Sad news for the nation today. We lost a true hero, John Ripley. He was 69.

Some may be wondering who was this man, what did he do you might be asking. He did more than what anyone could have been expected to do under circumstances that would cause many to fail.

John Ripley was a Retired Marine Colonel during Viet Nam. In 1972, under heavy enemy fire he blew up a bridge stopping the advance of 200 enemy tanks. Don’t underestimate what that means.

When I say under heavy fire, Col. Ripley had a mere 600 men that were tasked with stopping 20,000 North Vietnamese soldiers and the 200 tanks with them. The odds they were under were considered such that the orders given to them were hold and die.

Hold and die. Think about that. How many people today could ever consider living up to an order like that? How many could accept such an order?

I have an answer that many people today don’t want you to recognize. Virtually every single man and woman in our Armed Forces today. I would say that every Marine would and I have no doubt in all the other military forces of the nation, but I make exception of the brother Marines out there.

With all the noise of groups like MoveOn.org and Code Pink, and idiots like those in Berkley and San Francisco that want to hide our soldiers return home at their airports or refuse to let them perform their actions in their cities, you might miss the fact that America still has heroes. Some are older like Senator McCain, some have passed like Col. Ripley, but have no doubt that many are alive and serving our nation today.

I did not know Col. Ripley, but I am proud to know that my father and I have worn the same uniform as he once did. I am proud to know that there are others that love our nation enough to potentially receive orders as severe as hold and die.

It is because of men and women like that who allow me and all Americans the luxury of writing our blogs without fear of death or torture from Government secret police or worse. It is because of those in uniform today that on Tuesday we will elect a new leader of the nation for the next 4 years in peace.

I ask you all to honor the memory and actions of men like Col. Ripley, and the men and women serving our nation today, on Tuesday. Go out and vote. Exercise the Right they bleed and die for.

Because supporting our troops is not about just polispeak to get votes in my eyes. It’s an obligation we owe those that have held and died; and will do so tomorrow while the rest of us sit at home and gripe about cable television costing so much.

Labels: Berkley, Code Pink, John Ripley, Marines, moveon.org, Polispeak, San Francisco, That's why I vote, USMC, Viet Nam war

I heard about this vide that was being sent across the net and I was just waiting to see how long it would be until I received it. I didn’t have to wait long.



Of course this is a video created by and circulated originally by my friends at MoveOn.org. What lovely people they are. But this video was sent to my by a reader I don’t know, Donna (last name withheld).

I’m happy to know that I have made an impact.

In all actuality I am amused that I received this video. But if you look at it closely you see it’s a bit insulting as well.

First off it equates a vote for Senator McCain as a non-vote. That’s a pretty high pedestal to be standing on, but considering that MoveOn has attacked the very military that protects its freedom to say what it does, I’m not surprised.

Be clear, a vote for Senator John McCain is no less a vote than for anyone else. And not voting for Obama does not make you a racist, if it is based on issues and not the fact that he is Black. Even if you are African American it’s ok to disagree with the bigger Government, spend today tax tomorrow, Government knows best policies of Democrats and Senator Obama. This is not akin to a mandate of your Blackness, its not part of the commoditization of Black culture.

But if I were to be the responsible party in a McCain vote, which by my numbers and expectations is a real potential, I would not be upset. I made my opinion clear, and my reasons. And I have yet to hear an argument, or policy, that gives me pause for that choice. (I would also love the attention and income that such responsibility would provide my blogs and company)

I love the way this video equates a loss for Obama as a national outrage. It completely ignores the fact that nearly ½ the nation (according to polls of committed voters, and who knows about the undecided votes) does not agree with Obama’s policies. If this video is conveying the outrage that might occur in San Francisco, Berkley, or Eugene, Oregon then I will sleep well at night.

In fact in looking over this video again I can see why MoveOn made it. It’s an attempt to scare, cajole, and/or shame voters to vote for Obama. It’s like high school cliques in video form. If you don’t do this you won’t be part of the massive crowd of kids that think they stand out and are different – even though they wear, speak and act exactly the same. How dare you have a brain, know the issues, and have an opinion they don’t like.

The fact that it goes so far as to use religion to slam home the thought that even God must like the politics of Obama. Please. It’s a bit hypocritical for an organization that would support the removal of all hint of religion from all aspects of the nation and public life, to use it as a selling point for their political views. God doesn’t care about politics, Moveon, unless every verse I’ve read in all religious tomes are wrong.

Some would say “Mike, this is just funny.”

No, it’s a targeted attempt to use subtlety and humor to force an opinion onto people. To give the impression that voters have an obligation, instead of a choice, on who to choose for President. It’s the classic move of some liberals and Democrats, to support freedom of speech until someone disagrees with your position. They then need to slam them hard and force them to change their mind to their side, or else. Kind of like what the Obama campaign did to Florida reporter Barbara West, among others.

The best part might just be the absurdity of the thought that McCain would bomb some ubiquitous goat herder. Though the counter thought of Obama sitting down with Iran’s President - to ask him to play nice with Israel, stop making nukes to bomb America, cease funding terrorist groups that plan to kill all Americans (including pacificst and Democrats), and if he is still listening maybe raise the cost of oil so Americans can’t afford it and be forced to use less energy until some new discovery makes an alternative to oil possible – that is terrifying and real.

Of Course MoveOn wants to really sell the Republicans are evil thought. And reinforces the thought that a vote for anyone beyond Obama, and democrats, is a non-vote. MoveOn has a personal gripe with President Bush, and so he is one of their biggest scare tactics. But be honest, to have ANY President mention your name in a positive manner while speaking to the nation is an honor. I wish I had that much influence. I may be a megalomaniac but I’m not insane. (Though I hope to get Bill O’Reilly to comment on a post or speak about me one day. It would be fantastic for my business.)

I will say this, if MoveOn.org is for Obama it is yet another reason not to vote for him. They are the most extreme far-left political group short of communists in China. Ok, that was a bit overstated – maybe the North Koreans and Castro. Of the political opinions they hold that I am aware of I know only 1 person out of about 10,000 in my life that agrees with them. Talk about outside the curve.

