Saturday, January 26, 2008

Who Do You Want in The Big Chair When The Unthinkable Happens?

That's really the only question that you have to ask yourself. It's not about abortion or healthcare or any of the other ancillary issues that we currently face, though these are all important. It's about the ongoing war that is being waged on our civilization. It's about Iran obtaining nukes, it's about the security of Pakistani nukes. It's about radical Islam and its commitment to the destruction of western civilization. It's about our survival and who you trust with that survival. All else is secondary.

Remember how your priorities were reordered on 9/11, and how what was truly important achieved a clarity heretofore unknown to you? In the past 6 1/2 years, much of that clarity has been replaced with a murky preoccupation with the narcissistic navel-gazing to which successful and prosperous societies such as ours are subject. Many of us want to tell ourselves that such a thing simply cannot happen again and have chosen to throw that day and the painful feelings that accompanied it down the memory hole. Do so at your own risk.

Call me a panic monger if you wish, but if the unthinkable does happen I hope that you will have chosen an individual who has the capacity and the will to do what it takes to defend and save our civilization. I hope that on your personal list of issues that "survival" has a prominent place, for without survival all else is worthless fantasy. Think carefully and choose wisely.

Sunday, January 20, 2008


From Drudge: EXCLUSIVE: OBAMA RIPS INTO BILL CLINTON MONDAY DURING ABC INTERVIEW WITH 'GOOD MORNING AMERICA' HOST ROBIN ROBERTS... SAYS HE FEELS LIKE HE RUNNING AGAINST BOTH CLINTONS... Bill 'has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. He continues to make statements that are not supported by the facts. Whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. This has become a habit and one of the things that we're gonnna have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate'

So where's Obama been for the last 16 years? If he thinks it's bad now, he ain't seen nothing yet. Oh, as far as directly confronting Bill Clinton on his inaccuracy, good luck with that one.

Friday, January 18, 2008


Bobby Fischer is dead at 64. What can one say about Fischer? He may have been the greatest chess master who ever lived. Aside from that, he was just another hateful loser and a thoroughly miserable human being.

UPDATE: John at Powerline has a more comprehensive obituary, that comes to pretty much the same conclusion.

I haven't posted much (if at all) on the the cloning/embryo research issue, but this is an idea who's time should not come. While I'm sure that the purpose, as the article states, is research into disease and to make the world a better place and all of that, it's creepy in the extreme.

Cytoplasmic hybrids, they call them. The name itself make the hairs stand up on the back of my neck

That they say that "they will not be used in therapy" and of course, "It's illegal to implant them in the womb". Oh sure, that makes me feel better.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008


Has everyone in this country gone lost their minds? There was a time when the garbage that is spewed at DailyKos would have been reviled by ANY decent person, Democrat or Republican (feel free to peruse the comments to see the true face of the left; it’s not pretty). The filth that is allowed to be written on that digital rag is enough to make any reasonable person ill. Freedom of speech is one thing, sedition is another. Yes, I know that sedition is a bit of an antique term, but it seems to be a very modern practice these days, alas.

There was a time when a freak like Ron Paul would have been standing on the corner handing out poorly mimeographed copies of his drivel and promptly dismissed - now he stands on stage as though he's legitimate presidential candidate. The sad part is that in some polls he drawing 5% and that's far too much for the madness he's peddling.

There was a time when a State Senator like Barack Obama would never have been elected to the US Senate, much less be a serious presidential candidate scarcely 3 years later. And that's just speaking of his profound dearth of experience...don't get me started on his far left fantasy politics. No one seems to care whether he has the timber to sit in the Big Chair, he speaks well and he's black and that seems to be good enough. Voting FOR someone because of their race is just as racist as voting AGAINST someone because of their race.

As for Hillary Clinton, if sleeping with the president qualifies you for the job by some sort of weird osmosis, then there should be a number of female candidates in the field. That's aside from the fact that she's another dyed-in-the-wool, unrepentant leftist who's never really done anything, despite her sanctimonious claims to the contrary.

There was a time when George "Darth/Blofeld" Soros would have been seen for the real threat that he is. My God, the man had made billions screwing around with the values of world currency and he's financing the very subversion of the United States. He's like a villain out of a James Bond movie.

There was a time when a group of terrorist thugs like Hamas called the President of the United States "the Anti-Christ", there would be outrage expressed from the Left as well as the Right - now, I fully expect many on the left to publicly agree, and probably vote to increase their stipend. Hugo Chavez called our president "Satan" on the floor of the UN and a steady stream of celebrities rushed to Venezuela to break bread with him. I guess they figured that if the Speaker of the House could go to Syria to suck up to the "chinless one", then any type of loyalty to the US was well out of fashion. There was a time when that was called treason.

