The Right State

Jim Webb (D-VA) and the Democrats have suffered a huge defeat when his plan to give soldiers as much home time as they are deployed was crushed when fellow Virginian John Warner (R-VA) voted against the amendment.  Webb’s plan would have effectively ended US efforts against al Qaeda in Iraq.  Since the 2006 midterm election, the Democrat Party has been single minded in their approach to the war—end it by any means necessary, even if it means undermining the troops.   John Warner’s vote against the amendment this time has left political pundits wondering where he will turn next time.  The liberal left has been poking fun at vacillating senator much like Republicans did against John Kerry’s ‘I actually voted for the war, before I voted against it’ speech.  The right hails the renegade senator from Virginia as a hero. 

To paraphrase the immortal words of John Kerry, Sen. John Warner actually did vote to shorten the Iraq war before he voted to lengthen it.

Just two months ago, the courtly Virginia Republican went to the Senate floor and sided with his Democratic colleague from the commonwealth, Jim Webb, on a plan that would shorten troop deployments in Iraq. Yesterday, he went to the same place to announce that he would now vote against the same bill.

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said Warner made him proud to be a member of the Senate.  Democrats on the other hand accused the senator of caving in to White House pressure.  So, where do the loyalties of the senior senator from Virginia lie—probably somewhere in between goat and hero.  But there is always a price to be paid for being the goat, just ask John McCain.

For years McCain has reveled with the media attention which came with the moniker of maverick.  And now he is paying the price in the polls as conservatives have turned against him.  Republicans have not forgotten nor forgiven the maverick for his shenanigans or his contempt for conservative values. 

John Warner too has earned the ire of Republicans, but with one caveat: Warner does not intent on running for reelection in 2008.  That decision is one we can all live with since the Virginian has been acting less and less like a Republican.  Warner’s questioning of General Petraeus in the Armed Services Committee made the Senator look even more like a Jane Fonda, white flag flying Democrat.  In the end I guess we can all be appreciative that Warner finally came to his senses and decided to support the troops and the mission after all.  Failing that, he can always retire. 

Tags: Democrats, War by Chuck
No Comments »

O.J. Simpson has been arrested for burglary in Las Vegas.  Nothing new there.  O.J. is a sociopath bent on self destruction.  He should have been convicted in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in 1994.  The police had all kinds of forensic evidence linking the former football star to the murders, but alas, the incompetent twelve strike again.  The jury bought the ‘race card’ put forward by Simpson’s attorneys and so they let a killer walk free. 

This time O.J. may not be so lucky, because his own words will convict him.  By his own admission, Simpson broke into a hotel room with the intent to retrieve items he believes were stolen from him.  According to reports O.J. went to the hotel room with some ‘golfing buddies’ who brought guns to the confrontation. The DA says he intends to throw the book at Simpson.

The district attorney said he expected Simpson to ultimately be charged with seven felonies and one gross misdemeanor.

If convicted of the booking charges, Simpson would face up to 30 years in state prison on each robbery count alone.

The question is, will the court be able to find twelve impartial jurors?  Who has not heard of O.J. Simpson?  People my age or older will remember his football day with USC and the Buffalo Bills.  And everyone will remember that a killer walked free after murdering his ex-wife and her friend.  Many people may have read his book where he details how he ‘may’ have killed Nicole and Ron.  Prospective jurors will be hard pressed not to consider Simpson’s past legal shenanigans when deliberations begin.  These jurors may try to redress past wrongs and put this guy away for a long time and who could blame them.  The guy is a cold blooded killer who bragged about it in a book.  What a sicko. 

Okay, maybe using O.J.’s past to put him away may not be such a bad thing.  Sociopaths like this former football star think they are above the law.  He could do just about anything he wanted when he played football because he was so good.  Then he acquitted of these murders.  It was just a matter of time before O.J. Simpson exploded again.  Frankly, I am surprised he has kept his cool this long.

