Tuesday, February 19, 2008


On Wednesday, February 08, 2008 the NY City Council called for the expedited passage of a stalled federal bill in Congress that will assist 9/11 victims. The bill is named after James Zadroga, a NYC detective that died as a result of inhaling toxic dust at Ground Zero.

In what can only be described as an attempt to avoid city liability, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg disputed those medical findings and went so far as to claim that Detective Zadroga was not a hero and did not die as a result of inhaling the toxic dust. Mayor Bloomberg and the NYC pathologist went against overwhelming medical evidence to make this scurrilous claim.

You can read more about that here: Bloomberg Dishonors 9/11 Hero

As shrewd a city business man Michael Bloomberg may be, he emerged as an equally savvy politician in that he supports the federal bill that will provide federal funds for 9/11 responders and victims.

The bill called The James Zadroga Act was chiefly sponsored by Representatives Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY-Manhattan and Queens) and Vito Fossella (R-NY-Staten Island/ Brooklyn) the enactment will reopen the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund (VCF)

This bipartisan legislation would ensure that rescue workers, students, federal employees and area residents have, for the very first time, access to federal funding for treatment of health issues resulting from 9/11.

NY City Council Speaker Christine Quinn states the Council was set to pass a resolution calling on Congress to swiftly enact “this lifesaving piece of legislation.” The bill was first introduced in September 2006

Three Provisions of the James Zadroga Act:

1. Reopens September 11 Victims Compensation Fund for individuals who became ill or did not file before the original December 22, 2003 deadline.

2. Allows for adjustment of previous awards if the Special Master of the fund determines the medical conditions of the claimant warrants an adjustment.

3. Amends eligibility rules so that responders to the 9/11 attacks who arrived later than the first 96 hours could be eligible if they experienced illness or injury from their work at the site.

Kudos to those politicians that was able to cross the aisle in this bipartisan cooperative effort to support The Zadroga Act.

Monday, February 18, 2008

Political Predictions

By Andrew Benjamin

It appears that the best path to the White House for the Democrats is to play to the radical Left, Hollyweird, minorities, and the elites of the East Coast, meaning that the winner of the primaries will stay left of center to win, while speaking platitudes to the center to seduce independents. Both candidates at this time lean on shameless pandering (Hillary), and complete lack of substance, meaningless inspirational slogans: "Change" & "Hope" and platitudes (Obama.)

The winner of the primaries will need a Vice President who will energize the fringe of the Democrats.

My prediction: Al Gore

You've seen it here first.

No one else can energize the Left to the degree Gore can...and will!

My initial thinking was that John McCain will need to appoint one of the losers in the primaries (Huckabee or Romney) for Vice President running mate. Both of these candidates bring substance, conservative values, and votes to the McCain camp...but they can also lose votes. America is conservative for the most part, but these days Americans are not taking the bait.

Either of these two would pick up the evangelical and right wing votes, but would turn off the independents.

I lean against the conventional wisdom and popular opinion. The right wing will have no choice but McCain, no matter whom McCain appoints for VP. Meaning, he could appoint Mikhail Gorbachev and the right will, holding their collective noses, pull the McCain lever. In short, the right stays with substance over rhetoric and national security over empty promises for hope and change. (In other words, both feet planted firmly on the ground.)

McCain will in fact lean LEFT, not Right, and aim to get the independent center, not just of his party, but to take votes from Democrats, many of whom are understandably uncomfortable with the Democratic platform of unconditional surrender on all foreign policy fronts to redirect money to favored domestic problems (most of which cannot be solved with any amount of money.)

In other words, many of these earlier Democrat policies that have been proven failures in the past. We are not Europe and hopefully we'll never be Europe.

The Democrat's plans to shift taxes and expand income redistribution can only have dire consequences for America's economy and the continued employment of the same workers who would vote Democrat (already showing in the performance of the stock market.) An expansion of trade and globalism is the cure for the deficit, not a reduction of it. Protectionism creates a single market -- our own -- and no buyers. Tax reductions worked for JFK, they worked for Reagan, they worked for Bush.

The laws of physics or economics have not changed this year...and they won't change the next, no matter how much hope for changing these immutable laws or reality we dream about.

