Sean Penn is Still an Anti American Idiot
Mar 25, 2007 Political
Sean Penn, or should I say the former Mr. Madonna, was at an anti war protest in Oakland and he was his typical drug and alcohol induced self. Mr. Madonna and Barbara Lee, the Democrat from California who has opposed the war from day one, were talking to the anti war faithful and of course, the conversation turned to a Presidential bash-fest. Penn had this witty repartee:
“You and your smarmy pundits — and the smarmy pundits you have in your pocket — can take your war and shove it,” Penn said. “Let’s unite not only in stopping this war, but in holding this administration accountable.” SFGate
It is kind of interesting that an idiot who lives the Hollywood life would talk about smarmy. The role Penn played in Fast Times at Ridgemont High was probably about as close to his own persona than any role in which he has been cast. I guess this guy thinks that because he gets millions of dollars for reciting words that others have written, he has license to speak out on any topic. True to the Liberal form, neither Lee nor Penn offered any specific plan to get out of Iraq. Then again, no Liberal has ever had a plan, unless you consider surrender a plan.
Let me give it a try for Mr. Madonna; You and your smarmy fellow actors and the smarmy politicians you have in your circle of flaming idiots can take your anti war protest and shove it. The Eagles have gathered together to support the war and our troops and we will hold you anti American idiots accountable.
Where were you Mr. Madonna? Where were you when real men (and women) gathered in DC for the Gathering of Eagles? How come you did not show your face there and tell US how much you support the troops? I’ll bet it is because when you thought about coming face to face with real patriots you released a little pee in your pants. It is easy to garner support and act like a tough guy when you are among people who believe your stupidity but it is quite different when you have to face men and women who are much better than you.
You are free to say what you wish Mr. Madonna. This is America and the troops you claim to support and those who came before them preserved that right for you. But do us all a favor and quit saying you support the troops when we all know you don’t. As for the money that is being spent on the war and your claim it could be spent for better things; why don’t you gather a bunch of your millionaire Hollywood friends and pool your money to fix those things that you think are important? Or are they only important when other people’s money is paying the bill?
You are a disgrace and you should crawl back into your bottle and STFU.
Tags: Political
Congressman Gilchrest Lacks Backbone
Mar 25, 2007 Political
I wrote a letter to Congressman Gilchrest (actually a contact from his web site) and I chided him for his vote against the troop surge in Iraq. I was very clear in my dissatisfaction and made it clear that neither I nor any of my family and friends who live in his district intend to support him in the next election. Fortunately for him, he will probably run unopposed. Congressman Gilchrest wrote me a letter to justify his position and it described his service in Vietnam and how he hoped leaders back home would find a way to end the war. Congressman, the way to end a war is to WIN it. Unfortunately, too many members of Congress only care about winning their next election. Perhaps if they put as much effort into winning the war as they do winning their seats, we could end this quickly and be done with it.
I was not satisfied with his letter which he claims provided support for the troops. Now Congressman Gilchrest voted, just this past week, to set time lines for the phased withdrawal of our troops. His web site explains his position and he places heavy emphasis on the fact that the vote provides funding for the troops. In essence, he is right. The bill does provide our troops with funding but it also adds a ton of things that have nothing to do with the war. Additionally, the bill ties the hands of our Commander in Chief by setting time lines. Gilchrest was one of only two Republicans who voted for this bill. Is he and the others who voted for it so dense that they do not understand that the enemy is a patient group of people who will wait us out and then reign more terror on the region? Does he think that tying the hands of the President will allow us to effectively fight and WIN?
Gilchrest can rationalize all he wants on his web site. The fact of the matter is that he and the rest of the House voted on a bill that is loaded with pork. The bill provides money for a lot of things that have nothing to do with the war. There are lots of presents for friends of Congress. This is immoral and unethical and does nothing to help the troops. The bill, because of the time lines and pork, will surely be vetoed by the President. That means the whole process will have to start over and these so called leaders will have to provide money for the troops or risk feeling the wrath of constituents. I want someone to explain this (from Gilchrest’s web site):
This funding was critical to the safety and security of our troops and I would find it unconscionable to vote against this funding.
Wayne, explain to me and my readers how it is unconscionable to vote against funding but it is perfectly OK (and therefore conscionable) to vote in favor of time lines and PORK! Have you no sense of right and wrong? It is wrong to load a bill for military funding with pork and time lines. That sir, is unconscionable and you should be ashamed.
