The Winner is…Algore
Feb 24, 2007 Political
The Academy Awards occur this weekend and Al Gore is up for an award for his fictional piece “An Inconvenient Truth.” That is fine and Hollywood is free to honor whomever they want. The thing is, many people are saying that Gore’s recent nomination for a Nobel coupled with an Oscar might make his stock go way up and propel him into the race for the White House. I think Gore will sit back and wait for Hussein Obama to burn our or get beaten up by Hillary Clinton. Then, Gore can appear from the wings fresh and with new liberal credentials. Couple all this with the fact that there are many retards who actually still believe that Gore won in 2000, and he might just be a viable candidate:
“I think there are still an awful lot of Democrats who rightly believe Gore won in 2000,” said Roger Salazar, a Democratic strategist and former Gore spokesman. “With this movie and the Oscar nomination, people are taking another look at him and feel more warmly about him than they have in some time.” Breitbart
Only in the world of liberal lunacy can a person lose the initial vote, lose every recount and lose every count that has occurred since and still be considered the winner. While many say that Bush used the court to win it was Al Gore who filed the first suit. Now Al is trying to get the Academy to break rules for him. He is on another crusade to get things his way. Seems that Gore is not listed as a director for the movie so he can not go up on stage and he can not speak. The Academy, in an effort to keep groups from going to stage, has set limits. Unfortunately for Gore, he is not allowed to go up on stage. However, given how the left has fallen in love with this guy I am sure they will make a concession and allow him to speak. Of course, this is all moot if he does not win (though he is the odds on favorite). Wouldn’t that be funny? Gore does not win this one either even when he is again the odds on favorite. He might commit suicide!
Nah, he would just find a court to file a suit. After all, he is Al Gore and he is entitled…He will also have another group of retards (from Hollywood this time) believing (and “Rightly so”) that he won.
BTW, look for the Limos and other means of transit at the Award Program. I wonder how green they are being? It does not matter, those rules only apply to we rubes.
Tags: Commentary, Political
Obama Wants Focused Political Attacks
Feb 24, 2007 Political
Away from him and toward the current administration…
Borat [now that is just funny] Obama has been locked in a battle with Hillary Clinton and he says that this has got to stop. He has vowed not to get involved in dirty politics and the back and forth that he believes does no good. That is, of course, unless he can take swipes at the opposition party. Obama took issue with the Vice President with regard to the war on terror in Iraq. This all stems from Tony Blair’s decision to draw down some of his troops. Cheney said it signaled that things were going well in some parts of Iraq and that this was the goal for the entire country. Hussein Obama had a different view:
Obama, speaking at a massive outdoor rally in Austin, Texas, said British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s decision this week to withdraw 1,600 troops is a recognition that Iraq’s problems can’t be solved militarily.
“Now if Tony Blair can understand that, then why can’t George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?” Obama asked thousands of supporters who gathered in the rain to hear him. “In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in. Breitbart
The problem is that Hussein Obama has very little experience and it shows. The issue of the UK drawing down is that the area they were responsible for is in pretty good shape. This has been a plan all along and the Brits intend to keep just under 5000 troops in the area. Additionally, some of their troops are being moved to Afghanistan. Hussein Obama believes that Tony Blair had conceded that Iraq can not be handled militarily and that Bush and Cheney are unable to see this. Why is it that he can espouse this point of view but is unable to see that if we leave before the place is secure we will be admitting defeat and inviting them to follow us over here.
I understand that with his family background it might be hard to see military strategy beyond strapping on a bomb vest, but the fact is we need to use overwhelming force to deal with this problem. This was the biggest mistake from the onset, not enough troops. Hussein Obama does not want to get in a pissing contest with the other Democrats in the race (read Hillary Clinton) because he says that takes away from the message. He does not have any problem trying to make the current leadership look stupid for personal gain so I hope is not insulted that I am not part of the no tit-for-tat crowd. I am more than happy to point out all of their failures and inexperience. I do not mind insulting them and I could not care less who likes it.
Hussein Obama has very little experience and he would be lost trying to run this country. He has no idea beyond his little world of liberal entitlement. In all reality, the only thing he brings to the race or has going for him is the color of his skin. If he does not get the nomination he will probably be selected as a running mate for that very quality.
He is very naive and if he thinks Clinton will be nice he is out of his mind. The more enamored people become with him the more she will dig up dirt and look to destroy him. She believes herself to be the heiress apparent and the primary to be a formality. She is not going to take kindly to Hussein Obama’s rise among her one time supporters.
