The Lex study group on Iraq comprised high-minded, right-thinking, military, social and religious leaders has released their findings:
1. Win the war. Too little of the talk about Iraq, be it on the right or the left, frames our national interests in Iraq and the need for victory. President Bush, Joe Lieberman, Rick Santorum and just a few others have taken a consistent stand that our exit strategy will be one a of front door exit after victory as opposed to a backdoor exit and the defeat of “peace with honor” BS. Everything else in recommendations will be framed as means toward victory.
2. KillSadr. The man is a menace. He is destabilizing the government and is the main cause for the sectarian violence in and around Baghdad. If his Madhi army should rise up as a result of his death, kill them as well.
3. Talk with Syria and Iran. Tell them any further medaling in Iraq will have dire consequences. When they ignore the warning, follow through a cause something in those countries to be blown up.
4. Define Middle East stability. Stability is not a bunch of despots oppressing the people of the region. Since that is what the region currently consists of, the Middle East will become more and more unstable before it becomes stable. And oh by the way, it's our petro dollars funding the despots and both sides of the regions instability.
5. Talk with our Middle East "allies". Tell them the current system of unelected kings, emirs, sultans and presidents is a human rights abomination. Tell them democracy is coming to the region. They can get in front of or on the train or they can get run over by it.
6. Reinforce success in the Kurdish portion of Iraq. It is already a largely autonomous region. If Iraq does split up our best hope maintaining a foothold in there is in the Kurdish area. Also it will send a clear message of were success lies for the rest of Iraq. If the Kurdish region continues to prosper, it will demonstrate to other Iraqis that we are more interested in reinforcing success rather than pour our resources into sink holes of sectarian violence. Sooner or later, people in Baghdad will notice and want what the Kurds have.
7. Get off Middle East oil. Stability in the region will get much worse before it gets better. As such, it is foolish to continue to rely on that region for our economic health. Initiate a ten year energy independence plan that maximizes our own abundant energy resources and our technological advantages to get off Middle East oil. Conservation alone will not do the trick. We are at the low point of our energy needs right now. Each year we will require more. Nuclear, coal, hydrogen sources of energy all need to be quickly exploited.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
If you're not worried yet, check the demographics
If you think you’re saving the world by having fewer children, think again. Look at this piece by Mark Steyn. Lex has noted the dying demographics of Europe as we know it. The only group whose population is on the rise is the Muslim population. We also can see the trouble it’s causing. Paris is burning. Theater shows deemed offensive to Muslim’s are canceled in Berlin. Politicians who advocate for stricter immigration are murdered in Holland. Film makers, cartoonists and writers who don’t tow a strict Muslim line are also murdered or set off murderous riots or threatened with murder.
Will Europe recover before its lack of population bomb explodes in its face? I doubt it. Most of Europe is mired in slowed economic growth that cannot provide anywhere near full employment for its current dying population. That fact coupled with crippling socialist spending on everything under the sun EXCEPT defense has created a European population happy to sit back and collect government checks and services while Muslims do the work necessary to keep those countries running. Also, don’t under estimate the Green Party factor. Europeans are being raised that it is better to forego children and/or abort them than bring them into this world where they will only create a further burden on Mother Earth.
So is the US any better off? Marginally. We have our own illegal immigration problem that politicians refuse to address because we are told the illegals do the work we won’t. Given a Democrat congress that sees the illegals as potential votes, that problem will get worse before it gets better. Our own population growth is at a sustainable level but out of wedlock births as a percentage continue to rise and are now at 37%. Social spending will continue to rise burdening the economy. The new Democrat congress is sure to invent all sorts of new “rights” that require our neighbors to pay for our benefits. Democrats are sure to say every American has a “right” to higher education even though they won’t work for and can’t pay for it. The same goes for a “right” to free health care and insurance. Will we learn from Europe? The last election says no.
Hey, a Happy Birthday to my way, way, way OLDEST sister who happens to be one of the two cutting edge and tuned in people who check this page regularly. Marilyn, if you get a call from a plumber named Wayman, Clovis, Billy Bob or Maynard today, it just might be a prank.
Will Europe recover before its lack of population bomb explodes in its face? I doubt it. Most of Europe is mired in slowed economic growth that cannot provide anywhere near full employment for its current dying population. That fact coupled with crippling socialist spending on everything under the sun EXCEPT defense has created a European population happy to sit back and collect government checks and services while Muslims do the work necessary to keep those countries running. Also, don’t under estimate the Green Party factor. Europeans are being raised that it is better to forego children and/or abort them than bring them into this world where they will only create a further burden on Mother Earth.
So is the US any better off? Marginally. We have our own illegal immigration problem that politicians refuse to address because we are told the illegals do the work we won’t. Given a Democrat congress that sees the illegals as potential votes, that problem will get worse before it gets better. Our own population growth is at a sustainable level but out of wedlock births as a percentage continue to rise and are now at 37%. Social spending will continue to rise burdening the economy. The new Democrat congress is sure to invent all sorts of new “rights” that require our neighbors to pay for our benefits. Democrats are sure to say every American has a “right” to higher education even though they won’t work for and can’t pay for it. The same goes for a “right” to free health care and insurance. Will we learn from Europe? The last election says no.
Hey, a Happy Birthday to my way, way, way OLDEST sister who happens to be one of the two cutting edge and tuned in people who check this page regularly. Marilyn, if you get a call from a plumber named Wayman, Clovis, Billy Bob or Maynard today, it just might be a prank.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Rangel promises hearing to prove there are no patriots
I like Charlie Rangel. Not his politics but rather his personality. He is willing to take a liberal stance and defend it. He’s no John “foot in mouth” Kerry. Kerry says what he means then denies it or vice versa as in: “I never called the troops stupid but they aren’t smart enough to know that I didn’t call them stupid.”
Rangel once called Vice President Cheney a SOB. He didn’t apologize for it. Instead he referred to the VP as an old colleague and laughed it off noting that Cheney once called a senator much worse. When he offended the entire state of Mississippi, Rangel made a sincere apology and withdrew the offensive remark. He didn’t do the Dick H. Durbin non-apology, I’m sorry if what I said offended you, but I meant every word, apology.
So Rangel says what he means, stands up for it but will apologize if he thinks he’s off the mark.
On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace, after reading Lex’s post on the draft, confronted Rangel with the facts here. Rangel didn’t back off. Essentially Rangel thinks that nobody in America thinks America is worth fighting for. According to Rangel, the only reason anyone is in Iraq or Afghanistan now is because they are too dumb, too poor, too anything to find a job in an economy that has the lowest unemployment on record in a decade. There are no patriots in Iraq, according Rangel. Listen to him. In an all volunteer Army, “nobody wants to fight in Iraq…” In spite of the facts presented to by Wallace, Rangel claims “most all are from economically depressed areas…”
Rangel claims that hearings, the ones Democrats denied they would pursue before the election, on this subject would bear him out. Can’t wait for that. “Sgt. Jones isn’t it a fact that you are too dumb to get a good job in this economy that is humming along at near full employment?” “Well no congressman Rangel that is not true. I’m a high school graduate. I joined the Army because my dad joined the Army and his dad before him. Beyond that, I think the country needs me to defend it against Islamo-terror-fascists that want to destroy our way of life.” “Mr. Chairman, I move that this stupid, unemployable fool’s remarks be stricken from the record. He’s obviously a shill for the Bush administration.” “So ordered. Next witness please.”
Rangel once called Vice President Cheney a SOB. He didn’t apologize for it. Instead he referred to the VP as an old colleague and laughed it off noting that Cheney once called a senator much worse. When he offended the entire state of Mississippi, Rangel made a sincere apology and withdrew the offensive remark. He didn’t do the Dick H. Durbin non-apology, I’m sorry if what I said offended you, but I meant every word, apology.
So Rangel says what he means, stands up for it but will apologize if he thinks he’s off the mark.
On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace, after reading Lex’s post on the draft, confronted Rangel with the facts here. Rangel didn’t back off. Essentially Rangel thinks that nobody in America thinks America is worth fighting for. According to Rangel, the only reason anyone is in Iraq or Afghanistan now is because they are too dumb, too poor, too anything to find a job in an economy that has the lowest unemployment on record in a decade. There are no patriots in Iraq, according Rangel. Listen to him. In an all volunteer Army, “nobody wants to fight in Iraq…” In spite of the facts presented to by Wallace, Rangel claims “most all are from economically depressed areas…”
Rangel claims that hearings, the ones Democrats denied they would pursue before the election, on this subject would bear him out. Can’t wait for that. “Sgt. Jones isn’t it a fact that you are too dumb to get a good job in this economy that is humming along at near full employment?” “Well no congressman Rangel that is not true. I’m a high school graduate. I joined the Army because my dad joined the Army and his dad before him. Beyond that, I think the country needs me to defend it against Islamo-terror-fascists that want to destroy our way of life.” “Mr. Chairman, I move that this stupid, unemployable fool’s remarks be stricken from the record. He’s obviously a shill for the Bush administration.” “So ordered. Next witness please.”
Friday, November 24, 2006
Kissinger, Iraq and stability
Some of the people who consider themselves to be the best and brightest among us, guys like Henry Kissinger, are squawking that the war they and over 70% of Americans once supported, is now “unwinnable.” These new breed quitters opine, “We did our best. We defeated the Iraqi army in three weeks. We spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives over the last three years, but the Iraqi people have proven that they do not want and cannot sustain a democracy.”
First off, we should not be taking foreign policy advice from the guy who negotiated our last military defeat. What credibility does this guy have? Henry Kissinger lecturing us on this war is akin to Ohio State head football coach Jim Tressel, who is 5-1 against Michigan, letting former head coach John Cooper, who was 2-10-1, lecture him on how to attack the Michigan defense.
Henry Kissinger split a Nobel Peace Prize with his North Vietnamese counterpart, Le Duc Tho, for negotiating an end to the Vietnam War in 1973. A beaming Kissinger went to Geneva and accepted his award. Tho, knowing the war was not over, stayed in Vietnam and declined his award. After an acceptable interval, in April 1975, Kissinger’s “peace with honor” BULLS*@T was exposed for the line of crap it was when Saigon fell.
The result of what has been dubbed “Kissinger’s respectable interval” of US “peace with honor” strategy?
- 2 million dead Cambodians.
- Hundreds of thousands of dead and imprisoned South Vietnamese.
- Ten’s of thousands of South Vietnamese boat people.
- Decades of worldwide disdain for the US:
-- Foe’s see us as a paper tiger.
-- Friends view the US as an unreliable ally.
- The near destruction of our own military by craven politicians.
- A forever comparison of any military venture, no matter how successful (Afghanistan) or how necessary (Iraq), as being, “just like Vietnam.”
- The only good thing: a healthy mistrust of politicians.
