Chapman's Politics

Here's To The "Constitutional Option"

2005-04-12T17:47:00.000-05:00

Here is a wonderful "Letter to the Editor" I read today in my newspaper, the Tennessean. It simply points out the utter idiocracy of the left's filibuster attempts:

Allen claims that the filibuster has ''protected the voice of the minority for 200 years.''

What Allen fails to mention is that traditionally for almost all of that 200 years, the filibuster was never used to block judicial nominations. It was the Democrats who broke that tradition in recent years after they lost the majority in Congress.

It was the Democrats who changed the game and now they're trying to cry foul when the Republicans take steps to restore the judicial nomination process back to the way it used to be.

I have one simple word as a reply: Amen...

The Rwanda Genocide and Poll Numbers

2005-04-10T15:56:00.000-05:00

An excellent piece of work I read here about ex-President Clinton's actions (or should I say inactions?) during the Rwandan genocide. An appropriate line:

And Clinton "governed" by poll.

When he was advised, through polling data, that Americans would not be inclined to support the use of military force, that option was taken off the table.

And, sure enough, at least 500,000 ethnic Tutsis, in Rwanda, were beaten, knifed, stabbed, and hacked to death -- with machetes.

This is how Clinton reacted to "poll" numbers. President Bush's ability to govern by what he believes is right (no matter what the polls say) has enabled him to rise above many of our better presidents.

The Liberal Media At Its Finest

2005-04-03T22:55:00.000-05:00

Read an interesting story here (link via Power Line). It appears the liberal media has to show its ugly face, even when discussing the late John Paul II:

For those who expected more from the modernization--American priests ordained in the 1960s, say, Catholic women who wanted to be priests or Latin American leaders who wanted a partner in revolution--the pope not only betrayed his promise but locked the church in place for years to come.

As you read on, you find the original Washington Post article is full of little white lies. Normal garbage from the newspapers.

This proves that no matter who you are, or what condition you are in, if you oppose the liberal media's "ideals," they will attempt to discredit you with all their might.

Whine Babies Against Bolton...

2005-03-30T17:16:00.000-06:00

Nothing new here. It appears some former diplomats are disapproving of El Presidente's United Nations ambassador pick, John Bolton. One of their primary objections to Bolton:

But the former diplomats also chided Bolton for his "insistence that the U.N. is valuable only when it directly serves the United States."

These diplomats have trouble with one who speaks the truth? Who else has the U.N. ever truly served? Without the United States, the U.N. would be no better than its League predecessor. The only reason the United Nations still exists is because of America's contribution...

One Image...

2005-03-23T19:53:00.000-06:00

They say a picture is worth one thousand words...Well, this image might capture that saying. That image is what it means to be dedicated...

That youngster, maybe even younger than me, went inside Terri Schiavo's hospice and attempted to give her water. He was arrested on trespassing charges.

This entire case of human empathy, agony, and sympathy has developed into an issue it should never have been. I have never stated a clear opinion because I have none. The decision of her "right to die" or "right to live" is incomprehensible to me.

Would Schiavo really want to be in her condition? Would she have really wanted to still be living? These questions we will never know. Without definite answers, I cannot form an honest opinion.

Dumb Protesters...

2005-03-19T13:07:00.000-06:00

Here is an entire article by the AP (who else but these Commie prop. masters) on war protests two years after we bombed Saddam. Some of the typical protesting:

"Stop This Man" said another, alongside a picture showing Bush with devil's horns.

One man carried fake bombs with American flags painted on them and a dartboard map of the world showed a U.S. missile sticking out of Iraq.

Does it not occur to these people that for the first time in their lives, Iraqis can live as they wish? The Iraqis can worship as they wish, promote their own political causes, and live their own lifestyle.

It is obvious that these moronic protista (as in single-celled organism) live in a world where everything outside their own minds is ignorance.

ANWR, Here We Come!

2005-03-16T15:08:00.000-06:00

Finally, ANWR will get drilled! By smartly placing the operation in the budget bill, the most desolate refuge in the nation will be bringing us oil. How were those tree-huggers defeated? It was close:

The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year's budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster — a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies.

The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said. The House has not included a similar provision in its budget, so the issue is still subject to negotiations later this year to resolve the difference.

It's about time America's resources be used wisely! We need gasoline, and we have a huge reserve of oil in Seward's frozen backyard. It is only logical to drill in ANWR.

More Proof The U.N. Is Worthless

2005-03-12T22:38:00.000-06:00

Well, it appears Iran will not give up their nuclear program. Who didn't see this one coming? It is obvious diplomacy does not work when you are working with rogue Islamic nations. Here's a quote from my post on February 12th:

It is evident that Iran will refuse to settle any issues diplomatically: we must make a stand. The U.S. is currently not in a position to force Iran to stop building nuclear plants.

I believe the U.S. must work with Europe and the U.N. (unfortunately) to force the Iranians to stop building. If the problem isn't soon controlled, Iran will become a nation of atomic capability and America's most dangerous threat.

Well, we have worked with Europe and the U.N. and the Iranian government could care less. The only way to stop a renegade nation's plans is war. As stated above, our nation currently does not have the ability to prevent further Iranian advancements through force.

Somehow, someway, we must coerce the U.N. into invading Iran with a strong coalition of multi-national troops. And I mean multi-national, not the U.S. serving as 75% of the troop supply. But, in the history of the U.N., have they ever taken real action against any nation?

I'm All For Bolton!

2005-03-08T15:51:00.000-06:00

Well, after "debating" Condi Rice's and Alberto Gonzales' confirmations, the Democrats will battle President Bush's U.N. Ambassador candidate, John Bolton. I support Mr. Bolton fully and completely agree with his mindset:

"There is no such thing as the United Nations," he said in a speech. "There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that is the United States."

Boy, would he makes heads roll in New York or what!?! Any man who has been called a "bloodsucker" by the North Korean government must be my kind of ambassador. Bolton sounds like he carries a big stick and speaks softly...

The Nine Commandments

2005-03-04T18:21:00.000-06:00

Found this deeply offensive article on The Tennessean opinion page today. The piece is ignorant and obviously written by a complete liberal atheist. He states there should be nine commandments for law. But the stupidity is in this comment:

No! We're all asleep in a dream. We've been programmed like robots! The truth is that the Ten Commandments are incomplete and dangerous in that they misguide the innocent.

Millions and millions of people in the past 3,000 years have been battered, raped, enslaved, abandoned and lied to, all crimes that are not forbidden by the commandments.

My arguments against some of those points:

Battered: "Thou shalt not kill." - Exodus 2:13

Raped: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." - Exodus 2:14

Enslaved: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant." - Exodus 2:17

Abandoned and lied to: "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." - Exodus 2:16

Sounds to me like just another ignorant liberal trying to deny the importance of the Ten Commandments in law.

The Failure of MoveOn.org

2005-03-02T22:26:00.000-06:00

Saw this interesting piece at Rolling Stone.com. The opening paragraph alone describes the blob of Democratic failure known as MoveOn.org:

They signed up 500,000 supporters with an Internet petition -- but Bill Clinton still got impeached. They organized 6,000 candlelight vigils worldwide -- but the U.S. still invaded Iraq. They raised $60 million from 500,000 donors to air countless ads and get out the vote in the battle-ground states -- but George Bush still whupped John Kerry. A gambler with a string of bets this bad might call it a night. But MoveOn.org just keeps doubling down.

So, I think it's safe to say MoveOn has a losing record. But, before further analysis, let's hear their mission:

Now that Howard Dean has been named chair of the Democratic National Committee -- an ascension that MoveOn helped to engineer -- the Internet activist group is placing another high-stakes wager. It's betting that its 3 million grass-roots revolutionaries can seize the reins of the party and establish the group as a lasting political force. "It's our Party," MoveOn's twenty-four-year-old executive director, Eli Pariser, declared in an e-mail. "We bought it, we own it and we're going to take it back." The group's new goal is sweeping in its ambition: To make 2006 a watershed year for liberal Democrats in Congress, in the same way that Newt Gingrich led a Republican revolution in 1994.

The stupidity of the leader rings in tune with the stupidity of the mission. This moron, Pariser, believes that twenty-four year olds are the mainstream American. Problem is, he's a complete idiot.

He can't comprehend that the majority of American "grass roots" are Republican. Most Democratic "grass roots" become Republicans later in life (if they mature anyways).

So, why do the Democrats have fewer "grass roots" members? Because they have no base and no foundation other than pot-smoking, atheist-believing, college-aged liberals.

And to add to MoveOn's idiocracy, they believe that 2006 will be the opposite of 1994. Problem is, Republicans have just begun their domination, much like the Democrats did in the 1930's. A more realistic goal for MoveOn's "watershed" year, should be 2056...

Oscar Ratings Down

2005-02-28T23:15:00.000-06:00

Found this little article just recently. It turns out the Oscars were watched by an even lower number of viewers this year than last. I love the explanation:

ABC undoubtedly hoped for better, after preliminary figures released earlier Monday from the top 56 markets were the strongest they were in five years.

The drop in total viewership was an indication that this year's Oscar ceremony was more popular in the big cities than rural areas, more so than an average Academy Awards, said Larry Hyams, vice president of audience analysis and research for ABC.

Isn't it quite a coincidence that rural areas vote Republican and urban areas vote Democrat??? I think not.

Russia: Not Exactly An Ally

2005-02-24T17:43:00.000-06:00

I am confused on Russia's current status; is the nation really a democracy? And if so, do they wish to ally with our nation? A Putin quote from today's meeting with El Presidente:

"I get the impression that sometimes the public in the now-partner countries do not have the full knowledge and, consequently, do not have the full understanding of what is taking place in the Russian Federation," he said.

I believe Putin is a moron. And as always, Russia is, how do you say, "bass-akwards."

T.R.: The Definitive American

2005-02-22T18:19:00.000-06:00

First off, I'm glad to be able to post again, and the surgery went okay. But to the point, here is an essay I wrote on Theodore Roosevelt and his impact on the rise of the American nation:

T.R.: The Definitive American

Few men in the history of the great American nation have proven to be as serviceable to their country as Theodore Roosevelt. The only president to serve as a state representative, civil service reformer, and assistant secretary of the Navy, also was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army, a governor, police commissioner, and vice-president. “Roosevelt won wide popularity and millions of Americans affectionately called him ‘Teddy’ or ‘T.R.’ (“Roosevelt” 464). “Rough Rider” Roosevelt’s many tune-ups of the American nation’s reputation, at home and abroad, have led numerous historians to support him as the first “Empire President.” Theodore Roosevelt managed to strengthen America through his involvement in the Spanish-American War, his use of the “Big Stick” during his presidency, and his attempts at conservation legislation.

