Thursday, September 6, 2007
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
AND IM BACK...
It's been busy but the political commentary is back, not that its been gone I just haven't had time lately being so many things have been going on. So where are we now in Iraq. Well, the good news keeps pouring in. A few weeks ago (in the New York Times, of all places), an article ran by two Brookings Institute guys, a left wing think tank (think a lefty version of the Heritage Foundation, but not as successful or comprehensive), under the headline "A War We Just Might Win." Hillary herself has acknowledged the surge has been working. Of course she then said we should leave which makes no sense. "We're kicking butt, so lets leave"...great idea. Katie Couric recently got back from Iraq and noted the good news as well. Even the Washington Post has said the surge is working and that the Petraeus report is going to look good.
What does the cook left think of people on their side acknowledging their own finally admitting we are getting somewhere. Naturally, they are sweeping the evidence under the rug. They are discrediting it left and right (no pun intended). "It's all a Bush conspiracy!" they scream. Yea right. The MoveOn.org kooks have been lambasting their own for recognizing the progress (I guess being progressive doesn't mean recognizing American progress, only liberal progress (a better word for liberal progress is destructive progress)). Anytime a Democrat deviates from the liberal action line MoveOn is right there to smear and discredit them. "There's a pattern here: When John Dingell contradicted party orthodoxy on global warming and auto mileage standards this year, MoveOn ran ads in his Michigan district calling the 81-year-old Congressman "Dingellsaurus."
What kind of ideology positions themselves on the side of defeat for the United States? What kind of major political party can't allow victory, as it is bad for them politically? What kind of people are actively engaged in undermining our troops, our commander in chief, and general in the middle of not only the surge, but the war as well?
Liberalism, the far left, commie libs, and the Democrat Party, that's who.
Thank about this; victory for America is bad for them because they are so invested in defeat. Defeat of the US is good for them because it makes Bush and the big bad evil US look bad. What about victory frightens these spineless scumbags? 2008. They cannot afford a Bush victory or an American victory because they have already declared the war lost. Any turnaround is bad for them in 2008. Congress recently had a 2% approval rating on the way they are handling the war. 2%!!! Pretty low, I'd say so. And pathetic.
What does the cook left think of people on their side acknowledging their own finally admitting we are getting somewhere. Naturally, they are sweeping the evidence under the rug. They are discrediting it left and right (no pun intended). "It's all a Bush conspiracy!" they scream. Yea right. The MoveOn.org kooks have been lambasting their own for recognizing the progress (I guess being progressive doesn't mean recognizing American progress, only liberal progress (a better word for liberal progress is destructive progress)). Anytime a Democrat deviates from the liberal action line MoveOn is right there to smear and discredit them. "There's a pattern here: When John Dingell contradicted party orthodoxy on global warming and auto mileage standards this year, MoveOn ran ads in his Michigan district calling the 81-year-old Congressman "Dingellsaurus."
What kind of ideology positions themselves on the side of defeat for the United States? What kind of major political party can't allow victory, as it is bad for them politically? What kind of people are actively engaged in undermining our troops, our commander in chief, and general in the middle of not only the surge, but the war as well?
Liberalism, the far left, commie libs, and the Democrat Party, that's who.
Thank about this; victory for America is bad for them because they are so invested in defeat. Defeat of the US is good for them because it makes Bush and the big bad evil US look bad. What about victory frightens these spineless scumbags? 2008. They cannot afford a Bush victory or an American victory because they have already declared the war lost. Any turnaround is bad for them in 2008. Congress recently had a 2% approval rating on the way they are handling the war. 2%!!! Pretty low, I'd say so. And pathetic.
Monday, August 20, 2007
OH PLEASE!!! WHHAAAA!!!
"In four debates, not a single Democrat said the word, 'Islamic terrorists.' Now that is taking political correctness to extreme?"
Rudy Giuliani said that in the Republican Presidential debate a few weeks ago. How right he is. This fear of being called Islamophobic or being discriminatory drives liberals more than the fear of having innocent Americans die from radical Islam. Liberals around the world live in their little liberal bubbles, void from reality, and choose not to see radical Islam for the threat it is, has been, and will be in the future. They would rather take on the real enemies of America...Bush, Rove (even though he is gone, they will continue to fight him), Limbaugh, FOX News, Wal-Mart, ect.