I don’t care as much about the Iraqis and their willingness to embrace democracy as I do about American national interests. Iraq’s democracy is not the main thing. Confronting and defeating Islamo-terror-fascists is the main thing. If in the process, Iraq gets a democracy, fine. If in the process, Iraq is partitioned into three separate states, fine. If in the process, all of the Middle Eastern governments are exposed as corrupt dictatorships sending the entire region into revolt, fine.
Pols like to talk of “stability.” Let’s face it, that region has never been stable. Kissinger and like minded pols who talk of stability in that region first have to be asked to define stability. If ruthless terror supporting dictatorships, madras supporting proponents of a worldwide caliphate, kings, emirs and unelected “presidents” are their idea of stability, then let’s face it, the region is going to become a whole lot more unstable before it ever reaches a layman’s definition of stability. Something like, people going to work, doing the best that they can in a country where the government sets the conditions for opportunity and success and peacefully relinquishes power when the people desire change.
Henry Kissinger negotiated our defeat in Vietnam. Because the stakes are so much higher, he’s the last guy we should be listening to now.
First off, we should not be taking foreign policy advice from the guy who negotiated our last military defeat. What credibility does this guy have? Henry Kissinger lecturing us on this war is akin to Ohio State head football coach Jim Tressel, who is 5-1 against Michigan, letting former head coach John Cooper, who was 2-10-1, lecture him on how to attack the Michigan defense.
Henry Kissinger split a Nobel Peace Prize with his North Vietnamese counterpart, Le Duc Tho, for negotiating an end to the Vietnam War in 1973. A beaming Kissinger went to Geneva and accepted his award. Tho, knowing the war was not over, stayed in Vietnam and declined his award. After an acceptable interval, in April 1975, Kissinger’s “peace with honor” BULLS*@T was exposed for the line of crap it was when Saigon fell.
The result of what has been dubbed “Kissinger’s respectable interval” of US “peace with honor” strategy?
- 2 million dead Cambodians.
- Hundreds of thousands of dead and imprisoned South Vietnamese.
- Ten’s of thousands of South Vietnamese boat people.
- Decades of worldwide disdain for the US:
-- Foe’s see us as a paper tiger.
-- Friends view the US as an unreliable ally.
- The near destruction of our own military by craven politicians.
- A forever comparison of any military venture, no matter how successful (Afghanistan) or how necessary (Iraq), as being, “just like Vietnam.”
- The only good thing: a healthy mistrust of politicians.
I don’t care as much about the Iraqis and their willingness to embrace democracy as I do about American national interests. Iraq’s democracy is not the main thing. Confronting and defeating Islamo-terror-fascists is the main thing. If in the process, Iraq gets a democracy, fine. If in the process, Iraq is partitioned into three separate states, fine. If in the process, all of the Middle Eastern governments are exposed as corrupt dictatorships sending the entire region into revolt, fine.
Pols like to talk of “stability.” Let’s face it, that region has never been stable. Kissinger and like minded pols who talk of stability in that region first have to be asked to define stability. If ruthless terror supporting dictatorships, madras supporting proponents of a worldwide caliphate, kings, emirs and unelected “presidents” are their idea of stability, then let’s face it, the region is going to become a whole lot more unstable before it ever reaches a layman’s definition of stability. Something like, people going to work, doing the best that they can in a country where the government sets the conditions for opportunity and success and peacefully relinquishes power when the people desire change.
Henry Kissinger negotiated our defeat in Vietnam. Because the stakes are so much higher, he’s the last guy we should be listening to now.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
National interests and the draft
Speaking on the confirmation of Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, Rhode Island Democrat Sen. Jack Reed said, "We really do have to get a strong signal that he has been given a free hand to make whatever changes he thinks appropriate…" What if, Gates says something like, “Well senator, we will set our military policy in Iraq based on the best military advice from our commanders to achieve goals in the region that support our national interests.”
Such an answer would have to give cut and run Democrats pause. Military advice? National interests? Is this guy a nut? Democrats won the election. The American people have spoken. We must cut and run from Iraq. Now!
Well sometimes adults need to step in tell the kids what’s best for them - even when the adults are outnumbered, like in schools or homes with three or more children. Sometimes the adults need to step in and say, “No, we’re not having another all-day recess.” Or “No more ice cream. Three bowls before bed is enough.”
Beside I just do not believe the polling. I can get the support for the war up to 99.9% by asking this question:
Would you rather:
A: Kill the Islamo-terror-fascists trying to destroy America in Iraq
or
B: Admit defeat, surrender Iraq and its oil riches to the ITF, cut and run and wait for the Islamo-terror-fascists to blow you and your family up in a restaurant one day?
It is in our national interest to kill the ITF in Iraq.
On the DRAFT
Charlie Rangel wants to bring back the draft. He says our armed forces are populated disproportionately by poor people of color. Well Charlie, we had the draft during Vietnam and guess what? Libs claimed that our armed forces were populated disproportionately by poor people of color. The Libs were wrong then and you’re wrong now. The only thing disproportionate about our armed forces is probably the number of rich, white, males being passed over for promoted.
Such an answer would have to give cut and run Democrats pause. Military advice? National interests? Is this guy a nut? Democrats won the election. The American people have spoken. We must cut and run from Iraq. Now!
Well sometimes adults need to step in tell the kids what’s best for them - even when the adults are outnumbered, like in schools or homes with three or more children. Sometimes the adults need to step in and say, “No, we’re not having another all-day recess.” Or “No more ice cream. Three bowls before bed is enough.”
Beside I just do not believe the polling. I can get the support for the war up to 99.9% by asking this question:
Would you rather:
A: Kill the Islamo-terror-fascists trying to destroy America in Iraq
or
B: Admit defeat, surrender Iraq and its oil riches to the ITF, cut and run and wait for the Islamo-terror-fascists to blow you and your family up in a restaurant one day?
It is in our national interest to kill the ITF in Iraq.
On the DRAFT
Charlie Rangel wants to bring back the draft. He says our armed forces are populated disproportionately by poor people of color. Well Charlie, we had the draft during Vietnam and guess what? Libs claimed that our armed forces were populated disproportionately by poor people of color. The Libs were wrong then and you’re wrong now. The only thing disproportionate about our armed forces is probably the number of rich, white, males being passed over for promoted.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
More troops = more targets
Somewhere in my military studies I read that it takes anywhere from 7 to 15 years to defeat an insurgency. Given that democracies tend to tire of war rather quickly, the advantage is always to the insurgents when battling a democracy.
Strategies are now being discussed in Washington on how to quickly win the Iraq war or what would more accurately be described as the battle for Baghdad. The most loudly pursued option is to deploy more troops to the area and overwhelm the enemy. Unless the goal is to go after Syria, which I have advocated and would support 110%, or some other new mission, adding more troops would be foolish. If anything, we ought to consider reducing the number of troops by half while doubling our commitment to stay for as long as it takes.
Given the nature of insurgencies, which fight only when they have the advantage, more troops would solve little except to add more targets to an already target rich environment. According to Victor Davis Hanson the insurgent’s strength is at about 10,000. Hanson correctly asks, what is adding another 20,000 US troops to the 140,000 already there going to accomplish against an enemy of 10,000?
What Americans need to realize is that we need a long term strategy for our Global War on Islamo-terror-fascists. Cutting and running every time we get 10 or even 10,000 casualties is not a winning strategy. We need to pick our fights and win them. Whatever anyone thinks about why we went to Iraq in the first place, according to our enemy, Iraq is now the central front on the war on terror. As such, we should be looking at long term victory in Iraq rather than a short term face saving retreat.
A winning strategy to me is to reduce Sadr’s Madhi “Army” and any other militia to a fire team. Bring Syria and Iran into the process only to tell them that we’re tired of screwing around and any further interference in Iraq by either will result in someone or something being bombed in those countries. If you believe, as I do, that we’re fighting for survival, it’s time to start acting like it.
Strategies are now being discussed in Washington on how to quickly win the Iraq war or what would more accurately be described as the battle for Baghdad. The most loudly pursued option is to deploy more troops to the area and overwhelm the enemy. Unless the goal is to go after Syria, which I have advocated and would support 110%, or some other new mission, adding more troops would be foolish. If anything, we ought to consider reducing the number of troops by half while doubling our commitment to stay for as long as it takes.
Given the nature of insurgencies, which fight only when they have the advantage, more troops would solve little except to add more targets to an already target rich environment. According to Victor Davis Hanson the insurgent’s strength is at about 10,000. Hanson correctly asks, what is adding another 20,000 US troops to the 140,000 already there going to accomplish against an enemy of 10,000?
What Americans need to realize is that we need a long term strategy for our Global War on Islamo-terror-fascists. Cutting and running every time we get 10 or even 10,000 casualties is not a winning strategy. We need to pick our fights and win them. Whatever anyone thinks about why we went to Iraq in the first place, according to our enemy, Iraq is now the central front on the war on terror. As such, we should be looking at long term victory in Iraq rather than a short term face saving retreat.
A winning strategy to me is to reduce Sadr’s Madhi “Army” and any other militia to a fire team. Bring Syria and Iran into the process only to tell them that we’re tired of screwing around and any further interference in Iraq by either will result in someone or something being bombed in those countries. If you believe, as I do, that we’re fighting for survival, it’s time to start acting like it.
Monday, November 20, 2006
The Game, the BCS, why a rematch is a bad idea & other stuff
I’ve never been a fan of the BCS. The mythical National Champion of college football suited me fine. I liked the “what if” banter of “if we played you guys, there’s no way that silly putty defense of yours would be able to stop our running game.” The BCS just further confuses these discussions by “crowning” a non-champion champion.
The BCS still crowns a mythical champion. But it does so with all of the pomp and certainty of a Britney Spears wedding, and the BCS is as big a sham. How many learned college football fans are still claiming that USC was just a breath away from winning three consecutive national championships after last year’s loss to Texas? USC hadn’t even won two BCS national titles. That’s right, USC had an impressive one in row BCS titles when they kicked off against Texas. Still the myth of USC’s elusive third National Championship continues.
And how does the BCS decide America’s beloved National College Football Champion? With a computer, that’s how. That’s right, the same technology that might declare you dead years before your time but is incapable of bringing you back life, even if you present yourself, jumping rope while singing God Bless America before the very clerk who declared you dead, is choosing our national college football champion. The same technology that prevents an “Honor Roll” public school student working the McDonald’s cash register from making change from a dollar for a $.50 Coke because “the computer is down” is picking our college football national champion.
“The Computer”??? What the… This is America by God. We, or our representatives (coaches and sportswriters), should get to vote!!!!
If Democrats in congress want to investigate something, the hell with the Iraq war, look into the travisty of justice that is...theBCS.
The bottom line upfront:
OSU and Michigan each played a nearly flawless first half. OSU led at the half by two touchdowns. Michigan played a nearly flawless second half. OSU didn’t. OSU turned the ball over three times and dropped a handful passes. OSU led at the end of the game by three. Michigan played a nearly flawless game and still lost to an OSU team plagued by second half mistakes. A rematch is a bad idea.
Overall:
It was a GREAT GAME that lived up to the hype.
