The Right State

There is news coming out of Washington that the Bush Administration may be leaning towards a Cold War era style of deterrence to ward off possible terrorist attacks by terrorists.  Since this is coming from the New York Times, I hope this news is wrong, anything seems to be possible.

The idea is to use police and others to keep the terrorists off balance.  This would dissuade them from carrying out attacks in this country.  Does this sound familiar?  Maybe like the Clinton stance against terrorism in the 1990s.  I did not work then and it will not work now.  In this age of political correctness run amok, how would the police keep the terrorists off balance when they can not use profiling? 

In New York City, as many as 100 police officers in squad cars from every precinct converge twice daily at randomly selected times and at randomly selected sites, like Times Square or the financial district, to rehearse their response to a terrorist attack. City police officials say the operations are believed to be a crucial tactic to keep extremists guessing as to when and where a large police presence may materialize at any hour.

This is another way of saying New York will wait until after another attack to do anything.  So we turn back the clock to the 1990s and wait for another 3000+ people to die before we become serious about fighting terrorism.  Even officials acknowledge that deterrence “represents a second-best solution” to fighting the terrorists, the first being to kill or capture them. 

Another ploy being discussed by the military is “countermessaging.”  The idea is to use the internet and the terrorists’ own chat room and videos against them in an effort to turn the people against the jihadists.  This process is too slow.  Changing minds is a lengthy process.  In the long run this might work, but in conjunction with killing the terrorists wherever they may be found.

I hope the idea of deterrence is just another ploy by the liberal New York Times to again bash the Bush Administration, though I doubt it.  Killing terrorists works, trying to understand them kills Americans.  I just hope the administration understands this simple fact.

Tags: Terrorism by Chuck
No Comments »

John Hawkins from Right Wing News has an excellent post on why liberals lie about who they are.  His main point is: conservatives feel to tell who they are because the United States as a whole leans slightly to the right.  Liberals on the other hand have to lie about their policy positions and who they are because the American citizens have rejected their socialistic ideas.  (my word, not his)

This is something I have advocated for a long time.  Liberalism has been rejected by the American people, so liberal candidates have to lie about who they are and what they support.  As an example, just look at Barack Obama’s stance on the DC vs. Keller decision on the 2^nd Amendment.  A earlier questionnaire which was filled out by Obama says he is against gun ownership. Then he vacillates on the issue during the Presidential nomination process.  Finally, after winning the Democrat nomination, he takes both sides of the issue after the High Court made their decision affirming the individual right to gun ownership.  This is what a Democrat does, they lie to win votes.

I would add one more thing to John’s post.  For Dems, the end justifies the means.  So Democrats and liberals will do anything to win—lie, cheat, steal, register dead people, register illegal aliens, etc.  They will do anything to pass their liberal agenda.

Nothing is sacrosanct for liberals.  In order to win, they will attack the troops, they will attack churches, they will attack their own country, and they will even throw their own families under the bus in order to pass their liberal legislation or to win an election. 

Republicans and Conservatives are different.  Since the country is a center right politically, they do not need to lie about who they are and they do not need to lie about the issues they support.  They support the troops no matter what.  They are patriotic to the core of their being.  They do not attack churches.  And lastly, there is a line Conservatives will not cross, for either moral or ethical reasons.  There is no line for Liberals.  Again, the end justifies the means.

Tags: Democrats by Chuck
No Comments »

For years Democrats have been critical of President Bush’s North Korean policy. As early as 2003 Dems like Carl Levin and John Edwards have called on the President to meet face to face with his North Korean counterpart. The goal: to push negotiations in an attempt to end the Stalinist country’s nuclear program.

The issue of President Bush not meeting with Kim Jong Il in face to face meetings became one of the signature issues in the 2004 Presidential election against John Kerry.

The issue gained more momentum as a group including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Perry chimed in by claiming Asia was heading towards a nuclear arms race if the Bush administration did not immediately meet with leaders in Pyongyang. Tom Daschle, the Senate minority leader at the time, claimed the situation with North Korea had reached a crisis while President Bush did nothing.

In 2006 before the Congressional midterm elections Democrats took another opportunity to criticize George Bush’s North Korea policy after that country’s successful nuclear weapons test. John Kerry still smarting from his resounding defeat in the 2004 Presidential Election took another opportunity to attack the President.

“While we’ve been bogged down in Iraq where there were no weapons of mass destruction, a madman has apparently tested the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.”