The occurrence of the Spanish-American War brought the image of Theodore Roosevelt to the forefront. The first evidence of the coming hostilities arose when in 1895 a small revolt occurred in Cuba. To oppress this revolt and others coming, the Spanish sent General “Butcher” Weyler to the isle. He sent thousands of Cubans to concentration camps and subjugated many others to his military rule over a two year span. Two events following the “Butcher’s Reign,” were the final straws drawn bringing the United States to war: the de Lôme letter discovery and the explosion of the U.S.S. Maine. New York Journal editor and publisher, William Hearst, discovered that the Spanish ambassador to Cuba, de Lôme, had sent a letter back to Europe proclaiming the current President, William McKinley, a fool. No more than a week later, the U.S.S. Maine, a Naval battleship, exploded in Havana harbor, prompting many Americans to blame Spain for the two-hundred and fifty dead. The American spirit had arisen: it was time for war.

A week and a half later, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Roosevelt secretly (and without presidential permission) asked Commodore Dewey of the Hong Kong squadron to descend upon Manila Bay (a Spanish holding) in case of war. After President McKinley’s war declaration in April, Dewey attacked on May 1, 1898 and destroyed the Spanish Fleet. Mr. Roosevelt’s clandestine actions had led to the United States strong position from the start of the war. Roosevelt resigned as Assistant Secretary shortly thereafter so he could join the First Volunteer Calvary Regiment as a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army (“Roosevelt” 467). Under command of Colonel Leonard Wood, this unit became known as the “Rough Riders.”

The “Rough Riders” gained their nickname for their actions in the assault on San Juan. Having lost their horses on the trip from Florida, the Rough Riders gallantly charged San Juan Hill by foot, running straight towards gunfire. Despite the whizzing bullets overhead, the Riders successfully forced a Spanish retreat to the sea. Returning home, the Riders were seen as legends and Theodore Roosevelt as a god. Lt. Col. Roosevelt was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor and his stance to strengthen the American state was cemented (Biography of Theodore Roosevelt n. pag.). By his strong proceedings in the Spanish American War, Theodore Roosevelt assisted the rise of the new United States.

Running off his popularity, “Teddy” Roosevelt was voted Governor of New York. After two short years in Albany, Gov. Roosevelt was selected as President McKinley’s running mate on the 1900 Republican ticket because the state party leader, Thomas Platt, “knew that Roosevelt’s reputation might save the Republicans” (“Roosevelt” 467). An easy win in the election, followed by McKinley’s assassination a few months later, saw Theodore Roosevelt rise from a mere Assistant Secretary to President in a matter of three years.

In his new position of power, President Roosevelt was ready to fortify America’s status among the world elite. Following his personal motto of “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far,” the Rough Rider first flexed America’s muscle in the Panamanian isthmus. For centuries, nations had been searching for an easier way to travel to Asia than the path around the South American continent. When the President learned of a French company attempting to build a canal, the Treasury department was happy to appease Mr. Roosevelt's wish to purchase. And when Colombia, controllers of the isthmus, refused to comply with the United States’ plans, the President “influenced” the Panamanian Revolution of 1903 (Matuz 894). Fearing the U.S.’s further involvement, the Colombians offered little resistance to the revolt. Following the Hay-Varilla Treaty, the new nation of Panama allowed the United States the right to build a transoceanic canal in its homeland. America’s first use of the “Big Stick” helped strengthen shipping ties between its Latin neighbors and its British cousin.

President Roosevelt’s next addition to the American stature came in the form of his Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. Established in 1823, President Monroe had declared that no European nation was to interfere with western hemisphere affairs. After Venezuela and the Dominican Republic announced in 1905 that they could not and would not repay debts to Germany, Italy, and England, T.R. issued his Corollary (Bailey 657). He stated that the policy of “preventive intervention” would be used in regards to other Latin American economic problems. “The United States would intervene, take over the customhouses, pay off the debts, and keep the troublesome powers on the other side of the Atlantic” (Bailey 657). Displaying Uncle Sam’s awesome power, Teddy Roosevelt managed to avoid Old World involvement in the New World’s activities, strengthening America’s international power.

The Great White Fleet greatly demonstrated President Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” policy. One of his primary goals was to build up the Navy (a Mahan principle) and to extend the reach of the “big stick.” With the construction of sixteen sparkling white battleships, Mr. Roosevelt accomplished his goal (Bailey 661). By sending the new fleet on a worldwide tour in 1907, Uncle Sam flashed his smile and Roosevelt helped the U.S. receive worldwide approval as a naval force. This final exemplification of “Big Stick” diplomacy proved Theodore Roosevelt as an “Empire President” who added protein to a weakened America’s diet.

While President Roosevelt worked on America’s image overseas, he also improved its representation internally. He first consummated this task through economic improvements and conservation. First, the President started with the problem of overcharging railroad enterprises. “Attacking high prices for railroad transportation, he supported the Hepburn Act of 1906, which gave the ICC [the Interstate Commerce Committee] the authority to set railroad rates” (Matuz 895). Mr. Roosevelt continued interior improvements by controlling the ability of major corporations to bond and merger. While allowing for healthy consumer mergers, such as U.S. Steel’s 1907 purchase of the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company, Roosevelt denied the 1902 consolidation of the Northern Securities Company, which would have allowed J.P. Morgan and James Hill to monopolize the northern railways (Biography of Theodore Roosevelt n. pag.). Teddy Roosevelt’s control over powerful corporations enabled conservation of the U.S.’s economic prosperity.

The Rough Rider’s internal upgrading continued in the genre of consumer health and safety. After learning of the horrors of meat and cheese factories, through works such as Sinclair’s “The Jungle,” Roosevelt felt the need to advance factory hygiene and cleanliness. By signing the “Pure Food and Meat Act of 1906” and “Meat Inspection Act of 1906,” Roosevelt assisted in enforcing new health inspection laws (Morris 59). Soon, white suited inspectors began appearing in factories all over the country. These health improvements strengthened American confidence in the government and its administrators.

T.R.’s greatest American domestic development came in the area of environmental conservation. His ecological protection effort included “one hundred and fifty national forests, five national parks, and eighteen national monuments” (Biography of Theodore Roosevelt n. pag.). One of Roosevelt’s most impressive pieces of legislation, the Newlands Act of 1902, enabled the government to use desert-baked land profits to fund irrigation of the sunburned areas of the American southwest. “Roosevelt and his chief forester, Gifford Pinchot, recognized the need to use the nation’s natural endowment intelligently” (Bailey 680). The national self-awareness created by Roosevelt’s actions has helped America protect its environment for numerous additional years.

Through various internal and international actions during his time, Teddy Roosevelt helped establish America as the superpower of the New World, and a force to be reckoned with in intercontinental affairs. Theodore Roosevelt supervised the strengthening of America through his participation in the Spanish-American War, his employment of the “Big Stick” policy during his presidency, and his attempts at maintenance legislation. Mr. Roosevelt’s belief that “there was nothing finer than to be born an American” demonstrated his patriotism and nationalism, thus garnering him the title, “The Definitive American.”

Sorry, Folks...

2005-02-17T14:55:00.000-06:00

Well, I'm going to have to take another break from blogging; only three-four days this time, however. Tomorrow, I am having heart surgery at Vanderbilt Hospital in Nashville. Why? Well...

I have a congenital heart defect known as Padent Ductus Arteriosus (PDA for short). The procedure to fix this defect will last about 30 minutes. I will spend the night in the hospital (watching plenty of Fox News) and have an X-Ray check-up in the morning. If all things are good, I'll be free to go.

I just ask that you pray for me and hope that the procedure goes as planned, so I can get back to blogging, playing football, and eating hamburgers. Thank you.

Today in North Korea

2005-02-15T23:01:00.000-06:00

Here is some of yesterday's "news" from North Korea:

Auspicious Holiday for Progressive Humankind

Pyongyang, February 14 (KCNA) -- The birthday of leader Kim Jong Il (February 16) is being celebrated as an auspicious holiday for the progressive people all over the world. Preparatory committees for celebrating February 16 have been formed in scores of countries including Russia, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Syria, Guinea, Ecuador, Romania, India, Thailand, Czech Republic, Cambodia, Poland, Egypt and France. They have held meetings, film shows, lectures and other events in celebration of the holiday.

Under the sponsorship of the preparatory committees for meetings of lauding the greatness of leader Kim Jong Il ", gatherings have taken place in many countries. Mass media of many countries print portraits of Kim Jong Il and photographs showing his revolutionary activities, along with special write-ups introducing his immortal exploits performed for the Korean revolution and the independence of humankind.

The participants in the celebration events praise him, who guides the global cause of independence with Songun politics, as the lodestar of the 21st century, a great master of leadership, a great thinker and theoretician and a prominent political veteran of the world.

The chairman of the Youth Group for the Study of Juche Idea of Democratic Congo at a round-table talk extended warmest congratulations to Kim Jong Il on his birthday and said his birthday is the most auspicious holiday of not only the Korean people but also the world progressive people.

The Russian Social Committee for Celebrating the Birthday of Comrade Kim Jong Il was formed in Moscow on January 20 with famous political and public figures. It, in a statement, noted that Kim Jong Il has earned a high reputation as a world-famous genius, excellent strategist and brilliant commander and as the great leader of the heroic people who is successfully carrying into practice his far-sighted plan for building a great prosperous powerful socialist nation on the beautiful land of Korea.

I don't even knows if this classifies as propaganda. I think it fits better in the "humor" category...

What's In (Or Not In) My Daily Newspaper?

2005-02-14T20:43:00.000-06:00

This story deals with my daily newspaper, the Gannett-based, Tennessean. It seems that a Tennessee judge has taken an unpolitically correct stance (link via Polipundit) against immigrants who can't speak English. What's his "crime?" How about this:

Tatum's orders have become the subject of debate in this Tennessee community, which has seen an influx of non-English speakers over the last decade. Civil rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites), have charged that his orders are discriminatory and unconstitutional. But many of Tatum's neighbors cheered the principle behind his act, saying new immigrants should be encouraged to assimilate more fully into American life.