In the uber-liberal mecca of England, the BBC is dropping a fictional terror attack from one of its programs to avoid offending Muslims. Liberals only care about not offending certain groups however, Muslims being one of them. I wonder if they were to give this much care to Christians. I guess last November when the BBC portrayed the evil evangelical Christians murdering Muslims they weren't too concerned with offending them. Being liberal means never having standards, but rather dumbing them down so that one group is held to a ridiculously high standard and the other is held to no standard so to stop judgements upon them.
Why is it so bad to fictionally portray something that is not fictional? The answer: It's not. However, liberalism, and the psychosis they have that keeps them severely disconnected from reality makes them feel this way all in the name of not discriminating. The problem isn't Islam, it is radical Islam, and sadly, I can fully understand why liberals would not not want to portray it accurately. Why? Informed people, especially on terrorism, is death to their entire mind-set on the issue. They spend their days either denying there is any threat, accurately don't think there is any threat, and trying to convince other of that as well.
Rudy Giuliani said that in the Republican Presidential debate a few weeks ago. How right he is. This fear of being called Islamophobic or being discriminatory drives liberals more than the fear of having innocent Americans die from radical Islam. Liberals around the world live in their little liberal bubbles, void from reality, and choose not to see radical Islam for the threat it is, has been, and will be in the future. They would rather take on the real enemies of America...Bush, Rove (even though he is gone, they will continue to fight him), Limbaugh, FOX News, Wal-Mart, ect.
In the uber-liberal mecca of England, the BBC is dropping a fictional terror attack from one of its programs to avoid offending Muslims. Liberals only care about not offending certain groups however, Muslims being one of them. I wonder if they were to give this much care to Christians. I guess last November when the BBC portrayed the evil evangelical Christians murdering Muslims they weren't too concerned with offending them. Being liberal means never having standards, but rather dumbing them down so that one group is held to a ridiculously high standard and the other is held to no standard so to stop judgements upon them.
Why is it so bad to fictionally portray something that is not fictional? The answer: It's not. However, liberalism, and the psychosis they have that keeps them severely disconnected from reality makes them feel this way all in the name of not discriminating. The problem isn't Islam, it is radical Islam, and sadly, I can fully understand why liberals would not not want to portray it accurately. Why? Informed people, especially on terrorism, is death to their entire mind-set on the issue. They spend their days either denying there is any threat, accurately don't think there is any threat, and trying to convince other of that as well.
Friday, August 17, 2007
THE GREAT ETHANOL FOLLY
Our great savior will not come in the form of liquid corn, a.k.a. ethanol. Just about every environmental wacko, Democrat, and the President himself have conned the public into believing it will not only help us reduce our dependency on foreign oil but help gas prices go down as well. It goes without saying that gas has gone up over the past few years while mandates on ethanol being a decent percentage of the gas you put in your car is as well. Rich Lowry explains:
It is basic economics; if there is a certain amount of corn being grown and growers can't keep up with the demand pressed by the government, the price is going to go up. Corn is one of the worlds most important crops, and if a large potion of it cannot be used for human consumption but rather car consumption, it seems like a waste. The amount of corn needed to be grown to meet the governments needs would have to encompass the entire northeast. Unless we become a nation of corn growers rather than cities, people, industrialization, and progress, their mandate isn't possible.
Consider the unintended consequences of their good intentions. Corn goes up in price so does gasoline being a percentage of gas must be ethanol based. Pretty straight forward. High gas prices means shipping becomes more expensive and our products go up. If corn goes up so does the price of tortillas, a main feeding source for Mexicans and poor people in general. We are affected with high pop corn and corn syrup prices. High corn syrup prices means that a lot of the sweets we eat will go up as well. Many animals are fed using corn based foods. If their feed goes up so does all sorts of meat, from chicken to beef and the other white meat. Produce will go up as well. Job losses would not be a surprise as a result of this either.
Getting off foreign oil is a major concern, but ethanol is not the answer. The quicker the government realizes that and comes up with ideas baring more tangible results, we will all be better off...