So the future I fear is an Obama win. His tax plans will hurt my business and the national economy. He will promote a healthcare plan that will make my health about as important, and as high a quality, as regular mail. He will endanger American lives, and lead us into a war within 5 – 7 years because of his weak stance on foreign policy. He intends to give more to those that do less. He is unbending on his views, and uncaring about other political opinions. He is duplicitous in what he will say to the nation to achieve his goals (though not as bad as Hillary Clinton). And all of that, if not quite a bit more, can all be found in following his campaign since his announcement to run for the Presidency – something I have followed virtually everyday.

I respect Senator Obama. My dislike of his policies is not personal. I admire the fact that he is a Black man that has overcome many obstacles to reach this point. I think he is an incredible orator. And I do not question his intelligence. But none of that is enough to cause me to vote for him.

Voting is always important. Choose who you think matches your hopes for the nation. There is no stigma, no social pariahs. You cannot be singled out, and all the bad jokes and peer pressure in the world will not make someone else’s opinion your vote.

A vote for McCain is as American as a vote for Obama. A vote for Republicans is as valid and honest as a vote for Democrats. A vote is your Right, exercise that Right. But don’t let stupid gimmicks disguised as a joke curb your opinion, nor limit your right to vote. Be informed – from both sides – then get out and make your voice heard.

Labels: moveon.org, Polispeak, political ads, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, That's why I vote, voter registration

So the Democratic Presidential ticket has been revealed. It’s Obama – Biden for 2008. Has this pick really done anything to help Senator Obama win the Presidency and become the first Black President? Has this improved the confidence of the nation in selecting these men as our leaders?

No. At least by me.

I reviewed some of the things that Senator Joe Biden has said in the past, his record in the Primary race, and what I noted about him. The summary is as follows.

Biden was able to take 5th place in the Iowa Primary, gaining a total of 1% of the vote which is inauspicious at best. In polls before the South Carolina Primary, when Stephen Colbert was seeking to enter, the results of potential voters placed Biden a mere .4% ahead of Colbert (Stephen Colbert was projected to have 2.3%, Biden had 2.7%}. Overall his total delegate count was 0. Biden never won a single state.

In my own unofficial polls, found on Black Entertainment USA, M V Consulting, and this site, which were available from 2007 until February 2008 Senator Biden garnered 3% of votes in a competition of Republicans and Democrats. That poll also showed that Senator Obama would win the Democratic Primary with 51%, and Senator McCain would win the Republican with 16%.

Senator Biden has in fact failed to win the Democratic Presidential nomination twice. In 1988 and again in 2008.

Senator Biden is older (56) than Senator Obama, and has far more experience in Congress as he holds the 6th longest term length ever. So it can be said that when viewed by the Obama campaign motto of Change; Senator Biden is the ‘old politics’ that Senator Obama is trying to ‘replace’.

Like Senator Obama, Biden is a lawyer. He attended University of Delaware and the Syracuse University (where he was found to have plagiarized a law review article in his first year). Unlike Senator Obama he has been found to be a liar about his time in college. He has claimed in the past that he had 3 degrees; he has 1, and graduated in the top half of his class, actually place just above the bottom 10%.

His views on Iraq and Afghanistan are mixed, and oppose the declared views of Senator Obama. While Obama favors the retreat in failure policy advocated by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Moveon.org and Code Pink, Senator Biden has offered an option that differs. He supported troops in Afghanistan. He voted for the War in Iraq – along with virtually every Democrat in elected office at the time (Senator Obama was not in elected office then). He was in favor of larger numbers of troops in Iraq, and has not quibbled about funding our troops (which Obama has). His ultimate plan for Iraq is the creation of 3 states and allowing each of those states to be semi-independent and semi-autonomous but still working as a nation together.

Also of note is the fact that in the 2004 Presidential election, Biden advised John Kerry to pick Senator John McCain as a Vice-President. If that is not a statement of how close to political center and bi-partisan Senator John McCain is I cannot imagine what is.

But of major significance to me is the comment of Senator Biden about Senator Obama. Before Obama was the Democratic nominee, back when Biden was still in the Primary race, before the media had fallen in lust with Obama, Biden said what he thought.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man"

To which I ultimate stated

“Senator Biden needs to apologize to more than just Senator Obama. Every Black American deserves an apology. These comments are reminiscent of the mentality that necessitated the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. These comments belittle every success and successful Black American in the nation. Hiding behind one term in a statement whose total purpose is too subtly insult will not fool us. The mainstream media may not wish to address this but I will.

For me, Senator Biden will never get my vote… But the underlying thought of his statement cannot be warmed-over by platitudes or a plea of a single term misstatement. The meaning of the full comment does not change. That meaning places me and 14% of America in a second-class, less than meaningful position. I will not accept that of an American President or politician if possible.”

So I will add this to my comment.

I would not vote for Senator Biden as President when his opinion of over 14% of this nation is demeaning and a throwback to the pre-Civil Rights years. That same reasoning prevents me from voting him into the 2nd highest position in America.

Senator Obama may feel that Biden is a solid mix, but I find his thinking flawed. Biden is an example of old politics – the kind that failed to come up with any energy alternatives in 30 years (Biden was first elected to office in 1972 before the Oil Crisis). Biden is a proven liar and cheat. Biden conflicts with Obama on how to resolve Iraq, and he has a proven zero appeal among Democratic primary voters.

If there was a question about how well Senator Obama could do in the Presidential election I feel it is now answered. I cannot fathom how he can win with Senator Biden on the ticket. Prepare for a McCain Presidency.

Labels: Democratic National Convention, Iraq War, moveon.org, Nancy Pelosi, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Stephan Colbert

Now I’ve discussed my thoughts on how Senator Obama and Senator McCain answered questions about taxes and Darfur, but there were other observations from the Saddleback Civil Forum.

On of the most obvious things I noticed in comparing the 2 Presidential candidates was the amount of expirence they had. While Senator Obama had some ideas and tried to answer all the questions as best he could, Senator McCain had tons of experience. In almost every question asked McCain had a reference of something either he or his wife did. Not idea or proposals but actual facts and actions that related to the question at hand. That spoke volumes.