You see, unlike some other states, in Tennessee, we don't give a damn about the ACLU. But the unusual thing is that this story is in the LA Times, not the Tennessean...Why? The Tennessean did have this front page story today, though, about the election results from Iraq (the author is a NY Times writer):

The razor-thin margin apparently captured by the Shiite Alliance here in election results announced yesterday seems almost certain to enshrine a weak government that would be unable to push through sweeping changes, such as measures granting Islam a central role in the new Iraqi state.

That is the direct quote of the first paragraph of the story. This may be the most blatant liberal bias I have ever seen (I know I've said that before, but this outranks 'em all). My paper also endorsed John Kerry for president and commonly features editorials critical of the President's policies. So, I guess it's no surprise...

There Is Only One Way To Stop Iran From Becoming North Korea

2005-02-13T13:14:00.000-06:00

Well, now it is known that Iran will refuse to stop producing heavy water. The next global crisis is arising quickly, and the Europeans continue to chit-chat with a dangerous nation. The stubborn Iranians say:

"We welcome the European offer ... but this won't replace the heavy water research reactor at all. That will continue. We will pursue that," he [Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi] said.

It is evident that Iran will refuse to settle any issues diplomatically: we must make a stand. The U.S. is currently not in a position to force Iran to stop building nuclear plants.

I believe the U.S. must work with Europe and the U.N. (unfortunately) to force the Iranians to stop building. If the problem isn't soon controlled, Iran will become a nation of atomic capability and America's most dangerous threat.

The Most Phony Poll I Have Ever Seen

2005-02-11T08:38:00.000-06:00

I honestly believe that the Associated Press completely created this "poll" in their offices. In that report, they claim the poll was taken only FIVE-SEVEN days after the State of the Union address. There is absolutely no way an approval rating drops 10% after giving the State of the Union.

In most other polls I have seen, including Rasmussen and CNN Gallup, his approval rating is at least around 55%. Oh, and the AP Report showed obvious bias too:

"I voted Republican, but it looks like things are going downhill," said Kenny Sproull of Lexington, Ga., who works in construction. "I'm a self-employed contractor and a lot of Mexicans are moving into the state. We can't compete with them price-wise."

Most Republicans were strongly supportive of Bush and his policies.

"I agree with almost everything President Bush says," said Beverly Bowman, a nurse who lives near Phoenix. "I think the Social Security thing has to be fixed."

If most Republicans were supportive, then why the hell was the construction comment even in there? It is completely unnecessary and is just one single quote just stuck into the report. These AP idiots are sore losers who apparently have no clue on what happens outside of Fantasia.

I'm Back...

2005-02-09T19:31:00.000-06:00

I am terribly sorry about the long layoff. My computer was not allowing me internet access. After many long hours on the phone, talking to technical support, Direcway sent me a new modem.

The problem is, somehow the order got canceled and I had to dial 'em up again. I finally received the modem today and re-installed the hardware, and finally, I am back online.

I was unable to post via school computers because the blocking restrictions did not allow Blogspot websites to be viewed. Funny thing is, Polipundit and Power Line were also blocked. Why was my education district disabling my access to politcally opposite viewpoints.

9/11 Victims Were Not Innocent

2005-01-27T15:23:00.000-06:00

This is (link via Drudge Report) about as far to the left as you can go. To call those who died on September 11, 2001 "little Eichmanns" is perhaps the most disgusting thing I have ever heard. An excerpt of the madness:

"When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind," Churchill said.

"If it's not comfortable, that's the point. It's not comfortable for the people on the other side, either."

The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."

This is the kind of person you can't help but hate. Tell me when the United States has ever killed 500,000 Iraqi children? I'm sorry, the only person to ever kill that many would have to be Mr. Saddam Hussein. This quack needs to shut up and move to the Middle East if he feels that terrorists should be labeled "combat groups."

Hidden Liberal Bias

2005-01-26T16:40:00.000-06:00

Here is another example of liberal bias. On the Yahoo! main page, the top headline in the "In The News" section is "37 troops killed in deadliest day in Iraq." Yet, the actual headline of the story, as seen on the link, is "37 troops die in deadliest day in Iraq."

Now, unless you actually clicked the link and read the article, you would believe Iraqi "insurgents" killed 37 troops today. Most people would just notice this, but not read the article. The articles use of "die" instead of "kill" is a huge difference (courtesy of Dictionary.com):

kill1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kl)v. killed, kill·ing, kills v. tr.
To put to death.
To deprive of life: The Black Death was a disease that killed millions.
To put an end to; extinguish: The rain killed our plans for a picnic.
To destroy a vitally essential quality in: Too much garlic killed the taste of the meat.
To cause to cease operating; turn off: killed the motor.
To tire out completely; exhaust: “The trip to work, and the boredom and nervousness of jobs, kills men” (Jimmy Breslin).
To pass (time) in aimless activity: killed a few hours before the flight by sightseeing.
To consume entirely; finish off: kill a bottle of brandy.

Notice "to put to death." In other words, to kill is to murder. Now, the definition of die:

die1 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d)intr.v. died, dy·ing, (dng) dies
To cease living; become dead; expire.
To cease existing, especially by degrees; fade: The sunlight died in the west.
To experience an agony or suffering suggestive of that of death: nearly died of embarrassment.
Informal. To desire something greatly: I am dying for a box of chocolates. She was dying to see the exhibit.
To cease operation; stop: If your vehicle dies, stay with it.
To be destroyed, as in combat: could see the remains of two aircraft that had died in the attack.
To become indifferent: had died to all worldly concerns

Notice that dying is simply ceasing to exist, not necessarily being "put to death." This mix of words disguised the true meaning of this article.

What really happened today was that thirty-one troops died in a helicopter crash. They were not killed, nor murdered; it was a simple accident. Six Marines were actually "killed" in action today.

Therefore, the main page headline should read either "37 troops die in deadliest day in Iraq" or "6 troops killed in deadliest day in Iraq."

Democratic Tire-Slashers Charged

2005-01-24T22:37:00.000-06:00

Today, five of seven Democrats accused (link via GOP Bloggers) of slashing twenty-five Republican transport vans were charged with felony criminal damage. I was not suprised to find that two of those charged were sons of a current U.S. Representative and the former Milwaukee mayor. I hope these felons succumb to the following penalties:

If convicted, each of the five faces up to a $10,000 fine and up to 3 1/2 years in prison. The crime met the $2,500 damage threshold as a felony because the slashed tires and towing costs totaled more than $5,300, according to the criminal complaint filed today.

The best commentary on this story is this short two-liner by Paul Lewis:

If Convicted, that will be 5 less Democrat voters. Hey! Not to worry, The Democrats can just find 5 more dead people to vote in their place.

Univ. of Oregon Bans "Support Our Troops" Ribbons

2005-01-24T16:19:00.000-06:00

No shock here. Apparently, the University of Whoregon...University of Oregon has banned placing "Support Our Troops" magnets on vehicles (link via Polipundit and GOP Bloggers). This clearly shows the liberals only support "free speech" if "free" means arrogant, atheist, Democratic, flag-burning, PETA protesting, etc. The Oregon explanation:

In an e-mailed statement.. the University of Oregon says it is unclear if the decals are a political statement. But to make sure they are in compliance with state restrictions... all stickers were ordered to be removed.

Once again, liberals conforming to the minority. Only a single person complained (wonder who that scumbag is) and the University felt IT HAD to make a single person happy. This is complete B.S. I am going to purchase three magnets for my family's three cars to support those who give American liberal carpetbaggers a chance to hate their guts. Yet more liberal hypocricy.

W Stands for Wilson?

2005-01-23T21:37:00.000-06:00

Here's a great post at Polipundit by DJ Drummond. It comments on the recent comparison between President Bush's inauguration address to President Woodrow Wilson's mission statement. But, DJ believes that El Presidente's address compares more to a slightly different past leader:

However, I now realize that there is another possibility. There was another President derided at the time for his bold vision, but who was vindicated by the results of his efforts. And I happen to think that George W. Bush may properly be compared more reasonably to this more modern “Wilson", and that most Americans already see that conection.

That “Wilson"?

President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

I agree with Drummond's comparison. I chime in with this comment:

Woodrow was a freakish idealist who believed in world peace through a final war (WWI)…I don’t necessarily think W was stating that. I think it was more that he believes that by fighting a war (War on Terror) to spread democracy, world peace can become a more realistic goal.

America's Most Illegitimate Governor

2005-01-23T16:01:00.000-06:00

America's most illegitimate governor, Christine Gregoire, was chosen by the Democratic Governors' Association to respond to the President's weekly radio address. One of her comments:

In the war on terror, she said, "Candidly, there is too much talk and too little action coming out of Washington, D.C."

Meanwhile, in the state of Washington, Republican Dino Rossi (who Gregoire stole the election from) is challenging the THIRD recount decision in the courts and the state legislature:

Republicans have filed a legal challenge against the hand recount in Chelan County Superior Court, saying mistakes were made and calling for another statewide vote. That same challenge was filed with the Legislature Friday evening, "as an insurance policy," Lane said Saturday.

And I say again, when the controlling party has the power, the weaker party holds no position to complain. Especially in the case of a someone who won an election on the third recount and was voted in by dead people.

The History of American Political Parties V

2005-01-23T14:05:00.000-06:00

After a brief hiatus, we return to the story by Uncle John:

What followed was one of the nastiest political battles in the history of the United States. Adams, his reputation tarnished by charges of corruption, was determined to muddy Jackson’s reputation as well. Adams’ supporters attacked Jackson’s military career, accusing him of misconduct in the War of 1812. The also dug up an old charge (possibly true) that he’d married his wife Rachel before her divorce from her first husband was final. That made her a bigamist, which was not illegal but scandalous.

Nothing was sacred. Adams’ supporters even attacked Jackson’s deceased mother. The pro-Adams National Journal called her “a common prostitute, brought to this country by British soldiers! She afterwards married a mulatto man, by whom she had several children of which number General Jackson is one!”

Jackson’s forces fought back, attacking President Adams as an out-of-touch, elitist aristocrat, as well as an alcoholic and a “Sabbath-breaker” who, when he did go to church, went barefoot.

Fox News: King of Ratings

2005-01-21T22:57:00.000-06:00

Well, the ratings are in and guess what channel was number one for Inauguration Day coverage? That's right, Fox News Channel. Here are the stats (via Drudge Report):

CNN hemorrhaged more than half their audience from the 2001 Inauguration, overnights show. The troubled news network only averaged 779,000 viewers during yesterday's Inauguration coverage from 10am-4pm with just 168,000 of those viewers landing in the coveted 25-54 demo.

