Speaker of State strikes again

Chief dimwit in the house, Nancy Pelosi, strikes again.  This time she goes goes after Republicans because they “like” the war in Iraq.

“They like this war. They want this war to continue,”

“But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush’s war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress.”

Actually truth be know it’s the loony left that likes this war, if not for the war they would literally have nothing to bash Bush about.  But hey let us except the exhalted ones premise and say that Republicans like this war.  Let’s Republicans like to fight terrorism, Republicans like to help defeat brutal dictators, Republicans like to help the 25 million Iraqis win their freedom from a brutal dictator.

Ok I can accept that, they question is why are Democrats against, fighting terrorism, why are Democrats against removing brutal dictators, why are Democrats against helping 25 million Iraqis win their freedom and overthrow a brutal dictator?

Why won’t Democrats answer that question?  The American people don’t want to lose in Iraq, they don’t want to cut off funding for the troops, they see that we are winning this war and want to continue to win this war!

Hugo threatens $200 oil

Hugo Chavez, left wing dictator of Venezuela, warns the United States of oil reaching $200 per barrel if the US attacks either Iran or Venezuela.  However let’s look at a few facts on the subject of oil in Iran and Venezuela.

Both Iran and Venezuela are economically isolated countries, Iran’s economy is in shambles, it’s infrastructure for pumping oil is not well maintained and it is controlled by the Iranian government.  If Iran would modernize (or allow outside companies to do it for them) then more oil could be pumped.  Venezuela has had socialism thrust upon them and Chavez is taking every nickel he can squeeze from oil and fund social programs.  The problem with this is that he to is not maintaining his ability to pump oil.  He has taken over all the oil interests for this country and doesn’t allow private companies to invest in the needed upgrades to bring more oil out of the ground.

So with both of these large oil producing countries so screwed up how can we avoid $200 oil anyway?  Shouldn’t we work to remove these thugs that run these countries so that the oil that drives the world economy can be pumped from the ground?  Yes I know a war would drive the price up in the short term but fixing the infrastructure would allow both countries to produce two or three times their output today and this would bring the price of oil back down to the $35 or $40 range.

Granted this only solves half the problem.  We also have to remove the socialists from power in the US.  The environmental movement, and current far left wackos in congress are probably a greater threat to the United States than Hugo or Mahmoud could ever hope to be.  All the oil in the world means very little if it can’t be refined and our refining capacity hasn’t changed much in the last 20 years.  We import roughly 3.5 million barrels of refined product every day.

So I say fine, let’s remove both dictators and get on with the war.  The sooner we do it the sooner we restore balance to the world, the sooner that we will see added growth in the world economy, and oh the byproduct that no one seems to care about the sooner that millions more people in Iran and Venezuela will be free from tyrannical dictators.

Congress proving why its approval rating is lower than Bush

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before congress today that he doesn’t think additional rate cuts are necessary right now.  Liberal Senators Charles Schumer, senior liberal from New York, and Sam Brownback, the liberal RINO from Kansas pressured Ben Bernanke to cut rates further, faster, etc.  So what’s the big deal you ask?

“When those gas prices get up to $3 a gallon, it seems to hit some sort of psychological point in consumer’s mind that ‘I have less to spend,’ and that’s a reality for them.” - Sen. Sam Brownback (R) Kansas

“I’m very concerned that there may be a bigger storm on the horizon,” - Sen. Charles Schumer (D) New York

So if Senators Schumer and Brownback are so concerned about people having less to spend then why push for a rate cut that will have little effect on consumers  immediately, why not do something that will affect everyone.  Cut the gas tax, I know we can’t do that because after all Government never has to do with less, only hard working people do.  Don’t believe me, here’s the proof….

Coincidently today the Senate voted 79 to 14 to override President Bush’s Veto of a $23 Billion water resources bill that he believed was too expensive.  The fact that President Bush found a spending bill too expensive is news by itself, but congress, in spite of what former Fed Chairman Greenspan has preached for decades, voted to Override the President and spend $23 Billion tax dollars that came from the pockets of hard working people.

