Newt Gingrich.
Already someone reading this name is pissed.
So anyways,
enjoy these thoughts, you may actually smile.
As to a candidacy, I can only hope at this point.
link:
http://www.examiner.com/a-842080~Newt_goes_nuclear__May_enter_race_to_foil_pygmies.html
link:
http://www.examiner.com/a-842076~Newt_unplugged.html
Monday, July 23, 2007
Sunday, July 22, 2007
What Matters Most Next Time
With the 2008 Presidential election upon us, many people will start considering issues again in a more serious analysis than what a headline would give you. One stance that will get much attention is how a candidate will steer the war on terror. In my opinion, the next President will lose his or her freedom to act rather quickly and as I elaborate on why this is, you may realize along with me, that choosing the congress is perhaps the more important choice to be made next year.
History suggest that shortly after the next president takes office someone or some group will challenge the office holder with an attack on our national interest and/or pride. Obviously some will blame Bush first, that's well within their rights, but for the more sober observers of history whatever event this turns out to be, it'll be viewed as a natural course of events. Ridicule me for my flippancy about this, but Presidents have been challenged in one way or another for decades, I'm not that naive to think that Hillary's cult of personality, for example, will deter or pacify our enemies thirst for American blood.
If your own recollection of history doesn't convince you of this, I'll give you another nation's history to look into for a lesson on uncivilized receptions from the more malicious global community. Israel. However, there maybe something attractive to you about living like the Israelis do, with the threat of attack palpable everyday. To each his own.
In any event, every time Israel elects a new leader, someone bombs a cafe in Tel Aviv. Again, I have no reason to doubt it will not happen in 2008 or 2009 somewhere in the U.S.
At that point, considering no one wants to be a one term president, even Dennis Kucinich is going to respond in a manner more forceful than what he would have had you believe in 2007. Because regardless of what you believe about the American people today in terms of desiring peace, when faced with the choice between a wimp who doesn't respond and a candidate who at least argues to fight back, the choice isn't going to the wimp.
So you have that pressure on the next President to react, and it may very well be more aggressive than personal preferences would like.
Another pressure on the next President is the congress.
I must lay bare that I don't hold very many of these politicians in high regard. Recent history shows that very many of them will vote for a course of action today, but by noon tomorrow will have changed their mind and will be demanding the 180 degree opposite of what they voted for.
Take the recent surge in Iraq. The new generals held few secrets when it came time to explain themselves to congress on what they intend to do in Iraq and how long it will take. After
confirming these men, Congress is now anxiously attempting to pull the plug on the plans months before the the agreed upon time table.
Rashness my quell the impatient, but it isn't useful to quell the unrest in Iraq, nor will it lend strength to the people we want to win, rather to those we want to defeat.
So what is a new President to do? Faced with the realities of being attacked by deadly enemies wherever they can and thus eroding the public confidence and/or being attacked by the less deadly but every bit as effective in emasculating a Commander in Chief congress, I bet the new guy gets tough real quick. There will be little freedom left to him to do otherwise.
In this situation I don't think it will make much difference who wins the next election for the White House. To be sure, there will be plenty of time to attempt dialogues or approaches that Mr. Bush didn't attempt, but a reputation of strength works in the real world, unfortunately we have squandered much of that reputation recently.
Things will be different in many ways, but if we don't collective make a better decision on who is in congress, I think our external enemies will have an unwitting accomplice from a place where our next president and ourselves are expecting better from. We need to consider the reasons why we vote for someone for congress maybe a little bit beyond the letter next to their names. I haven't seen much 'r'esolve or 'd'etermination from our present congress and while the lack thereof from congress may not lose the war, it certainly isn't helping. Which is a change I'd like to see.
History suggest that shortly after the next president takes office someone or some group will challenge the office holder with an attack on our national interest and/or pride. Obviously some will blame Bush first, that's well within their rights, but for the more sober observers of history whatever event this turns out to be, it'll be viewed as a natural course of events. Ridicule me for my flippancy about this, but Presidents have been challenged in one way or another for decades, I'm not that naive to think that Hillary's cult of personality, for example, will deter or pacify our enemies thirst for American blood.
If your own recollection of history doesn't convince you of this, I'll give you another nation's history to look into for a lesson on uncivilized receptions from the more malicious global community. Israel. However, there maybe something attractive to you about living like the Israelis do, with the threat of attack palpable everyday. To each his own.
In any event, every time Israel elects a new leader, someone bombs a cafe in Tel Aviv. Again, I have no reason to doubt it will not happen in 2008 or 2009 somewhere in the U.S.
At that point, considering no one wants to be a one term president, even Dennis Kucinich is going to respond in a manner more forceful than what he would have had you believe in 2007. Because regardless of what you believe about the American people today in terms of desiring peace, when faced with the choice between a wimp who doesn't respond and a candidate who at least argues to fight back, the choice isn't going to the wimp.