Like CNN, MSNBC also suffered major losses, only averaging 438,000 viewers throughout yesterday's coverage (141,000 in 25-54), down a whopping 68% over 2001 and faring even worse in primetime with just 385,000 viewers.

In contrast, Fox News averaged 2,581,000 viewers from 10a-4p (up 30% over 2001) and their 25-54 demo average of 705,000 came close to CNN's total coverage ratings yesterday.

PRIMETIME:
FNC -- 2,439,000 (up 57% OVER '01)
CNN -- 1,353,000 (down 14% over '01)
MSNBC -- 385,000 (down 47% over '01)

Obviously, Fox dominated yesterday's inauguration coverage. Could it possibly be because CNN and MSNBC are so blatantly liberal?

Simply Shocking

2005-01-21T18:43:00.000-06:00

I was shocked when I read this article (link via Ravenwood's Universe). Jimmy Carter was directly involved in the Oil-For-Dough Scandal...Oil For Food Scandal. I liked this particular line:

"One of two things happened," suggests Morgan. "Either President Carter was totally duped, and allowed himself to be conned into working as an indirect agent of Saddam Hussein, or President Carter knowingly associated himself with a foreign agent who was seeking to undermine American foreign policy."

Well, I believe that Carter was stupid enough to unknowningly participate in the scandal. However, quoting Ravenwood, "It wouldn't be the first time. Carter never met a dictator he didn't like."

I wish Jimmy Carter would just disappear to Georgia and live the rest of his life out of the public eye. Doesn't look like that's going to happen though; the last twenty years provide evidence.

Politics 101

2005-01-21T13:49:00.000-06:00

Great read here by Mark Noonan of GOPBloggers.com. It basically states what I have been saying for a while: the controlling party has the power; the weaker party holds no position to complain. The basic point:

When we [Republicans] say we want to reform Social Security, don't just come out and say "no, we want you to say 'healthcare'; and unless you say 'healthcare', we just wont do anything". That is a dumb move - remember, we hold the majority in Congress - at the end of the day, we're going to do what we want to do. The problem for you is to get some of your own program attached to ours. So, when we say "reform Social Security", you'd be better off saying something like "a reform of Social Security is vital, but we also need to reform our healthcare system to ensure greater access for the uninsured." See how that works? It puts us on the defensive to find something to do for healthcare while not making you look like thick-headed obstructionists on Social Security reform.

The problem is, I don't believe Democrats can do the above, especially with the likes of Kerry, Kennedy, and Boxer in the Senate. Democrats do not understand that the more they gripe and grumble, the less popular they become. The Democratic Party has practically no agenda and refuses to use reasonable ways to reach their goals. Unless Democrats learn to deal with being a minority, they will never again be the majority.

Oh, Those Silly Democrats...

2005-01-20T19:15:00.000-06:00

Here is another great example of the idiotic hypocrisy of the Democratic Party. I absolutely agree with the both points, especially:

Anyways the thing I don't get is why anti-Bushies keep saying "he has no mandate". Well obviously he does if you are protesting it.

Man, talk about a slammer! A terribly awesome finishing line, and wholly true. This concurs with my point of: "Only cowards protest. Real men take action." And until Democrats can actually gain control of a branch of our government, they have no right to claim that President Bush has no mandate.

Even on Inauguration Day...

2005-01-20T14:58:00.000-06:00

The media could not avoid insulting President Bush even on his inuaguration day. From the first paragraph of the official AP report on the inauguration, a slur is slighted:

George W. Bush swore the presidential oath for a second term in turbulent times Thursday and issued a sweeping pledge to spread liberty and freedom "to the darkest corners of the world."

I would hardly consider the times currently "turbulent." At home, our country is in a growing economic boom and are peacefully celebrating an Inauguration Day. The President is a strong leader who has strongly been chosen as America's leader. God bless the next four years.

It Should Be...

2005-01-19T20:39:00.000-06:00

Well, tomorrow is Inauguration Day. Inauguration Day has occurred exactly fifty-three times in American history. Happening only once every four years, a President is sworn in promising to protect and serve his country for the next four years. So, why is Inauguration Day not a national holiday?

And for a matter of fact, why is Election Day not a national holiday? Both of these dates are significant in American history...especially in these years of 2004 and 2005, in which a rare revolution has occurred?

Very little is preventing these two dates (the first Thursday in November and January 17) from becoming national holidays. Since neither is religious, there would be no anti-religion lawsuits. Very few labor organizations would disapprove of the extra day of rest.

So, I am proposing that anyone who reads this take tommorrow off. I suggest you watch the inauguration coverage on FOX News and enjoy your day of celebration (or digust). I'm not going to school tomorrow; I'll be home doing the above in my personal merriment of Inauguration Day.

The Alternate Inaugural Address

2005-01-18T21:18:00.000-06:00

Here's a hysterical piece (link via The Royal Flush) written by P.J. O'Rourke. I think it expresses what most GOP supporters want to say at one time or another. An excerpt:

MY FELLOW AMERICANS, I had intended to reach out to all of you and bring a divided nation together. But I changed my mind. America isn't divided by political ethos or ethnic origin. America isn't divided by region or religion. America is divided by jerks. Who wants to bring a bunch of jerks together with the rest of us? Let them stew in Berkeley, Boston, and Ann Arbor.

The media say that I won the election on the strength of moral values. If the other fellow had become president, would the media have said that he won the election on the strength of immoral values? For once the media would have been right.

We are all sinners. But jerks revel in their sins. You can tell by their reaction to the Ten Commandments. Post those Ten Commandments in a courthouse or a statehouse, in a public school or a public park, and the jerks go crazy. Why is that? Christians believe in the Ten Commandments. So do Muslims. Jews, too, obviously. Show the Ten Commandments to Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, or to people with just good will and common sense and nobody says, "Whoa! That's all wrong!"

But jerks take issue with every one of the Ten Commandments. Jerks are particularly offended by the first two Commandments. Of course people of faith, decent people, differ on interpretations of the first two Commandments. For example, we don't all agree about the meaning of "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image." However, we do all
agree about "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them" when them is Freud, Marx, and Dan Rather.

Just read the whole thing. It's simply funny...

A Quick Overview of Tonight's CBS Evening News

2005-01-18T18:01:00.000-06:00

In his intro on CBS Evening News, Dan Rather said (referring to Condi Rice) "What would SHE do about Iraq, where NONSTOP violence threatens elections?" I capitalized those letters because he emphasized them.

Following the Condi "grilling" story (which featured her argument with Boxer), there was a quick mention of a suicide bombing in Iraq, that killed three and the story of the eight Chinese who were kidnapped. Then there was a story about soldiers returning to Iraq, featuring a soldier criticizing the war.

Next came a story on the security surrounding the inauguration. Following was a story on the freezing cold all over the nation. So, the first non-Bush inspired story of the CBS Evening News came ten minutes into the show.

Before going to commercial break, Dan Rather narrated a tale of a fallen soldier who had loved "the outdoors, hunting and fishing" and "passed up a college scholarship" to join the Army and die in Iraq from a grenade explosion. Sounds like a Republican to me. RIP.

Back from the break, Rather tells us of a British soldier sentenced for prisoner abuse. This story connects to a saga about "the killing area" where "soldiers struggle to keep the mission alive," also known as Samara (sp?) The story tells of how roadside bombs blow-up and kill soldiers.

After taking another break, the Evening News ran a story on a test for colon cancer that may be ineffective. Then, the story on the man who shot himself with a nail gun ran. He had a 4-inch nail in his face for a week, before a dentist checking his toothache discovered it. Weird...

Following the last commercial break of the show, CBS ran the new A380 Airbus story (the new massive jumbojet). The word European was used eight times. Finally, Rather signs off stating that the Evening News will be live from Washington tomorrow night.

So, there you have it. As I count it, there were 7 anti-Bush inspired tales (not neccesarily stories) on the News. There was one non-biased story, and three non-political stories. Well, is that bias? If not, explain to me what is.

Media Coverage In Iraq

2005-01-18T17:19:00.000-06:00

Nice bit of reading I found here (link via Blogs for Bush). This article was written by none other than a soldier who had been in Iraq (and led the charge on Fallujah). The talking point of his writing:

All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.

This one paragraph pretty much sums up most Republicans' feelings on media coverage in Iraq. Unfair, unbalanced, and unamerican...

He's Back...Part II

2005-01-18T13:20:00.000-06:00

Here I receive my first opportunity to quote myself. It's about the whole Michael Newdow ordeal:

Remember last year, when some crazy California liberal (and atheist) sued in an attempt to remove the words "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance? Well, he's back, and this time he wants to remove prayer from President Bush's inauguration.

I ended that post with the following:

This moron will make himself a fool again.

And boy was I right on that one. Here is today's decision by the D.C. Court:

Today a D.C. court rejected the request of an atheist to halt the prayers offered at the Presidential inauguration on January 20th. The suit was brought by Michael Newdow of Sacramento. In papers filed with the court, Mr. Newdow claimed that he would be “harmed by exposure to prayer.” Additionally, he asserted that he suffers injury because the inaugural prayer makes him “feel like an outsider.”

Judge John D. Bates was not persuaded, finding that “courts generally have been reluctant to grant standing in cases where the plaintiff alleges nothing more than hurt feelings or disagreement with the action.”

I understood the decision as stating, "Sorry, but the Court won't side with crybaby atheists." Newdow is nothing but scum and a disgrace to the great American nation.

Invading Iran???

2005-01-17T20:36:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, there were rumors swirling all over the internet about possible U.S. spy missions into Iran. They were fueled by a report by Seymour Hersh (link via Polipundit) stating the U.S. was "conducting secret recon" missions. Many people were skeptical from the beginning (these posts from Polipundit):

1.Not sure to trust Heuters…I mean Reuters…
Comment by G71 Homepage 1/16/2005 - 10:01 pm

6.The article, by award-winning reporter Seymour Hersh…
To me, the fact Hersh is in the middle of this is the most disturbing fact.
Comment by eddiebear Email 1/16/2005 - 10:21 pm

12.#s 1 and 6 – As you point out, between Reuters and Hersh we have to consider the sources.
Comment by LesLein Email Homepage 1/16/2005 - 10:47 pm

Well, quoting Lee Corso, "Not so fast my friend." The Pentagon has quickly pointed out (link via Drudge Report) that the statements in the report were phony:

Pentagon officials on Monday lashed out at a US magazine report which claimed they were preparing for possible strikes on Iran by carrying out secret reconnaissance missions inside the country, saying the article contained "fantastic claims" about programmes that do not exist.