OSU was in control throughout the game.
OSU dominated statistically – first downs, rushing, passing, time of possession were all in OSU’s favor by significant margins.
OSU committed 3 turnovers in the second half resulting in - at a minimum – a 6 point swing.
Officials were good. (Would they be that good in a rematch?)
I get the not hitting the center if his head is down rule, but shouldn’t the center have to raise his head up after a two count once the ball is snapped?
Why a rematch is a bad idea.
1. If Michigan wins, will there be rubber match? No. After a 1-1 split, OSU will be Big 10 Champs, Michigan will be National Champs. If Michigan gets a rematch after losing, shouldn’t OSU? A rematch is a bad idea.
2. If OSU wins, Southern Cal, Notre Dame, Florida, Arkansas will all be saying that the Big 10 is full of weak sisters. All will claim, “we could have beaten OSU.” A rematch is a bad idea.
3. A rematch will be anti-climatic. In a rematch, OSU won’t turn the ball over 3 times in the second half. OSU coach Jim Tressel will keep the play book open for the entire game. Michigan will lack the Bo factor. OSU will win by 3 TD’s sparking point #2. A rematch is a bad idea.
4. Given OSU’s current and year long lead in the BCS, even if they lose, OSU may wind up ahead in the BCS computer poll. A rematch is a bad idea.
Brent Musburger again proved why he ought to quit the booth. His comment about Mike Hart getting the Heisman, if Michigan won, was beyond dumb. That was only one of a dozen idiotic comments. By the way Brent, OSU’s Antonio Pitman had 139 yards rushing – only 3 less than Hart on 5 less rushes. Too bad Keith Jackson can’t announce every college football game played.
What’s up with Bob Hunter? In his Sunday column in the Columbus Dispatch, he blasts former OSU Coach John Cooper saying Cooper couldn’t beat Mich with the ’72 Dolphins disguised as the Buckeyes. Then he slights current OSU Coach Jim Tressel’s 5 wins against Michigan by saying, well after all, 3 of them were with Troy Smith at QB. I thought you needed at least eleven for a football team. Then Hunter argues against himself intimating that Troy Smith alone is better than the entire ’72 Dolphins when he writes “wouldn’t Cooper have liked to have had Smith” during the ‘90s. Coop brought great talent to OSU – 3-4 legit National Champ contenders. His teams won a lot of games, but sadly only ONE of them was against Michigan – thus he had to go.
The BCS still crowns a mythical champion. But it does so with all of the pomp and certainty of a Britney Spears wedding, and the BCS is as big a sham. How many learned college football fans are still claiming that USC was just a breath away from winning three consecutive national championships after last year’s loss to Texas? USC hadn’t even won two BCS national titles. That’s right, USC had an impressive one in row BCS titles when they kicked off against Texas. Still the myth of USC’s elusive third National Championship continues.
And how does the BCS decide America’s beloved National College Football Champion? With a computer, that’s how. That’s right, the same technology that might declare you dead years before your time but is incapable of bringing you back life, even if you present yourself, jumping rope while singing God Bless America before the very clerk who declared you dead, is choosing our national college football champion. The same technology that prevents an “Honor Roll” public school student working the McDonald’s cash register from making change from a dollar for a $.50 Coke because “the computer is down” is picking our college football national champion.
“The Computer”??? What the… This is America by God. We, or our representatives (coaches and sportswriters), should get to vote!!!!
If Democrats in congress want to investigate something, the hell with the Iraq war, look into the travisty of justice that is...theBCS.
The bottom line upfront:
OSU and Michigan each played a nearly flawless first half. OSU led at the half by two touchdowns. Michigan played a nearly flawless second half. OSU didn’t. OSU turned the ball over three times and dropped a handful passes. OSU led at the end of the game by three. Michigan played a nearly flawless game and still lost to an OSU team plagued by second half mistakes. A rematch is a bad idea.
Overall:
It was a GREAT GAME that lived up to the hype.
OSU was in control throughout the game.
OSU dominated statistically – first downs, rushing, passing, time of possession were all in OSU’s favor by significant margins.
OSU committed 3 turnovers in the second half resulting in - at a minimum – a 6 point swing.
Officials were good. (Would they be that good in a rematch?)
I get the not hitting the center if his head is down rule, but shouldn’t the center have to raise his head up after a two count once the ball is snapped?
Why a rematch is a bad idea.
1. If Michigan wins, will there be rubber match? No. After a 1-1 split, OSU will be Big 10 Champs, Michigan will be National Champs. If Michigan gets a rematch after losing, shouldn’t OSU? A rematch is a bad idea.
2. If OSU wins, Southern Cal, Notre Dame, Florida, Arkansas will all be saying that the Big 10 is full of weak sisters. All will claim, “we could have beaten OSU.” A rematch is a bad idea.
3. A rematch will be anti-climatic. In a rematch, OSU won’t turn the ball over 3 times in the second half. OSU coach Jim Tressel will keep the play book open for the entire game. Michigan will lack the Bo factor. OSU will win by 3 TD’s sparking point #2. A rematch is a bad idea.
4. Given OSU’s current and year long lead in the BCS, even if they lose, OSU may wind up ahead in the BCS computer poll. A rematch is a bad idea.
Brent Musburger again proved why he ought to quit the booth. His comment about Mike Hart getting the Heisman, if Michigan won, was beyond dumb. That was only one of a dozen idiotic comments. By the way Brent, OSU’s Antonio Pitman had 139 yards rushing – only 3 less than Hart on 5 less rushes. Too bad Keith Jackson can’t announce every college football game played.
What’s up with Bob Hunter? In his Sunday column in the Columbus Dispatch, he blasts former OSU Coach John Cooper saying Cooper couldn’t beat Mich with the ’72 Dolphins disguised as the Buckeyes. Then he slights current OSU Coach Jim Tressel’s 5 wins against Michigan by saying, well after all, 3 of them were with Troy Smith at QB. I thought you needed at least eleven for a football team. Then Hunter argues against himself intimating that Troy Smith alone is better than the entire ’72 Dolphins when he writes “wouldn’t Cooper have liked to have had Smith” during the ‘90s. Coop brought great talent to OSU – 3-4 legit National Champ contenders. His teams won a lot of games, but sadly only ONE of them was against Michigan – thus he had to go.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Michigan agrees to give Ohio State its gameplan for Saturday's game!
Ohio State’s head football coach Jim Tressel has asked Michigan head football coach Lloyd Carr for help cracking a stubborn Michigan defense in time for Saturday’s 3:30 kick-off between Tressel’s #1 Buckeyes and Carr’s #2 Wolverines. Carr has agreed to help - if Tressel will spot the Wolverines 14 points and agree that Ohio State’s Heisman Trophy candidate Troy Smith cannot rush the football past the line of scrimmage and must throw left handed. Tressel is seriously considering the offer. Tressel said, “look, nobody knows the Michigan defense better than Lloyd. Whatever advice he might give us I’m sure will be helpful. Why wouldn’t Lloyd want to help us beat Michigan?”
The only thing slightly dopier than the above scenario is the one where the US would sit down with Iran and Syria to discuss stabilizing Iraq. Here’s a newsflash: The Iranians and Syrians are the ones destabilizing Iraq. They do it because it is in their interest to keep Democracy and the US out of the Middle East. There is nothing short of giving Iran nukes and Syria a further guarantee of that their support of Hezbollah and other Islamo-terror-fascists groups will continue go unpunished that would cause them to even appear to be helpful. Any help they offer will be temporary, halfhearted and self-serving. Within months of any agreement, the “help” would cease altogether with the two blaming us for the failure. It’s idiocy of the highest order.
You want Iran’s and Syria’s help in Iraq? Simple, you depose the Islamo-terror-fascists’ supporting governments in those two countries. Lex called for expansion of the war into Syria months ago. Nothing short of regime change or a serious threat of it will cause these two to be helpful or even neutral. It’s just not in their interest.
GBBM
The only thing slightly dopier than the above scenario is the one where the US would sit down with Iran and Syria to discuss stabilizing Iraq. Here’s a newsflash: The Iranians and Syrians are the ones destabilizing Iraq. They do it because it is in their interest to keep Democracy and the US out of the Middle East. There is nothing short of giving Iran nukes and Syria a further guarantee of that their support of Hezbollah and other Islamo-terror-fascists groups will continue go unpunished that would cause them to even appear to be helpful. Any help they offer will be temporary, halfhearted and self-serving. Within months of any agreement, the “help” would cease altogether with the two blaming us for the failure. It’s idiocy of the highest order.
You want Iran’s and Syria’s help in Iraq? Simple, you depose the Islamo-terror-fascists’ supporting governments in those two countries. Lex called for expansion of the war into Syria months ago. Nothing short of regime change or a serious threat of it will cause these two to be helpful or even neutral. It’s just not in their interest.
GBBM
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Reality for Dems: Decisions have consequences
It was General George Marshall who worried that a democracy could not sustain a war footing for more than six years. So, faced with a persistently belligerent Japan in 1945, General Marshall advocated a “quick” end to WWII by invading the Japanese mainland – a strategy that was sure to cause severe allied casualties. The alternate strategy called for conducting a lengthy blockade and bombing campaign to starve the Japanese out. The latter strategy might have taken years longer, and itself resulted in significant additional casualties in addition to more favorable surrender conditions for the Japanese. But as we all know, the Little Boy and Fat Man nuclear bombs pretty much settled the question.
19 March, 2007 will mark the 4th anniversary of the Iraq war. Prior to the elections, our MSM were telling us that we’re tired of fighting. What the MSM never tells us is that we’re fighting for our very survival. When faced with that reality, we might get a sudden burst of energy and the will to continue.
So we’re all tired of the fight. Let’s just surrender, uh I mean “redeploy” wink, wink. Well that’s essentially what the Democrats ran on in last week’s election. Now faced with reality and the burden of the consequences for their decisions, thoughtful Democrats, a rare bird indeed, are not so sure that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is in America’s best interest.
Even while the far left loons call for immediate surrender, their MSM allies are trying to save them from themselves. Not a week after the election, the heretofore antiwar NY Times now says maybe we shouldn’t be rushed out of Iraq. The generals - Zini, Baptiste etc. - once in “revolt” and who lampooned the administration’s “stay the course” policy, are now calling for a course which requires us to stay. House Blue Dogs, faced with a choice for Leader between a corrupt antiwar demagogue or a middle of the road (for Dems anyway) “we just may need the course we’re on to be stayed awhile” type, may just buck their “leadership” and opt for the middle of the road guy.
Lex has noted that the Dems would find that it is a lot easier to shout from the sidelines than actually make a play in the big game.
19 March, 2007 will mark the 4th anniversary of the Iraq war. Prior to the elections, our MSM were telling us that we’re tired of fighting. What the MSM never tells us is that we’re fighting for our very survival. When faced with that reality, we might get a sudden burst of energy and the will to continue.
