; Vallery Plame was NOT an under cover agent for the CIA. The CIA didn't even call her an agent in their statements about her but merely called her an employee.

Second; Joe Wilson was NOT sent to Niger by Dick Cheney, or anyone else in the White House for that matter. He WAS sent by the CIA at the recommendation of his wife-Vallery Plame.

Third; After hearing his report, the Senate Intelligence Agency, which is a bipartisan group, determined that his report SUPPORTED the administrations beliefs that Iraq had in fact been in contact with Niger for the purpose of buying yellow cake.

Fourth; Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed that claimed Iraq did not seek yellow cake. The whole op-ed went against his original report. In other words; the op-ed was the lie.

Fifth; Libby did not leak Plame's name to Novak. It was actually Richard Armitage.

Sixth; Special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, knew that Armitage was the person who leaked Plame's name BEFORE he indicted Libby.

Okay, this investigation was started to find out who leaked Plame's name. Once it was determined that she was not a covert agent (so no crime was EVER committed), and that Richard Armitage was the person who gave Robert Novak her name to begin with the investigation should have stopped right there. Fitzgerald should have come forward and said that no crime was ever committed so the case is closed.

People are now wondering why Fitzgerald kept going? Did he have a vendetta against the administration, was he trying to make a name for himself, did the power he was given go to his head? It's true that he was given unlimited resources which is unheard of so maybe it did go to his head. After hearing his closing arguments and his statements after the verdict I have come to the conclusion that he had it in his mind from the beginning to try and get Chenney or Bush but Libby was the highest he could get.

So, what did Libby actually do? He talked to some reporters to try and defend the administration's position and refute the lies that Joe Wilson was spreading about his trip to Niger. Wilson was claiming that he was sent by Chenney, and Libby was trying to tell people that it wasn't true. The media has somehow turned it into a crime for the administration to defend its positions. It was never about smearing Wilson or Plame. It was about the truth. But the media has taken Wilson's claims as the gospel truth instead of the lies that they have been proven to be.

The only thing Libby did was not remember who he said what to when. He got caught up in a process crime that Fitzgerald took and ran with. If Fitzgerald had been honest about what was really going on it never would have gotten to the point of Libby's bad memory.

Libby was never charged with anything that had to do with the leak or the war intelligence. But, the media has now spun the whole thing as an indictment against the entire administration. This is a sham and a real person is now facing a felony conviction and possible jail time. This isn't a TV show. A real family is now being torn apart, and a real person may go to prison over something that never even happened.

This is a sad day for our legal system, and a sad day for America. The media and the left however think its Christmas, or should I say "Fitzmas".

Monday, March 05, 2007

Double Standards

Ann Coulter is being criticized for using one of the "F" words that are not allowed in today's society. No, not the big one, but the one that is a derogatory term against homosexuals. She has even drawn the ire of some Republicans who claim she should apologize, and they disavow themselves from herself and the comment. I even heard a caller from a national radio station claim that we as conservatives should always take the high ground and not use terminology like that.

Okay, would I personally ever use that word? No as I don't believe it serves any positive purpose, but I would like to look at this situation in context. The word was used in a joke that revealed the recent trend of people using a quick rehab stint to get back into the good graces of the American people.

I like Ann for many reasons, one being the fact that she is a strong conservative who speaks her mind and never backs down from a fight. I believe she knew this was going to be an inflammatory statement that would bring to light the hypocrisy of political correctness. PC speech is a huge pet peeve of mine as it is with a lot of conservatives. The only point it serves is to give liberals a tool to try to silence speech they don't agree with. The left tries to scare people into believing our rights are being taken away with things like the Patriot Act. PC speech is a much more subtle virus creeping into our lives, but instead of trying to inoculate ourselves from this virus the left embraces it.

Let's look for a minute at the double standard applied in just a couple of cases. If you are a Democrat you can say anything to smear Republicans, our military, Christians, or even our President. Howard Dean,the leader of the DNC (Democrat National Committee), said he hates Republicans and conservatives. He said we are evil, stupid, and the only way we could get a group of African Americans together in a room is if they are part of the wait staff. More than one Senator has called our military an evil organization that tortures, rapes, and kills innocent civilians. Senator John Kerry has told lies about our military twice; separated by thirty years. Rosie O'Donnell, a liberal host of a TV show, said that Christians are just as big a threat as militant Islamofacists and possibly more dangerous. How many times has the President been described as a stupid, dunce, frat boy?

None of this is ever called out or condemned by our media. It is okay to trash these people. What's worse is that too few people on our side ever stand up and fight back. Ann is one of the few who will push back. So when she uses the word to make a point, why are we surprised that she is taken out of context by the media who also completely miss the point of the original statement.

So when I hear one from our side saying that we should always take the high ground I say no. No, because the left is the one setting the high ground, but it is only applied to us. They never play fair so even if we try to follow their rules they will just; change the rules. I would love to see more people like Ann stand up and say, "Hell no! We refuse to play by your rules."