So you have that pressure on the next President to react, and it may very well be more aggressive than personal preferences would like.
Another pressure on the next President is the congress.
I must lay bare that I don't hold very many of these politicians in high regard. Recent history shows that very many of them will vote for a course of action today, but by noon tomorrow will have changed their mind and will be demanding the 180 degree opposite of what they voted for.
Take the recent surge in Iraq. The new generals held few secrets when it came time to explain themselves to congress on what they intend to do in Iraq and how long it will take. After
confirming these men, Congress is now anxiously attempting to pull the plug on the plans months before the the agreed upon time table.
Rashness my quell the impatient, but it isn't useful to quell the unrest in Iraq, nor will it lend strength to the people we want to win, rather to those we want to defeat.
So what is a new President to do? Faced with the realities of being attacked by deadly enemies wherever they can and thus eroding the public confidence and/or being attacked by the less deadly but every bit as effective in emasculating a Commander in Chief congress, I bet the new guy gets tough real quick. There will be little freedom left to him to do otherwise.
In this situation I don't think it will make much difference who wins the next election for the White House. To be sure, there will be plenty of time to attempt dialogues or approaches that Mr. Bush didn't attempt, but a reputation of strength works in the real world, unfortunately we have squandered much of that reputation recently.
Things will be different in many ways, but if we don't collective make a better decision on who is in congress, I think our external enemies will have an unwitting accomplice from a place where our next president and ourselves are expecting better from. We need to consider the reasons why we vote for someone for congress maybe a little bit beyond the letter next to their names. I haven't seen much 'r'esolve or 'd'etermination from our present congress and while the lack thereof from congress may not lose the war, it certainly isn't helping. Which is a change I'd like to see.
Friday, July 20, 2007
I get it. Do you?
Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace said the U.S. "can do whatever it is we want to do to have a dialogue about how to fight this enemy. But the bottom line is that as long as our enemy is sworn to destroy our way of life, we are going to be in a war."
I get it. Do you?
I get it. Do you?
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Much Ado About Nothing
link:
Valerie Plame Lawsuit Thrown Out
About the only thing that got done in D.C. in 3 years.
While two fine men sit in a jail house because they shot two drug smuggling illegals.
link:
Choose your read from a Google Search Results for this story.
Why can't these guys get a pardon?
So I ask the left, if you impeach Bush and Cheney will Pelosi free these men?
'cause I'd be cool with that.
What is really sad, a commentary on our press too, is that Valerie Blame has gotten more headlines and justice.
NO, what is really sad is that there is no real pressure on Bush to free these two men. I recollect one congressman speaking out and I'm sorry I don't have his name.
I guess they're all too busy running filibusters, or what they would have us believe are filibusters, all night long.
Valerie Plame Lawsuit Thrown Out
About the only thing that got done in D.C. in 3 years.
While two fine men sit in a jail house because they shot two drug smuggling illegals.
link:
Choose your read from a Google Search Results for this story.
Why can't these guys get a pardon?
So I ask the left, if you impeach Bush and Cheney will Pelosi free these men?
'cause I'd be cool with that.
What is really sad, a commentary on our press too, is that Valerie Blame has gotten more headlines and justice.
NO, what is really sad is that there is no real pressure on Bush to free these two men. I recollect one congressman speaking out and I'm sorry I don't have his name.
I guess they're all too busy running filibusters, or what they would have us believe are filibusters, all night long.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Its a joke of a label
In recent news,
Freshman Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler.
Its well understood that many on the left have a vicious hatred of Mr. Bush.
But it seems to me quite low class to just call someone a Hitler or a Nazi so easily, but they do it.
Maybe someday they will do some research and learn the truth about the differences between evil men and men who have tried some unpopular tactics and have in the course of events found themselves on the wrong side of the image makers.
A real fascist wouldn't allow Keith Ellison and his ilk the liberty to voice such vile comments, duh.
Freshman Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota) compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler.
Its well understood that many on the left have a vicious hatred of Mr. Bush.
But it seems to me quite low class to just call someone a Hitler or a Nazi so easily, but they do it.
Maybe someday they will do some research and learn the truth about the differences between evil men and men who have tried some unpopular tactics and have in the course of events found themselves on the wrong side of the image makers.
A real fascist wouldn't allow Keith Ellison and his ilk the liberty to voice such vile comments, duh.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Isn't this Fascist?
http://www.wluctv6.com/Global/story.asp?S=6784011
I've written in the past about fascism, so I thought it my duty to inform you of possible fascist traits in the current presidential field.
Limiting speech, named in case it wasn't obvious to you, is a big warning sign of a fascist. If they want to stifle debate amongst their fellow party members, you'll never know what they do once they get power.
I've written in the past about fascism, so I thought it my duty to inform you of possible fascist traits in the current presidential field.