So we’re all tired of the fight. Let’s just surrender, uh I mean “redeploy” wink, wink. Well that’s essentially what the Democrats ran on in last week’s election. Now faced with reality and the burden of the consequences for their decisions, thoughtful Democrats, a rare bird indeed, are not so sure that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is in America’s best interest.
Even while the far left loons call for immediate surrender, their MSM allies are trying to save them from themselves. Not a week after the election, the heretofore antiwar NY Times now says maybe we shouldn’t be rushed out of Iraq. The generals - Zini, Baptiste etc. - once in “revolt” and who lampooned the administration’s “stay the course” policy, are now calling for a course which requires us to stay. House Blue Dogs, faced with a choice for Leader between a corrupt antiwar demagogue or a middle of the road (for Dems anyway) “we just may need the course we’re on to be stayed awhile” type, may just buck their “leadership” and opt for the middle of the road guy.
Lex has noted that the Dems would find that it is a lot easier to shout from the sidelines than actually make a play in the big game.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
If immigration is THE domestic issue for the 110th congress, the global war on terror is THE key foreign, international and national survival issue. I’m sure we all agree that while Islamo-terror-fascists are blowing up national symbols of wealth and power, busses, cafes, cars, shopping malls, power plants, oil refineries, religious sites, museums, antiquities, tourist attractions or chopping off heads of infidels and while other Muslim believers pursue nuclear weapons, most peace loving Muslims are content to simply sit quietly while the nut jobs pursue a Middle East then world-wide Caliphate on their behalf. Those who remain silent are as dangerous as those who commit atrocities on their behalf.
Democrats are fond of calling Iraq “George Bush’s war.” Democrats call it George Bush’s war in spite of the fact that a good many Democrats voted for the war – including His A*@holiness John Kerry and the nation’s Nurse Ratchet, Hillary. Then when things got tough they lied and said they were lied to. But they were persistent in their criticism of the war they once voted for and its management. Aided by a MSM’s drip, drip, drip of casualties and pictures of burning vehicles and buildings without one word of context, the Democrats swept to power last Tuesday. Now that they are in power, it will be the Dems who will be responsible for our defeat in Iraq and ceding of the Middle East to the ITFs. But as the Democrats are sure to learn, it’s easier to carp from the sideline than actually play the game, particularly when national survival hangs in the balance.
First, if it is any one person’s war, Iraq is really Osama bin Laden’s war. Bin Laden is the one who has claimed that Iraq is the central front in the ITF’s pursuit of the world-wide Caliphate. This is what’s so frustrating. The ITFs are telling us everything we need to know about them. We will not listen. They have declared war on us over and over and over. We worry more about gas going over $2.50 than national survival. They tell us over and over that they want us all dead, but we worry more about MSM fake stories about Koran flushing, torture and whether the movies at G’itmo are appropriate for the tender sensibilities of the murdering bastards and if there is enough popcorn our “guests.” They shout over and over and over again, death to the West, while we worry whether the term Islamo-terror-fascist offends the very Islamo-terror-fascists trying to kill us. It’s insane.
They are telling us everything we need to know about them. We will not listen. Tonight at 7 on CNN Headline Prime, Glenn Beck will present the facts about the people we are at war with. Watch it. Get everyone you know to watch it, especially your Democrat friends.
Democrats are fond of calling Iraq “George Bush’s war.” Democrats call it George Bush’s war in spite of the fact that a good many Democrats voted for the war – including His A*@holiness John Kerry and the nation’s Nurse Ratchet, Hillary. Then when things got tough they lied and said they were lied to. But they were persistent in their criticism of the war they once voted for and its management. Aided by a MSM’s drip, drip, drip of casualties and pictures of burning vehicles and buildings without one word of context, the Democrats swept to power last Tuesday. Now that they are in power, it will be the Dems who will be responsible for our defeat in Iraq and ceding of the Middle East to the ITFs. But as the Democrats are sure to learn, it’s easier to carp from the sideline than actually play the game, particularly when national survival hangs in the balance.
First, if it is any one person’s war, Iraq is really Osama bin Laden’s war. Bin Laden is the one who has claimed that Iraq is the central front in the ITF’s pursuit of the world-wide Caliphate. This is what’s so frustrating. The ITFs are telling us everything we need to know about them. We will not listen. They have declared war on us over and over and over. We worry more about gas going over $2.50 than national survival. They tell us over and over that they want us all dead, but we worry more about MSM fake stories about Koran flushing, torture and whether the movies at G’itmo are appropriate for the tender sensibilities of the murdering bastards and if there is enough popcorn our “guests.” They shout over and over and over again, death to the West, while we worry whether the term Islamo-terror-fascist offends the very Islamo-terror-fascists trying to kill us. It’s insane.
They are telling us everything we need to know about them. We will not listen. Tonight at 7 on CNN Headline Prime, Glenn Beck will present the facts about the people we are at war with. Watch it. Get everyone you know to watch it, especially your Democrat friends.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Time for a third party?
I had an interesting conversation over the weekend. A young family guy with a small business told me had sat out the last election. This might explain how the Republicans took such a drubbing last Tuesday. Here’s a guy that fit precisely into the Republican voting mold – white male, outdoorsman with a family and a small business. But for the first time since he was eligible, he didn’t vote. When I asked him why he didn’t vote, he asked me what the turn out was for the election. I said in my district it was high, about 40%. Then he asked, “isn’t not voting a way of voting?” What does it say about our political parties when 60% of voters don't vote for anyone?
I suppose when faced with two bad choices, the principled thing to do would be to reject both. Sort of like if I were faced with choosing between ABC’s and CBS’s evening news coverage, I’d turn the TV off and go for a walk. Maybe that’s what 60% of the voters do every election cycle. Maybe they are not all as misinformed and/or apathetic as civics teachers and political pundits make them out to be. Maybe some percentage of the 60% is in fact the most principled among us.
We are told that America is an equally divided country. So if the 40% that vote is divided roughly 20-20 and just over a third of the 60% that don’t vote are of the principled variety, that would create a voting block capable of sweeping a third candidate to victory.
Two posts under, the Griffin notes that if the Democrats continue with politics as usual the time may be right for the rise of a third party. Third parties always seem to be the answer but they never seem to materialize. One reason is the winner take all Electoral College system. The founders wanted a way to insure a two party system. They did not want a system where the vote for president could be so fractured and diluted by multiple candidates that someone with a plurality of 30% could be elected president.
2008 is an odd year. Neither the president nor the vice president will be a candidate. There are no atractive leading candidates in either party right now. How about a third party McCain Liebermann ticket? It might be difficult for the hard right candidate sure to come out of the Republican primary and the hard left candidate sure to come out of the Democrat primary to compete with a third choice such as McCain Liebermann. Just 22% of the 60% of non-voters might set such a third party try on the road to victory.
I suppose when faced with two bad choices, the principled thing to do would be to reject both. Sort of like if I were faced with choosing between ABC’s and CBS’s evening news coverage, I’d turn the TV off and go for a walk. Maybe that’s what 60% of the voters do every election cycle. Maybe they are not all as misinformed and/or apathetic as civics teachers and political pundits make them out to be. Maybe some percentage of the 60% is in fact the most principled among us.
We are told that America is an equally divided country. So if the 40% that vote is divided roughly 20-20 and just over a third of the 60% that don’t vote are of the principled variety, that would create a voting block capable of sweeping a third candidate to victory.
Two posts under, the Griffin notes that if the Democrats continue with politics as usual the time may be right for the rise of a third party. Third parties always seem to be the answer but they never seem to materialize. One reason is the winner take all Electoral College system. The founders wanted a way to insure a two party system. They did not want a system where the vote for president could be so fractured and diluted by multiple candidates that someone with a plurality of 30% could be elected president.
2008 is an odd year. Neither the president nor the vice president will be a candidate. There are no atractive leading candidates in either party right now. How about a third party McCain Liebermann ticket? It might be difficult for the hard right candidate sure to come out of the Republican primary and the hard left candidate sure to come out of the Democrat primary to compete with a third choice such as McCain Liebermann. Just 22% of the 60% of non-voters might set such a third party try on the road to victory.
Monday, November 13, 2006
The Weekly Punctilio: Immigration
This week’s Weekly Punctilio Award as the dopiest thing to apear in the Ft. Wayne, Journal Gazette, goes to Andrea Bates for this piece on immigration. Ms. Bates it seems would have one’s economic status as the only criteria for people who want to enter the US. As long as you happen to be poor and from a “third world” country, Ms. Bates would throw down the welcome mat.
I don’t know Ms. Bates but I’ll bet she’s an older woman who lives in a gated community. She probably has a nice yard maintained by a Hispanic crew for $25-$30 a week. She probably has a nice house that is cleaned once a week by a nice Hispanic lady for $20-$25 a week. She probably jetted down south of the border one winter, flying first or business class with her husband. She might have stayed in a nice hotel. Then one day, she strolled into town and noticed the poor children selling Chicklettes and beaded bracelets in the streets and was touched. So now she just wants to open the border, but not HER house of course. The only contact Ms. Bates would ever expect to have with these people is to tell them what needs to be cleaned.
But she’s got it bassackwards. We shouldn’t be promoting an unrestricted flow of poor, uneducated day laborers into the country to become a permanent underclass sympathetic to Democrat and socialist causes and who do “the work Americans won’t do.” We should be looking for educated, highly skilled workers to do the work Americans can’t do because our public schools and universities are more interested diversity and socialist propaganda than making sure Johnny can read, write, add, subtract, multiply and divide.
THE defining domestic issue for the Democrat controlled congress in the next session will be immigration. Will the Democrats and President Bush succeed in their effort to establish an open border with Mexico and amnesty for the 15 million illegal aliens who are already here? Or can common sense Republicans and blue dogs stop the insanity that the president wants to foist on us? I don’t know.
But as surely as I’m sitting here touch typing, the 15 million illegal aliens will grow to 100 million then 150 million. See, what the politicians won’t tell us is that every one of the 15 million amnesty recipients will then be allowed to invite their extend families to America. These people will then be eligible for all the perks afforded any US citizen even though they will have paid little or nothing to support those programs. Already strained, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and other welfare programs will break under the weight of recipients who never paid into them.
Then what? At that point you have two options. You can either reduce benefits or raise taxes. Guess which direction Democrats will choose. All of Europe is currently riding this out of control socialist model off of a cliff. We’d better learn or we’re sure to follow. Republicans would be smart to get well right of the president on this issue for ’08.
I don’t know Ms. Bates but I’ll bet she’s an older woman who lives in a gated community. She probably has a nice yard maintained by a Hispanic crew for $25-$30 a week. She probably has a nice house that is cleaned once a week by a nice Hispanic lady for $20-$25 a week. She probably jetted down south of the border one winter, flying first or business class with her husband. She might have stayed in a nice hotel. Then one day, she strolled into town and noticed the poor children selling Chicklettes and beaded bracelets in the streets and was touched. So now she just wants to open the border, but not HER house of course. The only contact Ms. Bates would ever expect to have with these people is to tell them what needs to be cleaned.