"We will plant 90 million acres of it this year, up 15 percent from last year. Still, the price of a bushel of corn jumped from $2 to $3 in the past year, thanks to the demand for more ethanol. This is increasing the price of corn-based foods - tortillas have become as much as twice as expensive in Mexico - and meat, poultry and dairy products, since livestock traditionally has been fed corn. "In some parts of the country," Jeff Goodell writes in Rolling Stone, "hog farmers now find it cheaper to fatten their animals on trail mix, french fries and chocolate bars."
It is basic economics; if there is a certain amount of corn being grown and growers can't keep up with the demand pressed by the government, the price is going to go up. Corn is one of the worlds most important crops, and if a large potion of it cannot be used for human consumption but rather car consumption, it seems like a waste. The amount of corn needed to be grown to meet the governments needs would have to encompass the entire northeast. Unless we become a nation of corn growers rather than cities, people, industrialization, and progress, their mandate isn't possible.
Consider the unintended consequences of their good intentions. Corn goes up in price so does gasoline being a percentage of gas must be ethanol based. Pretty straight forward. High gas prices means shipping becomes more expensive and our products go up. If corn goes up so does the price of tortillas, a main feeding source for Mexicans and poor people in general. We are affected with high pop corn and corn syrup prices. High corn syrup prices means that a lot of the sweets we eat will go up as well. Many animals are fed using corn based foods. If their feed goes up so does all sorts of meat, from chicken to beef and the other white meat. Produce will go up as well. Job losses would not be a surprise as a result of this either.
Getting off foreign oil is a major concern, but ethanol is not the answer. The quicker the government realizes that and comes up with ideas baring more tangible results, we will all be better off...
Thursday, August 16, 2007
You Wanna Talk About Priorities..
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) should really start being more concerned about people as well. Or maybe another group should be started; People for the Ethical Treatment of People (PETP).
HEADLINE: PETA slams "shocking" Hamas TV clip
"Animal rights group PETA said on Wednesday it would protest to a Hamas-run TV channel after a clip from a program showing animals being abused appeared on YouTube, prompting scores of complaints from viewers worldwide." You can't make this stuff up. So it isn't INHUMANE treatment of HUMANS by Hamas which outrages PETA, it is only the poor treatment of animals. Now do not misunderstand, the treatment of animals in this YouTube clip is disgusting, however their blind eye turned to human rights abuses is absolutely pathetic.
"Any lessons meant to be contained in this segment are almost certainly lost on most children, who are more likely to imitate people they see treating animals cruelly rather than understand this behavior is wrong," I assume the Palestinians medias constant anti-Jewish rhetoric, TV shows indoctrinating children to hate Jews and America, and Holocaust denial don't constitute teaching children wrong behavior to PETA or the writer of this Reuters article.
I guess "shocking" doesn't constitute the sewage in the streets of Gaza, executing captives, killing people not involved in hostilities, engaging in gun battles near Palestinian hospitals, shooting rockets into innocent Israeli cities, no clean water, their constitution which mandates the destruction of Israel and the list goes on. No, no, no; be mad and condemn Hamas because of their mistreatment of animals. I'll tell ya, these libs really have their priorities straight, don't they.
Note that not once in this article was the human rights abuses of Hamas mentioned tying in to their animal abuses. Not once.
HEADLINE: PETA slams "shocking" Hamas TV clip
"Animal rights group PETA said on Wednesday it would protest to a Hamas-run TV channel after a clip from a program showing animals being abused appeared on YouTube, prompting scores of complaints from viewers worldwide." You can't make this stuff up. So it isn't INHUMANE treatment of HUMANS by Hamas which outrages PETA, it is only the poor treatment of animals. Now do not misunderstand, the treatment of animals in this YouTube clip is disgusting, however their blind eye turned to human rights abuses is absolutely pathetic.
"Any lessons meant to be contained in this segment are almost certainly lost on most children, who are more likely to imitate people they see treating animals cruelly rather than understand this behavior is wrong," I assume the Palestinians medias constant anti-Jewish rhetoric, TV shows indoctrinating children to hate Jews and America, and Holocaust denial don't constitute teaching children wrong behavior to PETA or the writer of this Reuters article.
I guess "shocking" doesn't constitute the sewage in the streets of Gaza, executing captives, killing people not involved in hostilities, engaging in gun battles near Palestinian hospitals, shooting rockets into innocent Israeli cities, no clean water, their constitution which mandates the destruction of Israel and the list goes on. No, no, no; be mad and condemn Hamas because of their mistreatment of animals. I'll tell ya, these libs really have their priorities straight, don't they.