Limiting speech, named in case it wasn't obvious to you, is a big warning sign of a fascist. If they want to stifle debate amongst their fellow party members, you'll never know what they do once they get power.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Renaisance of States Rights
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070706/pl_nm/climate_emissions_nj_dc
This event transpired late last week and I had some thoughts on it. It's really a good thing, and I'm so proud of the liberal Governor and his state.
While many reporters like to frame this signing within the anti-Bush balloon, i.e. he wants to harm the environment, he doesn't care about the environment, he's done nothing--so the states have to lead the way; I frame it as a terrific(regardless of whether it becomes a terrific law) example of the tenth amendment breathing free(regardless of the Nazi paranoia surrounding Bush doctrine).
One thing I believe that historians will unemotionally discern about this enigma that is the Bush Administration is that the idea of state's rights has experienced a renaissance.
All the while that many have incessantly and unsparingly criticized Bush for all the ills of society and the world, he has quietly(all too so) oversaw, nor even volleyed back criticism of, his critics attempts to right his alleged wrong.
Stem cell research -- while the feds have stepped back, individual states, led by California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have funded their own programs of research.
Environment -- while Bush has kept the conservative approach of the Clinton/Gore era, New Jersey and California have created their own laws and initiatives to cut back on green house gases and similar evils of the new church of the environment.
Health -- Trans fats in NYC? Not anymore. Smoking anywhere? Not likely, and the Feds haven't even got involved in either case.
Education -- While criticized as an unfunded mandate, the No Child Left Behind bill(written by Ted Kennedy) allows states to come up with their own solutions. As an aside, like many other criticism of the Bush Administration, unfunded mandates were so prevalent during Clinton/Gore that politicians from the right campaigned for the presidency on this issue alone.
State's Rights, an idea derived from the Tenth Amendment which says that any rights not enumerated in the constitution are reserved for the states, is a concept that is presently a truly conservative idea. Conservatives are drawn not only to wisdom of checking the power of the federal government which is the heart of the tenth amendment, but they are also keen on the idea that with 50 states working individually, or in concert, the best ideas will ween their way through the nation, while the bad ideas wither on the vine.
Liberals have always looked to a top down approach for solutions to national problems. Unfortunately, the track record of the federal government isn't so good at solving problems. Its a good place to make a living if there are problems to be solved, but I just haven't seen the one size fits all approach bear fruit.
With the help of someone they viciously hate, liberals on both coasts are enjoying the freedom to experiment with solutions to epic problems. Oddly they love Clinton and Gore, but never had the liberties back then as they do now. . . .
This event transpired late last week and I had some thoughts on it. It's really a good thing, and I'm so proud of the liberal Governor and his state.
While many reporters like to frame this signing within the anti-Bush balloon, i.e. he wants to harm the environment, he doesn't care about the environment, he's done nothing--so the states have to lead the way; I frame it as a terrific(regardless of whether it becomes a terrific law) example of the tenth amendment breathing free(regardless of the Nazi paranoia surrounding Bush doctrine).
One thing I believe that historians will unemotionally discern about this enigma that is the Bush Administration is that the idea of state's rights has experienced a renaissance.
All the while that many have incessantly and unsparingly criticized Bush for all the ills of society and the world, he has quietly(all too so) oversaw, nor even volleyed back criticism of, his critics attempts to right his alleged wrong.
Stem cell research -- while the feds have stepped back, individual states, led by California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have funded their own programs of research.
Environment -- while Bush has kept the conservative approach of the Clinton/Gore era, New Jersey and California have created their own laws and initiatives to cut back on green house gases and similar evils of the new church of the environment.
Health -- Trans fats in NYC? Not anymore. Smoking anywhere? Not likely, and the Feds haven't even got involved in either case.
Education -- While criticized as an unfunded mandate, the No Child Left Behind bill(written by Ted Kennedy) allows states to come up with their own solutions. As an aside, like many other criticism of the Bush Administration, unfunded mandates were so prevalent during Clinton/Gore that politicians from the right campaigned for the presidency on this issue alone.
State's Rights, an idea derived from the Tenth Amendment which says that any rights not enumerated in the constitution are reserved for the states, is a concept that is presently a truly conservative idea. Conservatives are drawn not only to wisdom of checking the power of the federal government which is the heart of the tenth amendment, but they are also keen on the idea that with 50 states working individually, or in concert, the best ideas will ween their way through the nation, while the bad ideas wither on the vine.
Liberals have always looked to a top down approach for solutions to national problems. Unfortunately, the track record of the federal government isn't so good at solving problems. Its a good place to make a living if there are problems to be solved, but I just haven't seen the one size fits all approach bear fruit.
With the help of someone they viciously hate, liberals on both coasts are enjoying the freedom to experiment with solutions to epic problems. Oddly they love Clinton and Gore, but never had the liberties back then as they do now. . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