But she’s got it bassackwards. We shouldn’t be promoting an unrestricted flow of poor, uneducated day laborers into the country to become a permanent underclass sympathetic to Democrat and socialist causes and who do “the work Americans won’t do.” We should be looking for educated, highly skilled workers to do the work Americans can’t do because our public schools and universities are more interested diversity and socialist propaganda than making sure Johnny can read, write, add, subtract, multiply and divide.
THE defining domestic issue for the Democrat controlled congress in the next session will be immigration. Will the Democrats and President Bush succeed in their effort to establish an open border with Mexico and amnesty for the 15 million illegal aliens who are already here? Or can common sense Republicans and blue dogs stop the insanity that the president wants to foist on us? I don’t know.
But as surely as I’m sitting here touch typing, the 15 million illegal aliens will grow to 100 million then 150 million. See, what the politicians won’t tell us is that every one of the 15 million amnesty recipients will then be allowed to invite their extend families to America. These people will then be eligible for all the perks afforded any US citizen even though they will have paid little or nothing to support those programs. Already strained, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and other welfare programs will break under the weight of recipients who never paid into them.
Then what? At that point you have two options. You can either reduce benefits or raise taxes. Guess which direction Democrats will choose. All of Europe is currently riding this out of control socialist model off of a cliff. We’d better learn or we’re sure to follow. Republicans would be smart to get well right of the president on this issue for ’08.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Happy Birthday Marines!
We’ll get back to politics on Monday. Today is too important a day to waste on such trivial matters as politics, world hunger, nuclear Armageddon, or the Spears/K-Fed break up. Today marks the 231st birthday of the United States Marine Corps. As such, anywhere two or more Marines or former Marines are gathered there will be a celebration.
My best Marine Corps birthday ever was spent with the best Marine ever (from my personal experience anyway) - one R. Geoffrey Houck. We were in the field in Korea camped in a valley along what was then and probably still is projected to be the North’s main axis of advance toward Seoul known as Nightmare Range. It was colder than a fat man’s wife after he arrives home from a three day drunk with a row of hickies on his neck and the clap. We were hunkered down in a small tent with more holes in it than an eight year old’s alibi for “who ate the cookies?”
There was no big celebration that year. No fancy uniforms. No band or big dinner. We were just a couple of lieutenants struggling against the wind and cold to concoct a witches brew c-rat stew in a steel pot helmet over one of those temperamental squad stoves that had three categories of operation – works perfectly – doesn’t work at all – burns your tent down when it explodes.
While cooking, concocting and trying to stay warm, we swapped sea stories (all of which began with the same preamble, “This is a no-sh%$!er. We were drinking one night when…). Well the stove worked perfectly that night and the stew was not too bad. That is until Houck decided to spice it up by adding some c-rat peanut butter, at which point it became pretty much inedible.
Happy Birthday Marines! Surprise a Marine by wishing him a happy birthday today.
Below are Generals Haggee’s and LeJeune’s messages along with the resolution which formed the Marine Corps and today’s Marine Corps mission.
Commandant Hagee’s Message
On November 10th, 1775, our Corps was born as the Continental Congress raised the "first and second battalions of American Marines." Each Year as we celebrate our birthday, we pause to reflect on the Marines of yesteryear who fought in our touchstone battles and forged the modern Marine Corps with their courage, integrity, and undying commitment to their fellow Marines. Each of our storied battles is a link in the long chain that binds all Marines together- from the Continental Marines at Bunker Hill to the Teufelhunden crossing the wheat fields of Belleau Wood. This chain binds us to the Marines on the crest of Mount Suribachi; it passes through the ice and snow of Chosin Reservoir and the steaming jungles of Vietnam, and it anchors firmly today in the sands of Iraq.
This year's celebration again finds many from our ranks, serving with distinction in harm's way. As we have for the past 231 years, our Corps is answering the Nation's call. I can report first hand that our Marines fighting on the front lines of the Long War on Terror are performing brilliantly, acquitting themselves with honor, dedication, and dignity in difficult and dangerous environments.
All Marines are making a difference. Regardless of where you are serving, you are adding new chapters to the legacy that was earned with sweat and blood on old battlefields. Just as previous generations of Marines shaped today's Marine Corps, your deeds are molding the Corps of tomorrow. Our Corps has never been stronger, and all Americans are extremely proud of your magnificent performance and unwavering commitment to server our Corps and country. With high caliber Marines like you, our future has never been brighter.
Another irreplaceable element of our success as Marines is the terrific support we receive from our families. Through the long hours, the exercises, and the combat deployments, their support is unconditional and firm. They give us love and devotion, providing us with the strength to drive on when duty calls. Today we should all acknowledge our loved ones for their patient, steadfast service.
To all who have earned the title Marine, to the superb Sailors who serve with us in every clime and place, and to our precious families- I wish each one of you a heartfelt Happy 231st Birthday. Semper Fidelis and Keep Attacking!
M. W. Hagee
General, U.S. Marine Corps
Commandant LEJEUNE'S MESSAGE10 November 1921:
This date marked the first formal commemoration of the birthday of the Marine Corps as 10 November. On 21 October 1921, Maj Edwin McClellan, OIC of the Historical Section, HQMC, sent a memo to MajGen Commandant John A. Lejeune, suggesting that the original birthday of 10 November 1775 be declared a Marine Corps holiday to be celebrated throughout the Corps. Accordingly, on 1 Nov 1921, Gen Lejeune issued Marine Corps Order No. 47 summarizing the history, mission, and tradition of the Corps, and directed that it be read to every command each 10 November. In keeping with the wishes of the 13th Commandant Marine Corps Order #47 is republished today, as follows:
On November 10, 1775, a Corps of Marines was created by a resolution of the Continental Congress. Since that date, many thousand men have borne the name Marine. In memory of them, it is fitting that we who are Marines should commemorate the Birthday of our Corps by calling to mind the glories of its long and illustrious history. The record of our Corps is one which will bear comparison with that of the most famous military organizations in the world's history.
During 90 of the 146 years of its existence the Marine Corps has been in action against the nations foes. From the battle of Trenton to the Argonne, Marines have won foremost honors in war, and in the long eras of tranquility at home. Generation after generation of Marines have grown gray in war in both hemispheres and in every corner of the seven seas that our country and its citizens might enjoy peace and security.
In every battle and skirmish since the birth of our Corps Marines have acquitted themselves with the greatest distinction, winning new honors on each occasion until the term Marine has come to signify all that is highest in military efficiency and soldierly virtue.
This high name of distinction and soldierly repute we who are Marines today have received from those who preceded us in the Corps. With it we also received from them the eternal spirit which has animated our Corps from generation to generation and has been the distinguishing mark of the Marines in every age. So long as that spirit continues to flourish Marines will e found equal to every emergency in the future as they have been in the past, and the men of our nation will regard us as worthy successors to the long line of illustrious men who have served as "Soldiers of the Sea" since the founding of the Corps.
The inspiring message of the 13th Commandant has left its mark in the hearts and minds of all Marines. By deed and act from Trenton to the shores of Tripoli to the Argonne Forest, to Iwo Jima, in interventions from Lebanon, Grenada, and Panama, and from the opening battles in Vietnam, the Gulf War and today in America’s new war on terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world, Marines have continued to epitomize those qualities which are their legacy. The success which they have achieved in combat and the faith they have borne in peace will continue - Happy birthday to Marines, former Marines and friends of Marines.
Birth of the Corp
On November 10, 1775, the Second Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia, PA adopted a secret resolution that formally established a military organization whose fame and tradition was destined to achieve prominence in the annals of American warfare. The resolution reads:
Resolved--That two battalions of Marines be raised consisting of one colonel, two lieutenant colonels, two majors and officers as usual in other regiments; That they consist of an equal number of privates with other battalions; that particular care be taken that no persons be appointed to office or enlisted into said battalions, but such as are good seamen, or so acquainted with Maritime affairs as to be able to serve to advantage by sea, when required. That they be enlisted and commissioned for and during the present war between Great Britain and the colonies, unless dismissed by order of Congress: That they be distinguished by the names of the 1st and 2d Battalions of American Marines, and that they be considered as part of the number, which the continental Army before Boston is ordered to consist of.
Mission
The Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions and three air wings, and such other land combat, aviation and other services as may be organic therein.
The Marines Corps shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign.
In addition, the Marine Corps shall provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy, shall provide security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases, and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct. However, these additional duties may not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized.
The Marine Corps shall develop, in coordination with the Army and the Air Force, those phases of amphibious operations that pertain to the tactics, techniques, and equipment used by landing forces.
The Marine Corps is responsible, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of peacetime components of the Marine Corps to meet the needs of war.
My best Marine Corps birthday ever was spent with the best Marine ever (from my personal experience anyway) - one R. Geoffrey Houck. We were in the field in Korea camped in a valley along what was then and probably still is projected to be the North’s main axis of advance toward Seoul known as Nightmare Range. It was colder than a fat man’s wife after he arrives home from a three day drunk with a row of hickies on his neck and the clap. We were hunkered down in a small tent with more holes in it than an eight year old’s alibi for “who ate the cookies?”
There was no big celebration that year. No fancy uniforms. No band or big dinner. We were just a couple of lieutenants struggling against the wind and cold to concoct a witches brew c-rat stew in a steel pot helmet over one of those temperamental squad stoves that had three categories of operation – works perfectly – doesn’t work at all – burns your tent down when it explodes.
While cooking, concocting and trying to stay warm, we swapped sea stories (all of which began with the same preamble, “This is a no-sh%$!er. We were drinking one night when…). Well the stove worked perfectly that night and the stew was not too bad. That is until Houck decided to spice it up by adding some c-rat peanut butter, at which point it became pretty much inedible.
Happy Birthday Marines! Surprise a Marine by wishing him a happy birthday today.
Below are Generals Haggee’s and LeJeune’s messages along with the resolution which formed the Marine Corps and today’s Marine Corps mission.
Commandant Hagee’s Message
On November 10th, 1775, our Corps was born as the Continental Congress raised the "first and second battalions of American Marines." Each Year as we celebrate our birthday, we pause to reflect on the Marines of yesteryear who fought in our touchstone battles and forged the modern Marine Corps with their courage, integrity, and undying commitment to their fellow Marines. Each of our storied battles is a link in the long chain that binds all Marines together- from the Continental Marines at Bunker Hill to the Teufelhunden crossing the wheat fields of Belleau Wood. This chain binds us to the Marines on the crest of Mount Suribachi; it passes through the ice and snow of Chosin Reservoir and the steaming jungles of Vietnam, and it anchors firmly today in the sands of Iraq.
This year's celebration again finds many from our ranks, serving with distinction in harm's way. As we have for the past 231 years, our Corps is answering the Nation's call. I can report first hand that our Marines fighting on the front lines of the Long War on Terror are performing brilliantly, acquitting themselves with honor, dedication, and dignity in difficult and dangerous environments.