-- AGB

Friday, February 15, 2008

The Iraq War Troop Surge: One Year Later

Originally published Thursday, February 14, 2008 on ASSOCIATED CONTENT

"The troop surge" commenced Feb. 14, 2007, with the 82nd Airborne as the vanguard of an American troop buildup that would climb to 30,000 extra U.S. soldiers by the summer of 2007. U.S.-led forces have successfully tamped down violence, and the Pentagon has forged critical pacts with Sunni fighters against al-Qaeda in Iraq.

On January 23 2007, the president had this to say on the troop increase in Iraq, outlining the purpose in supporting the Iraqi government maintain control: "In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads. And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out."[1]

A diary and another document seized during U.S. raids in Iraq show some Al Qaeda leaders fear the terror group is crumbling, with many fighters defecting to American-backed neighborhood groups. The military revealed two documents discovered by American troops in November: a 39-page memo written by a mid- to high-level Al Qaeda official with knowledge of the group’s operations in Iraq’s western Anbar province, and a 16-page diary written by another group leader north of Baghdad.

Click here for the English translation of the diary. (PDF)

Click here for the original version of the diary. (PDF)

In the Anbar document, the author describes an Al Qaeda in crisis.” We lost cities and afterward, villages. We find ourselves in a wasteland desert.” Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a U.S. military spokesman quoted the document as saying. The memo, believed to have been written in summer 2007, cites militants’ increasing difficulty in moving around and transporting weapons and suicide belts because of better equipped Iraqi police and more watchful citizens, Smith said. [2]

The sharply lower figures for the second half of 2007 have reduced U.S. losses to what they were in late 2003 and early 2004. The Iraqi death toll is back down to where it was at the close of 2005. [3] The numbers make a strong case that the surge accomplished its main goal.

Steve Schippert, co-founder of the Center for Threat Awareness noted the following during a recent symposium with Front Page Magazine:

This (success of the surge) flies directly in the face of significant Washington elected officials' recent claims already this week that the "surge" is "a failure." If our military commanders are not to be trusted, and Iraqis are not to be trusted, perhaps the cries of al-Qaeda leadership in Iraq can be trusted that our change in strategy, tactics and manpower is anything but a failure. Al-Qaeda is not yet defeated, but its ability to operate, maintain havens acquired through brutal force, and sustain itself are all diminished to the point of critical mass.

It's like a brushfire. Killing the flames is critically important, but to walk away leaving embers smoldering is to invite re-ignition. And we - or more importantly, Iraqi civilians - truly need not endure the al-Qaeda inferno twice only to fight the flames again, do we?

Al-Qaeda has demonstrated that its embers are present, though they are forced to find new fuel in creative and sinister ways. The lack of capable and willing human resources is precisely what precipitated the murder of two mentally disabled girls stricken with Down Syndrome. An al-Qaeda terrorist working at a psychiatric hospital facilitated strapping bombs to their unwitting bodies and sending them into a marketplace they regularly frequented, killing scores when the girls were detonated.

The moral question that must be faced square on is one in which we ask ourselves: Is this what we are going to leave Iraq to?

Many Iraqis took to fighting al-Qaeda before our shift in strategy one year ago. But it did not become the decisive popular movement it is today until Iraqis felt secure enough that we at least were not going to leave them, their towns, their neighborhoods and their families exposed and unprotected against the barbarous. We are not everywhere in Iraq. We are, however, in more places than we have ever been simultaneously and we are in pursuit. [4]

Certainly, there is more critical work to be done. Along with recent evidence that Al-Maliki, Prime Minister of Iraq, has made strides to reach political reforms, it remains obvious that his government continues to struggle for stability.

Thanks to the vision and intelligence of men such as General Petraeus and the expertise, bravery, and commitment of our troops we remain Free here and Iraq is a helluva lot closer to stability.

God bless America and God bless our troops.

[1] www.wikipedia.com
[2] www.littlegreenfootballs.com Feb 10, 2008
[3] http://ap.google.com/article Baghdad -AP, Feb 12, 2008
[4] www.frontpagemagazine.com Feb 13, 2008

Monday, February 11, 2008

Gingrich: "I'm Deeply Worried"...How About You?

There IS no threat....It's ALL fantasy....Scare tactics....USS Cole never happened....Beirut marine barracks never happened...Somalia never happened....Khobar Towers never happend...2500 Katusha rockets from Gaza after Israel evacuated every Jew never happened...9-11 NEVER happened. You just imagined it. ZZZZzzzzzz

Bush Lied.