There was a time when neither political party would brazenly favor snatching defeat from the jaws of victory as the Democrats STILL favor doing. Their hatred of Bush far outweighs the success of their very nation - for them defeat is victory and victory is defeat. There was a time when that was called being an enemy of the United States.

There was a time when love of country superseded Democrat and Republican, because in the end we were all Americans. It would appear that time has passed.

I read the Gingrich's dissertation that was part of the course that he taught before he became Speaker of the House. One of the points that he made is that a nation can lose it's culture in a single generation. That has stuck in my mind ever since. We carry much of our culture and our history inside of us, building on what came before and expecting our children to build on that. Respect for the past and accepting the knowledge that has been gained from that past, both good and bad, is part of that culture. We write our history on a slate, and expect future generations to add their chapters and the whole of that slate is our culture.

We don't seem to be doing that anymore.

We live in an age when much of what many people believe is fantasy. Schools seem to be more intent on teaching the history that suits their political bias that what actually happened. Too many people get their information about the Kennedy assassination from Oliver Stone movies and their information about 9/11 from crackpot websites and they believe all of this to be true. They know little or nothing about World War II, or even what happened 30 years ago. The gulf that used to exist between fact and fantasy is becoming far too narrow and many of us are simply forgetting our history and this is why we may well be losing our culture.

We are choosing to forget many of the struggles, the victories and the defeats that brought us to this point. I have a feeling that the slate is being wiped clean and our culture is being erased with it, all in the name of “peace”. There is no peace as long as evil exists in this world, and it always will exist. Our only hope is to counterbalance it and to rrender it impotent. Years ago, some very smart men determined that maintaining enormous power in the hands of good men and denying that power to evil men was as close as we could come to lasting peace, at least in terms of the United States. It has worked pretty well in that within the confines of the U.S., life has been placid because no one dared attack us for fear of the consequences.

It seems that we have no taste, in many quarters, for maintaining the enormous power that has protected us for so long and incidentally has protected the world for so long. In certain quarters, within our own country, there are those who feel that relinquishing power is the way toward world peace and some of them are running for president. I believe that to be a mistake of epic proportions and one that cannot easily be corrected once made.

A scant 6 1/2 years after 3,000 innocent American citizens were murdered in the most heinous act of war in our history, it appears that a majority of this country is satisfied to let bygones be bygones, even as new plots are drawn against us. There was a time when that was called capitulation.

An ill wind is already blowing against us and the isolationists and the pacifists-at-any-cost are poised to assume power just as the thick of the storm arrives at our shores.

May God help us.

Sunday, January 13, 2008


January 13, 2008
Brendan Montague

A STUDY that claimed 650,000 people were killed as a result of the invasion of Iraq was partly funded by the antiwar billionaire George Soros.

Soros, 77, provided almost half the £50,000 cost of the research, which appeared in The Lancet, the medical journal.
Its claim was 10 times higher than consensus estimates of the number of war dead. (Emphasis mine)

Typical strategy of the far left; control the conversation and if the facts don't support your argument, then manufacture facts that do. The sad truth is that, even today, that 650,000 figure is still bantered about and taken gospel by a good number of people and when it's refuted, the fall back position is that the refutation itself is an attempt to suppress the truth.

Facts and truth seem to hold decreasing value in an environment where whatever shallow beliefs people still hold can be backed up on fringe websites that produce "theories" on everything from the Kennedy assassination to 9/11 based completely on fantasized "facts" designed specifically to support the so-called theories. If one tries to interject the voice of reason, they are shouted down as "tools" or "fools" because of their acceptance of the obvious and their rejection of the ever-complex web being woven by the paranoid conspiracy "theorists".

As for Soros, he understands all of this and plays these poor, ignorant souls as a puppet master would marionettes. He well understands that the lie will stay out there forever and no matter how many times it is proven false, it gains currency because people believe it and as long as that is the case, in some perverse way, it becomes "truth".

Soros like to use his personal story as a Hungarian refugee from Nazi oppression to lend credence to his obsession with left-wing causes. In practice though, he seems to have learned well from his former masters - Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

Saturday, January 12, 2008


6 1/2 years after the most devastating attack on American civilians in the history of our nation and an equal amount of time since the "The War on (Islamic) Terrorism" was launched in defense of our country, we could well be on the threshold of electing Barack Hussein Obama as President of the United States.

What, exactly, does this say about us, as a nation?

Is it an example of our enormous capacity for inclusion and fair play? Or, is it another illustration of our enormous propensity toward gullibility?

Friday, January 11, 2008


In the corporate world, when a person has devoted their life to the business, has made their mark and is ready to retire, they are thanked for their years of service, given a nice party and some token of esteem by their peers.

It seems that in the GOP, they are given a presidential campaign that's doomed to failure.