Then we will see what kind of war time President he would make sans the bomb vest, of course…
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway ♦ Perri Nelson’s Website ♦ The Virtuous Republic ♦ Shadowscope ♦ Stuck On Stupid ♦ The Amboy Times ♦ Leaning Straight Up ♦ Pursuing Holiness ♦ Sujet- Celebrities ♦ third world county ♦ Woman Honor Thyself ♦ stikNstein… has no mercy ♦ The Uncooperative Blogger ® ♦ Pirate’s Cove ♦ The Right Nation ♦ The Pink Flamingo ♦ Right Voices ♦ The Random Yak ♦ A Blog For All ♦ 123beta ♦ Maggie’s Notebook ♦ Adam’s Blog ♦ basil’s blog ♦ Phastidio.net ♦ The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog ♦ Conservative Cat ♦ Conservative Thoughts ♦ Allie Is Wired ♦ The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns ♦ The World According to Carl ♦ Blue Star Chronicles ♦ Gone Hollywood
Thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Maryland to Kill the Death Penalty
Feb 22, 2007 Political
It was only a matter of time before the bleeding heart liberals in the Maryland Legislature got around to repealing the death penalty. Now this has not happened yet but it is going to because Maryland is infested with Democrats and the newly elected Governor, Saint Martin O’Malley, is against the death penalty. There are many arguments against the death penalty but one of the main ones is that blacks in Maryland are Sentenced to death more than whites, especially if the black killed a white. While this is true, racism has nothing to do with it. The fact is, there is a lot of black on black killing in Baltimore City but the City WILL NOT seek the death penalty. Baltimore, which was run by Saint O’Malley, is a killing field and it refuses to go after the death penalty and that is why there are no blacks on death row for killing other blacks.
Saint O’Malley testified on the death penalty issue and he made some preposterous statements. Let me start off by stating that O’Malley spouted off statistics. Never, ever listen to this man when he gives you numbers. He gave us numbers for years concerning crime in Baltimore but he seems to use these creative accounting methods in order to skew numbers in favor of what he wants. Here is what O’Malley said:
O’Malley testified that the murder rate in states that had the death penalty was 46 percent higher in 2005 than in states without it. He also said that while the murder rate has been on the decline since 1990, it has fallen by 56 percent in states without the death penalty, compared to a 38 percent drop in states that have it. WBAL
This is interesting in several ways. First, O’Malley uses statistics to show us that in states that do not have the death penalty murder has dropped more than in states that do. It is interesting that he would use statistics about other states to make his point because when you point out to him that states with open carry laws for hand guns have lower crime rates he back peddles and says that Maryland has a carry law. We do but unless you have documented proof (i.e. police reports) of multiple threats or unless you are a judge (or I suppose a well connected person) then you will not get a permit. Even veterans of the armed forces are not allowed to carry a gun. But I digress. I do not know if these statistics are true and if they are, can we show causation? There are many reasons that crime goes up. In Texas, where they have a fast lane to the electric chair, the death rate might be going up. That might be because they have untold numbers of ILLEGALS crossing the border every day and bringing crime right along with them. My point is, O’Malley is using numbers for bluster but they mean nothing.
The question I would ask old Marty is; does having the death penalty cause the smaller decline in murder rates or does actually enforcing the penalty do it? As I stated, Baltimore City does not seek the death penalty and there are around 300 murders there each year (even when Marty was Mayor). In the surrounding counties prosecutors seek the death penalty when it is warranted and guess what? The murder rate is a fraction of that in Baltimore. Harford County had about 9 murders last year.
I believe the death penalty is a deterrent. The criminal who gets executed will never be a repeat offender. If they switch to life without parole there will be nothing to keep murderers from killing correctional officers. Oh wait, The Maryland bills allow people who murder law enforcement officers to get the death penalty. I have read both HB 225 and SB 211 and they both clearly indicate that a person who murders a law enforcement officer, a correctional officer, or members of other select groups, may receive the death penalty. This is where things start to really make my blood boil. Why is a cop any better than a regular citizen? His life is not worth any more than mine or yours and yet the person who murders him will get the death penalty and the guy who murders your mother will get life without parole.