Go back to sleep.



You DO have an alternative -- below:

As for me...I WILL NEVER FORGET! And will always remain Vigilant!...How about you?

Thank you, AGB for being a Great American.

Friday, February 8, 2008

Did McCain Win Over Conservative Critics With CPAC Speech?

Did McCain Win Over Conservative Critics With CPAC Speech?

Reservations about any politician including John McCain are understandable. I can appreciate the dissent, but can any of McCain’s detractors list any positive qualities of their candidate of choice?

Many Conservatives are ticked off because McCain drafted some Liberal bills and as a result want to hand over the nation to Obama or Clinton. I guess there really is no reasoning with that logic.

Even Mitt Romney understands, and this was evident in his eloquent concession speech.” If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. Those, ladies and gentlemen, were the words of a Patriot.

Who's complaining the most about McCain? Radio talk show hosts, the ACLU, and the Washington establishment, that's who.

Fact: Romney's company Bain Capital acquired Clear Channel Communications (CCU). News talk stations owned by CCU usually have a standard slate of hosts. The morning show is usually local, with other time- slots filled by local and syndicated hosts. Programs that appear on many Clear Channel talk stations include Glenn Beck Program, The Rush Limbaugh Show, Dr. Laura, and Coast to Coast AM, all of which are affiliated with Premiere Radio Networks in some fashion. The Sean Hannity Show, The Savage Nation, The Mark Levin Show and Dave Ramsey. Clear Channel Communications - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coincidence that so many of these hosts threw McCain under the bus?

Check out this analysis from someone not working for a Bain Capital subsidiary or part of the old Washington establishment: Analysis: John McCain

Have you forgotten?

Are you ready to allow a man with very questionable ties, some of which that can be linked to radical Islam, lead our nation?

Fact: Obama's self described "close confidant", "advisor (political and religious)", "sounding board", and man that keeps his "moral compass calibrated" embraced and gave the racist Nation Of Islam leader Farrakhan, his church's highest honor! Obama's Church Honor's Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan

Are you willing to let Clinton run this nation? With her ugly ties to the Chinese Army, and the selling of U.S. secrets for campaign contributions? Do you remember the Chinese criminals Trie and Wang Jun? Jun was the chairman of CITIC, the chief investment arm of the PRC, and Poly Technologies (a "front company for the PRC military"that was later charged with smuggling 2,000 AK-47s into the U.S.), he attended a White House "coffee" with President Clinton. Did you forget "Chinagate", the Clintons crimes that were far worse than the Lewinsky scandal? 1996 United States campaign finance controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How about the serious crimes that the Clintons escaped, crimes that jeopardized our national security?

Thanks primarily to the Clintons, America’s new vulnerability to nuclear attack is a reality now not merely in respect to China, but vis-à-vis every rogue state that China has chosen to arm. Along with Russia, China is the chief proliferator of nuclear, missile, and satellite technologies to other governments. The governments it has chosen to benefact in this way are notorious stockpilers of biological and chemical weapons. Among them are the most dangerous and dedicated enemies of the United States: Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

FrontPage Magazine

Have you forgotten?

The critics are complaining about an American war hero with unquestionable Patriotism and an obvious love for this country. The critics are complaining about a man that understands how to manage our national defense. Complaints are fine and even welcomed. However, it is disgusting how so many detractors personally attack this war hero. What did he do? He arguably brokered weak bi-partisan bills in an attempt to better the country. Some of his ideas were mis-guided at best. Many of those bills that are criticized are actually in line with core conservative beliefs. The two opening sentences of this paragraph CAN ONLY be applied to John McCain. An attempt to apply it to the opposition will fail.

Here's a nauseating quote on a media darling: "let me tell you something about Barack Obama, if your actually in the room when he gives one of those speeches and you don't cry, you're not American"-Chris Matthews, MSNBC. What won’t be discussed is his abysmal Senatorial voting record, or his questionable radical connections.

Since many of you are so willing to embrace and forgive the opposition simply by the silver of their tongue. Perhaps, you can give Senator John McCain half of that consideration.

Why not start by reading his eloquent speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference: John McCain's CPAC Speech

Never Forget!