The article, written by veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh for The New Yorker magazine, claims that President George W. Bush plans to drastically expand the war on terrorism, and has already signed executive orders authorising secret commando operations against terrorist targets in as many as ten middle eastern and south Asian nations, including Iran.

It seems to me that this "report" has been proved a full liberal propaganda tool. In other words, a news article using false facts to work against President Bush. Yet another Democratic attempt to hurt our president's reputation.

Go Away Kerry

2005-01-17T16:34:00.000-06:00

Well, John Kerry's opened his fat piehole again. When will he learn to fade back into the oblivion from where he came. His current gripe and attack on President Bush, voter fraud:

In his comments, Kerry also compared the democracy-building efforts in Iraq with voting in the U.S., saying that Americans had their names purged from voting lists and were kept from casting ballots.

More Democratic hypocracy. I remind you this man's very own party has been found of voter fraud in multiple ways in Washington (dead folks voting, imaginary people voting, etc;). It's funny how he talks of how so many voters were disenfranchised, considering that thirty-one Democratic U.S. Representatives and one Democratic U.S. Senator attempted to disenfranchise 62 million Bush voters. That very same party which is a minority in both branches of Congress and in the White House. I would say Mr. Kerry is in no position to talk, so he should shut up and go back to Teresa and their pre-nup agreement.

"Turn Your Back Against Bush"

2005-01-17T13:03:00.000-06:00

That should be the real title of this USAToday.com writing. This piece may actually be the most obvious newspaper liberal bias I have ever seen. It starts off anti-Bush:

Disaffected voters can protest President Bush (news - web sites)'s second inauguration Thursday from the comfort of their own homes. Anger at Bush has inspired national calls to fast, pray, skip work, buy nothing and wear black.

The partisanship continues:

Leaders of TurnyourbackonBush.org also are concerned about limited space for public viewing. National organizer Jet Heiko says the group expects thousands of people from 41 states to travel here for a silent protest along the parade route. They have been told to leave anti-Bush buttons, banners and signs at home. They will signal their opposition to Bush's policies by turning their backs as his motorcade passes.

And the finishing touches of this Democratic propaganda:

For the less earnest, counterinaugural balls run the gamut from the "Not my president!" punk rock ball to the Billionaires for Bush "Re-Coronation" ball ("dress to oppress"). A political action committee using its ball as a fundraiser advertises itself as "an exciting safe haven" for Democrats. ReDefeatBush, soon to become left.org, promises a "huge dinner buffet" and free drinks.

Is this hilarious or what? This woman wrote an entire work on how to protest against President Bush. An entire thirteen paragraph writing that basically states the "Who's who?" of protesting. The article's whole point is to make it seem as if there will be thousands of more protesters than Bush supporters at the inauguration. Man, talk about bias...

But, I'm somewhat supportive of the article and its theme: the more protesting that occurs, the more offended decent Americans become. And an offended decent American votes Republican.

Bush: 296? Kerry: 241?

2005-01-17T11:06:00.000-06:00

Read this investigative piece (link via Polipundit) unveiling possible voter fraud in Wisconsin. Some of the evidence:

But there's some infamy in Wisconsin as well. Namely Jeffrey Dahmer and same day voter registration. If you think the Motor-Voter law invites fraud; Same Day Registration makes motor voter look positively punitive. All you need do is bring ID on election day proving you live in that precinct and you can vote. And in the late 80's when I voted -- a recent utility bill would do.

It's only after your vote is counted verification begins, with a follow-up mailing to verify you do live at the address and that the address is valid. Well, as of today, and in Milwaukee alone, 10,000 votes cannot be verified.

Bush lost the entire state by a mere 11,384 votes.

Well, well, well, possible Democratic voting fraud...that's nothing new. All I know is that if a Democrat ever wins another presidential election, Republicans should contest every vote in every close state. After all, it's just following the Democratic tradition.

The Bush Anthrax Plot

2005-01-16T19:45:00.000-06:00

They say laughter is the best medicine...Well, after reading this thread of posts (link via Right Wing News) at the DU, I must be cured of everything. An excerpt from this comedy:

Whoa_Nelly: "Anthrax: Why did the "threat" stop so suddenly? have been wondering why there was such a spate of anthrax threats/findings/deaths just after Bush was selected in 2000, and then why did all so suddenly stop? Was this a Rove/Bush scheme to begin the state of terror in the US?"

Sentinel Chicken: "They were trying to use anthrax to drum up support for ... their planned war in Iraq. They were trying to create an excuse to attack Saddam. When 9/11 happened they had all the excuse they needed for their war plans. They found out it was semi-traceable later. This is why when people talk about 9/11 conspiracies I think they're looking at the wrong crime."

fertilizeonarbusto: "Dust for Shrubby's fingerprints...I always thought all of that smelled."

MadAsHellNewYorker: "It was after 9/11. only democratic leaders (Daschel and Leahy were the two most prominent Dem's to get letters) who were in a position to oppose the patriot act received the letters. No republicans ever got an anthrax letter.
They stopped because the administration did not need to keep the Dem's in line--they had already showed them who was boss."

Warpy: "Right, I think the origianl plan was for a much wider "attack." They planned it to justify their war against Iraq, the centerpiece of their idiotic foreign policy of imperial domination.
9/11 happened and the attack was scaled back to just those people who needed the most intimidation: journalists (including the one who published photos of the Bush brats falling down drunk, an attack that proved fatal) and Democratic congressmen. They just couldn't resist those targets, and that's how we know who ordered it.
Typically arrogant and hamfisted, they never expected the wide contamination as the spores exited through the paper of the envelopes, nor did they expect it to be traced to Fort Detrick so quickly.
They don't care. Journalists and Democrats in Congress were sufficiently warned. Neither will dare voice criticism of the boy king."

spanone: "Why have ALL the threats stopped???? Election Over."

gratuitous: "It had served its purpose Once the media and Democratic leaders were sufficiently intimidated, the threat went away. Mobsters don't usually have to break a guy's legs twice, and all that screaming and yelling a victim does can hurt your ears, ya know?"

notadmblnd: "because their purpose was served Two Dem Senators were given a warning and the real target (the guy that was responsible for piblishing the photo of the bush twins falling down drunk in the tabloid) died."

These idiots don't even realize that the anthrax scares occurred after September the 11th. Phew...talk about living in a fantasy world...

Frist's Filibuster Solution

2005-01-16T15:56:00.000-06:00

In light of the Democrats blocking El Presidente's judicial nominees, Sen. Majority Leader Frist (from my great home of Tennessee) has come up with a solution. How could he change the filibuster (60 votes required for accepted nomination) rule? Here's how:

Frist could invoke the "nuclear option" by having the Senate president, Vice President Dick Cheney, rule that filibustering violates the body's constitutional duty of advice and consent to judicial nominations. Such rulings can be upheld with a simple majority.

The change would enable the majority to approve Mr. Bush's nominees unimpeded. In the AP report, new Democratic leader Harry Reid threatens that Republicans "will rue the day" thye overruled a filibuster. Here's what Reid says:

"If they want to carry that through, it's a short-term victory for them, because they're not going to be in the majority forever," he said. "We're going to be in the majority. That's the way history is. And I think that they would rue the day they did that."

Hate to tell Mr. Reid, but his party is heading down a drainage hole. And there is an actual chance that Republicans will be in the majority for a very long time. But what really ticked me off is the fact that Reid said:

Reid compared Bush's talk of crisis in judicial nominations to the president's rhetoric on Social Security. "He's trying to create crisis with judges and with Social Security. They don't exist," Reid told ABC's "This Week."

The Democrats not only continue to filibuster judges, but also nominees for all other presidentially appointed offices. There is a crisis: have Republicans ever acted as childishly to reject so many prominent appointments? Has any politcal party ever acted so childishly? You'll be hard pressed to find one.

Michael Moore: Rejected

2005-01-16T13:33:00.000-06:00

Couldn't pass this chance up. Here's an interesting morsel I found on the third page of my newspaper (the Tennessean) this morning:

Michael Moore's alma mater, Davison High School, in Davison, Mich., has rejected him four times for the school's hall of fame, The Associated Press reports. "He embarrasses everybody," Hall of Fame selection committee member Don Hammond said of the controversial filmmaker.

Ha! Even Michael Moore's hometown thinks he is a lunatic lefty.

Hillary's Chances in 2008

2005-01-16T10:24:00.000-06:00

I was searching around and found this remarkable post at Political Vice Squad. It offers a look at Hillary Clinton's chances in the 2008 election. A point is that Hillary will struggle to pick-up some of the same electoral votes Kerry did because of her mere presence. The primary point:

Hillary will have enormous difficulty with the male-dominated, industrial-union types in the Great Lakes States and in the remainder of the rust belt. She will be D.O.A. in the rest of the border states. She will be less than D.O.A. in the South, in Texas, in the heartland, and in the Mountain States.

The fact is, the South will continue to vote Republican unless Democrats make an all-out effort to change their image. By simply selecting Hillary to run, the South is once again in Republican hands. What continues to confuse me is how the Democrats believe that if they forfeit 1/3 of the electorate, they can still win a majority. Just puzzling to me...

"LIVESTRONG" Bracelets Mocked

2005-01-16T02:00:00.000-06:00

Found this interesting report (link via Drudge Report) and could not believe it. Some anti-Bush idiot has started making bracelets that state "Count Me Blue." In response, her father started making "Count Me Red" bracelets.

These bracelets are to me a mockery of the "Live Strong" bracelets. The message of the whole "Live Strong" campaign is to fight against cancer and help those who are battling survive. To turn such a great message into political slander is ridiculous.

Yes, it is in well intention that they are donating some of their profit, but did the political subject matter need to be touched? Is it really necessary? No.

But they've been produced, so the bracelets will be. And I'm pretty sure that if Mr. Lance Armstrong has one, I know what color it is.

The History of American Political Parties IV

2005-01-15T16:38:00.000-06:00

"Uncle John" continues the story:

Many Americans were outraged by Calhoun's and Crawford's scheming. One such man was General Andrew Jackson, hero of the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 and a man so tough his soldier called him "Old Hickory" after "the hardest wood in creation." As the first war hero since George Washington, Jackson was the most popular living American, and for years his admirers had urged him to run for president. For years he had turned them down.

But the corruption of the Monroe administration changed his mind. It convinced Jackson that it was "his public duty to campaign for the presidency and engage in what he called 'a general cleansing' of the federal capital," historian Paul Johnson writes in "A History of the American People." "Jackson became the first presidential candidate to grasp with both hands what was to become the most popular campaigning theme in American history: 'Turn the rascals out.'"