Another point that was divergent had to be the questions on abortion and gay marriage. The position of Senator McCain was pretty obvious on these questions. He is pro-life (now) and against gay marriage.

Senator Obama made me a bit surprised. He stated he was against gay marriage in a rather emphatic manner. I had not expected him to be so cut and dry on this issue.

“I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not -- that for gay partners to want to visit each other in a hospital, for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are.”

As the most liberal Senator sitting currently, and with the huge financial support of far-left groups like Moveon.org, I expected him to have a more soft position. That is sure to cost him votes.

[Let me answer a question I inevitably will be asked. I do not support gay marriage. I do support civil unions. My reasons are different than what you may think.

The fight for gay marriage is a fight for a word. The purpose of marriage is the monogamous union of a man and woman for the purpose of procreation. Everything else associated with that is a societal/cultural addition. Since a gay couple is incapable of procreation, they cannot be married.

In fighting for the word marriage, an attempt to force others that disagree with gays in general to be forced to acknowledge them, the real fight is obscured. That fight as I understand it is for the right to be treated with dignity and equal rights under the law. That right can and must be covered by civil unions.

To fight for a word is to thus fight religious beliefs of some, which is a never ending fight as we can see in Iraq and with Muslim fanatics, and distracts from the real issue. It in fact prevents some from reaching a middle ground and supporting civil unions.

That simply put is my position. Let the hate mail begin.]

Senator Obama was incredibly ambivalent on his answer about abortion. He never answered where he believes life begins. I realize that he was opposed to angering some voters with his answer, but I think his response angers everyone since he did not give an answer.

“So for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground; and by the way, I've now inserted this into the Democratic Party platform -- is, how do we reduce the number of abortions?”

Thus he fails groups on both sides of the argument. I dislike answers like this as I find it polispeak of the worst form. It’s an attempt to hold or gather votes without providing the public with a basis to form an opinion and make an educated vote. I dislike when any candidate pulls this kind of stunt.

A similar thing happened with the first question that Senator Obama was given. When asked to name 3 people that were the wisest he has known in his life, he gives 2 names. His wife Michelle and his grandmother. I have no problem with the women he chose, I just wonder who was the 3rd person?

He bypasses the 3rd person on the list to then discuss the people he would rely on in his potential administration. Why did he skip the 3rd person? Who was it? Was it Rev. Wright and he was afraid of the controversy? Was it another figure that politically was derisive?

Mind you I don’t like the way McCain answered the first question either.

“First one, I think, would be General David Petraeus, one of the great military leaders in American history, who took us from defeat to victory in Iraq -- one of the great leaders… John Lewis was at the Edmund Pettis Bridge… Meg Whitman; Meg Whitman, the CEO of eBay.”

His answers were equally filled with polispeak. That does not mean they aren’t true, just that the obvious political benefit is too much to not notice.

The Iraq war, thus backing his views on how to have handled the conflict from the start and the Surge which was called a failure by Democrats before it ever started. John Lewis who was hurt during the Civil Rights Movement, and a nice pick for the Black vote. Meg Whiman, very positive for business, women, and those concerned about the economy.

Again they might all be true, but the groups the answer plays to is far too obvious.

Especially in the first answer.

Now while I think McCain showed far more experience, and was ready to answer tough questions with direct answers he was a bit to blunt. Some of his answers were too much dead on Republican talking points. They may be his views, but it just seemed that his campaign banged in his best response too well. It was like he was springloaded to respond to certain questions with exact answers. That does not mean they knew the question in advance, just that he was prepared overly-well.

What do I come away from this all? Basically that Senator McCain is far more experienced and ready to lead ther nation. That some of his views are far more defined and closer to the centrist nature of the general American public than Senator Obama.

And sadly for Senator Obama he gave a strong reason not to vote for him. His reason to not accept Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is exactly the reason that you can oppose him as President.

“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation, setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution.”

If inexperience is a disqualifier for Supreme Court, how can it not be a disqualifier for the highest elected office?

What did you think of the Forum?

Labels: Civil Rights, gay marriage, Iraq, moveon.org, Saddleback Civil Forum, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

It would seem that for some in the American ultra-liberal far left wing, otherwise defined as fanatics, it is not enough that Senator Obama stands a solid chance at winning the American Presidency. It is not enough that the major news media are fawning over Senator Obama – treating his recent trip overseas as if he were a sitting President, and refusing his opponent the opportunities they give him (ie. New York Times editorial). Even the fact that a movie highlighting the very liberal Democratic Presidential candidate is in post-production is not enough (and the film will be out just before the election – nice timing).

No for those like Oliver Stone something more must be done. Something over the top. Something insulting. Something that has never happened to a sitting President in any medium. Oliver Stone feels that now is the time to make up a movie about President Bush, while he is in office.

Why can’t Oliver Stone give up his citizenship, move to France (or Russia, or Iran), and make whatever slanted version of history he wants. I’m sure the Taliban, Al Quida and a few other “see an American, kill an American” hate groups will be more than happy to pack theaters for his biased derogatory slime on film.

Obviously I have a problem with the upcoming film W. My problem is not so much political as it is decency. I don’t care that Oliver Stone has a political agenda the size of the Empire State Building. I don’t care, as much, that he is seeking to portray historical fact in a manner more akin to a scifi movie about they year 300,000 A.D. I don’t care that he is going to get about as many people in the audience (stateside) as there are members of Moveon.org – I’m sure they will all go see it 2x.

What I care about is the power and prestige of the American Presidency and thus America. America is the President on an international level, whether we love or hate any particular President. And Oliver Stone is so obsessed with his personal hate that he doesn’t seem to care what damage he does. He seems willing to do anything to place a(nother) blemish on President Bush, even if it means hurting every American and every American President to come.

This film, a supposed biography of President Bush – that seems to be focused squarely on the past according to the trailer - looks dumb. What may be even more dumb is that it was greenlighted by a Hollywood studio, and that actors of ability have taken several prominent roles.

Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Ioann Gruffudd, Ellen, Burstyn, should all be embarrassed that they would do this to an American President. I really thing that James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, and Scott Glenn should have known better. I mean they couldn’t wait until President Bush finished his term of office?

And as for Jeffery Wright and Thandie Newton I am at a loss. Do they believe that a movie built upon diminishing the office of the President of the United States is going to help their careers or in any way highlight African Americans (who are routinely seen and expected to be Democrats only) in a positive light? Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice have succeeded in becoming exceptional political figures, a fact that did not exist in any other Presidency before President Bush. And Wright and Newton believe that a film that insults America is the best way to immortalize these 2 accomplished, educated, Black figures? I think they deserve far better.

I will show this movie trailer clip. Because I do believe in Freedom of Speech and artistic expression. But I in no way suggest that anyone should see this film. I in no way support any actor’s portrayal in this film. I denounce what Oliver Stone has done, and am angry at Thandie Newton and Jeffery Wright.



Could I be wrong about the film? Until it is released sure, and it is mathematically probable that I can fly, piss on the sun and put it out, and/or suddenly have a stroke and thus believe that Code Pink and San Francisco know what they are doing. But back in the real world, Oliver Stone is doing a wretched thing.

Imagine if someone did a hatchet job on President Clinton and Hillary back when he was in office while doing Ms. Lewinsky with a cigar; the Democrats and Hollywood would be raging and the nation embarrassed. How is this different?

Labels: al quida, Code Pink, Democratic Party, Freedom of Speech, moveon.org, movie preview, New York Times, Oliver Stone, Polispeak, President Clinton, San Francisco, Senator Barack Obama

So Senator Obama has gone overseas to visit Iraq for the first time in years. His first trip to that nation was done with little fanfare and lasted less than 48 hours. This time he will spend another 48 hours in the company of 3 broadcast news agencies, dozens of reporters, and supplied with help by reportedly 300 foreign policy advisors.

Now tell me this isn’t a farce.

It’s a whirlwind tour of the Middle East with enough press corps to equate to several fire teams, not counting the hordes of military soldiers that will be flanking the whole group. But the question is can Senator Obama learn anything new? Can he find out any first-hand information about where Iraq stands and what America should do in the near future?

Well in truth neither candidate has a great position on Iraq. And as noted by a recent USAToday editorial

“It's difficult, for example, to imagine a President McCain insisting on keeping U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely if Iraq's government demands that they leave. Al-Maliki is acknowledging the reality that most Iraqis and most Iraqi politicians want U.S. forces out, at least as soon as they are confident that their own government can protect them.

At the same time, it's equally difficult to imagine a President Obama insisting on an inflexible withdrawal timetable if that means squandering security gains won with great American sacrifice. Though Obama has repeatedly insisted on a timetable, he has pointedly not said that every U.S. troop will be gone when the timetable ends. In fact, he has promised to leave a "residual force" of undefined size in Iraq, and carefully left himself an escape hatch in case the situation worsens. "You've got to make sure the country doesn't collapse," he says.”

So what are the realities of the situation then?

Well for Senator Obama I would think they include the following:

Senator Obama is the Democratic Party line. His votes are not only partisan, they are the extreme left of his party. Thus he was a strong backer of the comments by Harry Reid



Of course Harry Reid was wrong. The surge has worked as anyone with eyes can see. And now Senator Obama has to find a way to tactfully state the Reid and Pelosi were off their rockers. But he can’t say this in a way that agrees with General Petreaus (an enemy of strong Obama supporter MoveOn.org – which would make them enemies of the U.S. government no?) or the Republican Party, or Senator McCain who has visited Iraq 6 times and actually has a frame of reference on the events there.

Senator Obama must avoid making it seem like his trip is a polispeak ploy. It’s obvious to everyone that this trip is not a Congressional fact finding trip but a means to allay the fact that he has no international presence or experience. Senator Obama is spending 1 week to create the impression that he is knowledgeable of international facts, and Presidential in the manner that he acquires them.

His whole goal is to gain votes on the backs of soldiers that are following the orders of the Commander-n-Chief. Thus by standing near a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan he looks Presidential.

Of course if the trip looks like the blatant posturing it is, then he will get a negative backlash. You can’t look Presidential standing on the bodies of American soldiers. You are obviously spinning polispeak when insurgents act up as you proclaim them defeated and our job done.

Thirdly Obama wants to impress Europe. Both because of the fact that so many Americans have roots in Europe and that our economy is directly tied with the fate of those nations.

“It will not be a speech about campaign issues,” an adviser said. “He’s not going to address campaign issues in terms of other candidates, it is not a speech about American politics, and so it’s not a campaign event. We’re not trying to recruit support from the crowds that are coming. It’s not a campaign event.

The point of the outdoor rally is that the senator wants to speak directly to our allies and to the people of Europe and the people of the world and it would be inconsistent to do that and try to limit the attendance for that event. There’s a great deal of interest in his visit. We want to accommodate that interest.”

In fact this is a campaign speech. He is campaigning for the support of world leaders and corporations – who would then lend support to him and hopefully impress centrist Americans that would otherwise avoid his liberal policies.

If this is not a speech about American politics, what the hell is he going to say? He may not frame the speech in terms of McCain, but he will in terms of America and so it’s just another stump speech. Take out the polispeak and that’s all it is, but if his campaign makes it any more obvious it will backfire.

Will this all work? Well it depends. If you are of the mind of say Pete Hegseth maybe not

“Obama frequently decries the danger of “dogmatists” and “ideologues” in public policy, yet he himself has proved consistently uninterested in putting himself in situations where he might be confronted with the hard complexities of this war.”

If you are of a mind as say Peter Beinart then maybe

“This is not to say the security improvements in Iraq are illusory. It’s just that the war’s realities are too elusive to grasp on a brief trip led by people with a vested interest.”

Overall I have one overriding thought, this is political candy meant to do one thing – elect Senator Obama. There is almost nothing Senator Obama can learn with the media following him like puppies and the speed at which he is traveling. He isn’t there to learn anything substantive (lest he have an opinion that does not fall in line with Democratic Party lines, or worse contradict his far-left campaign speeches – more than he already has), he is there to look good. In the words of Fernando

“It's better to look good than to feel good."