Thursday, February 7, 2008

John McCain's CPAC Speech

February 07, 2008
John McCain's CPAC Speech

John McCain's presidential campaign today released the following remarks by John McCain as prepared for delivery:

Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. It's been a little while since I've had the honor of addressing you, and I appreciate very much your courtesy to me today. We should do this more often. I hope you will pardon my absence last year, and understand that I intended no personal insult to any of you. I was merely pre-occupied with the business of trying to escape the distinction of pre-season frontrunner for the Republican nomination, which, I'm sure some of you observed, I managed to do in fairly short order. But, now, I again have the privilege of that distinction, and this time I would prefer to hold on to it for a while.

I know I have a responsibility, if I am, as I hope to be, the Republican nominee for President, to unite the party and prepare for the great contest in November. And I am acutely aware that I cannot succeed in that endeavor, nor can our party prevail over the challenge we will face from either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, without the support of dedicated conservatives, whose convictions, creativity and energy have been indispensible to the success our party has had over the last quarter century. Many of you have disagreed strongly with some positions I have taken in recent years. I understand that. I might not agree with it, but I respect it for the principled position it is. And it is my sincere hope that even if you believe I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative, you will still allow that I have, in many ways important to all of us, maintained the record of a conservative. Further, I hope you will grant that I have defended many positions we share just as ardently as I have made my case for positions that have provoked your opposition. If not, thank you for this opportunity to make my case today.

I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles: that liberty is a right conferred by our Creator, not by governments, and that the proper object of justice and the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens. And like you, I understand, as Edmund Burke observed, that "whenever a separation is made between liberty and justice, neither . . . is safe."

While I have long worked to help grow a public majority of support for Republican candidates and principles, I have also always believed, like you, in the wisdom of Ronald Reagan, who warned in an address to this conference in 1975, that "a political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers."

I attended my first CPAC conference as the invited guest of Ronald Reagan, not long after I had returned from overseas, when I heard him deliver his "shining city upon a hill" speech. I was still a naval officer then, but his words inspired and helped form my own political views, just as Ronald Reagan's defense of America's cause in Vietnam and his evident concern for American prisoners of war in that conflict inspired and were a great comfort to those of us who, in my friend Jerry Denton's words, had the honor of serving "our country under difficult circumstances." I am proud, very proud, to have come to public office as a foot soldier in the Reagan Revolution. And if a few of my positions have raised your concern that I have forgotten my political heritage, I want to assure you that I have not, and I am as proud of that association today as I was then. My record in public office taken as a whole is the record of a mainstr eam conservative. I believe today, as I believed twenty-five years ago, in small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense, judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are the true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and unborn.

Those are my beliefs, and you need not examine only my past votes and speeches to assure yourselves that they are my genuine convictions. You can take added confidence from the positions I have defended during this campaign. I campaigned in Iowa in opposition to agriculture subsidies. I campaigned in New Hampshire against big government mandated health care and for a free market solution to the problem of unavailable and unaffordable health care. I campaigned in Michigan for the tax incentives and trade policies that will create new and better jobs in that economically troubled state. I campaigned in Florida against the national catastrophic insurance fund bill that passed the House of Representatives and defended my opposition to the prescription drug benefit bill that saddled Americans with yet another hugely expensive entitlement program. I have argued to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, to reduce the corporate tax rate and abolish the AMT. I have defended my position on protecting our Second Amendment rights, including my votes against waiting periods, bans on the so-called "assault weapons," and illegitimate lawsuits targeting gun manufacturers. I have proudly defended my twenty-four year pro-life record. Throughout this campaign, I have defended the President's brave decision to increase troop levels in Iraq to execute a long overdue counterinsurgency that has spared us the terrible calamity of losing that war. I held these positions because I believed they were in the best interests of my party and country."

Surely, I have held other positions that have not met with widespread agreement from conservatives. I won't pretend otherwise nor would you permit me to forget it. On the issue of illegal immigration, a position which provoked the outspoken opposition of many conservatives, I stood my ground aware that my position would imperil my campaign. I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a wa y that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.