My only concern is the incompetence factor of the jurors.  Thirteen years ago an incompetent twelve considered extraneous evidence not related to the guilt or innocence of the defendant—like whether or not the investigating detective, Mark Furman, used the ‘N’ word twelve years previously.  Who cares what the detective said twelve years previously?  The evidence was so overwhelming and that is what the jury should have considered.  So O.J. Simpson walked.  I just hope that this time jurors do not go out of their way to considered every little detail and let this sociopath walk again. 

Tags: Culture by Chuck
No Comments »

Jack Reed, D-RI gave the Democratic response to President Bush’s speech concerning Iraq.  The President’s speech was short and concise.  Except for a few points, it is not much different from others he gave on the same subject.  Reed on the other hand gave a speech which was exactly like all the others given by the Democrats.  The Democratic plan is the embodiment of everything French—Run Away.  Retreat!  Surrender!

The Democratic plan calls for the redeployment of US troops from Iraq in order to make Iraq more stable.  Huh?  Now I know what the ‘D’ stands for following Reed’s name and many others in Congress—Defeat.

Yeah, Jack.  Great plan!? 

Tags: Democrats by Chuck
No Comments »

It was disgusting to watch the Democrats on Wednesday as they paraded before the microphones—feigning concern for the troops, the same troops they continually mock and belittle.  General Petraeus came before the House and Senate chambers in order to give his report on the conditions in Iraq.  For his honesty, Democrats mocked both him and his service to his country.  The Dems even refuse to condemn a moveon.org ad calling General Petraeus a traitor.  But I will not question their patriotism because the Democrats are patriotic.

The Democrats are furious at their inability to end this war knowing full well how the American public will react to America’s first loss in war (Vietnam was not a loss since US soldiers had already left years before).  The Dems are intent to end this war before the next president takes over.  That way this loss will hang like an albatross around President Bush’s neck.  Unfortunately, the Democrats have forgotten their history.  The Vietnam War ended during the Nixon administration, yet that is not what most people remember.  Most people remember the actions of the Democratic Party causing American public opinion to turn against this war.  And it will be the despicable actions and words of the Democrats people will remember after this war.  The Democratic Party is waving the white flag of surrender, but don’t question their patriotism.  After all, the Democrats are patriotic.

Since the war on terror began in 2001, the Democrats have called for America’s defeat.  Even now the Democrats are calling for the President to pull US troops from Iraq knowing such a move would allow the terrorists to take over.  The ensuing bloodbath would rival the killing fields of the Kilmer Rouge in Cambodia.  The Democrats also know that ending the war on terror would free the Islamo-fascists to renew their attacks against the US.  The terrorists have said so and I believe them.  The Democrats know this, but I can not question their patriotism.  After all, the Democrats are patriotic, aren’t they?

The reckless speech by Democrats are encouraging the terrorists.  This is something the terrorists have acknowledged.  With this encouragement, the terrorists are emboldened and do their best to kill even more soldiers.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid say they are saddened by the loss of so many soldiers, but then they do their best to egg on the terrorists, to give them the rights of American citizens, and to make it more difficult for US authorities to find the terrorists before they strike us again.  Simply put, the Democrats have blood on their hands, the blood of American patriots who are defending us in a far away land.  If we are attacked again, they will have the blood of even more Americans on their hands.  The Democrats’ Bush Derangement Syndrome is on display for all to see.  In their quest for power they are placing short-term political gain over the lives and safety of the American people.   Can I question the patriotism of Democrats now?

When asked why they would support the terrorists over the citizens of the US, the Democrats feign indignity and say we are questioning their patriotism.  The dictionary defines patriotism as “love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it.”  What have they sacrificed?  Where is their love of country?  I can find no evidence of it anywhere.  So I must ask, are the Democrats patriotic?  The obvious answer is a resounding, “NO!”