And damn if Senator Obama isn’t being made to look good. But I wonder if all the bluster will lead to an Obama Presidency, and if it does will we be able to say this quote afterwards

“I hope when you are my age, you'll be able to say - as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. Our lives were a statement, not an apology." Ronald Reagan

Labels: Afghanistan War, Democratic Party, Harry Reid, Iraq, moveon.org, Pete Hegseth, Peter Beinart, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, USAToday

Code Pink must be angry, Moveon.org annoyed, and the New York Times is the usual indifferent paper that is common. Why are all these groups likely experiencing such emotions? Because yet again all their hype has been deflated in regard to Iraq, the Marines, and our Armed Forces.

Haditha Iraq. I’m sure even those casually paying attention to news noted the slew of articles and news reports condemning 8 Marines, alleging a murder of 24 Iraqi civilians. The comments came out before charges were made, and they all made their decision before facts were ever presented. Across the nation ultra-liberals rejoiced, and Hollywood used this story as fodder for its anti-war anti-American Armed Forces rants they called entertainment movies.

Even politicians jumped into the act, half-cocked.



NOTE that Congressman Murtha did not know any facts on the case. When confronted with information that radio communications and drone videos proved the charges false, he ignored it. He nearly implicates the Commandant of the Marine Corps in his lies and illogic. But when confronted on the veracity of what he alleged he admits that nothing like his claims were ever said. He like so many ‘honest’ ‘unbiased’ organizations has twisted facts for their own purposes.

Yet today marks the 7th Marine that was accused and eviscerated by the media and Congressman Murtha that has either had their charges dropped completely or been found innocent.

And for those that never served in the military, a court-marshal or any charges are presumed correct and the defendant guilty until proven innocent beyond doubt. Guilty until proven innocent beyond doubt. And 7 Marines have been proven innocent to date.

But have you seen that reported in the media? Have you seen any of the over 30 articles mentioning the innocence of these men or remorse for having besmirched their names and that of the Marine Corps?

How about Congressman Murtha, who had a lot to say on television and in Congress. What did he say when the Marines were being found innocent of his accusations and false charges?



Now some would say that I don’t know what I’m talking about. That the fact I was a Marine does not count, because I have not been fighting in Iraq. Only a wartime soldier would understand his views. Ok, then tell me why he can’t respond to this man.



Playing to the crowd? How could it not be more obvious that this is what he is doing?

But today there is even more room for the ‘unbiased’ media, Moveon.org, and Congressman Murtha to remain silent and stupid (in my opinion). And the fact that 7 out of 8 Marines have been exonerated beyond doubt has been reported.

Who presented the news that allowed me to share this revelation with you? Fox News. Funny how the one news source I am constantly told lies, is the only news organization that has covered fully the fact that these Marines are innocent. They are the only ones I have been aware of to question the accusations and smears these Marines have endured.

So I have just one question, based on the silence of Murtha and those like him do you think that if (and in all likelihood considering the 7 prior cases when) the final accused Marine is found innocent beyond any doubt they will publicly – as boldly and prominently as when they first opened their mouths without facts – apologize to these Marines and their families?

Labels: Code Pink, Congressman Murtha, Fox News, haditha, Iraq War, Marine Corps, moveon.org, New York Times

Politics is an amazing arena. It’s the only business in America where lies, misperceptions, misspoken statements, and polispeak are valued assets and critical winning strategies. And that’s true of every political party and elected official from local government to the highest office.

I mention this because of a conversation I had with a woman today. She is interested in getting her voice out to the masses for this election. She believes it to be very important, and thus she is also interested in creating a blog. To that end she contacted me and eventually we discussed the Presidential candidates.

Now in this discussion it came out that she prefers Senator Obama over Senator McCain. There’s nothing wrong with that. When I asked her why, the reasons she gave were very telling. The only reason involving Senator Obama was the fact that he would provide change, every other reason in our 2 hour discussion focused on a belief she had on Senator McCain. I feel that much of what she believed is similar to what others believe as well.

While there is nothing wrong with being for any one candidate, the reasons should be well defined. Let me clarify.

These are the reasons she felt McCain was a bad choice. He is too old, he had cancer, he must suffer from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), he is another President Bush, he is a warmonger (my paraphrase), he is non-partisan, he won’t change anything, and he has a temper. This is the summarized version of her reasons why Obama should be President.

Now while Senator McCain is old, it is well known that he is very physically fit. Many pundits and politicians admit that he is in excellent shape for his age, more than many that are decades his junior. And his genetics – as viewed by looking at his mother who is in her 90’s – show a propensity to remain active and mentally intact for another 20 years. Add to that the fact that Presidents have served at his age before.

And by the way, is Senator McCain is senile for calling Sunnis Shiites, then what is Senator Hillary Clinton when she repeatedly comments on barrel rolling planes and sniper fire that never existed? If that is not senility, or a lie what do you call that? As opposed to mixing up the names of 2 groups of people that most Americans can’t tell you the difference between or even spell.

In looking at his cancer, he had a skin cancer that was non-lethal. It was removed. He is currently free of any cancer and has been for years. There is no reason to believe that he would get cancer again, but there are many politicians that have fought cancer and continued to serve in office. There has been Presidents that have suffered ailments during their Presidency and still governed effectively.

But to combine the 2 questions of age and cancer into one solution, that is why there are Vice-Presidents.

As for being a warmonger, that is a harsh inaccurate and politically driven perception (though again I note that she did not call him that - others I've spoken with have). Groups like Moveon.org and Code Pink may feel that such a title may applie to McCain, but then again they felt the same about Senator Clinton and EVERY other politician that has not advocated the immediate retreat from Iraq. It would be far more accurate to say that as a former military officer, a decorated veteran, and a former POW Senator McCain has a far greater appreciation of what it means to fight for our country than most politicians or civilians. Considering that he has a son that has actively served in Iraq recently, he appreciates as much as any parent the fears of an active war. Thus I am left to conclude that if he believes that it is important for America to win if possible, and/or to exit in a manageable manner – and is willing to risk his own son – that he believes such steps are in the nations best interest long-term.

