President Speaks About Four Years of War
Mar 19, 2007 Political
The President spoke today, the fourth anniversary of the war on terror in Iraq. We all know that this active war started four years ago but that we have been fighting Islamic extremism for decades. After 9/11 our country finally decided that enough was enough and we took the war to the enemy. There are many who disagree with this and they have dominated the media with their anti American protests and pro terrorists agenda. On Saturday 17 March, 2007 they were out in Washington DC to protest.
An amazing thing happened that day. Just as our country finally awakened on 9/11, tens of thousands of veterans awakened on 17 March and they were out in full force to say, “no more.” We will not allow you people to dominate the debate in this country. We will not allow you to decide the path that is taken. We will not allow you to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as you did in Vietnam. President Bush concluded his speech with:
Four years after this war began, the fight is difficult, but it can be won. It will be won if we have the courage and resolve to see it through. I’m grateful to our servicemen and women for all they’ve done and for the honor they brought to their uniform and their country. I’m grateful to our military families for all the sacrifices they have made for our country. We also hold in our hearts the good men and women who’ve given their lives in this struggle. We pray for the loved ones they have left behind.
The United States military is the most capable and courageous fighting force in the world. And whatever our differences in Washington, our troops and their families deserve the appreciation and the support of our entire nation.
We are the most capable fighting force in the world and our veterans are still highly trained and highly patriotic. We are fighting the enemy at home so our men and women can fight the enemy abroad. We will not allow these people to stab our troops in the back like the did in Vietnam and we will not let today’s anti war protesters have an unabated approach to public office. That is right, no future John Kerry stood in the anti war crowd on Saturday because we will never again let that happen to us.
For a long time veterans felt that we did our jobs and that the country and its people would do the right thing. Unfortunately, we were complacent all the years those festering pus pockets built up and corrupted our nation. This sleeping giant has awakened and we have this to say to you, anti war crowd:
NEVER AGAIN
Tags: Political
Gathering of the Crows
Mar 19, 2007 Political
My friends over at Webloggin (who are kind enough to post some of my work) have a video up of Cynthia McKinney. She was at the anti-war rally which has been dubbed by Webloggin as the Gathering of the Crows as opposed to the honorable people who were there for the Gathering of Eagles. McKinney is a far out, moonbat racist who was defeated in the last election. I am sure she is trying to make a comeback and there are just enough dumb people in this country to put her back in office.
McKinney disavows herself of the bombs dropped and the people killed or maimed. Well Ms. Moonbat, the American people in Georgia disavowed themselves of you. So why don’t you crawl in a hole and stay there. I guess McKinney had nothing better to do on her birthday than bash our “illegitimate” president and his administration. She also bashed the Democrats for not doing more to stop the war. One true patriot spent his birthday (one he shares with her, much to his chagrin) protecting the monuments and the memories of people who gave all so idiots like McKinney can squawk about America. She wasted her birthday bashing America.
To all the crows who attended and to all those who agree with them, if you don’t like this country I only have two words for you:
GET OUT
Be sure to head over to Webloggin to watch the video of McKinney the racist moonbat.
Tags: Political
My How the Times has Changed
Mar 17, 2007 Political
Bill Clinton was at a fund raiser this week and he spent time bashing the New York Times for its “unfair” treatment of Hillary Clinton. It would seem that after years of powderpuff treatment Bill is unhappy that the Times has spoken. It is strange that when the Times ignored all the bad things that went on he had nothing to say. It is also strange that Clinton never spoke up each time the Times printed unfair and extremely biased stories about George Bush and people in his administration.
Yes, the Times has indeed changed if Bill is bashing it.
Tags: Political
Hillary and Obama Doing a Gay Dance
Mar 15, 2007 Political
General Peter Pace stated earlier this week that he believed that homosexuality was immoral and that statement drew fire from the pro gay groups in this country whose militant acts are aimed at forcing people to accept their behavior. Pace had the courage to say it and he did not apologize more than to say he should have remained focused on policy, not his personal opinion. I know there are a lot of people who think that he was not entitled to express his opinion but that is only because his opinion differs from theirs. If he had said that he did not think homosexuality was immoral no one complaining now would have said a word, but he would have been blasted by the other side. If he was discussing torture and said that torture was immoral his words would be used as a rebuke of the Bush Administration who many believe endorses torture.
Hillary Clinton and Hussein Obama want to be President of the United States one day. They have both courted the black vote and they have courted the religious vote and they have also courted the gay vote. How many times did Hillary say evangelical in that one interview? It was probably more than she said in all her years in college but she was out there trying to appeal to the religious voters. Neither of these two has enough testicular fortitude to say what they believe in. They certainly do not have the integrity shown by Pace. Each of these two danced around the issue when asked about it only to have a spokesperson say that they did not agree with Pace.
Why did a spokesperson have to come out and say something? Why is it that they did not say what they believed? It is because their beliefs change depending upon who they happen to be speaking to. They can not say they believe that homosexuality is immoral or they will lose the gay vote. Neither of them wants to suffer the wrath of the pink berets as they get in a snit about the word immoral. Neither can say that it is not immoral because that would upset the religious voters and the socially conservative black voters who agree with what Pace said. They are not taking a stance based on political motivations because they have no principles. If they believe it to be moral then have the courage to say so. If they believe it is immoral than have the courage to say that as well. General Pace demonstrated courage and that is something that is definitely something that these two candidates lack.
The only person who said that he did not believe homosexuality was immoral was Republican John Warner, a man who was married to Liz Taylor. She has been married nine times so it is not like there were any morals there. If she had as many sticking out of her as she had stuck in, she would look like a porcupine. Warner, of course, did not suffer the backlash that Pace did and he did the same thing Pace did. He expressed his opinion about morality and it just happened to differ from Pace’s. No one asked Warner to apologize or to keep his opinion to himself.
The gay agenda is to force acceptance on everyone. It is not going to happen.
Tags: Commentary, Political
AG Too Close to President?
Mar 15, 2007 Political
The NYT is reporting that there are many on the Hill who view the Attorney General as having improper ties to the White House. Gonzales moved from White house Council to AG and there are those in DC who believe he has maintained improper ties to the President. This latest fiasco is part of the larger scheme to discredit and remove members of the Bush Administration in the remaining years of his second term. Yes folks, Democrats believe that the AG is too close to the President.
I wonder where all these moonbats were when Bill Clinton, after firing ALL 93 prosecutors, hired one of his wife’s old law partners to be an associate AG? Does the name Webster Hubbell ring a bell? The Clintons had someone close to them so when the troubles began, they had an ally:
Hubbell confirmed that his silence was bought in a recorded phone conversation with his wife when he was in prison. She told him the White House did not want him to go through with his plan to countersue his former law firm and that she might lose her job with the Interior Department if he did. Hubbell replied, “So I need to roll over one more time.”
The New York Times revealed in May 1997 that the Clintons both lied when they claimed they knew nothing about Hubbell’s legal troubles when he resigned. They lied to give the president plausible deniability if it was charged that he helped arrange for the payment of hush money to Hubbell. It should be big news when two federal judges say the payments appear to have been made to obstruct justice. That was reported by The New York Times and The Washington Post, but both stopped short of implicating Clinton. No one asked why Starr did not refer this to the House as a possible impeachable offense.Media Monitor
Here is an indication of what another Clinton White House will be. Regardless, I am still wondering where all these Democrats were back then. Why were they not vocal about improper ties when Hubbell was obviously taking bullets for the Clintons.
It is that Democratic double standard rearing its ugly head one more time.
Tags: Political