The troops on the ground understand quite clearly what these unethical and immoral boneheads in Congress are doing. The members of the House are well aware that President Bush will veto this bill so why did they waste so much time on it when it had no chance of becoming law?
Perhaps it is because they wanted to shout from the mountain tops that Bush does not support the troops. When the bill is vetoed the members of the House will trumpet the fact that Bush vetoed funding and they will ignore the fact that he vetoed the bill because of the pork and the time lines. The line item veto never looked so good as it does right now. It is my hope that the President will make a big deal out of the veto and explain to America that he could not sign a bill that ties his and our troops’ hands and is laden with non-war related pork.
Wayne Gilchrest is obviously proud of his vote and his web site spells out his opinion. That opinion was held by him and one other Republican. Obviously, Gilchrest thinks he knows more than the others and he is willing to cut and run with the Democrats. I would think that he would have learned from the fiasco in Vietnam. That defeat was handed to this country by Congress and it cost millions of Vietnamese their lives.
Wayne, I want you to understand this and understand it clearly. We must win this war no matter what it takes. We must send a clear message to our enemies and our potential enemies that we will fight when needed and we will stay until the job is done. Don’t be fooled by the results of the last election because Americans did not change direction to end the war. They changed because Republicans failed to lead. Americans want our troops to come home, that is a given but they want to bring them home as a result of a win. By voting to cut and run you have demonstrated that you are not willing to give the troops what they need to win, despite your claims to the contrary.
You are a disgrace and I look forward to removing you from your job in the next election. Like I told you in my first letter, I am your employer and you would do well to remember that.
If you would like to write to Wayne, here is his contact form and this is a link to his snail mail addresses. If the site rejects your email based on address and zip code, use one of his local office addresses to get through.
Tags: Commentary, Political
Been There, Done That, Got The Gay T Shirt
Mar 22, 2007 Political
A 17 year old girl named Heidi Zamecnik is seeking a court order allowing her to wear a T shirt with an anti gay message on it to school. She has tried this before and her rights were violated by the school system. What rights? After all, she is a kid in school and must follow the dress code. On any given day that might be the case but this time just as with her last attempt, things are a bit different.
The school sponsors what it calls a day of silence each year and this is an event that is designed sympathize with gay kids who live in silence year round. The event involves school kids wearing pro gay messages on their shirts. Heidi did not object in the past and wore her own shirt the next day. The shirt read “Be happy, not gay.” She was told to remove the shirt or she would have to leave. Her parents were called and a compromise was reached where they would substitute straight for gay on the shirt but after the school counselor crossed out gay with a marker, nothing was written on the shirt. Heidi learned a valuable lesson. Never trust a liberal.
She is trying to get a court order so that she will be allowed to wear a shirt in support of her views just as every other kid was allowed to do. I am pretty sure she did not wear a shirt with a pro gay saying. I think any kid who disagrees with the message and still wears the shirt has a screw loose. I also think Heidi was foolish for compromising with the school. She should have just told them she was wearing the shirt and then went back to class. If they forced her out she would have a wonderful lawsuit on her hands.
I think she should sue anyway because they are forcing something on school children that is not part of the curriculum. It is not up tot he school to stage these kinds of things to raise cultural awareness. This is an issue that belongs in the family and that is where it should stay. I wonder how the school would react if the white supremacists wanted to have a showing of their beliefs by having everyone wear a KKK T shirt? I wonder why it is the school is even involved in all this.
This is just another example of the indoctrination that takes place. People are free too be gay, that is there business. However, people are also free to believe that being gay is wrong. People are free not to like the behavior and people are free to say something about it. The problem is, once those rights are exercised, every gay advocate is there to call you a bigot. There is no law that says I have to accept homosexual behavior and there is no law that says I have to tolerate that agenda forced upon me. The agenda to make this behavior acceptable involves indoctrinating our children while they are in school. Teach everyone that it is fine and when the rest of us die off there will only be tolerance in the world. Fortunately, there are intelligent, moral kids like Heidi out there.
I am glad I am not still in school but if I were, I would be having a field day with teachers and administration.