Jackson became the fifth candidate to enter the race for president in 1824. Although he was the least politcally experienced of the candidates, he was the popular man in the country. Result: on election day, Jackson won more votes and carried more states than any other candidate.

But amazingly, it wasn't enough.

Examining the Perception of Bias

2005-01-14T22:26:00.000-06:00

This is simply a tremendous read I found at Election Projection. The points given are really just common sense, yet we ignore them (look at my last post). My favorite paragraph:

So why is it that we can't agree on where the bias lives? The answer lies in the shade of the shades we wear. Each of us, regardless of our philosophical leaning, perceives the world around us according to our personal bias. We perceive the media in the same way. Look at it this way. Let's say there is a room with two red walls and two blue walls. If I walk into the room with with blue shades on, the blue walls will appear perfectly neutral. At the same time, the red walls will be starkly different through my eyes. The opposite, of course, is true if the shades I wear are red.

Just read the whole thing.

More Liberal Bias

2005-01-14T20:55:00.000-06:00

More liberal bias by Heuters. . .I mean Reuters. . .This article coincides with the fact that in the commercial for "20/20" Barbara Walters asks El Presidente "Why are we at war?" The question is posed in the most arrogantly sarcastic tone I have ever heard. Anyways, here's my favorite part of the report(link via Political Vice Squad):

In another mea culpa, the president said he felt his administration had done a poor job bolstering its image in the Muslim world.

"Our public diplomacy efforts aren't ... very robust, and aren't very good, compared to the public diplomacy efforts of those who would like to spread hatred and ... and vilify the United States," Bush said.

In what way is comparing our diplomacy efforts against the rapid moving efforts of Muslim terrorists stating the administration "had done a poor job." Blatant liberal media bias at its best.

Hollywood vs. History: Black Hawk Down

2005-01-14T20:37:00.000-06:00

Here's a review I wrote for the film "Black Hawk Down." The movie was inspired by a genius strategy by President Whitewater.

Hollywood vs. History Essay: Black Hawk Down

I chose to watch Black Hawk Down for my Hollywood vs. History essay. I was interested in this movie because I had never heard of the Battle of Mogadishu. Also, I had heard the movie was entertaining and was action-packed. And after viewing the 150 minute film, I definitely have to agree.

Black Hawk Dawn turned out to be an excellent portrayal of the events that occurred from October 2, 1993 to October 4, 1993. The main portion of the picture was focused on the Battle of Mogadishu and the events surrounding it, which transpired on October 3. In this battle, eighteen American troops were killed; many were killed by rioting townspeople, led by Somalian regime leader Mohamed Farrah Aidid.

This story is extremely accurate and realistic. Through research, I found that most details were precise references to the actual battle. The realism is amazing. You almost experience the battle as if you were there. The blood and gore scenes are grossly awe-inspiring, but help you realize the true suffering of these soldiers.

The special effects added to this movie are spectacular. Through these effects, you hear the sounds of bullets whipping through the air. You see the RPG’s heading towards their target, sitting in sheer amazement. This film has outstanding, pragmatic special effect details. But no wonder, the special effects director was Jerry Bruckheimer (Pearl Harbor).

This movie occupied my interests for an entire two hours and a half. The plot is outstanding and nearly two full hours are dwelled by action. The cameras follow nearly twenty different characters separately, examining each one and his place in the battle. By understanding so many different people, you can comprehend the full effect of each blow to the team. So in conclusion, I primarily chose to watch Black Hawk Down because of its previously unknown events and its scarily bona fide realism. Through the outstanding footage shot, I understand the events of October 3, 1993 in full comprehension. And by sticking to real incidents, the movie fully depicts the Battle of Mogadishu. After watching Black Hawk Down, you will truly appreciate those chosen few who protect you, and recognize the hell they go through everyday.

The "Global Test"

2005-01-13T22:05:00.000-06:00

Read this wonderful AP article (courtesy of Political Vice Squad) about that "global test" that former presidential candidate John Kerry stated the United States must "pass" before going to war. Sen. Kerry explained that the U.S. had not received permission to invade Iraq. Well, it looks like we did "pass" after all:

Romania has offered 6,000 AK-47's along with 500 machine guns, 300 sniper rifles and 100 rocket-propelled grenade launchers, while Estonia has offered 2,400 AK-47s and Denmark 104 pistols, alliance officials said.

NATO also is arranging the transport of 77 T-72 tanks from Hungary to Iraq, the officials said on condition of anonymity.

These opening lines show that the U.S. had plenty of support in the invasion. But, there still are a couple of nations which still object:

Alliance military planners are drawing up options for bringing the two operations together under NATO command, a move supported by the United States but questioned by Germany and France.

Of course, the Nazis and Frenchies would oppose anything giving the USA world respect.

An American Legend: Eisenhower

2005-01-13T15:22:00.000-06:00

Here is a paper I wrote last year about one of the most underrated presidents:

An American Legend: Eisenhower

Few men have had the chance to influence the course of history. During his time as a United States General and President, Dwight Eisenhower shaped the world around him and controlled the destiny of a nation, preserving his place in the textbooks. Dwight Eisenhower’s ability to puzzle his enemies, strategically overpower his nemesis, and intellectually surprise his opponents is clearly visible in the matters of World War II (the European Theatre), the Normandy Invasion, and post-Truman America.

After reaching the level of General, Eisenhower was assigned military aide to General MacArthur in the Philippines. “MacArthur, with Eisenhower playing an important role, carefully worked out detailed plans for defending the islands against Japanese attack” (Moos 46). Dwight’s authority was first discovered here: He took control of MacArthur’s council and premeditated a defense system for the Philippines. Eisenhower returned home in 1938 and believed his role of activity would soon be over.

Major Eisenhower’s work was soon reduced to homeland assignments, but to his surprise, his career was renewed through these assignments. “He attracted the attention of Gen. George C. Marshall . . . by his brilliant conduct of war operations in Louisiana in 1941” (“Dwight David” n. pag.). After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Eisenhower was summoned to Washington and soon began developing war plans with top generals, including his former supervisor, MacArthur. Initial resistance from the Axis was strong, but nevertheless, Eisenhower’s ability to impress his superiors increased his part in the fighting. “The British . . . were impressed by Eisenhower, especially his commitment to the Anglo-American Alliance” (Historic World Leaders n. pag.). Eisenhower’s influence on World War II was becoming lucid.

In 1943, the tides of momentum changed. General Eisenhower was awarded control of an invasion into North Africa, and succeeded in removing German troops. In the assault, “Eisenhower distinguished himself as a hard driven but well respected leader of his troops” (Historic World Leaders n. pag.). Eisenhower was then given power over the Invasion of Sicily, and a hard, enduring battle proceeded, but the Allied fighters successfully repossessed the Italian island (Historic World Leaders n. pag.). From Sicily, the General continued onto the Italian mainland, devastating Axis forces and forcing Rome into surrender. Eisenhower was then given the title of “Supreme Commander of Forces in Europe.” This new title (and its possessions) allowed Eisenhower the chance to control all European Allied troops and the fate of the war. The Normandy Invasion began Eisenhower’s quick move into the Continent, and his push to Berlin forced the ultimate defeat of Germany on May 7, 1945. It is apparent that Eisenhower’s influence on the acts of World War II led to the end of what has been called the greatest war known to man.

“A uniquely respected general and popular hero, Eisenhower was perhaps at his best in the face of defeat” (Wheal, Pope, and Taylor 155). Initial planning for the Atlantic Invasion began in 1943: Churchill and Roosevelt felt that the Allies needed to alter the impetus of the war, before the Axis could sway more nations into fighting the Allies. A general idea was developed, and the basic design was given to Ike for improvement. Using his training from West Point, Eisenhower effectively calculated a manner in which to attack a surprised German front. Dwight decided to send dummy troops to the English Channel, and gave Axis spies clues into an invasion from directly across the Channel. Instead, Ike’s company would invade from a southern angle, through Normandy. The plan was assembled.

A joint Allied decision was made that June 4, 1944 would be the day of attack, but thunderstorms and downpours led to a delay in action. “By 4:15 A.M., the die was cast. General Eisenhower gave his momentous decision on Operation Overlord: June 6, 1944 would be one of history’s landmarks” (Moos 91). At dawn, the invasion began. Eisenhower knew of the danger of the assault, for “Hitler had told his troops to stand or die and to give their all for the Führer and Fatherland” (Moos 95). But for the outcome of the war to be determined, General Eisenhower figured that only his plans would work. In less than twelve hours, over 300,000 Allied soldiers established themselves on the beach of Normandy. Nearly six weeks of fighting followed, but the Allied frontline eventually united with the American second line. Eisenhower’s complete control of troops allowed the final drive into Europe.

Once his men were on shore, Eisenhower “swept forward triumphantly” to defeat the Germans (“Dwight David” n. pag.). When 1945 arrived, the Allies were forcing their way into Germany and a fusion with the Red Army in early April 1945 enabled the Allies to successfully invade and control Berlin, with German surrender following on May 7, 1945. The Allied beachhead established at Normandy effectively cruised through Europe in eleven months, making it the greatest military campaign of all time. But without Dwight Eisenhower and his blueprint, it is doubtful that the attack would have ever happened.

“In 1938, Dwight Eisenhower’s career looked over. By 1952, he was the most recognizable person in America” (American Decades n. pag.). This war hero status led to Mr. Eisenhower’s involvement in the 1952 election. Running off popularity (“I like Ike!”) and his promise to end the Korean War, Eisenhower influenced a majority of America to vote for him in the election. And to no surprise, Dwight was elected President of the United States of America.

During his first four years in office, President Eisenhower shaped the modern U.S. He first fulfilled his promise of ending the Korean War and signed an armistice with North Korea and China. After the Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka decision, Ike became the first president to enforce an act of civil rights. “Although he was personally disinterested in civil rights, Dwight enforced new laws and decisions because of his belief in the implementation of decree” (“Dwight David” n. pag.). Eisenhower suffered a heart attack in late 1955, but still ran for a second term and was re-elected President.