What makes law enforcement officers better, or worth more? Of the 300 or so people killed in Baltimore City last year I wonder how many were police officers. I have not heard of any but I will say 10 and that is way too high, but we will say it for the sake of argument. That means that out of 300 or so, 290 were regular citizens. You are much more likely to be killed if you are Joe six pack than if you are a police officer. Additionally, police officers get to carry guns. They are armed and able to defend themselves. How much sense does it make to execute a murderer who killed another guy with a gun but only put him in jail if he kills a defenseless person? Police officers have the means to protect themselves and we have already shown that they are very unlikely to die by being murdered. Their biggest threat is automobile accident. In that same Harford County, the first police officer (deputy sheriff) to die in the line of duty in over 100 years died when he had a heart attack and crashed his police car.
I say that if Saint O’Malley is so sure that the death penalty does not deter crime and that it might even increase violence then we should not have the death penalty for any murder. What is the purpose of executing a cop killer other than to DETER other criminals from killing cops. If it really has no deterrent value then we just need to abolish it completely. In other words Marty, either we keep it or we get rid of it 100%. Stop being a hypocrite and act like a man. If you are opposed to the death penalty then you are opposed to the death penalty IN ALL CASES.
The death penalty in Maryland was reinstated in 1975. Since that time the state has executed 5 people. That’s right, in 32 years we have executed 5 people. Except for Texas, this is the pattern in most states. Murderers are more likely to die of old age before they ever get the injection. So how much of an effect could Maryland’s death penalty have had on increasing or decreasing murder rates? In effect, Maryland has not had a death penalty (other than to hand out the sentence) and yet our murder rate keeps going up (thanks to Marty’s Baltimore). Maybe if Baltimore had applied the death penalty it would not be a modern day killing field.
The sponsors of HB 225 are here and SB 211 here. Perhaps we should allow them to repeal the death penalty but only if we can execute them if a convicted murderer, murders again. In any event, take a look at the lists. Call them and ask them what their stance on abortion is. I believe most of them support abortion. It never ceases to amaze me that the people who will fight tooth and nail to keep murderers from receiving the death penalty will fight just as hard to allow a woman to murder her unborn child.
Seems to me they have their priorities all wrong.
The number 300 for murders a year in Baltimore City is close to the average. The City has had from around 250 to well over 300. In any event, the majority were NOT police officers.
Tags: Commentary, Political
Americans Hate a Loser
Feb 20, 2007 Political
In the opening of Patton starring George C Scott, General Patton is addressing the troops. He says this at one point in his speech:
Men, all this stuff you’ve heard about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of horse dung. Americans, traditionally, love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle.
When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big league ball players, the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. Now, I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war***. Because the very thought of losing is hateful to Americans.
This is absolutely true. Americans can not stand a loser. The Democrats do not seem to understand this. They believe that the election results last November were some sort of mandate for them to stop the war and retreat in defeat. Iraq might have played some small part in the results but Americans did not vote to lose the war. A new poll out illuminates just that and should cause the Democrats to take a step back and think about what they are doing.
♦ By a 53 percent – 46 percent margin, respondents surveyed said that Democrats are going too far, too fast in pressing the President to withdraw troops from Iraq.
♦ By identical 57 percent – 41 percent margins, voters agreed with these statements: I support finishing the job in Iraq, that is, keeping the troops there until the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security and the Iraqi war is a key part of the global war on terrorism.
♦ Also, by a 56 percent – 43 percent margin, voters agreed that even if they have concerns about his war policies, Americans should stand behind the President in Iraq because we are at war.
♦ While the survey shows voters believe (60 percent- 34 percent) that Iraq will never become a stable democracy, they still disagree that victory in Iraq (creating a young, but stable democracy and reducing the threat of terrorism at home) is no longer possible. Fifty-three percent say it’s still possible, while 43 percent disagree.
♦ By a wide 74 percent – 25 percent margin, voters disagree with the notion that “I don’t really care what happens in Iraq after the U.S. leaves, I just want the troops brought home.”
When asked which statement best describes their position on the Iraq War, voters are evenly divided (50 percent – 49 percent) between positions of “doing whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country,” and positions that call for immediate withdrawal or a strict timetable.
♦ 27 percent said “the Iraq war is the front line in the battle against terrorism and our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country.”
♦ 23 percent said “while I don’t agree that the U.S. should be in the war, our troops should stay there and do whatever it takes to restore order until the Iraqis can govern and provide security to their country.”
♦ 32 percent said “whether Iraq is stable or not, the U.S. should set and hold to a strict timetable for withdrawing troops.”
♦ 17 percent said “the U.S. should immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq.”