It’s well known that Senator John McCain has a temper. He has had words with many Senators and politicians over his 25 years of political service. Then again so have many Presidents. In fact it is now more publicly acknowledged that President Clinton had a horrible temper. According to Dick Morris, who used to work for President Clinton, he was struck in anger by the President. Since Mr. Morris said this on national cable television and has not been sued or asked to retract his statement I am led to believe it was true. So we have evidence that recent Presidents have tempers, which did not prevent them from their duties.

To go back to the military past of Senator McCain, which Senator Obama has never had a day of, I was told he had to have PTSD. This was a point that was brought up multiple times. The woman I spoke with could not see how anyone that went through what McCain has could not be so afflicted. Yet in 25 years in the Senate there has been no incidence ever reported. Not one politician, of either party, or an aide has ever noted anything that would be likened to PTSD. I wouldn’t say that McCain never has a bad memory, but like many veterans he has lived a productive life without incident. So why is that a fear? PTSD is not like LSD. It doesn’t suddenly crop up one morning with a cup of coffee. There are symptoms and signs. This is what my father dealt with, and as a man that did have PTSD, suffered from Agent Orange, and lost an arm and leg most would never have been able to tell as he worked on his small farm and daily interactions. But when things were bad, there were always signs.

Suffice to say that I feel this is an unwarranted and probably politically motivated issue.

I’ll combine the question of whether McCain is another President Bush and whether he is non-partisan. Don’t take my word on this but look back a year and a half. Look back 2 years. Read how the liberal media lauded Senator McCain, and Republican were angry with him, for breaking party lines on various issues. Look at how the media positively covered McCain as the most bi-partisan Republican and as the kind of Republican Democrats could work with. Look at the multiple laws he has passed and tried to pass. Count the number of times McCain was called a moderate, and conservative groups that backed President Bush whole-heartedly were angry with McCain.

The fact is that the main thing that has changed is the media and pundit perception of Senator McCain. What he did has not changed, but the perception has been molded by the media, just in time for people who don’t follow politics daily to just notice.

Last is change. Everyone is speaking about change. Which is just dumb. No matter who is elected change is guaranteed. Neither man is President Bush so change is a fact.

But on one hand we have a candidate without experience (relatively) as compared to one with over 3 decades of service to the nation. Of course I was told that Senator Obama can surround himself with people that have experience and he can make decisions based on their knowledge.

So why is McCain faulted for his experience, and that of those he would have around him, since Senator Obama would be drawing from a pool of politician that are just as embedded in “old” politics as McCain? The only real difference is that McCain has his own experience to balance against the opinions of those around him, and Obama does not.

Now I don’t fault anyone for picking any candidate. I am happy that many are getting involved because I agree that this is an important election. But I want to emphasize something. Picking a candidate based on current soundbites and a set of rules that apply only one way is not picking a candidate that is in the best interest of America.

Check the facts, learn about the candidates for yourself. Look at the vote where Senator Obama voted to raise the taxes of everyone making $31,850 or more (and Senator McCain voted against) and ask if that is rich. Ask why every multi-millionaire and billionaire that advocates higher taxes have never given a single extra dollar to the government than they were required to – in fact a few have preferred to give their money to charities instead. Ask how Senator Obama will pass bi-partisan laws with a record of voting highly partisan and liberal. Ask if you prefer a President that is historically moderate or liberal – with a populace that in all honesty is middle of the road depending on the issue.

If you look for those facts, and ignore the pundits and polispeak; if you ask those questions and come to an answer for yourself, then that is who you should vote for. And it’s when you vote on that basis that America will truly get the best choice for America’s future.

Labels: 2008 election, Code Pink, moveon.org, Polispeak, President Bush, Presidential candidates, PTSD, Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain, tax increase

For those in Pennsylvania that will be voting soon, think on this. Hillary did not go to Arkansas, where the Clintons had a long history in politics to be elected to Senate – she went to NY State. She won in part because she promised Upstate New York the creation of 200,000 jobs – in fact the area has lost 30,000 during her tenure.

Then ask yourself, what law has Senator Clinton passed? What cause has she championed and made change for? Not what has she made a speech about, but a real change or law. [Yes Senator Obama has done nothing as well, but he just got into the Senate, Hillary is in her 2nd term.]

Then ask yourself one last thing. Character is a major part of any American President. It factors into everything they do, and how they are perceived at home and internationally. Part of a persons character is judged by the company around and supporting that individual.

Around Senator Clinton we find:

• Mayors that refuse to allow our soldiers returning from Iraq to enter their airport
  
• A husband that lied to the entire nation and committed adultery
  
• Support from an organization that insults our soldiers and their commitment to America
  
• A 15 year fugitive from the law that provided her campaign $1 million of stolen money that they didn’t want to return
  
• A Governor that violated his oath to the court and the people of his state, broke the law, embarrassed is family, created on his wife, and imperiled the smooth operations of his state
  
• A business man that made his money on the back of promoting stereotypes about Blacks, objectified women, and stooped to making racial attacks about her opponent.
  

If you don’t know their names they are (in order) – Mayor Gavin Newsom, former-President Bill Clinton, Moveon.org, Norman Hsu, Eliot Spitzer, and Bob Johnson.

Do you really want to elect that type of person?

If so then vote for her. But if not, go out and make your voice heard clear. Vote whatever you believe, but be involved. If not you may be sorry for what you will have forced on you.

Labels: Bob Johnson, Eliot Spitzer, Mayor Gavin Newsom, moveon.org, New York, Norman Hsu, Pennsylvania Primary, President Bill Clinton, Senator Clinton

**I want to say hello to all my new readers coming from TV One's website and it's Presidential election page.**

Here is a quick list of a few reasons why I feel the “dream Presidential ticket” means sure doom for Democrats come November. And by the way, the reasons don’t change regardless of which Presidential candidate is the lead.

