Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Dick Cheney's Error
For at least six years, as I've become increasingly frustrated by the Bush administration's repeated betrayal of constitutional -- and conservative -- principles, I have defended Vice President Cheney, a man I've known for decades and with whom I served and made common cause in Congress. No longer.
I do not blame Dick Cheney for George W. Bush's transgressions; the president needs no prompting to wrap himself in the cloak of a modern-day king. Nor do I believe that the vice president so enthusiastically supports the Iraq war out of a loyalty to the oil industry that his former employer serves. By all accounts, Cheney's belief in "the military option" and the principle of president-as-decider predates his affiliation with Halliburton.
What, then, is the straw that causes me to finally consign a man I served with in the House Republican leadership to the category of "those about whom we should be greatly concerned"?
It is Cheney's all-too-revealing conversation this week with ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz. On Wednesday, reminded of the public's disapproval of the war in Iraq, now five years old, the vice president shrugged off that fact (and thus, the people themselves) with a one-word answer: "So?"
"So," Mr. Vice President?
Policy, Cheney went on to say, should not be tailored to fit fluctuations in the public attitudes. If there is one thing public attitudes have not been doing, however, it is fluctuating: Resistance to the Bush administration's Iraq policy has been widespread, entrenched and consistent. Whether public opinion is right or wrong, it is not to be cavalierly dismissed.
I recently had the opportunity to address a group of high school students visiting Washington with Presidential Classroom, an organization that teaches citizenship and encourages participation in the public sphere. One of those students asked me what, in my 16 years in Congress, had been my most difficult decision.
It was not a question that required much reflection -- in 1990, as chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on foreign operations, I played a leading role in gaining congressional authorization for the Persian Gulf War.
The decision to go to war, I told the students -- to send young Americans off to battle, knowing that some will die -- is the single most difficult choice any public official can be called upon to make. That is precisely why the nation's Founders, aware of the deadly wars of Europe, deliberately withheld from the executive branch the power to engage in war unless such action was expressly approved by the people themselves, through their representatives in Congress.
Cheney told Raddatz that American war policy should not be affected by the views of the people. But that is precisely whose views should matter: It is the people who should decide whether the nation shall go to war. That is not a radical, or liberal, or unpatriotic idea. It is the very heart of America's constitutional system.
In Europe, before America's founding, there were rulers and their subjects. The Founders decided that in the United States there would be not subjects but citizens. Rulers tell their subjects what to do, but citizens tell their government what to do.
If Dick Cheney believes, as he obviously does, that the war in Iraq is vital to American interests, it is his job, and that of President Bush, to make the case with sufficient proof to win the necessary public support.
That is the difference between a strong president (one who leads) and a strong presidency (one in which ultimate power resides in the hands of a single person). Bush is officially America's "head of state," but he is not the head of government; he is the head of one branch of our government, and it's not the branch that decides on war and peace.
When the vice president dismisses public opposition to war with a simple "So?" he violates the single most important element in the American system of government: Here, the people rule.
Mickey Edwards, a lecturer at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School, served in the House of Representatives from 1977 to 1993. He is the author of "Reclaiming Conservatism."
Enter to see my reply to him...
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11. Hillary aint no nigger.
Why would you attend a church that spews such hatred for the United States if you were not a believer?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
You sure got yourself in to some hot water. They're calling you a racist. Hillary is abandoning you. Why'd you do it? Why would you say something so categorically untrue?????
You said in an interview: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
This is beyond ridiculous. To assume that Senator Obama would not be a front-running Presidential candidate if he were white is insulting. I can’t believe that you would have the audacity to think that a man with 7, count ‘em, 7 YEARS experience in the Illinois state senate and 2 years of experience in the US Senate is not qualified to be the President of the United States of America.
You must be out of your mind to believe that there is something aside from his glowing resume that has set him apart.
Let me remind you, before his storied Illinois State Senate career, this man has shown the ability to manage, lead and keep our nation secure by lecturing on constitutional law at the University of Chicago!