Somehow the AP thinks that it is a negative for a branch of government to exercise a rare instance of fiscal restraint:

President Bush suffered the first veto override of his seven-year-old presidency Thursday as the Senate enacted a $23 billion water resources bill despite his protest that it was too expensive.

Now I will take the occasion to commend Sen. Brownback because he voted to sustain the veto.  However after the preaching about the bigger storm on the horizon for the American people Sen. Schumer didn’t think it was big enough to keep him from voting to override the President and spend, spend, spend.

And now we know why congress’ approval is nearly half of what the President’s is.

Technorati Tags: President Bush, Congress, Sam Brownback, Charles Schumer, veto, Bernanke

Proving yet again that they are clueless on conservatism

The Washington correspondents for the UK Telegraph are just like the rest of the MSM, proving how clueless liberals are when it comes to conservatives.  Now in all fairness the article is titled “The top US conservatives and liberals” however we’ll focus on the “conservatives” on this list since liberals are irrelevant anyway.

Perhaps a better title for this would have been “The top US liberals and Stalinists, with a few conservatives here and there”.  That’s what it boils down to and it’s a joke from top to bottom!

Starting at 100 General Peter Pace.  A great man, I personally don’t know if he is conservative but after the way the stalinists in congress have treated him who could blame him.

Moving down to 96 Ron Paul.  Please, having this man within three time zones of a list of conservatives is insulting.  Hillary is more conservative than Ron Paul.

93 Michelle Malkin.  Having Michelle any lower than 20 proves that it was liberal idiots who came up with this list but I’ll press on.

85 Clarence Thomas.  As one of only 4.5 (Anthony Kennedy is only 1/2 conservative) conservatives on the Supreme Court I dare say he rates much higher than this.

78 Brent Scowcroft. He has been a loyal Republican over the years but calling him conservative, no.

75 Michael Chertoff.  The Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security is not conservative; he has been a big supporter of amnesty for illegal immigrants, not a conservative resume enhancement.

66 James Baker.  I had more respect for James Baker before he led the bend over and grab the ankles study group whose recommendations amounted to us snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq.  Nope not in the top 100.

62 Antonin Scalia. I refer to my comments about Clarence Thomas and add that he has been the anchor on the conservative side of the Supreme Court for over 20.

54 Fred Thompson.  Having the only conservative in the Presidential race ranked 54th (and I don’t count anyone under 10% because by now if they were going to convince people they deserved the nomination they would be doing better than 10%) shows how ignorant the so called “enlightened” among us really are.

[Read more]

A Democrat finally shows courage

It has taken many years but it seems we finally have a Democrat with some courage.  Barrack Obama has stopped wearing his American flag lapel pin.  He was quoted as saying that it has become a substitute for “true patriotism”.  He’s 100% right, nearly every Democrat in the House and Senate, and several RINO Republicans too, should do the same thing.  It’s misleading to the voters to stand up there in front of the cameras with the American flag anywhere in the picture.  It gives people the false perception that these people actually give a rip about the Nations security or the health and well being of our troops. 

More Democrats need to stand up and tell the American people that they are fighting hard to make certain we have more Americans die at the hands of terrorists, Harry Reid needs to remove his burqa and shout from the floor that he wants more soldiers to die, Nancy Pelosi needs stop sugar coating the issue and tell the people what she really believes, that we should negotiate with terrorists so they will like us.  After all this is the only logical conclusion one can draw from their actions.

America needs more courageous leaders like Obama who is not afraid to admit that he wants America to lose to terrorists.

The ranting’s of a liberal terrorist

After reading the transcript of the lunatic, and George Soros speech writer in training, Osama Bin Laden one can only deduce that he would love nothing more than to have Hillary in power so she could secure defeat for America and validate everything this idiot says.

The Al Qaeda leader rants further about capitalism and freedom and the presumed failure of both.  He lashes out at Iraq’s leader, but he fails to answer one critical question.  If Muslim law is the way everyone should live then why, when given the chance, did both the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan reject the systems they had and chose to elect their own leaders?  The people of both countries chose freedom over tyranny, many of them braving Al Qaeda snipers and roadside bombs to do so.

[Read more]

« Previous Page — Next Page »