• 1) Racial and religious slurs. Obviously there have been multiple attacks and rumors that have been coming from one political campaign against another. No names need to be said, but the effect has been fractioning of the party, disenfranchisement of voters, and a potential explosion at the Party convention.
  
• 2) The massive scandals that come with the Clinton’s. Do not kid yourself if you are a fan of theirs, everything they were accused of is going to come back. Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky and the rest. And add in new events like whatever is hidden in the current tax return and the records blocked by Bill.
  
• 3) Absolute lack of experience. Both candidates are novices in the political sphere, especially when compared to the long record of McCain and his military record. Which of the three really has the experience to answer the 3am call? Expect to see that commercial before the election.
  
• 4) Taxes will go higher. Pick your choice, but either way you will pay more to the government. How else will all those entitlements get paid for, like universal healthcare?
  
• 5) For those that came up with the answer, “Leave Iraq and it will pay for it all”, sorry that’s not exactly right. You are correct that with either at the helm America will lose in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. Guaranteed the terrorists will be empowered. An immediate retreat from Iraq means that those left in the wake to suffer will join the propaganda that blames it all on America and attack us when old enough. Troops will need to be in Iraq to prevent total chaos (which is the real meaning of being IN Iraq for 100 years – like being in Germany for 50 now). So the money saved will go to setting up a permanent base and protecting/rebuilding from terrorist attacks.
  
• 6) Any person that is against the idea of a Black and/or woman being in charge will vote against this ticket. For all the hopes and belief that America has grown, the fact is that many in America (of both sexes and many races) still harbor bias. Proof is in the wage differences, executive placements, legal system, movies, television shows, and on and on.
  
• 7) Illegal aliens (or non-documented immigrants if you prefer – lack of a passport or green card is illegal) will gain citizenship and/or multiple rights of citizens. Possibly good for unions and Democratic voting blocks, I don’t see a benefit anywhere else.
  
• 8) The stock market classically drops at the beginning of a Democratic Presidency. Depending on the ability of the Democrat, the entire term can be bad for the stock market, business, ultimately the economy and investors.
  
• 9) Both supported (or refused to refute) Moveon.org and its insulting attack against General Petraeus and the Armed Forces. Obviously not good for relations with the Pentagon.
  
• 10) The Party division created by the fight for the nomination, will not be resolved so simply. The real issues, and taking for granted of core sections of the Democratic Party, will not just go away. With either candidate at the top of the ticket some will feel they were robbed and betrayed.
  
• 11) And lastly the egos of both candidates visibly and directly clash.
  

Now these are all real and valid reasons that the Democrats will lose with this combination. That is not to say that either candidate, with a different Vice-President, is unable to win. I think that the odds of winning go up dramatically for Senator Obama without the burden of Senator Clinton. I feel Senator Clinton just can’t win.

If either candidate does win, hopefully some of the issues may be resolved. Stereotypes and prejudice need to be removed. Barriers and small-mindedness needs to be broken. Others may be improved with time.

If you favor the Democratic candidates, good. I’m not decreeing the outcome. But realize that this potential ticket has baggage and problems. If you want this to win, or any candidate, get out there and vote. Only your vote will ensure that the candidate you want will win. Only with your vote, and all those of citizens, will the best choice for America be determined.

Labels: Democratic candidates, Democratic Party, illegal aliens, Iraq, moveon.org, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

So I was working on a couple of projects for clients and I was listening to a couple of pundits talk about the Democratic candidates. The specifics were that they were contrasting the positions of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.

I wasn’t paying deep attention to the conversation, but after a bit I wondered why I didn’t notice hearing any real difference. Nothing really came to mind besides experience. And honestly neither has much experience. Unless you count Senator Clinton’s time as the wife of the President, which last I heard was not an elected position. I don’t count that, but I do count the time that Senator Obama spent as an elected Illinois State official.

So a while after the talking heads were off, I suddenly realized that I heard no substantive differences. And I thought about it for a few seconds, and realized that there are no differences. They are the same political position, the only difference being who you might believe can actually pull off the many promises each has made over the nomination process.

But my realization is not enough. I follow politics everyday, up to 20 hours a day. I don’t get distracted by mind melting crap like American Idol, so I actually recall and hear all the conversations the Presidential candidates have had. Most people neither have the time nor desire to do this.

To that end I decided to provide research on the subject. Looking at the voting records of both candidates I checked 16 categories (including Health, Abortion, Campaign Finance, Education, Gun Issues, Civil rights, Civil Liberties, Crime and more). Out of 152 votes over almost 3 years (2005 up to February 2008) there is a difference of only 9.9%. That’s 15 different votes in total. That’s 5 votes a year.

To me, that means they are exactly the same type of candidate, neither being more qualified nor providing a greater benefit than the other. No matter how the polispeak is spun, or what 30 second soundbites are used they both are planning to do the same exact thing to America.

Both Senators voted exactly the same on Abortion, Agriculture, Campaign Finance, Congressional Affairs, Crime, Environment, and Civil Liberties.

There were one or more vote differences on the following:

Appropriations:

• Future Military Funding for Iraq Amendment (Vote to adopt a non-binding, amendment that expresses the Senate's will that future military operation funds be included in the regular budget proposal and not in an emergency supplemental appropriation bill.) – Obama voted NV (not voting), Clinton was Yea
  
  
  
  Civil Rights:
  
• Expressing Support for General Petraeus and All Members of the Armed Forces (Vote to pass an amendment to reaffirm support for all men and women of the United States Armed Forces, to strongly condemn any attacks on General David Petraeus and all members of the US Armed Forces and to specifically condemn Moveon.org’s advertisement about General David Petraeus.) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted NV. NEITHER would condemn the personal attack made by Moveon.org against our military! To me it’s the same vote.
  