All Marines are making a difference. Regardless of where you are serving, you are adding new chapters to the legacy that was earned with sweat and blood on old battlefields. Just as previous generations of Marines shaped today's Marine Corps, your deeds are molding the Corps of tomorrow. Our Corps has never been stronger, and all Americans are extremely proud of your magnificent performance and unwavering commitment to server our Corps and country. With high caliber Marines like you, our future has never been brighter.
Another irreplaceable element of our success as Marines is the terrific support we receive from our families. Through the long hours, the exercises, and the combat deployments, their support is unconditional and firm. They give us love and devotion, providing us with the strength to drive on when duty calls. Today we should all acknowledge our loved ones for their patient, steadfast service.
To all who have earned the title Marine, to the superb Sailors who serve with us in every clime and place, and to our precious families- I wish each one of you a heartfelt Happy 231st Birthday. Semper Fidelis and Keep Attacking!
M. W. Hagee
General, U.S. Marine Corps
Commandant LEJEUNE'S MESSAGE10 November 1921:
This date marked the first formal commemoration of the birthday of the Marine Corps as 10 November. On 21 October 1921, Maj Edwin McClellan, OIC of the Historical Section, HQMC, sent a memo to MajGen Commandant John A. Lejeune, suggesting that the original birthday of 10 November 1775 be declared a Marine Corps holiday to be celebrated throughout the Corps. Accordingly, on 1 Nov 1921, Gen Lejeune issued Marine Corps Order No. 47 summarizing the history, mission, and tradition of the Corps, and directed that it be read to every command each 10 November. In keeping with the wishes of the 13th Commandant Marine Corps Order #47 is republished today, as follows:
On November 10, 1775, a Corps of Marines was created by a resolution of the Continental Congress. Since that date, many thousand men have borne the name Marine. In memory of them, it is fitting that we who are Marines should commemorate the Birthday of our Corps by calling to mind the glories of its long and illustrious history. The record of our Corps is one which will bear comparison with that of the most famous military organizations in the world's history.
During 90 of the 146 years of its existence the Marine Corps has been in action against the nations foes. From the battle of Trenton to the Argonne, Marines have won foremost honors in war, and in the long eras of tranquility at home. Generation after generation of Marines have grown gray in war in both hemispheres and in every corner of the seven seas that our country and its citizens might enjoy peace and security.
In every battle and skirmish since the birth of our Corps Marines have acquitted themselves with the greatest distinction, winning new honors on each occasion until the term Marine has come to signify all that is highest in military efficiency and soldierly virtue.
This high name of distinction and soldierly repute we who are Marines today have received from those who preceded us in the Corps. With it we also received from them the eternal spirit which has animated our Corps from generation to generation and has been the distinguishing mark of the Marines in every age. So long as that spirit continues to flourish Marines will e found equal to every emergency in the future as they have been in the past, and the men of our nation will regard us as worthy successors to the long line of illustrious men who have served as "Soldiers of the Sea" since the founding of the Corps.
The inspiring message of the 13th Commandant has left its mark in the hearts and minds of all Marines. By deed and act from Trenton to the shores of Tripoli to the Argonne Forest, to Iwo Jima, in interventions from Lebanon, Grenada, and Panama, and from the opening battles in Vietnam, the Gulf War and today in America’s new war on terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq and around the world, Marines have continued to epitomize those qualities which are their legacy. The success which they have achieved in combat and the faith they have borne in peace will continue - Happy birthday to Marines, former Marines and friends of Marines.
Birth of the Corp
On November 10, 1775, the Second Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia, PA adopted a secret resolution that formally established a military organization whose fame and tradition was destined to achieve prominence in the annals of American warfare. The resolution reads:
Resolved--That two battalions of Marines be raised consisting of one colonel, two lieutenant colonels, two majors and officers as usual in other regiments; That they consist of an equal number of privates with other battalions; that particular care be taken that no persons be appointed to office or enlisted into said battalions, but such as are good seamen, or so acquainted with Maritime affairs as to be able to serve to advantage by sea, when required. That they be enlisted and commissioned for and during the present war between Great Britain and the colonies, unless dismissed by order of Congress: That they be distinguished by the names of the 1st and 2d Battalions of American Marines, and that they be considered as part of the number, which the continental Army before Boston is ordered to consist of.
Mission
The Marine Corps, within the Department of the Navy, shall be so organized as to include not less than three combat divisions and three air wings, and such other land combat, aviation and other services as may be organic therein.
The Marines Corps shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign.
In addition, the Marine Corps shall provide detachments and organizations for service on armed vessels of the Navy, shall provide security detachments for the protection of naval property at naval stations and bases, and shall perform such other duties as the President may direct. However, these additional duties may not detract from or interfere with the operations for which the Marine Corps is primarily organized.
The Marine Corps shall develop, in coordination with the Army and the Air Force, those phases of amphibious operations that pertain to the tactics, techniques, and equipment used by landing forces.
The Marine Corps is responsible, in accordance with integrated joint mobilization plans, for the expansion of peacetime components of the Marine Corps to meet the needs of war.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Will Dems make impeachment secondary to security?
The Griffin weighs in:
My darkest fear is that just like the days, months, years, leading up to 9-11, that the other non-issues will take the spotlight as we lose focus on fighting terrorism. When Bill Clinton became president I recall telling my wife that we should give him a chance. Let’s see what he can do! I respect the office and the fortitude it takes to reach this pinnacle. As I awaited the leadership qualities to emerge on the great issues of 1993, we were inundated the first 8 months with the burning topic of gays in the military. It was endless. There was hand wringing, crying, and intense self medicating going on with every Hollywood film star, every liberal, and with every staffer in the Clinton administration. Hillary was pissed (as usual) and Slick Willy’s bottom lip was chewed raw. In the meantime wacko terrorists were drawing X’s and O’s as they planned the first attack on the WTC. As I awaited the great investigation that would undoubtedly exceed Sherlock Holmes’ wildest dreams, Bill Clinton was playing Johnny Holmes in the White House. Eventually we indicted and convicted those on our soil, but those in the shadows in foreign countries that planned and trained the attack were sipping tea and eating camel cheese in places like Sudan and Afghanistan. The seeds of 9-11 were being nurtured.
As the democrats retake the House and possibly the Senate, they cannot be allowed to fail the American people again as Bill Clinton did in the 1990’s. As they sober up this morning, they must remember that more than ever they are obligated to hold all other issues as secondary. With the rhetoric of the election over, one truth should shine through to all those entrusted to protect this nations citizens from all enemies be they foreign or domestic. That truth is that they have requested and received from their fellow citizens a greater responsibility, as was given President Bush in 2000 and 2004, to protect this nation. The blame for the next attack, which will occur, should as always rest squarely on the shoulders of the murderers that did conceive, plan, and carry out that attack. If anything less than the best efforts of those entrusted with the security of our nation to prevent another 9-11 is given, if in fighting and squabbling over minor issues is consuming their time and wasting ours, and if the political fractures of the past grow wider as they choose to ignore those groups that wish kill us because we are Americans, if our families, friends, and fellow citizens are sacrificed at a political altar built by small minded politicians, the American public will lose further confidence in both parties to resolve all issues large and small. This will be the birth of a third party which will take from the democrats and republicans to form a serious and competitive national movement. The 2006 midterm elections should be interred into our history books, not as a loss of confidence in George Bush or the Republican Party, but as a loss of confidence in America ’s political system to produce politicians that put America first. Graf, corruption, scandal, deceit, pettiness, and self-aggrandizement, cannot continue while our citizens are being threatened and murdered. The winds of political change are still blowing. They did not stop on November 7, 2006.
The Griffin sends.
My darkest fear is that just like the days, months, years, leading up to 9-11, that the other non-issues will take the spotlight as we lose focus on fighting terrorism. When Bill Clinton became president I recall telling my wife that we should give him a chance. Let’s see what he can do! I respect the office and the fortitude it takes to reach this pinnacle. As I awaited the leadership qualities to emerge on the great issues of 1993, we were inundated the first 8 months with the burning topic of gays in the military. It was endless. There was hand wringing, crying, and intense self medicating going on with every Hollywood film star, every liberal, and with every staffer in the Clinton administration. Hillary was pissed (as usual) and Slick Willy’s bottom lip was chewed raw. In the meantime wacko terrorists were drawing X’s and O’s as they planned the first attack on the WTC. As I awaited the great investigation that would undoubtedly exceed Sherlock Holmes’ wildest dreams, Bill Clinton was playing Johnny Holmes in the White House. Eventually we indicted and convicted those on our soil, but those in the shadows in foreign countries that planned and trained the attack were sipping tea and eating camel cheese in places like Sudan and Afghanistan. The seeds of 9-11 were being nurtured.
As the democrats retake the House and possibly the Senate, they cannot be allowed to fail the American people again as Bill Clinton did in the 1990’s. As they sober up this morning, they must remember that more than ever they are obligated to hold all other issues as secondary. With the rhetoric of the election over, one truth should shine through to all those entrusted to protect this nations citizens from all enemies be they foreign or domestic. That truth is that they have requested and received from their fellow citizens a greater responsibility, as was given President Bush in 2000 and 2004, to protect this nation. The blame for the next attack, which will occur, should as always rest squarely on the shoulders of the murderers that did conceive, plan, and carry out that attack. If anything less than the best efforts of those entrusted with the security of our nation to prevent another 9-11 is given, if in fighting and squabbling over minor issues is consuming their time and wasting ours, and if the political fractures of the past grow wider as they choose to ignore those groups that wish kill us because we are Americans, if our families, friends, and fellow citizens are sacrificed at a political altar built by small minded politicians, the American public will lose further confidence in both parties to resolve all issues large and small. This will be the birth of a third party which will take from the democrats and republicans to form a serious and competitive national movement. The 2006 midterm elections should be interred into our history books, not as a loss of confidence in George Bush or the Republican Party, but as a loss of confidence in America ’s political system to produce politicians that put America first. Graf, corruption, scandal, deceit, pettiness, and self-aggrandizement, cannot continue while our citizens are being threatened and murdered. The winds of political change are still blowing. They did not stop on November 7, 2006.
The Griffin sends.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
How bad was it?
Wphew that was a good ol’ fashion arse whippin’.
But as in everything in life, some good news comes from adversity.
- It’s over- almost VA and MT to go! No more commercials or polls or endless prognosticating.
- The sun came up this morning. That’s right, even as the Democrats stand poised to gain control of both houses, the sun has come up. That means that the Democrats will now have to show their cards and stand for something. Carping at Bush and Rumsfeld will not be enough. They’ll actually have to provide some ideas. Scary. They will soon learn that it’s much easier to carp from the sidelines showing where the strong man stumbled than to get inside the arena of ideas and solve things.
- America survived Jimmy Carter, we’re likely to survive this as well.