And you say he’s not qualified…are you joking me? Are you?!? With a resume like that, there shouldn’t be a single person in America who isn’t 100000% confident that he can do the job and do it well. And you have to admit that nothing says “I can be the leader of the free world” more clearly than having almost 3 years experience representing the wishes of the entire state of Illinois in Washington DC!
I suppose that you think if he was white, he’d be another young and well-spoken senator who is generally ignored like John Edwards? Well, that’s just ridiculous. John Edwards has 10 years of Senate experience - wait - nevermind.
It doesn’t matter what the color of his skin is, Geraldine. There is ONE reason that he stands out from the crowd and that one reason is his hard-line, no-nonsense, clear as day stance on the issues!
Geraldine, you sweet, lovely woman, you. I’m sorry that you made this mistake of saying such an untrue and clearly racist thing. You should know that pointing out the obvious will get you fired. Your political genius will be sorely missed on Mrs. Clinton’s campaign...I'm sure she really needed you.
Monday, March 10, 2008
"This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multi-tiered management structure... It was, however,
nothing more than a prostitution ring."
-- Governor, Eliot Spitzer (D-NY), on the
2004 break-up of a Staten Island prostitution ring
Dear Fellow Conservatives,
Just when you think it couldn't get any better, that bastion of liberal finger-pointing, the New York Times, has turned on one of its own to report that Democrat Eliot Spitzer -- the squeaky-clean poster boy for ethics reform -- is himself in the crosshairs of a federal interstate prostitution sting.
As if watching Obama and Hillary eat each other alive through primary season wasn't enough fun, prepare yourself for 24x7 Spitzer-gate coverage.
Let's pretend for a moment that Barack claims the presidential nomination of the Democratic party. We will then have several months of exactly what we get in every presidential election: Your guy is stupid and old, and our guy is "progressive" and hip.
In this election, of course, it will be more intense than ever. Barack and the Dems will inundate you with so much "he's old and white and a member of the old guard of DC" that even you, faithful conservatives, will be considering calling up Senator Obama and asking if he wants to hang out and play some Xbox. He'll continue to dance around the questions about his religion, about his connections to racist organizations, about his uber-left politics, and he'll bury us with attacks against McCain's 30 plus year senate record – as if that experience is a detriment. He'll eloquently tip his hat to Senator McCain's service in the Military, while simultaneously ripping his dedication to our men and women in uniform and their fight abroad. He'll graciously concede Senator McCain's accomplishments, while slighting him on his "maverick" reputation. These things are not new. These things would be done by any leftist candidate. But, there will be something very new in this campaign and it will be the elephant in the room from day one to November 4th --
Surprise! Barack Obama is black!
Now, I'm sure that you've noticed this. But, an interesting thing that you are going to see over the next several months is how his race will never play any role whatsoever. He will not be seen in public with an excessive amount of black people, or even black leaders for that matter. Did you see SNL last weekend? The cartoon where he does all in his power to keep Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton away from his campaign? It's funny, because it's true. The Obama campaign has a monumental task on its hands…to convince America that their candidate is NOT black. No, I'm not saying they will try to convince you he's white. I'm saying they'll try to make you forget that he has any color whatsoever – black, white, yellow, purple, etc. Now, not playing up race isn’t necessarily a bad thing, BUT, at the very same time, you can bet they will be hard at work reminding you that John McCain IS white (and old, lame, un-hip and thusly…Republican).
And what part will Senator Obama's race play? Will it push voters in any particular direction? The black vote is all ready overwhelmingly liberal, so there's not much different there. So why don't we consider the white vote for a second, as that is intensely more interesting. What about that age-old rant that we (us white folk) are still excessively racist? Is it true? Liberals have been telling us for years that the black man is being held down by the racist undercurrent of the American way of life. They use it as their justification for their ridiculous social platforms, they use it as their firepower in their arguments for their idiotic double-standards. So I ask you, what happens if a black man becomes the Democratic nominee for the President of the United States of America? And I ask you another question: What happens if he's elected?
Does the liberal battlecry still hold water? Can they seriously justify their stances on affirmative action and revolving door prisons and the endless amount of money they spend on inner city schools and social programs – all of these things based on the idea that the minority is not getting a fair shake – can they truly continue this charade with an African American as the President of the United States of America?