In his second term, Eisenhower’s conservative beliefs came to life. Abilene (Dwight’s place of childhood) reinforced conservative values; Dwight argued that any child raised in that atmosphere “has been favored by fortune” (Historic World Leaders n. pag.). After the launch and success of the Russian Sputnik, Ike was challenged by Democrats who felt that more money was needed for military spending. His conservatism and republicanism kicked in: Eisenhower stubbornly refused the raising of taxes because he knew that increases would hurt small-town America. Instead of using “new” money processed from the people, Eisenhower redirected military spending so that a space program could be funded (“Eisenhower”). Eisenhower’s actions of conservatism significantly outlined modern day America. His farewell speech, delivered on January 17, 1961, expressed the reasons for his construction of a successful nation, as well as the reasons it should not fail:
. . . America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment. Our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to . . . lack of . . . readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad (Moos 158).

Despite his small town upbringing and downright stubbornness, Dwight Eisenhower came to profile the contemporary world. The “General from Abilene” used wits, skill, and intelligence to decisively form a working plan for the United States and her destiny of dominating the world. Dwight Eisenhower’s talent to confuse his enemies, strategically manhandle his adversaries, and intellectually astonish his opponents is undoubtedly obvious in the matters of World War II (the European Theatre), the Normandy Invasion, and post-Truman America. Eisenhower’s influence on his nation state and the world led to the creation of the modern empire.

Matsui Replacing Matsui?

2005-01-12T22:37:00.000-06:00

Scary news for the GOP: Doris Matsui, wife of the late Robert Matsui, is going to run for his House seat. The frightening part is that Mrs. Matsui may be even more liberal than her husband was. Plus:

Doris Matsui announced Wednesday she will seek the congressional seat held for 26 years by her late husband. She immediately received the endorsement of Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi. . .

In a speech at her family's Sacramento home, Matsui sounded campaign themes: opposing President Bush (news - web sites)'s plans to privatize Social Security (news - web sites), expanding health care coverage for children and increasing federal spending on stem cell research.

OUCH! Being endorsed by Pelosi, you know she's got to be a super-liberal. She also worked some in the Clinton White House. Double-whammy! All I can say is, come on Sacto, show your Republican side. . .please.

The History of American Political Parties III

2005-01-11T14:05:00.000-06:00

The story continues, courtesy of "Uncle John:"

The Federalists went on to lose again in 1804, then again in 1808, and again in 1812. That year, they made the mistake of publicly opposing the War of 1812, and even secretly discussed seceding from the Union because of it. When this came to light in 1814, they were finished as a political force. They lost the presidency again in 1816, and by 1820 they were so far gone that they didn't even field a candidate for President. That year, President James Monroe ran for reelection unopposed [Note: This time is called the "Era of Good Feelings." Also, John Quincy Adams did receive one electoral vote; Monroe received the other 231 votes.].

For a moment, it seemed that American democracy might be returning to a one-party system. What prevented that from happening? The fact that four men--Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, and Speaker of the House Henry Clay all wanted to succeed Monroe as president.

Calhoun and Crawford were not above using the patronage and other perks of their offices to gain an advantage in the race. And both of them leaked details of the other's doings to news reporters. In the process, the entire Monroe administration became tainted with a reputation for corruption.

Newt in 2008?

2005-01-10T20:52:00.000-06:00

There's a new report out stating that Newt Gingrich is mulling over running for president in 2008. I wouldn't mind Gingrich as President; here's some lines from the article:

Trailblazing ideologue Newt Gingrich, who engineered the 1994 Republican takeover of the US House of Representatives, said he may run for president in 2008, promising to fight what he calls "an Islamist insurgency against the modern world."

He also spoke about a need to center US society around religious values formulated by "our Creator."

I believe Gingrich has the right mindset and attitude, but I do not believe he would have as good of a shot at the presidency as Sen. Frist or Rudy Giuliani. While Rudy is more of moderate Republican with crossover appeal, I would probably take the younger, fresher, and more conservative Frist. My mindset could change though: we've got three and half years to wait.

Democrats Explaining Election Losses

2005-01-10T15:19:00.000-06:00

Here's a hilarious article I read on USAToday.com (link via Polipundit). I quote this funny reading:

Imagine a Democratic presidential candidate and his allies assailing the character of the Republican nominee in ads and speeches every day for eight months.

Having trouble? That's because Democrats generally don't have the stomach or the discipline to do it.

Are you kidding me? All Democrats do is gripe and complain, year-round, about "Bush this," and "Bush that." They falsify reports, deliberately, and run them on national television. Every night, on the Old Media, you can watch pure Bush-bashing. Ah, just read the whole thing for a good laugh.

Go Gonzales!

2005-01-09T19:41:00.000-06:00

This a great article I found at Let Freedom Ring. It really puts in a good word for Mr. Gonzales, President Bush's Attorney General nominee:

Gonzales Is Good for America
The Senate should confirm the only Republican I've ever voted for.
By Henry Cisneros
January 9, 2005

In the 36 years that I’ve voted, I’ve supported & voted for only one Republican. That was when Alberto Gonzales ran for election to the Texas Supreme Court. I messaged friends about this uncommonly capable & serious man, I urged them to support his campaign financially, & voted for him. He’s now President Bush's nominee to be Attorney General of the U.S. & I urge his confirmation.

Thorough scrutiny of a nominee is the Senate's obligation in the confirmation process & in this time of war, sharp questioning understandably sought to clarify aspects of our national policy with respect to the treatment of prisoners in the war against terror, matters on which White House Counsel Gonzales has advised the president. The questioning was as intense as the subject is important, & in the end Alberto Gonzales should be confirmed.

Of all the positions in the cabinet, it’s been traditionally understood both by the Senate & by the American public that the president needs a trusted adviser in the attorney general's job. That was understood when President Kennedy named his brother Robert to the post. The Senate has in practice respected the fact that if the president wants a key individual to anchor his inner circle of cabinet advisers, he should be allowed to have that person. The public also accepts the fact that if the nominees have proven capabilities & have no egregious disqualifying attributes, the president should get to name his team.

In this case, Judge Gonzales is better qualified than many recent attorneys general. He was general counsel to Gov. Bush in Texas, secretary of state of Texas, a member of the Texas Supreme Court, and for the last four years counsel to the president in the White House. Many of the challenges & decisions he’ll confront as U.S. attorney general he’s seen in some form in these important legal positions.

The last four years have posed harrowingly difficult dilemmas, especially those related to the 9/11 terrorist attack on our nation & the military & security actions that resulted from it. There’ve been successes & failures, there’ve been good judgments & misjudgments, all in the context of war, that is, a context of military organizations under stress, of imperfect information, of life & death concerns. The American people decided in November, for better or for worse, to see this conflict through. It’d be unseemly at this juncture to use the forum of a Senate confirmation process to try to find a scapegoat for a war that’s at a very difficult stage. In any event, Alberto Gonzales has done nothing to alter the basic facts that he’s a seasoned legal professional, is needed by the president & is a person of sterling character.

As an American of Latino heritage, I also want to convey the immense sense of pride that Latinos across the nation feel because of Judge Gonzales's nomination. I had the high honor of serving in a president's cabinet, as have five other American Hispanics, but we all served in what might be called "outer circle" departments. The historic character of this nomination is that
Judge Gonzales has been nominated to one of the big four, State, Defense, Treasury & Justice. This is a major breakthrough for Latinos, especially since it’s so important to have a person who understands the framework of legal rights for all Americans as attorney general.

Judge Gonzales has demonstrated a nuanced understanding of the struggles people face as they try to build a life for their families in our country. Perhaps that appreciation comes from remembrances of his own family's struggles.

In the Commencement Address at his alma mater, Rice University, earlier this year, he recalled: "During my years in high school, I never once asked my friends over to our home. You see, even though my father poured his heart into that house, I was embarrassed that 10 of us lived in a cramped space with no hot running water or telephone." On another occasion, he said: "My father didn’t have many opportunities because he had only two years of formal schooling & so my memories are of a man who had to work six days a week to support his family...He worked harder than any person I have ever known."

It’ll be good for America to have an attorney general who has memories like those, because he can rely on those memories to understand the realities many Americans still confront in their lives. I believe he’ll apply those life experiences to the work ahead. His confirmation by the Senate can be part of America's steady march toward liberty and justice for all.

Mr. Cisneros, secretary of HUD under President Clinton, was mayor of San Antonio from 1981-89.

The Second Revolution?

2005-01-09T14:24:00.000-06:00

Here's an essay I recently wrote concerning the 1860-1877 timeframe:

The Revolution from 1860-1877

The time between 1860 and 1877 proved to be the most turbulent and unstable time, internally, in American history. The period featured a civil war, three constitutional amendments, and the reconstruction of the South. Developments in the constitutional and social fields between 1860 and 1877 greatly amounted to what can be called a “revolution.”

The obvious developments in the constitutional field included three amendments to the U.S. Constitution: the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth. After Lincoln’s 1863 Emancipation Proclamation, blacks in Confederate states were given freedom (this was guaranteed in the 13th Amendment which banned slavery). But blacks were not given citizenship or basic citizen’s rights. Therefore many freedmen sought a constitutional means of guaranteed citizenship. The Petition from the American Citizens of African Descent in January of 1865 exclaims this desire: “If we are called on to do military duty against the rebel armies in the field, why should we be denied the privilege of voting against rebel citizens at the ballot-box? . . . If this order of things continue, our people are destined to a malignant persecution at the hands of the rebels and their former rebellious masters because the courts will not receive negro testimony. Is this the fruit of freedom, and the reward of our services in the field?” The ensuing Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed blacks their basic civil rights and insured their citizenship. The following Fifteenth Amendment reassured blacks of their voting rights. Waud’s The First Vote illustration clearly displays that the freedmen took the chance to vote. So, constitutional changes from 1860-1877 clearly hold evidence as reason for a “revolution.”

Clearly, social problems developed following the freeing of the Southern slaves. Once the blacks were freed, how were they to be treated as people and citizens? This question is evident in Gideon Welles’ diary entry: “We shall get rid of slavery by constitutional means. But conferring on the black civil rights is another matter. I know not the authority.” Would blacks be recognized as American citizens and given proper benefits? It became clear that blacks were in the unfortunate situation of possibly returning to their previous enslavement. The Freedmen of Edisto Island, a group of former slaves with firsthand experience, petitioned to President Johnson and the Commissioner of the Freedmen’s Bureau: “We want homesteads: we were promised homesteads by the government. If it does not carry out the promises its agents made to us we are left in a more unpleasant condition than our former. We are at the mercy of those who are combined to prevent us from getting land enough to lay our Fathers bones upon. . .” But the government could not give blacks land and the people were treated badly by Northerners and Southerners. Most blacks ended up living as tenant farmers or sharecroppers, still relying on their white elitists. Thomas Nast’s “Harper’s Weekly” drawing put on view this problem. The presence of the Klansman and White League soldier simply chills the bones, as the badge states “Worse than slavery,” which became principally true. So, immeasurable social developments occurred during the ’60-’77 era, spawning the title “revolution.”