- Bush won’t back down. There is nothing in his character or any evidence that President Bush will now roll over and play dead. This is important particularly in Iraq.
- Many elected Democrats are more moderate than the fringe lunatics that run the party. Hopefully, when the inevitable Iraq cut and run legislation comes up, the moderate Dems will recognize the tragedies of Viet Nam and Afghanistan and demand a strategy for victory in Iraq. Victory in Iraq is the one thing that never crosses a Democrat mind. But this is deadly serious business. If the Democrats quit Iraq ceding it to terrorists they will, in the process, so destabilize the world that they will pay politically for it for decades.
- Democrat majorities will be paper thin – less than the 15 seat working majority that Reps held before the election. That gives those moderate Dems the hammer. Ronald Reagan masterfully built a winning coalition with blue dog Democrats. But Reagan was also a wildly popular president. Can Bush get his approval numbers up? I think the next time Rumsfeld offers his resignation, Bush, sadly, will accept it. Some non-descript, non-political titan of industry will step in as Sec-Def and Bush will get a 5 point bump in popularity until Democrats revert to form and start trashing the new guy.
- Republicans may actually get back in touch with the base and start talking about low taxes, less spending and smaller government.
- John Kerry mercifully so badly mismanaged the aftermath of his Freudian slip that he’s likely done as a presidential hopeful. But, nobody holds a higher opinion of Kerry than Kerry, so he may have to be slapped down one more time.
The Bad News
- It starts all over again now for the 2008 Presidential Election. A preening MSM will be tell conservatives how they better get behind a moderate like McCain if they don’t want to lose the White House as well. There will be never ending polls showing how only the MSM’s anointed one John McCain can beat the Shrill one. The truth is that John McCain is as responsible as anyone for the Republican demise. His idiocy on taxes, immigration, and judges makes him a gonner in the Republican presidential primaries. But like Kerry, no one seems to appreciate John McCain as much as John McCain. Can you say 3rd party? That’d hand Shrill the White House. Look for McCain to begin his endless appearances on Hardball again starting tonight. Of course, the MSM will stump relentlessly for the Democrat nominee for president and all of that talk about one party rule being bad for America will be out the window when the one party is Democrat.
- Bush ironically is likely to get his no-amnesty amnesty bill for illegal aliens.
- Minimum wage will go up.
- The economy will go down.
- Investigations will start immediately.
- Conservative Judges, difficult to get by McCain and his gang of 14 - now a gang of 12 with Democrats holding a 7 to 5 majority, will be impossible to get by in the new Democrat Senate. Thanks John McCain.
But as in everything in life, some good news comes from adversity.
- It’s over- almost VA and MT to go! No more commercials or polls or endless prognosticating.
- The sun came up this morning. That’s right, even as the Democrats stand poised to gain control of both houses, the sun has come up. That means that the Democrats will now have to show their cards and stand for something. Carping at Bush and Rumsfeld will not be enough. They’ll actually have to provide some ideas. Scary. They will soon learn that it’s much easier to carp from the sidelines showing where the strong man stumbled than to get inside the arena of ideas and solve things.
- America survived Jimmy Carter, we’re likely to survive this as well.
- Bush won’t back down. There is nothing in his character or any evidence that President Bush will now roll over and play dead. This is important particularly in Iraq.
- Many elected Democrats are more moderate than the fringe lunatics that run the party. Hopefully, when the inevitable Iraq cut and run legislation comes up, the moderate Dems will recognize the tragedies of Viet Nam and Afghanistan and demand a strategy for victory in Iraq. Victory in Iraq is the one thing that never crosses a Democrat mind. But this is deadly serious business. If the Democrats quit Iraq ceding it to terrorists they will, in the process, so destabilize the world that they will pay politically for it for decades.
- Democrat majorities will be paper thin – less than the 15 seat working majority that Reps held before the election. That gives those moderate Dems the hammer. Ronald Reagan masterfully built a winning coalition with blue dog Democrats. But Reagan was also a wildly popular president. Can Bush get his approval numbers up? I think the next time Rumsfeld offers his resignation, Bush, sadly, will accept it. Some non-descript, non-political titan of industry will step in as Sec-Def and Bush will get a 5 point bump in popularity until Democrats revert to form and start trashing the new guy.
- Republicans may actually get back in touch with the base and start talking about low taxes, less spending and smaller government.
- John Kerry mercifully so badly mismanaged the aftermath of his Freudian slip that he’s likely done as a presidential hopeful. But, nobody holds a higher opinion of Kerry than Kerry, so he may have to be slapped down one more time.
The Bad News
- It starts all over again now for the 2008 Presidential Election. A preening MSM will be tell conservatives how they better get behind a moderate like McCain if they don’t want to lose the White House as well. There will be never ending polls showing how only the MSM’s anointed one John McCain can beat the Shrill one. The truth is that John McCain is as responsible as anyone for the Republican demise. His idiocy on taxes, immigration, and judges makes him a gonner in the Republican presidential primaries. But like Kerry, no one seems to appreciate John McCain as much as John McCain. Can you say 3rd party? That’d hand Shrill the White House. Look for McCain to begin his endless appearances on Hardball again starting tonight. Of course, the MSM will stump relentlessly for the Democrat nominee for president and all of that talk about one party rule being bad for America will be out the window when the one party is Democrat.
- Bush ironically is likely to get his no-amnesty amnesty bill for illegal aliens.
- Minimum wage will go up.
- The economy will go down.
- Investigations will start immediately.
- Conservative Judges, difficult to get by McCain and his gang of 14 - now a gang of 12 with Democrats holding a 7 to 5 majority, will be impossible to get by in the new Democrat Senate. Thanks John McCain.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Monday, November 06, 2006
Election fraud is a strategy for Democrats
The election is near and the moonbats are out in force. Take this letter from Thomas Meeks, which garners this week’s highly coveted Weekly Punctilio Award as the biggest waste of ink and newsprint for the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette. Meeks, who apparently is still in therapy since the 2000 presidential election, steals everything but Hugh Hewitt’s book title in his piece on “election fraud.” Hewitt, a great conservative, long ago published a book titled “If it isn’t close, they can’t cheat.”
Because Florida Democrats in one precinct were too stupid to darken the arrow pointing to their candidate’s name on a ballot designed by Democrats; because George Bush never once trailed in Florida; because Bush won the popular vote on election night; the statewide recount; and even the convoluted cherry picking recounts conceived by loser Al Gore in four predominately Democrat precincts; a media recount where every way imaginable of counting the votes was conducted; Meeks concludes election fraud put George Bush in the White House in 2000. That’s considered a sane position for the Moonbat Democrat – I’d say fringe but it’s actually become the mainstream.
Now because brain dead Democrats couldn’t figure out a paper ballot in Florida, our federal government has wasted hundreds of millions of our tax dollars on computer equipment to prevent what didn’t happen in Florida in 2000 from occurring again. Even so, Meeks, giving new meaning to the phrase “he’d kick if hung him with a new rope,” is complaining about the new machines.
I might remind Meeks:
It was Democrat JFK who won the White House on the votes of several thousand dead people in Chicago’s Cook County.
It was Democrats arrested for giving clean underwear and cigarettes to bums in exchange for votes.
It was Democrats who were found guilty of slashing the tires of Republican precinct workers.
It’s the Liberal ACORN organization facing criminal charges for swamping MO with 10s of thousands of fraudulent voter registration cards.
It’s in liberal Memphis, Harold Ford’s hometown, where four voter machine smart cards have gone missing.
It’s Liberals and Democrats who encourage voter fraud by opposing any kind of voter ID.
It’s Democrats who can’t vote with a pencil and paper.
It’s Republicans that have to figure in Democrat shenanigans on Election Day when going over poll numbers.
So congratulations to the Democrat voters in Florida and their like minded moonbats who are dumber than a hoe handle and have earned the this week's Weekly Punctilio Award for the Ft. Wayne J-G.
Because Florida Democrats in one precinct were too stupid to darken the arrow pointing to their candidate’s name on a ballot designed by Democrats; because George Bush never once trailed in Florida; because Bush won the popular vote on election night; the statewide recount; and even the convoluted cherry picking recounts conceived by loser Al Gore in four predominately Democrat precincts; a media recount where every way imaginable of counting the votes was conducted; Meeks concludes election fraud put George Bush in the White House in 2000. That’s considered a sane position for the Moonbat Democrat – I’d say fringe but it’s actually become the mainstream.
Now because brain dead Democrats couldn’t figure out a paper ballot in Florida, our federal government has wasted hundreds of millions of our tax dollars on computer equipment to prevent what didn’t happen in Florida in 2000 from occurring again. Even so, Meeks, giving new meaning to the phrase “he’d kick if hung him with a new rope,” is complaining about the new machines.
I might remind Meeks:
It was Democrat JFK who won the White House on the votes of several thousand dead people in Chicago’s Cook County.
It was Democrats arrested for giving clean underwear and cigarettes to bums in exchange for votes.
It was Democrats who were found guilty of slashing the tires of Republican precinct workers.
It’s the Liberal ACORN organization facing criminal charges for swamping MO with 10s of thousands of fraudulent voter registration cards.
It’s in liberal Memphis, Harold Ford’s hometown, where four voter machine smart cards have gone missing.
It’s Liberals and Democrats who encourage voter fraud by opposing any kind of voter ID.
It’s Democrats who can’t vote with a pencil and paper.
It’s Republicans that have to figure in Democrat shenanigans on Election Day when going over poll numbers.
So congratulations to the Democrat voters in Florida and their like minded moonbats who are dumber than a hoe handle and have earned the this week's Weekly Punctilio Award for the Ft. Wayne J-G.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Churches are only churches for Republicans
When is the one time liberals will not complain about “separation of church and state”? When Liberals are trolling for votes in black churches, that’s when. Democrats turning a black church into a campaign rally site is nothing new, complete with the choir in robes singing in the background and the reverend delivering a sermon of salvation only if the congregation votes Democrat. They do it all the time. Bill Clinton, 25 pound bible in hand no doubt, recently showed up in Memphis TN to campaign for black TN senate candidate Harold Ford in a black church.
Let George Bush show up in one of those white evangelical mega churches with a live satellite hookup that reaches about 45,000 homes while campaigning for a pro-life candidate. Then watch every program director of every major TV news room and every editor of every major newspaper in the country head for the fainting couch. Once their staff had produced enough salts to bring them back to their non-sense senses, they’d mercilessly attack George Bush or any Republican for shredding the Constitution and trying to establish theocracy. But Democrats politicing in a black church well…that’s just different.
It’s not different. It’s exactly the same. But if you called it a racist double standard, the Libs in the media would just smile knowing there’s not one damn thing you can do about it. If the IRS gets involved, guess who the MSM will paint as the racists?
Harold Ford has run around TN masquerading as a conservative, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-business Democrat just like Al Gore when Al Gore was a conservative Democrat from TN. Now Gore is the unhinged buffoon burning tons upon tons of fuel every day in private jet and fleet of SUVs shouting “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” while to trying get us to give up our 4 cylinder Honda in favor of public transportation.