All I ask of any American, conservative, moderate, independent, or enlightened Democrat, is to judge my record as a whole, and accept that I am not in the habit of making promises to my country that I do not intend to keep. I hope I have proven that in my life even to my critics. Then vote for or against me based on that record, my qualifications for the office, and the direction where I plainly state I intend to lead our country. If I am so fortunate as to be the Republican nominee for President, I will offer Americans, in what will be a very challenging and spirited contest, a clearly conservative approach to governing. I will make my case to voters, no matter what state they reside in, in the same way. I will not obscure my positions from voters who I fear might not share them. I will stand on my convictions, my conservative convictions, and trust in the good sense of the voters, and in my confidence that conservative pr inciples still appeal to a majority of Americans, Republicans, Independents and Reagan Democrats.

Often elections in this country are fought within the margins of small differences. This one will not be. We are arguing about hugely consequential things. Whomever the Democrats nominate, they would govern this country in a way that will, in my opinion, take this country backward to the days when government felt empowered to take from us our freedom to decide for ourselves the course and quality of our lives; to substitute the muddled judgment of large and expanding federal bureaucracies for the common sense and values of the American people; to the timidity and wishful thinking of a time when we averted our eyes from terrible threats to our security that were so plainly gathering strength abroad. It is shameful and dangerous that Senate Democrats are blocking an extension of surveillance powers that enable our intelligence and law enforcement to defend our country against radical Islamic extremists. This election is going to be about big things, not small things. And I intend to fight as hard as I can to ensure that our principles prevail over theirs.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government.

I intend to reduce it. I will not sign a bill with earmarks in it, any earmarks in it. I will fight for the line item veto, and I will not permit any expansion whatsoever of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us. On the contrary, I intend to reform those programs so that government is no longer in that habit of making promises to Americans it does not have the means to keep.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes.

I intend to cut them. I will start by making the Bush tax cuts permanent. I will cut corporate tax rates from 35 to 25% to keep industries and jobs in this country. I will end the Alternate Minimum Tax. And I won't let a Democratic Congress raise your taxes and choke the growth of our economy.

They will offer a big government solution to health care insurance coverage.

I intend to address the problem with free market solutions and with respect for the freedom of individuals to make important choices for themselves.

They will appoint to the federal bench judges who are intent on achieving political changes that the American people cannot be convinced to accept through the election of their representatives.

I intend to nominate judges who have proven themselves worthy of our trust that they take as their sole responsibility the enforcement of laws made by the people's elected representatives, judges of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito, judges who can be relied upon to respect the values of the people whose rights, laws and property they are sworn to defend.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.

I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen.

They won't recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region.

I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish and pledges undying enmity to the United States to possess the weapons to advance their malevolent ambitions.

Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will concede to our critics that our own actions to defend against its threats are responsible for fomenting the terrible evil of radical Islamic extremism, and their resolve to combat it will be as flawed as their judgment.

I intend to defeat that threat by staying on offense and by marshaling every relevant agency of our government, and our allies, in the urgent necessity of defending the values, virtues and security of free people against those who despise all that is good about us.

These are but a few of the differences that will define this election. They are very significant differences, and I promise you, I intend to contest these issues on conservative grounds and fight as hard as I can to defend the principles and positions we share, and to keep this country safe, proud, prosperous and free.

We have had a few disagreements, and none of us will pretend that we won't continue to have a few. But even in disagreement, especially in disagreement, I will seek the counsel of my fellow conservatives. If I am convinced my judgment is in error, I will correct it. And if I stand by my position, even after benefit of your counsel, I hope you will not lose sight of the far more numerous occasions when we are in complete accord.

I began by assuring you that we share a conception of liberty that is the bedrock of our beliefs as conservatives. As you know, I was deprived of liberty for a time in my life, and while my love of liberty is no greater than yours, you can be confident that mine is the equal of any American's. It is a deep and unwavering love. My life experiences in service to our country inform my political judgments. They are at the core of my convictions. I am pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere in the world because of them, because I know that to be denied liberty is an offense to nature and nature's Creator. I will never waver in that conviction, I promise you. I know in this country our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be "nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts." I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and ta ke comfort from the knowledge that I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives.

You have heard me say before that for all my reputation as a maverick, I have only found true happiness in serving a cause greater than my self-interest. For me, that cause has always been our country, and the ideals that have made us great. I have been her imperfect servant for many years, and I have made many mistakes. You can attest to that, but need not. For I know them well myself. But I love her deeply and I will never, never tire of the honor of serving her. I cannot do that without your counsel and support. And I am grateful, very grateful, that you have given me this opportunity to ask for it.