In 1996, the Republicans offered up Bob Dole. Bob was a good man, a legitimate war hero and a loyal Republican who had tried the presidential run on other occasions and had not secured the nomination. In 1996, he got the gold ring and was trounced by an incumbent Bill Clinton. Dole never really had a chance against a much younger Clinton.

At the time, I got the impression that Dole got the nomination as some sort of Republican "Lifetime Achievement Award", similar to those directors and actors who are given token awards at the Oscars to make up for the fact that, even though they had a great career, never won the big prize.

Now we have John McCain; a loyal Republican on some issues, but much less so on others. McCain is a larger-that-life figure and a great American, to whom the country owes a debt of gratitude we simply cannot repay. He is a brave man who has the courage of his convictions, even though many of those convictions have been an irritant to many Republicans for years. He, too, has run for president on several occasions and has fallen short of the nomination.

It would appear that McCain may well be on his way to winning the GOP's "Lifetime Achievement Award", and I have to question the sanity of risking a resounding defeat at the hands of a liberal Democrat at this important juncture in our nation's history.

Does anyone really think that McCain matches up well with either of the Democrats' potential candidates? With Hillary, we're looking at the "history-making" woman candidate, and with Obama, the "history-making" black candidate. Either way, I think that we're looking at a major uphill battle in presenting John McCain as a viable alternative to either of these Democrat nominees-in-waiting. If Hillary gets the nod, McCain may have a shot. If it's Obama, I think McCain's toast. There are certain realities in the modern political arena that have to be considered here.

I would encourage my Republican brethren to think carefully in the months ahead. For better, or worse, history will be made on November 4th and we will commence living it on November 5th.

Having watched the debate last night, I have tried to categorize the candidates as to the major philosophical classifications thus far:

Social: Moderate
Fiscal: Conservative
Defense: Conservative
Iraq: Will prosecute the war until victory is achieved.

Social: Conservative
Fiscal: Conservative
Defense: Conservative
Iraq: Will prosecute the war until victory is achieved.

Social: Conservative
Fiscal: Moderate with liberal overtones.
Defense: Conservative with moderate overtones.
Iraq: Claims he wants victory, but I have doubts about his sincerity.

Social: Conservative
Fiscal: Conservative
Defense: Conservative
Iraq: Will prosecute the war until victory is achieved

Social: Liberal
Fiscal: Moderate
Defense: Conservative
Iraq: Will prosecute the war until victory is achieved.

Social: Insane
Fiscal: Insane
Defense: Insane
Iraq: Immediate withdrawal, followed by an apology to Muslim world for having annoyed them.

In a Nutshell: I think Fred Thompson was the most impressive last night, particularly when he slapped down Huckabee on the subject of his "conservative credentials". As I recall, during the last debate Fred slapped down Huckabee about his stand on Gitmo. Fred always seems prepared, with his arguments well conceived and presented. Giuliani, Romney and McCain passed muster and performed as expected, but no better. Huckabee seemed, as he always does, a bit out of his league.

Ron Paul acted like the lunatic he is.

Monday, January 07, 2008

When all else fails, turn on the tears

She has so many opportunities for this country?! Who in the hell does she think she is?

Scott at Powerline compares her to Evita Peron which is eerily fitting. He concludes with "Marx to the contrary notwithstanding, history repeats itself, first as farce, second as farce."

Indeed. This woman has an ego that is only equalled by her unquenchable thirst for power.

Rudy Giuliani: Competent and confident. I like Rudy and think he would make a fine president and nothing he said or did last night changed that. He has an enormous capacity for leadership and knows how to make the tough decisions.

Fred Thompson: Fred is not afraid to call things exactly as he sees them and will lose no sleep if he doesn’t get the nomination and I find that refreshing. He’s like the slightly grumpy grandfather from whom wisdom flows like water from a faucet. Last night, he seemed in command of his facts, yet it seemed he was not given much of a chance to speak, unfortunately.

Mike Huckabee: He seemed out of his league. He was evasive on the subject of taxes and was thoroughly destroyed on the subject of Gitmo by Fred. I didn’t like him going in and liked him even less after his performance last night. He would be a disastrous nominee.

Mitt Romney: While Mitt has not been on my “A” list, last night I found him very impressive. He was in control of himself and his positions. He looked very “presidential” and I came away with a much better impression of him than I had going in. He still looks like a presidential candidate from central casting, but he’s also a very smart guy and it shows.

John McCain: He looked old, particularly sitting next to Romney. He seemed to have toned down his arrogant attitude a bit last night and he probably had some teeth marks on his tongue this morning as a result. I think that he has temperament issues that presidents simply should not have. My problems with McCain are legion and can be summed up by saying he’s just not reliably Republican, much less conservative. McCain-Feingold will, and should haunt him for the rest of his career; limitations on free speech should not be taken lightly.