Source:
Chicago Sun Times
Tags: Political
Roots: The Anti War Movement
Mar 22, 2007 Political
A big deal was made about Bill Clinton’s anti war stance and his ability to manipulate the system in order to avoid service to this country and, by extension, service in Vietnam. Clinton was against the war in Vietnam and he did not want to serve in the military regardless of whether there was a war going on or not. His wife’s loathe of the military is not unknown even if that little item is swept away by her supporters. These would be the same people who ignored the fact that Clinton used connection to get accepted into the ROTC program and then when he found out his number would not come up in the draft lottery, he had a “change of mind” and expressed his opposition to service. The man who would later become Commander in Chief and order young men and women into battle had, himself, avoided service.
This is basically water under the bridge because no matter what, he was elected and he served two terms. The yellow dog Democrats elected him by rationalizing that service was not important (which it is not) and by excusing his draft dodging as an acceptable act because it was an unpopular war and no one wanted to go, blah, blah. These are the same mindless drones who, only eight years later, decided that service was important but that George Bush did not really serve because he was in the National Guard and he used family influence to get in. We have heard the stories and though there has never been one shred of credible proof, they persist today. The people who supported Clinton and his draft dodging, chastised Bush for what they saw as avoiding Vietnam service by getting in the guard. In an about face, the yellow dogs decided that “real” service was necessary to serve as Commander in Chief and in 2004 they got behind a man whose three months in Vietnam were ginned up to equal MacArthur’s return to the Philippines. The yellow dog Democrats had it both ways with Kerry. They had a guy who actually served (albeit nominally) and also a guy who protested the very war he served in. They had a guy who met with the enemy and assisted in handing the US a defeat that came from within.
Now a writer named Taylor Branch is going to write an historical account of the Clinton Presidency based on notes and recording of meetings the two had since the time Clinton was the president-elect. They met for years and Branch kept a presidential diary, so to speak. He will write the book to show the inner workings of Clinton and how he handled his duties as President. The book will not be without bias because Branch and Clinton are friends and have been for a long time. The interesting part of the Times article describing the project is what brought them together and why they bonded:
They are also the product of a friendship between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Branch that dates back nearly 40 years, to when the men met at antiwar meetings in the thick of the Vietnam War and collaborated on Senator George S. McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign in Texas.
~snip~
The men bonded over their roots as Southerners who witnessed the civil rights movement and later joined the antiwar movement, and their friendship deepened throughout the presidency. [my emphasis] NYT
Clinton had no intention of ever serving and his ROTC gimmick was nothing more than a ruse to keep him out so he could be a part of the anti war crowd. That is the problem with the Democrats, they can not find anything worth fighting for. The anti war movement started with them and has evolved into the sub human beings that we witnessed last weekend in DC. Clinton, and Kerry for that matter, are the grandfathers of the anti war movement. They gave birth to the idiots who spray paint signs and damage Congressional offices. They gave birth to the types of people who claim to support the troops and then burn them in effigy in places like Portland.
I am sure that Branch will never write a book that exposes any more than we already know and might even gloss over the less than stellar parts of Clinton’s time in office. One thing he can never gloss over is the fact that Clinton was an anti war zealot who avoided service to this country only to use the military, years later, for dangerous operations.
Regardless of what happens with this book there is no doubt that the first chapter should be titled Genesis and it should describe Clinton’s efforts to avoid service and his direct involvement in the birth of the anti American left. That chapter could be followed by one titled Chronicles and it could describe all the people involved back then and how their descendants have devolved into lower forms of life than their ancestors.
Put this down as another Clinton saga I will not read.
Tags: Political
Members of Congress Treated Like Royalty at Walter Reed
Mar 21, 2007 Political
Walter Reed Army Medical Center recently came under fire for substandard billeting for our wounded soldiers. Many of the reports and press releases cite substandard care but there have been no allegations about poor care. The medical personnel at Walter Reed so outstanding work and take great care of the troops. The problems encountered deal with the quality of billeting, the amount of paperwork required for follow-up, and the length of time it takes to get anything done. All administrative problems that are problematic but not indicative of “poor care.” Walter Reed was slated to be shut down and as such probably had little if any routine maintenance or repair. Two generals and the Secretary of the Army lost their jobs as a result of this and members of Congress have been going out of their way to point fingers. Along with Walter Reed, the Veteran’s Administration has come under fire. The VA is a huge administrative boondoggle that has been underfunded by these very same members of Congress for decades. The VA and veterans in general only receive attention when politicians can gain an advantage out of exploiting them. The VA has its own problems. There is never enough staff, the quality of care is generally adequate at best, the paperwork is a nightmare and there are too many layers of administration that soak up dollars that should be going to the care of veterans. All of these facilities are government run and the same members of Congress who are making waves about the poor circumstances in these facilities are the same ones who want the government to run all health care. America, when Congress starts talking about government run, universal health care, just remember Walter Reed and the VA and you will know, without a doubt, what health care for everyone will look like if the government takes control of it.