Thank you and God bless you.

John McCain, a U.S. Senator from Arizona, is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

The Amazing Democrats

FOX News last night assembled a room full of Democrats to poll them and ask for whom they will be voting -- and why?

We heard various opinions about what they "like" about Hillary or Obama and what they don't like about each candidate.

When it came to the "what?," rather than the why, the Democrats had no answer - not one!

When they were asked to raise their hands to name a single accomplishment Obama or Hillary achieved, not one could name an achievement.

In other words, the Democrats have provided us with a deeper look into the Left's serious lack of seriousness, who told the viewers that what they "felt" to be important is in actuality more important than what is. In short, what is important is not what the candidate will do and have a record of accomplishments as proof of the ability "to do" -- for example unite this nation which is serious need of uniting -- but what they appear to be.

HOPE and CHANGE are the code words for nothing.

"No Blood for Oil" was the code word for taking construction materials to the building site by donkey.

I've said for a long time that the Democrats have no plan, no solution, and no clue.

There is apparently a left-brain/right brain dichotomy between the logical outlook of rational people and the emotional and irrational response of others. A good speech rather than concrete accomplishment is evidence of competence.

That is, for the Left, you make fiscal policy on what you feel; you fight wars, or discontinue wars, because of what you "feel." If it feels right, you do it; if it feels wrong you reverse course. If it feels good, it IS good. There are benefits without costs. Actions without consequences. There are free lunches and no one pays.

And what you "feel" is either based on false information (propaganda is aimed at people to manipulate "feelings"), on myths, historical revisionism, and former biases. We might look beyond all that, to the very base, the primitive, the unexamined life...much of the world that is.

Isn't it ironic then, that the liberal community "feels" more affinity toward the Islamofascists who would kill them first (because the Islamofascists hate the secular the most), than to the American religious, whom the Islamofascists hate much less, having some things in common with them. It is no coincidence that many of the myths about America, Bush, capitalism, imperialism, Truthers, conspiracy theories, etc., are shared by the Left and the Islamists alike!

Again, we are reminded of Mark Twain, who observed: "They make much of "feeling" and mistake it for thinking."

Andrew G. Benjamin

Monday, February 4, 2008

Open Letter to Conservatives

By Tony Vega for AmericanAngle.blogspot.com

Monday, February 04, 2008

Now is the time to unite. As we approach crunch time, it behooves us to strengthen our resolve. Recent salvos against Senator John McCain and former Governor Mitt Romney only serves to fulfill the prophecy of “divide and conquer.”

Despite what Ann Coulter and the rest of her millionaire talk show entertaining colleagues spew, McCain is not the same as or worse than the opposition.

The fact that Ms. Coulter claims she will vote for Hillary over McCain reveals how disingenuous she is, not how Liberal John McCain is. Please folks, don’t be easily led.

No matter how often the mistruths are repeated, and the sheep will bleat it, it doesn’t make it so. Turn the pages for yourselves and your own edification.

Listen, this is not an endorsement for McCain-not at all!

This is a request, from one conservative to another, for objectivity regarding our Republican candidates vying for the nomination. One of them will obviously earn it and it is in our best interest to rally behind that nominee. Why? Because ANY Republican nominee will be better than the Hillary and or Obama ticket.

Now is not the time to tear our party apart. Yes, we may argue the negative and finer points of our favorite candidate. Discourse and an open exchange of ideas is a wonderful thing in a Free society.

During such discourse, ladies and gentlemen, let us not shoot ourselves in the foot and gift-wrap the election to Hillary/Obama, as the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world are dangerously close to doing. There is evidence out there folks that these mouthpieces are not looking out for us. Not to wander into the land of conspiracy theorists, but did you just blindly think they were looking out for us and their vitriol wasn’t simply for their own personal gain? This letter is not the proper venue for such disclosures; we’ll save that for another post.

Again, this posting is not an endorsement for one candidate over another. My angle is simply unity and to garner adequate support for the Republican nominee and help propel that candidate to the White House.

While we are busy destroying viable candidates, the opposition is narrowing their divide. They will walk over the ashes of our implosion. Where will that walk take them? To the Oval office.