It is apparent that the years from 1860-1877 hosted an American revolution. Progressions in the constitutional and societal fields between 1860 and 1877, to a great extent, amounted to what can be called a “revolution.” These advances led to the modernization of the American culture and society, as well as the abolition of the “peculiar institution.”

The History of American Political Parties II

2005-01-08T19:16:00.000-06:00

More from "Uncle John" and the Bathroom Reader's Institute:

And who did Adams beat? The leader of the Anti-Federalists: Thomas Jefferson. As the Federalists won one debate after another, Jefferson's supports decided to make a clean break and resurfaced as the Democratic-Republican Party, aka the Republicans or Jeffersonian Republicans [Note: I simply refer to the Jeffersonians as Democrats.]. Ironically, these are considered the direct antecedents of the modern Democratic Party, not the Republican Party [Note: That's why I call them Democrats.].

The Jeffersonians opposed the Alien and Sedition Acts, new laws that outlawed associations whose purpose was "to oppose any measure of the government of the United States." The Acts also imposed stiff punishments for writing, printing, or saying anything against the U.S. government. The [Democrats] saw these acts as targeted at them and also as a grave threat to democracy. Jefferson put his hat in the ring for the 1800 presidential election, and after the [Democrats] mounted a fierce campaign, he won.

The Problem in Sudan

2005-01-08T11:36:00.000-06:00

Just by reading the opening paragraph, I nearly laughed. Oh, I'm sure that since the mighty U.N. is threatening to punish the Sudanese government, they will give up their arms. Give me a break!

The U.N. threating to punish is the equvalent of modern punishment in schools. If you tell a kid, don't do this again, what is he going to do? (Do it again!) The U.N. has no force of troops currently, too many of them are in Iraq. Now you may be thinking, "but what do you mean? I thought the U.S. didn't gain U.N. approval to attack Iraq." You're right, but the fact is, the only U.N. soldiers are American, and I guarantee that currently, we are not in a situation to send more troops somewhere else.

We might just have to do it the Clinton way for some time (*gulp*): Sit back, let the United Nations flounder around trying to solve a problem. Then (parting from the Clinton way), when Iraq has securely established itself, we take on Darfur. This would be unfortunate, but I doubt "diplomatic" attempts will work long-term.

President Grant: The Scandals

2005-01-07T19:52:00.000-06:00

Here's another post I made at Polipundit listing the scandals during the Grant presidency. I don't think Mr. Grant was quite as much of an ignorant drunkard as most believe, but there is no doubt his time in office was the most scandalous in U.S. history:

I very much disagree with Grant's rating...Here are some things that occurred during his time, which he did little to stop:

The Credit Mobilier Scandal: Railroad builders Credit Mobilier and the Union Pacific issue false contracts with the government (If they needed $100,000 to finish something, they'd ask for $250,000). The companies insured their contracts a secret by paying off gov't officials, including Colfax, Grant's VP.

Salary Grab: During Grant's first term, Congress gave itself an outstanding, yet undeserving raise. Poverty was at a horrible rate, but these greedy politicians were paying themselves.

Treasury Scandal: Richardson (Grant's Sec. of Treasury) hired a private citizen, Sanborn, to collect back taxes. Richardson agreed Sanborn could keep half he collected. Sanborn kept $213,000, of which $156,000 went to his "assistant": Richardson.

Whiskey Ring Scandal: New Treasurer Bristow discovered that Grant's personal assistant, Babcock, was helping whiskey makers save up to 50% off their excise taxes. When told of the story, Grant asks for BRISTOW's resignation.

Belknap Scandal: Sec. of War Belknap was discovered selling thousands of illegal Indian trading permits and keeping the profits.

"Black Friday:" Millionaires Fisk and Goula formed a partnership and developed a scheme. After paying off some treasury assistants, the two discovered no gold would be produced for a period of time. On Friday, Sept. 24, 1869, they bid the price of gold so high that only they could purchase it. They therefore purchased nearly the entire gold supply, making more millions by selling it off in more shares, at a higher price.

Tammany Hall: Grant's day saw the running of New York by Boss Tweed and company. The Democratic Tweed led a mob that forced thousands to vote democrat or risk losing their lives. He also paid off lawyers, judges, and public officials so that he would not have problems with the law. Tweed's estimated stolen tax money: $200,000,000.

So, I would lower Grant's rating a bit because of the above.

He's Back...

2005-01-07T15:01:00.000-06:00

Remember last year, when some crazy California liberal (and atheist) sued in an attempt to remove the words "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance? Well, he's back, and this time he wants to remove prayer from President Bush's inauguration.

I think I speak for all Republicans and Christians when I say this is ludicrous. Once again, some nutty idiot is attempting to alter an age-old American tradition, through use of the courts. This is another irrelevant and frivolous lawsuit taking up space in our courts. This moron will make himself a fool again.

The History of American Political Parties

2005-01-07T01:15:00.000-06:00

Thanks to the remarkable folks at the Bathroom Reader's Institute and "Uncle John", I have three seperate articles on the formation of the Democratic and Republican parties. Here is the first section of the first article (expect more in the coming days):

The two-party political system was a basic element in the founding of the United States, right? America's Founding Fathers were vehemently opposed to the idea of political parties. Why? England's political parties seemed to spend their time battling one another instead of working together to advance the national interest, and the Founding Fathers hoped to avoid that.

But they couldn't; by 1787, as the Constitutional Convention was being held in Philadelphia to draw up the country's new constitution, political factions were already beginning to emerge. There were "Federalists," who wanted to create a strong federal government by giving it powers that previously belonged to state governments. And there were "Anti-Federalists," who opposed the new constitution, which in its final form promised to do just that.

The Federalists won that debate, and the new constitution went into effect on March 4, 1789. In 1796 they succeeded in electing Vice President John Adams president after George Washington, who was non-partisan [Note: Washington's views on politics more often fell in the Federalist category than the Anti-Federalist.], declined to run for a third term.

It's Official: Four More Years

2005-01-06T17:30:00.000-06:00

The extremes the left will go to in order to prevent our President from being re-elected is incredible. Well, after debating the legitimacy of the Ohio votes (thanks to a protest by Stephanie Tubbs Jones and Barbara Boxer), Congress confirmed the electorate vote count of 286-251 (one vote went to John Edwards). Favorite lines from the AP report:

Democratic leaders distanced themselves from the effort, which many in the party worried would make them look like sore losers. Bush won Ohio by 118,000 votes and carried the national contest by 3.3 million votes, and Kerry himself — meeting with troops in the Middle East — did not support the challenge.

Apparently Boxer and Jones wish to catalyze the demise of liberalism. Good move by the Democratic heads: they need to do everything they can to save the party.

Long Live America

2005-01-06T01:07:00.000-06:00

Was looking through my old portfolio this afternoon and found this poem:

LONG LIVE MY COUNTRY OH SO GREAT,
THE ONE I LOVE, THE ONE SOME HATE.

LET HER FLAG IN SOVEREIGN REIGN,
LET HER POWER BE SUSTAINED.

FLY HER WINGS MIGHTY HIGH,
LET HER MEN FIGHT AND DIE.

THE CAUSE IS JUST, WHENEVER NEEDED,
SO LET MY NATION BE GODLY SEEDED.

LONG LIVE THE WORLD'S SUPREME,
THE UNITED STATES WILL SEE AND BE.

A nice piece. I probably should add more to it. My points though, clearly state the place of my nation in my heart. This is one problem with liberals and (a majority of) Dems: They do not respect their nation or its foundations and traditions, and often abuse the rights that only this nation could provide. Alright, I'll look through the portfolio more tomorrow to see if I've got anything else worthy of posting in there. Meanwhile, I'm off to sleep.

CNN Lets Carlson Go

2005-01-05T20:00:00.000-06:00

News here: CNN is letting go of Tucker Carlson, of Crossfire fame. No surprise here. My favorite line from this AP Report:

Klein said his views on wanting to change the tone of political coverage were separate from the decision to keep Carlson.
"His career aspirations and our programming needs just don't synch up," Klein said. "He wants to host his own nighttime show and we don't see that in the cards here. Out of respect for him and his talent, we thought it would be best to let him explore opportunities elsewhere."

Jonathan Klein is CNN's newly appointed chief executive...perhaps he leans a little left?

Rating the Presidents

2005-01-05T18:06:00.000-06:00

This is a post I made at Polipundit regarding ratings for each President, in this case, numbers 7-11.

James K. Polk
Leadership: 9
Character: 8
Domestic Policy: 8
Foreign Policy: 10
Legacy: 5
Overall: 9

Without a doubt the most underrated President of all time. The U.S. gained more territory during Polk’s term than any other Prez’s. He did not run for re-election in ‘48 because he felt it was not a Prez’s job to create a legacy, simply accomplish goals. This is what Polk did.

Andrew Jackson
Leadership: 10
Character: 5
Domestic Policy: 6
Foreign Policy: 6
Legacy: 8
Overall: 7

Jackson didn’t do so well in the economic arena, or with the Indian Removal Act, in which he directly disobeyed the Supreme Court. But he was a strong and capable leader, a war legend, and helped spread the democratic process to the “common man.”

Martin Van Buren
Leadership: 5
Character: 7
Domestic Policy: 5
Foreign Policy: 4
Legacy: 4
Overall: 5

An average President who was not particularly chosen by his party as much by A. Jackson. Panic of 1837 occurred during his time, but was set up off of Jackson’s policy. Failed for re-election bid.

John Tyler
Leadership: 5
Character: 8
Domestic Policy: 4
Foreign Policy: 8
Legacy: 3
Overall: 4

Tyler was the first “accident” Prez and was disliked by both the Whigs and Democrats. He had been chosen as WHH’s running mate, it seems like, just to have the “Tyler too.” Was unable to cooperate with Congress, although he did begin the process of Texan annexation 3 days before leaving office.

William H. Harrison
Leadership: N/A
Character: N/A
Domestic Policy: N/A
Foreign Policy: N/A
Legacy: N/A
Overall: N/A

He was President for only a month, when he died of Pneumonia, which he got at his inaugural address (Dont talk for 2 hours in the freezing cold rain) So, he doesn’t really qualify to be judged.