Tags: Democrats, Iraq by Chuck
No Comments »

I have heard a rumor, a fairly reliable one, that Republicans may potentially have a very good candidate to run against liberal Democrat Chet Edwards for TX-17. This is great news. Chet is a guy we inherited from the from another area due to the 2003 redistricting. Another words, we inherited someone else’s problem. Perhaps we can finally rectify the situation by replacing Edwards with a true American hero, someone like Lt. Col. (Ret.) Brian Birdwell, a survivor of the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon. This is a man who understands the meaning of sacrifice, love, devotion, and courage. The man’s story is incredible. How he was burned over 60% of his body when Flight 175 flew into the building and lived to tell the tale. The colonel credits his faith in Jesus Christ and the devotion of his beautiful wife, Mel, for his life. Be sure to read his incredible story.

I had the opportunity to hear Col. Birdwell speak at the Texas Republican Convention in San Antonio. He is an awesome speaker, a fierce defended of the Global War on Terror, and a staunch conservative. Col. Brian Birdwell has all the attributes we could possibly want to represent central Texas. It is still early the season, so more Republicans may declare their intent to run. One thing is certain, Chet Edwards will have his hands full with Brian Birdwell. This guy is for real so I hope the rumor is true and Birdwell runs for the Republican nomination for TX-17.

Tags: Heroes, Texas, National Elections by Chuck
No Comments »

Usama bin Laden has finally come out of whatever cave he was hiding in and has spoken to the United States.  While the speech rambles on a number of topics, there are some interesting tidbits: like chastising the Democrats for their actions (and lack of actions) and giving the Democrats their marching orders.

“And here is the gist of the matter, so one should pause, think and reflect: why have the Democrats failed to stop this war, despite them being the majority?

…”So in answer to the question about the causes of the Democrats’ failure to stop the war, I say: they are the same reasons which led to the failure of former president Kennedy to stop the Vietnam war….

…And I tell you: after the failure of your representatives in the Democratic Party to implement your desire to stop the war, you can still carry anti-war placards and spread out in the streets of major cities, then go back to your homes, but that will be of no use and will lead to the prolonging of the war….

Bad Democrats.  They had their chance to lose this war…I mean they had their chance to end this war and failed.  The terrorist leader is harsh in his criticism of the Democrats, but he gives them another chance.  But first, Bin Laden then goes on to make sure he has the Democrats‘ attention by mentioning some of their most treasured issues: “global warming” and the American system which makes “the rich richer and the poor poorer.”   Then he instructs them they must end this war and turn to Islam. To be sure, the Democrats are falling all over themselves to comply with their  high leader.

The Democrats are kowtowing to their prodigious leader and are preparing the groundwork as the date nears for General Petraeus to make his report.  Like a good Democrat, Dick Durban is discounting the report calling it the Bush-Petraeus report.  Other Democrats likewise have fallen back on their old placard and are attacking the troops once again.  This good soldier is doing nothing more than doing the incredibly difficult job that was given to him.  It is too bad the Dems can not withhold their attacks on Gen. Petraeus until he has given his report.  And then they can attack the report all they want.  But to Democrats, there is no difference between attacking the idea and besmirching the person.  Typical Democrats.

Obviously bin Laden came out with this video because al Qaeda is losing in Iraq and losing badly.  The troop surge is working and the Patraeus report is sure to say so.  But we can be sure that  the Democrats will answer bin Laden’s call and sully the honor of General Petraeus and denounce the troops in the field.  We can be sure they will renew their calls for America’s defeat in Iraq and America’s defeat in the GWOT in general.  The fifth column is alive and well in the United States, it is called the Democratic Party. 

Tags: Democrats, Iraq, War by Chuck
No Comments »

Charles Schumer, the senior senator from New York, has joined his fellow Democrats John Kerry, John Murtha, and Harry Reid in denouncing American troops.  How long will the people of New York, Nevada, and Pennsylvania put up with this treason.  It is one thing to question the actions of the President and quite another to condemn the sacrifice of our soldiers serving in Iraq. 