Interestingly, the same members of Congress who claim our soldiers are not getting the best available and that they deserve much better are the same ones who have a special unit reserved just for them. Ward 72, on the top floor of Walter Reed, is reserved for very special people, not some poor schmuck who lost his arms in combat. No, Ward 72 is reserved for the elitists in Congress as well as many others who believe they are entitled to such amenities based upon their status in the kingdom. According to USA Today from 16 March 2007:
The large, comfortable suites on the hospital’s top floor are reserved for the president, the vice president, federal judges, members of Congress and the Cabinet, high-ranking military officials and even foreign dignitaries and their spouses. The only enlisted members of the military who are eligible to stay there are recipients of the Medal of Honor.
~snip~
The Eisenhower Executive Nursing Suite, also known as Ward 72, features heightened security, including bullet-proof windows and secure telephone lines. Among the other touches are flat-panel televisions and curio cabinets filled with gifts from foreign leaders. The ward is named for former president Dwight Eisenhower, who died at Walter Reed in 1969.
I understand the President and the Vice President but I want someone to explain to me what allows members of Congress, federal judges, members of the cabinet, and foreign dignitaries to use this facility. Walter Reed is an Army hospital and as such one of the requirements to receive treatment there is service in the military. With the exception of active military personnel, Only retirees or those who received a medical discharge (and some special categories of people who served) should receive treatment there. What law allows members of Congress and these others to be treated there and why can’t any federal employee go there? If these other groups can go there then why can’t all federal employees? Why is it that foreign dignitaries are allowed to be treated there? Once again, it appears that our elected officials have afforded themselves a benefit that no one else would be entitled to and they did it as a matter of class. They are the elite and the rest of us are but mere peons.
To top it off, this ward has all kinds of special things that the regular wards do not. Bullet proof glass, secure telephones, carpeting (which is nothing more than a germ collector) special curtains, flat panel TVs. All this must be nice, especially while the people who are actually entitled to receive treatment there are living in rooms infested with mold and mice. The USA Today article reports that the Ward, which only has six suites, costs $950,000 a year to operate. They see 72 inpatients and 2600 outpatients a year. The cost per suite to operate is $158,333. Why is it that these members of Congress who are taking Walter Reed to task are getting such plush arrangements? I don’t think they belong there in the first place but if they are going to be seen, why are they not seen in the same kinds of rooms that our war heroes are seen in? Seems rather disingenuous to me for them to be blowing so much smoke about how our troops are cared for when these members have known for years about the care the average guy receives. Perhaps they were happy to keep quiet because they were guaranteed their plush room away from the riff-raff. Whatever the reason, I want some answers. I want all these loud mouthed members of Congress to answer this:
- Why do they receive treatment at a military facility and what law allows it?
- If they are allowed care there, why aren’t other civil servants?
- Why do they have such plush suites when our soldiers’ billeting is no where near as nice?
- How much repair could $950,000 do to the buildings that have mold and mice?
- Isn’t it hypocritical to go on TV and conduct hearings about how terrible things are at Walter Reed without mentioning how nice they are there if you happen to be a member of a group of elitist snobs that need care?
- Why don’t you mandate that everyone in the US is entitled to the same health care access that you bozos are?
- Why are you people so freaking worthless?
OK, I know the last one is off topic but somebody had to say it. In any event, the members of Congress live in style while our troops are living in facilities that are not quite as nice. Perhaps those suites should be used for members who are critical and not expected to make it and their families. How nice would that be? I know it makes more sense than using the room so Senator blow hard can get his hemorrhoids removed.
I will agree that they, those members of Congress and the others who are listed (with the exception of the military folks who are actually authorized care) are allowed to use Walter Reed but only if they are as considerate as Eisenhower and use the place for the same reason.
Tags: Political