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Friday, January 04, 2008

Thankfully, we have a long way to go

Huckabee: I cannot determine what people see in this man. His resume is essentially that he is Governor of Arkansas...haven't we already had one of those? OK, so he lost a lot of weight, quickly. Perhaps he would make a good diet buddy or a personal trainer, but I hardly see where this qualifies him to be president. Oh yes, he's a Christian, and he seems to talk about that far too much and in terms that make me more than a little wary. We get quite enough of that kind of talk from the Middle East, thank you.

Speaking of the middle East, while he says he wants to win, his method is breathtakingly obtuse:
"I support a regional summit so that Iraq's neighbors become financially and militarily committed to stabilizing Iraq now rather than financially and militarily committed to widening the war later. This summit will add more voices, Muslim voices, to the pressure to perform we're already applying to the Maliki government."
Ah yes, the old "regional summit" solution. Let's see, Iraq is bordered mainly by Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and Mike thinks that these are countries that want to participate in promoting a liberal democratic state in the center of the Middle East?

Obama: It's pretty clear to me that liberal pinheads and people who know absolutely nothing about anything (yes, may be redundant) are the main constituency in the Obama "groundswell" because, well, he's black and they figure it's time to have a black president. It doesn't matter that he's grossly inexperienced (a former state senator and a US Senator for 3 years) and if he were of any the race that he would not even be considered. The rationale behind his support seems to be "he's black, and it's time we had a black president". As a bonus, he has Muslim heritage and his middle name is Hussein - a bonus on the "feel-good-about-how-open-minded-I-am" scale.

As for Iraq, Obama is clearly in the "cut and run" wing of the Democrat party (yes, more redundancy):

Now, as a U.S. Senator, Senator Obama has continued to critique the administration's mishandling of this war, and believes that while our troops have done an outstanding job in Iraq, there can be no military solution to what is inherently a political conflict between Iraq's warring factions. The only hope to end this burgeoning civil war is for Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds to come together and resolve their differences. That's why Senator Obama agrees with the Iraq Study Group's conclusion that we must begin a phased redeployment of American troops to signal to the government and people of Iraq that ours is not an open-ended commitment.

To set a new course for U.S. policy that can bring a responsible end to the war, Senator Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act in January 2007. The legislation begins redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the Iraq Study Group.

Since this is still up on his website, I can only assume that he is unaware of, or uninterested in the enormous progress that we have made in the past few months in Iraq and that we are, in fact winning. Can we still assume that he favors a complete withdrawal of all combat brigades by March 31st? This gives new meaning to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, does it not?

Perhaps he has been to busy campaigning to formulate his "new" plan for our defeat and it will appear on his website at a later date........

Thursday, January 03, 2008


One question comes to mind...what the hell's wrong with Iowa?

Really, I have no animus toward the good people of Iowa or New Hampshire, but I have to say that the breathless anticipation of their selection process is beginning to peg the annoyance meter.

All of the candidates spend enormous amounts of money, descend upon these states like Apache helicopters on a al Qaeda keg party and the media reads the results as though it were the Dead Sea Scrolls.

These are two small states population-wise (IA #30 and NH #41) and neither is particularly representative of the nation as a whole. In fact there really isn't ANY state that could accurately be called representative of the nation.

The point seems to be to win these (too) early states and build some sort of air of inevitability, but how often does that really happen? There have been losers to win in Iowa and/or New Hampshire and former presidents who have lost one or both.

I know that someone has to be first and these two states are kicking off the primary season, but a little perspective may be in order. I also know that this little kabuki dance in Iowa and New Hampshire is a political tradition in presidential election years, but I think that it's overwrought in the extreme.

Wednesday, January 02, 2008


You know, Fred's really starting to grow on me. Sensible, well measured and like I said before, he doesn't seem to be as interested in being president as much as he is in public service. He seems to be a man that I could trust with the job and never have a second thought about it. I could see the guy as president and I could see myself supporting his candidacy.

The very first point he makes is that we approach "dangerous years" ahead and that the terrorists won't rest "until a mushroom cloud hangs over one of our cities". This tells me he knows what our priorities are and where they should remain. Needless to say I share those priorities.

Tuesday, January 01, 2008


Powerline has an very interesting story about a John Edwards ad, where an layed off employee recounts how St. John tells his young son how he will "fight for his father's job". As it turns out, there's more to the there always is with these Democrat-inspired victimization melodramas. As it turns out, the guy is just another Democrat party hack turning on the tears to drum up votes.

The fact is, I am an individual who has lost a job, after decades of service. Not once did I ever think of petitioning some hack politician to "fight for my job". Shit happens, and it happened to me, I dealt with it and moved on.

These are the type of people who are removing the backbone of America. They should be shouted down as the users they are. Edwards has made a fortune attacking the very people who supply American jobs, and he has the unmitigated gaul to call himself a champion of "working people"?