The survey also found that voters thought it would hurt American prestige more to pull out of Iraq immediately (59 percent) than it would to stay there for the long term (35 percent). Public Opinion Strategies “scored the best win-loss record among the major polling and media firms in the 2004 election” and was named Pollster of the Year in 2002. Drudge
***When this speech took place it was true. Americans lost Vietnam because we had Democrats who did not care to win. They lost and laughed (or consorted with the enemy in violation of the Constitution)
Tags: Political
Hillary Says to Unite Under One Flag
Feb 19, 2007 Political
Hillary Clinton was in South Carolina campaigning for president (instead of earning her money as a Senator) and she had some thoughts about the Confederate Flag. Clinton said the Confederate Flag should come down. She said we are a nation at war and we should all be under one flag. Since Hillary Clinton is calling for us to start bringing our troops home and has stated that she will introduce legislation to restrict the President’s ability to run the war it is easy to see that the only flag she stands under is white.
Personally, I have no problem with the Confederate Flag. The Confederate Flag was the flag of the states that seceded from the Union (The Confederate States of America). The Flag represents the people of the south and what they fought for. The NAACP is boycotting South Carolina because that flag offends them. It offends because they are ignorant and believe the flag is a symbol of racism. The Civil War was not about slavery it was about state’s rights. Slavery was one of the issues but the NAACP and other race baiters make it the issue as if the North started fighting with the South over slavery.
The South was hamstrung by the North and was disillusioned by many of the rules the Government imposed. The southern states seceded (in a domino effect) and the Civil War ensued because the President did not want the nation to divide into separate countries. Lincoln was satisfied with slave states, some that were slave and some free or all free so long as the country remained whole. Some of the states in the north were slave states but I have heard no call to ban the flag of the United States.
Hillary is pandering to the black crowd that her husband so easily wooed. But the truth of the matter is no one cares what she thinks because this is not a federal issue, she was not elected to represent South Carolina, and even if she is elected president she can not do anything about the flag. The whole damned war was about state’s rights and it seems to me that after 600,000 deaths politicians would have learned to leave states alone. SC has every right to fly the flag and they should tell Clinton to shut her yap. For an educated woman she sure is stupid. The Confederate Flag is a symbol of a proud people who fought for what they believed. It would be wrong to remove that heritage for any reason but to do so because a bunch of ignorant people do not understand history or because it offends someone are the worst reasons of all. I am offended by jackasses who burn American Flags but the law allows that and that is a hate crime pure and simple. There is no free speech issue because it is a violent act designed to harass people and show disrespect for this great country. As an aside, an American was arrested last year for burning a Mexican Flag. I guess that whole free speech argument only works in favor of moonbats.
Back on target. Hillary is an idiot and her opinion about the Confederate Flag is a moot one. No one cares what this northern, elitist has to say. She only passed through Arkansas. She is from Illinois and lives in Yankee land New York so she should just keep her mouth shut. However, now that I think of it, the UN Flag flies in New York and if there is one flag that should come down it is that one. The UN Flag represents rape, pillage, corruption, slavery, and forced prostitution and only reminds people of their inept corruption and criminal activity. Down with the UN Flag Hillary and leave the South alone, beyatch.
“I think about how many South Carolinians have served in our military and who are serving today under our flag and I believe that we should have one flag that we all pay honor to…Breitbart
Like I said, their [Democrats] flag is white and that is the one flag they all serve under. Instead of putting their hands over their hearts they raise both of them in a position of surrender. No doubt, John Kerry wants us to buy those flags from the French who always seem to have them in abundance.
Hillary, the Confederate Flag is offensive to you and the rest of the idiots who do not understand the history of this country (which is why we are doomed to repeat its failures) but the real question is, if the Confederate Flag should come down, does that mean we have to take them from these places as well?
Those folks died for that flag and agree with them or not, they were willing to die for what they believed in. Unfortunately, we don’t really know what Hillary believes in except power for herself. Many others in this country would just as soon sell out and live under somebody else’s flag rather than fight for the one we have. The sad part is they are willing to fly the white one to get there.
ADDENDUM: This from Wikipedia:
On April 12, 2000, the South Carolina state senate passed a bill to remove the flag of the former Confederate States of America from on top of the statehouse dome by a majority vote of 36 to 7. Placed there in 1962, according to one local news report, “the new bill specified that a more traditional version of the battle flag would be flown in front of the Capitol next to a monument honoring fallen Confederate soldiers.” [emphasis mine] Wikipedia
No wonder Hillary wants it removed, it honors soldiers….
Tags: Commentary, Political