So maybe the question we should consider is…will the democrats allow Senator Obama to be elected?
What happens to the Rainbow Coalition when they march on some city street screaming of racial injustice when a black man stands in the Oval Office? I mean, the African American liberals in this nation have done an almost amazing job completely ignoring the fact that there is a black person as Secretary of State, the highest office ever held by a black person in this country – and she's not only black, she's a WOMAN! So, I guess it's not out of the question that the same cries of injustice can still be hollered when a black man is president…but man…it's gonna get tougher.
But is it gonna be too tough?
Now, let's go back to considering average Joe Voter. I have a feeling that something's brewing deep in the heart of this guy. He's pretty middle of the road. He wants to sound cool, he wants to be hip, and most importantly, he wants to sound "progressive," so he tells everyone he knows that he'll be voting for Senator Obama. But when he gets inside that booth, is that the lever he's gonna pull?
Prediction: Senator Barack Obama's pre polls and exit polls will paint a drastically different picture than what his actual vote totals will be.
Cries of foul play will be louder than ever before if Senator McCain wins. If you thought '00 and '04 were bad, honey, you have no idea. Even if those polls predicted 45% and that number is 44%, it'll be bad. But when the disparity is actually much, much greater than that, the cries will be OUTRAGEOUS. All of a sudden, Jesse and Al will be released from their underground cage that Barack's been keeping them in and they will march on whatever courthouse steps they are closest to. Busses will instantaneously pull up from every backwater town in the south and the rage will be unheard of. Proof that America is racist will be held in their hands, waved on their signs. The conservatives fixed the elections AGAIN - and this time, we've got proof they hate the black man!
But, what they don't realize is that Americans aren't racist, Americans are liars because they are deathly afraid of being considered racist. They will enter those booths and vote for the person they know is right for the country (race, age, and looks aside, one person is incredibly more qualified for this office and no, his name doesn't rhyme with Shmarack Shmobama). They will then walk out and with a person asking them the question and they fearing looking uncool, unhip, or most importantly, "racist" – they will say they voted for Senator Obama. You think I'm lying? You want to look over polling data prior to any of the big Hillary primary wins? Why was it that Obama seemed to be doing so well in those polls, but lost? Because people lie. Because white people, especially guilty liberal white people, are deathly afraid of appearing racist. Now, most likely no one is going to call you a racist for voting for the white guy over the black guy, but you don't know what people are thinking…and what if they do think that you're a racist? What if you said or done something in the past and this only solidifies it in their mind? What if, and oh my this would be bad…what if you are a racist?! Well, here's an easy way to hide that shame: Just say you voted for the black guy.
But really people, I wouldn't worry so much. Sure, the whole world is saying that the Dems are gonna run away with it. They won't. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't go out and vote – really you should and we need you to. But, take solace in the fact that the Dems have shot themselves in the foot yet again. Stick any white dude in there with the nomination and you win. Even John Kerry couldn't screw this one up. But, stick Hillary in there and you lose because every person right of ANSWR hates the Clintons and will be motivated to vote against her craggy ass. Stick Obama in there and you've got one major problem – a black guy who is hoping no one, black or white, notices that he's black. But unlike Hillary, there's an advantage if he loses. If he loses, it's proof America is racist. It's proof we need more AA, we need more distribution of wealth, we need more after school programs. A loss means justification for the liberal platform.
Is America racist? I'd say that as individuals, there are some people who need to do some work, but as a country, it is obvious that we are not. And there would be no more proof of that very fact than if Senator Obama is elected President. But a lot of people have a lot to lose if America is no longer racist. Democrats are coming to the realization as we speak that they could face a serious problem if they give him the nomination: He might get elected.
If he loses, and he loses close, and the polls showed that he was ahead a week before the election and the exit polls said he was winning, then their argument that America is racist is all the more robust.
But again, what if he wins?
It makes you wonder how a candidate like Hillary, who was all but dead in the water is once again picking up steam…maybe they figured something out. Maybe they figured out that they can't afford to take the risk.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.
Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.
This article was called "Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming" written by Michael Asher. From site: http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Monday, March 3, 2008