We’ve heard of success stories every six or eight months. This province, this town, this city. “They’re cleared, they’re safe.” And then because of the basic facts on the ground, we revert to the old situation. And let me be clear: the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge.

The lack of protection for these tribes from al Qaeda made it clear to these tribes, “We have to fight al Qaeda ourselves.” It wasn’t that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords had to create a temporary peace here on their own. And that is because there was no one else there protecting them.  (emphasis added by TRS)

If no one is there protecting the Iraqis, why the hell are our troops dying, Senator?  By denouncing these troops you are denouncing the sacrifice of all of our American servicemen and service women. 

According to Senator Schumer, our soldiers might as well be spending all of their time in the local Radisson Hotel rather than risking their lives to protect us here at home.  There are only a few Americans who have earned the ire of the troops and this senator is one of them.  He joins the infamous list which includes Hanoi Jane, Harry Reid, John Murtha, and John Kerry.

What I want to know is where the other Democrats in condemning Schumer’s speech are?  If this had been a Republican, we would have helped the Senator pack his bags.  But instead, Democrats either excuse or turn a blind eye towards those who have made a living insulting our troops, these same troops who have risked so much in the defense of this great country.  By their silence, the Dems are, in effect, supporting the Senator’s comments.  By their silence, the Dems join the list of those who continue to insult our troops, question their honor, question their integrity, and question their intelligence.  If this is not treason, then the word should be removed from the dictionary, because it has been rendered meaningless.

Senator Schumer owes our troops an apology, though I seriously doubt they will receive one.  And if the Democratic party does not speak out against Schumer, they are just as guilty as the Senator is.

Hat tip: American Patriots

Tags: Heroes, Democrats by Chuck
No Comments »

The Republican Debate in New Hampshire is finally over. I do have some overall impressions. First is how boring the debate was with almost no substance. The second is that there is a reason why the first tier candidates are where they are and why the second and third tier candidates are where they are. And third, why is Ron Paul even in this debate? His answers came across as both naive and overly simplistic. And fourth is what a great job Fox News did in conducting this debate.

The winner of the debate was obviously John McCain. He had the most to gain from a good showing and the most to lose with a poor one. Simply stated, McCain needed a win and got one.

The biggest loser was also obvious—Rudy Giuliani. Most of his answers were safe, but many times he did not answer the questions. Say guns, for instance. Rudy never answered the question of whether or not he was against guns, which in fact he is.

The biggest buffoon of the debate was clear cut—Ron Paul. He wants to get rid of the IRS, CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and ….. He wants to leave Iraq now…

The funniest laugh line of the debate occurred at the beginning at the expense of Fred Thompson when McCain said Thompson did not show up for the debate because it was ‘past his bedtime.’

The best question of the night was from Chris Wallace directed at Ron Paul. After a ‘leave Iraq now’ answer, Chris asked, “So we will be taking our marching orders from al Qaeda?” Ron Paul flubbed this question too.

The best exchange was between Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee over the question of honor. Paul wants to honor the troops by leaving now. Huckabee wants to honor the troops by winning.

On the question of illegal immigration, Mitt Romney, Tancredo and Duncan Hunter gave the better answers, followed by Giuliani, McCain, and Huckabee. Finish building the wall between Mexico and the United States was the overwhelmingly popular answer to the immigration question. Romney also wants to punish these ‘sanctuary’ cities who give illegal immigrants a reprieve from ICE and other law enforcement officers.

On the question of family values, Brownback, Hunter, Romney and Huckabee gave virtually identical answers. Brownback gets the nod for saying redefining marriage as a failed social experiment.

On national security, McCain and Hunter came out ahead with Romney, Huckabee and Brownback are next. Tancredo is next to last when he called for ‘disengagement.’ A distant last is Ron Paul. McCain gets the nod on this one for supporting the position of bringing the troops home with honor AFTER winning the war. And he says they are winning.