Note that not once in this article was the human rights abuses of Hamas mentioned tying in to their animal abuses. Not once.
Monday, August 6, 2007
APPARENTLY COOKING FOOD IS ABNORMAL NOW
Newsday, which I have been told is a right wing publication (note the sarcasm), posted this article in their Sunday edition entitled Raw Refined: Dining with foodies who don't cook but go gourmet. I have to give them credit though because as soon as I saw the title it had me very interested. I can sum up the articles message with one line said early on: "We were born to eat this way. We're the only life form on this planet that heats their food. We're only now starting to walk forward in the way we should eat."Did you get that? We have devolved because we cook food. And don't think for a second there aren't some commy libs out there who would love to ban cooking food. I am willing to bet some of these wackos are. This, in turn, would lead to ultra veganism and having the kook (no pun intended) fringe animal rights people run the government. Not to mention to obvious global warming implications of heat and smoke going into the sky. But I digress.
"No longer just a fringe vegan diet featuring bland preparations of vegetables, fruits and nuts, the raw food movement has gone gourmet, tapping the same creativity that's revitalized mainstream cuisine." What is this writer talking about? Not cooking food and never eating any meat or products that comes from animals is as fringe as it gets! You don't find out until the very end of the article that there is one actual raw restaurant in Manhattan and the raw food group the writer is talking about has only 60 members. Doesn't really sound like "the movement" has taken off, eh?
I also have to object to the writer using the phrase "raw foodies" throughout the article (used five times, 6 including the title). All she is trying to do is make this weirdo group sound hip so maybe you'll want to be apart of their 60's leftover, pot smoking, pimple-faced fun. Now, let me be clear that I don't give a rats ass what these kooks do, so long as they don't start forcing me to eat the way they do, or make me feel guilty because I eat meat. As long as I can make fun of how ridiculous they are and how the writer of this article is trying to marginalize them, I'll be good.
Bermuda for a week. Have a good one!
Sunday, August 5, 2007
3 GREAT QUOTES + IMPORTANT ARTICLES
"Now, what kind of political leaders position themselves that way so that they only win when their country loses? What kind of brains do they have to position themselves in such a way so that when we make progress, their political aspirations are diminished? They're the ones that created this situation. They've aligned themselves with the enemy. They continue to align themselves with the enemy. They won't admit it, obviously. The enemy kills more soldiers, their spokesmen here in the US are the Democrats. When we kill more of the enemy, the Democrats are silent, and they say nothing. But when we have reports of another IED or pictures of a car on fire, then the Democrats assume the role of media PR spokespeople for Al-Qaeda. So the two-track Democrat strategy in play now: lose the war and cripple the presidency. Lose the war by undermining the armed forces, including their funding, cripple the presidency by unleashing all these investigations and prosecutions of the president's closest aides. And note, none of this, folks, none of it, not one part of it is intended to help or strengthen the country. Just the opposite."
-Rush Limbaugh, speaking on how victory is bad for the Democrat agenda.
"In four debates, not a single Democrat said the word, 'Islamic terrorists.' Now that is taking political correctness to extreme?"
-Rudy Giuliani
“The Democrats will only support the war in Iraq when we invent green weaponry”
-Dennis Miller
-Rush Limbaugh, speaking on how victory is bad for the Democrat agenda.
"In four debates, not a single Democrat said the word, 'Islamic terrorists.' Now that is taking political correctness to extreme?"
-Rudy Giuliani
“The Democrats will only support the war in Iraq when we invent green weaponry”
-Dennis Miller
ARTICLES
- Global Warming Propaganda Factory - Christopher J. Alleva, The American Thinker
- The Defeatists are in Retreat - William Kristol, Weekly Standard
- A Free-Market Cure for U.S. Health-Care - Rudy Giuliani, Boston Globe
- A War We Just Might Win - Michael O'Hanlon & Kenneth Pollack, NY Times
- Left Blames Bush for Bridge Collapse - Rush Limbaugh, RushLimbaugh.com
- The House Energy Bill - Ben Lieberman, The Heritage Foundation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