A good idea for the Corker campaign would have Ford’s picture morph into a pictue of a bloated bearded shouting Al Gore, as the voice under says, “Remember the last ‘conservative Democrat’ senator from TN?”
Let George Bush show up in one of those white evangelical mega churches with a live satellite hookup that reaches about 45,000 homes while campaigning for a pro-life candidate. Then watch every program director of every major TV news room and every editor of every major newspaper in the country head for the fainting couch. Once their staff had produced enough salts to bring them back to their non-sense senses, they’d mercilessly attack George Bush or any Republican for shredding the Constitution and trying to establish theocracy. But Democrats politicing in a black church well…that’s just different.
It’s not different. It’s exactly the same. But if you called it a racist double standard, the Libs in the media would just smile knowing there’s not one damn thing you can do about it. If the IRS gets involved, guess who the MSM will paint as the racists?
Harold Ford has run around TN masquerading as a conservative, pro-life, pro-gun, pro-business Democrat just like Al Gore when Al Gore was a conservative Democrat from TN. Now Gore is the unhinged buffoon burning tons upon tons of fuel every day in private jet and fleet of SUVs shouting “the sky is falling, the sky is falling” while to trying get us to give up our 4 cylinder Honda in favor of public transportation.
A good idea for the Corker campaign would have Ford’s picture morph into a pictue of a bloated bearded shouting Al Gore, as the voice under says, “Remember the last ‘conservative Democrat’ senator from TN?”
Friday, November 03, 2006
The New York Times’ November surprise – surprise
In what I’m sure was meant to be another hit piece on President Bush, the New York Times is saying that a government run web site (read George Bush) designed to expose Saddam’s quest for WMD may actually have been helping Iran in theirs. The Times rather ironically is wondering why the government was releasing these “secrets”. The Times does that. Unless some government traitor is offering secrets to the Times, the Times becomes genuinely concerned for national security.
But the Times fouled up. Its hit piece included this little gem, “Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.”
Let me see. In 2002 Iraq - or is it Irak – was as little as one year away from becoming a nuclear – or is nukler – power with Saddam Hussein in charge. That would have made Iraq a nuclear power in 2003 – right? So if President Bush had not acted when he did, today - this being 2006 and more than one year from 2002 - help me John Kerry - we’d be facing a nuclear Iraq. Is that right? So does this mean Bush didn’t lie? I’m sure John Kerry and other moonbat Democrats are lined up behind a microphone somewhere waiting to get their chance to offer a sincere apology to the president and thank him for his foresight.
I'm sure the editors at the Times are surprised at their surprise.
But the Times fouled up. Its hit piece included this little gem, “Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.”
Let me see. In 2002 Iraq - or is it Irak – was as little as one year away from becoming a nuclear – or is nukler – power with Saddam Hussein in charge. That would have made Iraq a nuclear power in 2003 – right? So if President Bush had not acted when he did, today - this being 2006 and more than one year from 2002 - help me John Kerry - we’d be facing a nuclear Iraq. Is that right? So does this mean Bush didn’t lie? I’m sure John Kerry and other moonbat Democrats are lined up behind a microphone somewhere waiting to get their chance to offer a sincere apology to the president and thank him for his foresight.
I'm sure the editors at the Times are surprised at their surprise.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Kerry's unedited non-apology apology
Lex has gotten the original text of John Kerry’s non-apology apology. This is Kerry’s original draft before editing by a Kerry staffer who ironically happens to have been an Army sergeant. The clever army sgt merely removed the bold italicized words.
As a combat veteran, who served only three months of a one year tour in Viet Nam before chickening out and heading home with a fist full of medals that I put myself in for for wounding myself I want to make it clear to anyone stupid enough to be in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about you terrorizing Iraqi women and children in the dead of night, and never intended to indicate that I was in any way a thoughtful man or to refer to any troop no matter how stupid, illiterate and foolish who torures our Muslim brothers of peace and has signed up to fight George Bush's war because our troops are too stupid to get a real job.
I sincerely regret since I still can’t bring myself to say I’m “sincerely sorry” because I'm not, that my words as plain and clear as they were, were misinterpreted to wrongly imply that I might have a brain or anything negative about those stupid fools in uniform, and by the way, get over it. It’s not as if I called you wanton murderers and rapists, like I did the men with whom I served in Viet Nam and I personally apologize on this web site to any service member stupid enough to visit it, family member who is probably an equally uneducated rube, or American who was offended at what I still think is an incredibly funny joke. If this flap continues, I my even grow a male part or two and offer this non-apology apology in person.
It is clear the Republican Party, who somehow altered the text of my remarks and somehow altered my two remaining brain waves to make me say what I said, would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy which I voted for before being blow away with the prevailing political winds. I don’t want my verbal slip no matter how much I believe it to be the truth to be a diversion from the real issues which are of course my ’08 presidential run. I will continue to be the pompous Know-it-all ass you've come to know ans love and fight for a change of course to the war which I supported when it was politically popular to provide real security, like hiding under the bed sheets until we all get our throats slit, for our country, which under the current leadership I can’t stand and would rather see defeated and humiliated – France, now there’s a country we could all be proud of, and a winning strategy for my ’08 presidential bid and special education classes for our troops.
As a combat veteran, who served only three months of a one year tour in Viet Nam before chickening out and heading home with a fist full of medals that I put myself in for for wounding myself I want to make it clear to anyone stupid enough to be in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about you terrorizing Iraqi women and children in the dead of night, and never intended to indicate that I was in any way a thoughtful man or to refer to any troop no matter how stupid, illiterate and foolish who torures our Muslim brothers of peace and has signed up to fight George Bush's war because our troops are too stupid to get a real job.
I sincerely regret since I still can’t bring myself to say I’m “sincerely sorry” because I'm not, that my words as plain and clear as they were, were misinterpreted to wrongly imply that I might have a brain or anything negative about those stupid fools in uniform, and by the way, get over it. It’s not as if I called you wanton murderers and rapists, like I did the men with whom I served in Viet Nam and I personally apologize on this web site to any service member stupid enough to visit it, family member who is probably an equally uneducated rube, or American who was offended at what I still think is an incredibly funny joke. If this flap continues, I my even grow a male part or two and offer this non-apology apology in person.
It is clear the Republican Party, who somehow altered the text of my remarks and somehow altered my two remaining brain waves to make me say what I said, would rather talk about anything but their failed security policy which I voted for before being blow away with the prevailing political winds. I don’t want my verbal slip no matter how much I believe it to be the truth to be a diversion from the real issues which are of course my ’08 presidential run. I will continue to be the pompous Know-it-all ass you've come to know ans love and fight for a change of course to the war which I supported when it was politically popular to provide real security, like hiding under the bed sheets until we all get our throats slit, for our country, which under the current leadership I can’t stand and would rather see defeated and humiliated – France, now there’s a country we could all be proud of, and a winning strategy for my ’08 presidential bid and special education classes for our troops.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
The two Johns
John Kerry’s an even bigger loser than anyone could have imagined. When confronted with his own words, he blamed Republicans. Instead of accepting responsibility for perhaps the dumbest thing ever said by a politician, he claimed his comments were a joke. Whoo, that gives new meaning to the phrase, “some people can’t tell a joke.” But a defiant Kerry tries to turn that phrase on its head by inferring that it’s the American people that can’t take a joke. Hey John Boy – it isn’t funny.
Then dopey claims the unfunny joke was about President Bush and that anyone who thinks he would demean our troops is crazy. Well John Boy there are several miles of tape of you doing just that – calling Viet Nam vets murderers and rapists and claiming that our troops in Iraq are terrorizing women and children in the dark of night. So John Boy the joke’s on you. But hey, thanks for reminding us what a treasonous, gold digging louse you really are. One cannot be reminded enough. Prediction: Before the sun goes down Friday, John Boy will have issued some pathetic non-apology apology. That will, of course, only serve to start the cycle on this story all over again. Thanks for being so much smarter than the rest of us John.
John McCain is campaigning as if he were running for president, and well I guess he is. It’s hard to turn on a TV and not see McCain stumping for some Republican candidate in trouble somewhere and if you believe the media they are all in trouble. McCain knows that if he wants to be president the Republicans need to maintain control of at least one of the legislative bodies. If Democrats run the table next week McCain is done as a presidential candidate.
Here’s why. Democrats are sure to try to do a few things like;
- Roll back the tax cuts – which McCain opposed in the first place.
- Allow amnesty for illegal aliens – which McCain supports.
- Prevent President Bush for reshaping the judiciary in a conservative mold – which McCain and his “gang of 14” support.
If the Democrats try this with McCain support, he’s done in 08. McCain’s only hope is that the Republican maintain control of one house and save McCain from McCain. If the conservative base is frustrated and sits out this mid-term election, ceding both houses to Democrats, conservatives will certainly be energized in the Republican primaries for ’08. That cannot be good for McCain.
If on the other hand we get some compromise no amnesty – amnesty legislation on immigration, tax cut made permanent or kicked out a few years and the president gets his judicial nominations through, McCain could conceivably sail through the primaries under the radar. As always, McCain’s first thought in politics is of McCain.
Then dopey claims the unfunny joke was about President Bush and that anyone who thinks he would demean our troops is crazy. Well John Boy there are several miles of tape of you doing just that – calling Viet Nam vets murderers and rapists and claiming that our troops in Iraq are terrorizing women and children in the dark of night. So John Boy the joke’s on you. But hey, thanks for reminding us what a treasonous, gold digging louse you really are. One cannot be reminded enough. Prediction: Before the sun goes down Friday, John Boy will have issued some pathetic non-apology apology. That will, of course, only serve to start the cycle on this story all over again. Thanks for being so much smarter than the rest of us John.
John McCain is campaigning as if he were running for president, and well I guess he is. It’s hard to turn on a TV and not see McCain stumping for some Republican candidate in trouble somewhere and if you believe the media they are all in trouble. McCain knows that if he wants to be president the Republicans need to maintain control of at least one of the legislative bodies. If Democrats run the table next week McCain is done as a presidential candidate.
Here’s why. Democrats are sure to try to do a few things like;
- Roll back the tax cuts – which McCain opposed in the first place.
- Allow amnesty for illegal aliens – which McCain supports.
- Prevent President Bush for reshaping the judiciary in a conservative mold – which McCain and his “gang of 14” support.
If the Democrats try this with McCain support, he’s done in 08. McCain’s only hope is that the Republican maintain control of one house and save McCain from McCain. If the conservative base is frustrated and sits out this mid-term election, ceding both houses to Democrats, conservatives will certainly be energized in the Republican primaries for ’08. That cannot be good for McCain.
If on the other hand we get some compromise no amnesty – amnesty legislation on immigration, tax cut made permanent or kicked out a few years and the president gets his judicial nominations through, McCain could conceivably sail through the primaries under the radar. As always, McCain’s first thought in politics is of McCain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)