Kerry is absolutely delusional. US forces have performed a masterful job in Iraq with no help from the Democrats. Lets not forget the Dems have yet to apologize to President Bush or the troops for their inappropriate statements. Bush was right; we should have gone into Iraq where we are almost done. And who can forget how the Dems demonized the troops by calling them terrorists, murderers, dumb, lazy, etc.

Just as the Democrats have suddenly forgot about the successes in Iraq, they will forget about their statements against George Bush’s stance on North Korea. In the last few days North Korea has submitted declarations as to their nuclear weapons development and have blown up a cooling tower on its Yongbyon reactor. Both actions are to show the world North Korea’s commitment to nuclear disarmament,

So where are the Democrats? Where are their apologies? Obviously President Bush’s policy towards North Korea and the Six-party talks worked. They definitely worked better than Bill Clinton’s carrots with no verification debacle. His program was an abysmal failure as millions of dollars of energy assistance went to North Korea while they continued their nuclear program. The policy George Bush advocated and is still advocating will have verification procedures in place. As the Stalinist regime moves further and further from its nuclear program, they will receive more and more assistance from the United States.

Again, where are the Democrats? They are in denial. George Bush won again! This just shows the Democrats can not be trusted with this nation’s security.

Tags: Democrats, Nuclear Weapons, President Bush by Chuck
No Comments »

Barak Obama is a pure politician.  If you don’t think so, just look at how he responded to the Supreme Court’s decision on the D.C. gun ban versus John McCain’s view.   The two candidates could not be more different as McCain hails the decision while Obama waffles…again.  Conservative does not mind telling everyone they support an individual’s right to keep and bare arms, while a liberal tries to have it both way by both supported a gun owners right to keep his weapon and the state’s right to take it.

In a way I sympathize with Barak Obama.  If he supports the High Court’s decision, he risks the antipathy of the left.  If he comes out against the Court’s decision, he risks alienating the gun owners of the country.  Therefore he rides the fence trying to act like a liberal while not being a liberal. 

In the past Barak Obama has advocated the government’s right not just to regulated gun ownership, but to confiscated them if the action is somehow justified.  Now that Obama has won the Democrat nomination for President, he feels the need to obfuscate his views.  Just look at how Obama words the following statement.

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures,” Obama said.

Huh!?  Maybe Obama needs a little more straight-talk and a little less political talk. 

When pressed on the issue, neither Obama nor his campaign seek clarify the Senator’s position.  As a politician, I guess that is the way he wants it.  That way any statement can be refuted by simply stating: ‘that is not what the Senator said.’  Obviously Barak Obama does not want his position posited.  Either way he loses votes.  But in this case, someone who equivocates on the issue is against private gun ownership.  From previous statements, Barak Obama is against the private ownership of firearms. 

John McCain, while not a staunch conservative, has reacted jubilantly to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision.

McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, heralded the justices’ action as “a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom.”

Obama has run a campaign on change, but in the end he has shown himself to be a pure politician by being able to talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.  So much for the Senator’s passion for change.

Tags: National Elections, Culture by Chuck
No Comments »

The Senate is set to pass a renewal of the FISA law, which has also been called the Warrantless Wiretapping Law.  For years Democrats have blocked its passage for a number of spurious reasons: the law is too broad giving the President too much power to tap phones, all wiretaps must go through the FISA courts first, the law allows the government to spy on the American people, the law gives the phone companies immunity from lawsuits for cooperating with the government, and a number of other bogus reasons.  The ultra-liberal John D. Rockefeller is a big backer of this law.  So what changed in this law from other previous attempts—nothing significant.  

This may be the most important bill we pass this year,” said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), an architect of the bill crafted over four months of negotiations between congressional leaders and the White House.

If this bill were as important as the Senator says, why did they wait so long?  The answer is simple—politics.  But don’t think all liberals are folding as easy as Rockefeller.  Senators Feingold and Dodd are not going away quietly.  And the liberal Netroots organization is not happy with their fellow Dems either, especially Barack Obama.  

The FISA debate marks the presumptive Democratic nominee’s first serious break from the liberal Netroots in the general election. He is still their candidate, but the FISA issue has reignited skepticism among major bloggers, who had largely pushed aside doubts about Obama when Edwards, their favored candidate, ended his bid in February.

…

Obama’s decision to support the bill with the immunity provision was not surprising, she said. Republicans frame critics of such security measures as soft on terrorism, and the presumptive Democratic nominee probably does not want it used against him.

Obama is a typical politician, he supports bills he not normally vote for because of politics.  Typical, but at least the bill looks like it will pass.  It will pass years too late, but at least it will pass.