On the question of Presidential Power, only three candidates were given a chance to answer: Tancredo, McCain, and Romney. Tancredo gets the nod because of his pledge to do whatever it takes to protect the US whether it is water-boarding, wiretapping, or anything else.

On the question of taxes and spending, all the candidates did fairly well. All told how they were going to cut taxes or did cut taxes as a governor or mayor, but only John McCain said he voted against George Bush’s tax cuts because Congress raised spending levels way too much. Therefore McCain gets the nod on this one.

Finally all the candidates were given a hypothetical question on Iran. The country is killing US troops in Iraq and near to building a nuclear bomb. What do you do as President? Giuliani and Brownback answered the question fairly well, but John McCain knocked the question out of the ballpark. His answer is much like George Bush’s answer to Iraq: there are times when the US must act independently of the other nations and the UN to defend itself, use military and diplomatic force to stop Iran. Best answer of the day.

The overall impression is that McCain won, not by much, but he still won. He was followed by Romney, Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, and Giuliani. And despite the polls, Ron Paul did not win, nor did he come to close to winning. I really think Democrats are calling in and voting for the wackiest of the bunch.

Tags: National Elections, Politics by Chuck
No Comments »

Leave it to the Daily Kos to show what is wrong with the Clinton News Network (CNN).  The writer gloats over Wolf Blitzer’s treatment of a sitting member of Congress, who came back to report what he had seen in Fallujah.  What Wolf does is to show CNN’s utter disreguard for journalistic integrity.  This poor excuse for a newsman continues to show his bias against Republicans, President Bush, and the war. 

This pseudo interview between Wolf Blitzer and Representative Charles Boustany took place in Blitzer’s Situation Room.  I am sure the Congressman did not know what he was walking into.  Obviously, Boustany was blindsided.

BOUSTANY: We’re clearly seeing some major improvements. Clearly in the Anbar Province, we’ve seen significant improvement. We were able to walk the streets of Fallujah. Sectarian deaths are down.

BLITZER: And Congressman Boustany, you say that the number of casualties is going down. But we took a closer look — and The Los Angeles Times did as well — citing Iraqi Health Ministry numbers. In June, it was 1,227 civilian deaths in Iraq. In July, it went up to 1,753 civilian deaths in Iraq. And in August, the month that just ended, 1,773 civilian deaths in Iraq. Those numbers are going in the wrong direction.

BOUSTANY: Well, I think what I mentioned earlier, Wolf, was the number of attacks. And, clearly, we have to look at all the metrics very carefully.

BLITZER: But statistics — you can play a lot of room with statistics. In terms of dead people, civilians, Iraqi dead people, those numbers are high and they’re getting worse, despite the increased military troop levels of the United States, the so-called surge having been in effect over the past couple of months.

BOUSTANY: Well, Wolf, I want to point out that just two or three months ago, I would have never thought that four members of Congress would be able to walk through the streets of Fallujah. That’s a major…

BLITZER: But you had a lot of security with you. You had a lot of U.S. military protection.

BOUSTANY: We had a platoon of Marines.

BLITZER: Yes, well, a platoon of Marines is a lot of Marines to walk through Fallujah. That’s not like…

BOUSTANY: But, Wolf, three months ago, two months ago, not even that could have happened so I think that’s…

BLITZER: I was in Fallujah two years ago, and it was a bad situation then. But some argue that maybe there’s a slight improvement right now, but it’s still very dangerous.

BOUSTANY: I would argue that the improvement is major.

BLITZER: And if you didn’t have a platoon of Marines with you, you couldn’t be walking around by yourself.

It is any wonder that CNN continues to lose viewers to Fox News?  Any statistics can be twisted around, which Blitzer does with glee.  He ignores all evidence to the contrary and sticks to the Democratic talking points.  In spite of what this ‘newsman’ says, most evidence points to progress in Iraq.  What Wolf Blitzer, Keith Olbermann, and others of their ilk do is to continue to show themselves for what they truly are: liberal lapdogs for the Democratic party masquerading as journalists.