On a positive note many Dems are about as happy with Barak Obama as Republicans are with John McCain.

Still, the disillusionment goes only so far. The liberal blogosphere’s most recognizable name, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of Daily Kos, said Monday on MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann”: “Let’s be honest, it is either Obama or John McCain. So we really don’t have much of a choice.”

It aught to be an interesting election.

Tags: Democrats by Chuck
No Comments »

Wow! The Supreme Court struck down the D.C. gun ban. This is a significant development. For years there has been a debate between gun rights supporters and anti-gun activists on the meaning of the 2^nd Amendment to the Constitution. Anti-gun activists have long viewed gun rights as belonging not to individuals but to the militia or another words to individuals empowered by the government to provide defense during times of national or state emergencies. The Supreme Court has struck down this argument saying gun ownership is an individual right. This is great news!

According to Justice Scalia, the 2^nd amendment gives an individual a right to own a gun.

Anti-gun activists have been targeting gun ownership for years. They have attacked the meaning of the 2^nd Amendment, they have attacked gun manufacturers, and they have a whole host of lawyers who are willing to work for free to deny gun owners their rights. These lawyers have gun so far as to blame guns for violence instead of the gun wielder. They have sued gun manufacturers for making defective guns because a criminal will sometimes use a gun to commit a crime. What a crock!

Thank Goodness the US Supreme Court finally took a stand on the Constitution.

More updates later.

Tags: Culture, Supreme Court by Chuck
No Comments »

Much of the American public is unsure about who Barack Obama really is.  That statement does not go for me.  I know that despite his rhetoric, Obama is a typical big government liberal.  Whether Barack Obama continues his dark horse campaign to be President may very well hinge on his decision for the VP spot.  The media have bandied about many names for the Democrat VP position including Obama’s former rival Hillary Clinton.  Now Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is pushing a Representative from Texas, Chet Edwards (TX-17) as a possible nominee.  The people who live in central Texas do not know Edwards other than the fact he is liberal.  The Dallas Morning News claims Chet is a moderate, but that moniker does not fit on him anymore than it fits on Barak Obama.  John McCain is a moderate.  Joe Lieberman is a moderate as is Heath Shuler, the retired quarterback who won in North Carolina.  Others include Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Mike Weaver of Kentucky, Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, and others many of whom call themselves Blue Dog Democrats.  Chet Edwards is not a Blue Dog Democrat, nor has he even been one.  He is and has always been in the hip pocket of the ultra-liberal Nancy Pelosi and he dutifully votes according to her wishes.  Most Blue Dogs are against abortion or are national security hawks.  Chet Edwards is neither one.  He is not a hawk and he supports abortion. 

As much as I would like to be finally rid of the liberal from Waco, I would not want him to become Vice President.  So I have to ask, why does Nancy Pelosi support Chet Edwards for VP.  One reason and one reason only—Chet represents George Bush’s district in Texas.  It is just another way for the ultra-liberal from California to poke her finger in the eye of the President and win kudos for herself from her ultra-fringe left.

I guess Pelosi does not think she has anything better to do, like maybe representing her district.  On second thought, maybe I would rather she waste her time.

Tags: Democrats, National Elections by Chuck
No Comments »

This video is a must see.  It shows just how despicable the far left are when they hear the US National Anthem being played outside of the US recruiting center in Berkley, California.  I served my country so these moonbats could act so disgracefully.  Notice the Nazi salutes of these morons and the red flag, the boos, jeers and profanity of those who enjoy the freedoms they were given.  Notice I said given, because they certainly did not earn those rights—not with despicable actions like these.

I am so glad we are not dependent on these moonbats to protect this great country.

Hat tip: Right Wing News

Tags: Moonbats by Chuck
No Comments »

Obama is nuts. That is the only way I can explain it. There is no possible way for any real Christian to EVER believe the Holy Bible advocates slavery as the Illinois Senator suggested. In the future Barack Obama should stick to his strengths, blowing political smoke and making people feel good about empty speech. Religious discussion should be left to those who actually read their Bible and not some feel good senator who has dreams of grandeur. Will Obama now want a debate with Dr. Stephen Hawkins since the expert in every subject Senator once read a book on physics?

Since Barack Obama has put himself out there as an expert on Christianity, I wonder if I might ask the ‘good’ Senator a question? (I have several questions, but one will do for now) How can a ‘Christian’ possibly support abortion when it flies in the face of everything Jesus taught? I will not be holding my breath for the Biblical expert to answer.

Tags: Democrats, Abortion, National Elections by Chuck
No Comments »