Tags: Bias by Chuck
No Comments »

When Congress returns to Washington in a couple of weeks, one order of business is to fund the FAA. The current funding for the FAA runs out September 30 of this year. Congress is still debating the issue in committee with three radically different bills. The FAA currently uses an antiquated system to keep track of all the flights within the US and those coming into the US. A new system is a must if the US is ever going to relieve the problem of congested airports and flight delays. And of course a new system costs money.

To relieve these concerns, the FAA has proposed an alternative funding bill for their funding. Unfortunately, the bill places a tremendous burden of the backs of general aviation pilots while giving the major airlines what amounts to a huge tax break. As of now, the funding for the FAA is paid mostly through taxes on fuel and taxes on passengers. Flying is divided into three groups: the smaller general aviation airplanes (GA), larger GA airplanes and the airlines. Most GA pilots, like me, only hold a private pilot’s license. And when we fly, we fly for fun.

The fuel taxes collected by the government are as follows: GA aircraft using avgas (high octane gasoline) pay 19.3 cents a gallon tax, larger aircraft using Jet A fuel (diesel) pay 21.8 cents a gallon, while the airlines also using Jet A only pay 4.3 cents a gallon. On top of this passengers pay a tax when they buy their ticket.

The bill the FAA desires would increase the tax on small and large GA to 70 cents a gallon while the large airlines would pay nothing. The taxes paid by passengers would increase but it would also be divided up thus obfuscating what the passenger actually pays. At the same time control of the FAA would shift from the federal government to the airlines. This 263% increase in fuel taxes on the average pilot would make flying much more expensive. At the same time the airlines would receive a huge tax break. Also being considered besides the increase in fuel taxes is the institution of user fees. So every time a pilot calls for instructions while in the air, he will be charged a fee. Also included would be other charges like a tie down fee when the airplane is tied down. All of which would remove funding control from Congress and pass it on to the FAA which is dominated by the airline industry.

Explaining the FAA funding bill is difficult and may be even more difficult to understand. So an analogy might be in order. Lets for the sake of the argument compare the FAA to the national highway system. We have large towns and small towns, large vehicles and small vehicles. Also for the sake of the argument let’s say that most of the traffic congestion in the larger towns was due to the larger vehicles from SUVs to large trucks and constitute more than 95% of the traffic. To fund the national highway system, the government collects taxes from the sale of fuel with small cars and small trucks paying 38 cents a gallon (it is the gasoline tax I pay in Texas for my car) while SUVs and large trucks pay only 8 cents a gallon. The government wants to improve the highway system and proposes an increase the taxes on cars to almost a dollar a gallon, while the tax on large trucks and SUVs is to be eliminated. Then the riders traveling in the SUVs and large trucks would be taxed for being allowed to ride in these vehicles. At the same time, cars and small trucks are charged a fee every time they stop to ask directions, they are charged for using stops signs and stop lights (as if the driver had a choice in using them) At the same time, the people who own the SUVs and trucks would be able to raise the fuel taxes on cars anytime they want since they are to be in charge.

All of this sounds a little unfair, right? Well, it is. Most GA pilots I know do not like to fly into these large airports. The airlines will tell you that it is the GA pilots who are clogging up the system, which is an outright lie. In fact, GA aircraft only account for 4% of flights out of these large airports. It is way too crowded with large planes and there are way too many restrictions. So if I must fly to Houston, I fly to one of the smaller airports just outside of Houston Intercontinental. Look out the window the next time you take a flight somewhere, you will be hard pressed to find any small plane.

The next time you fly, be sure to notice if the airline shows you a video depicting how GA is causing the flight delays. Now you will be able to tell those closest to you the truth; flight delays are caused by the incompetence of the airlines. And now they want to shoulder the load of the maintaining the FAA and the aviation upgrade upon the little guys

Tags: Culture by Chuck
No Comments »