  
• Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act (Vote to pass a bill that amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to implement certain recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
• REAL ID Funding (To make $300,000,000 available for grants to States to carry out the REAL ID Act of 2005.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
• Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees (Vote to pass an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay should not be released into American society or transferred into detention facilities on American soil.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
  
  Education:
  
• Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants (Vote to pass a bill that makes changes to regulations and funding of federal student financial aid.) – Obama voted NV, Clinton voted Yea
  
  
  
  Energy:
  
• Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (Vote to pass a bill that allows offshore oil and gas leasing in the 181 and 181 South areas within a year and plans to expand into the Eastern Planning, Central Planning and Western Planning areas at some future date.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted No
  
  
• Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Vote to adopt a conference report that develops an energy policy that addresses tax incentives, conservation strategies, regulatory standards, research and development programs, energy efficiency, and alternative sources of energy.) – Obama voted Yea, Clinton voted No
  
  
  
  Executive Branch:
  
• Attorney General No Confidence Vote (Vote to invoke cloture on a joint resolution that that expresses a loss of confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.) – Obama voted NV, Clinton voted Yea
  
  
• Thomas B. Griffith, US Circuit Judge (Vote to confirm President George W. Bush's nomination of current Assistant to the President and General Counsel of Brigham Young University Thomas B. Griffith to be the new United States Circuit Court Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted Yea
  
  
• Richard A Griffin, US Circuit Judge (Vote to confirm President George W. Bush's nomination of current Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Richard A. Griffin to be the new United States Circuit Court Judge for the Sixth Circuit.) – Obama voted NV, Clinton voted Yea
  
  
  
  Family and Children:
  
• State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization (Vote to pass a bill that reauthorizes and expands the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
  
  Guns:
  
• Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment (Vote to pass an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters. (Sec. 540)) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted Yea
  
  
  
  Health:
  
• FDA Drug Import Certification Amendment (Vote to adopt an amendment that requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify the safety of imported prescription drugs.) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted NV
  

Now this is not to say there are no other differences between the 2. Nor am I saying this is good or bad. But I am giving you the chance to see what are the real differences between the candidates.

Polispeak is one thing, but actual performance of their elected positions is another. Check out the laws and their records. You decide if they match what they claim and what is important to you. You have the knowledge now. Use it.

Let me know what you think.

Labels: Abortion, Campaign Finance, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, education, Gun Issues, moveon.org, Polispeak, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, voting records

I have tried for days to be calm. I’ve tried to accept the fact that freedom of speech allows people to be stupid and vile. And yet I am still upset.

The reason for my anger is simple. In California, the city of Berkley believes that the very U.S. Marines that ensure their right to freedom of speech and the right to assemble, among other rights, are “unwelcome invaders.” The insanity of such a statement escapes me.

How dare they. What do they think is going on? They insult America with such comments and actions. And trust that this has taken me 4 days to write this in a non-verbally abusive form.

I’m tired of hearing the crap that says “I support the troops, but I don’t support the war.” It’s bull****. Simply put you cannot support the troops while attacking what they are doing. You cannot attack the Commander-and-Chief and not think it affects the troops. You cannot attack our servicemen and not think it is a blow to the freedoms that they ensure.

Code Pink should be arrested. They insult the very servicemen and women they supposedly wish to help. They abuse the rights that those in the military bleed to provide them. And if they are so angry, I suggest they give up their American citizenship and go to whatever country they think is better than America.

The City of Berkley and San Francisco can go and join them too. They feel that our military is an invasion force. They believe that our military is evil. They would spit upon our soldiers and the sacrifices they make for us all. Such people can kiss my A**.

These are the same people that spit upon our soldiers returning from Viet Nam. They were the ones that could not appreciate the sacrifices made then or now. They insult America, and every American. They can take Hanoi Jane Fonda and leave the nation. Maybe they can kiss Osama Bin Laden’s a** before he cuts off their heads.

These people forget that there are nations that want them dead, for no reason beyond the fact they live in the most free nation in the world. They forget that were it not for the Marines and our other servicemen and women they could not speak in public. That there are nations that would have all the women covered head to toe and pink is not an option. That in other nation’s women cannot speak, and insulting the nation results in death.

I feel these people are un-American. They despise our nation, and their hate is palpable. I would personally go into debt to pay for each and every one of them to leave this nation and never return.

There are many things I would like to say. Many points I’d like to make. But none can be said beyond my anger. Even 4 days later.

America may not be perfect, and the public should voice their concerns. It is our right and God bless us for that. But there is a line where respect and understanding lie. Code Pink, Moveon.org, San Francisco and Berkley have all crossed that line. They are hypocrites and morally corrupt in my opinion. I have no respect for them or what they are doing.

Berkley and San Francisco should have all their Federal funding revoked. No federal support should be given to them, no matter the natural disaster or economic downturn. IF they do not wish to be part of the nation, my money should not support them in any manner. If any of them worked for me, I’d fire them. I’m happy to say none of my work or clients involve either city or group. Nor would I ever knowingly accept anything from them. Were it possible I would not even allow my blogs to appear in those cities.

I spit upon Code Pink, Moveon.org, San Francisco and Berkley. They hate Marines, and thus me, my father and millions over the centuries that Marines have existed.

They can all go to Hell.

Labels: Berkley, Code Pink, Hanoi Jane, moveon.org, San Francisco

I want to remind everyone that on Saturday @ 2:30, TV One will have a live webcast of the Heartland Presidential Forum, featuring several leading Democratic Presidential candidates, and Republican candidates as well. This forum will feature candidates answering questions from the audience (and I don’t expect that any candidate will be planting questions for this).

I will be covering this Forum on Saturday, and you can expect a few posts from me, for TV One and everyone.

Considering the nature of the forum, and the fact that most Americans have not been following the candidates over the past year as much pundits and political bloggers, I thought that a short Pros and Cons of the leading Democratic candidates would be helpful. I intend to have a similar list for Republicans shortly.

I am only focusing on the leading candidates because of the short time until the primaries. I want to note one candidate that will be at the forum that I will not be doing a Pros and Cons for. Dennis Kucinich was the only candidate of either party to-date that answered any questions on Reparations for African Americans. His answer was for reparations. Every other candidate has refused to even speak on the subject.

With that noteworthy positions stated here is my list of Pros and Cons. I hope it helps those at the forum that get to ask questions, and everyone that will be voting. Please let me know your thoughts as well. [I am trying to be neutral, but of course that is not always possible in all issues. You may disagree with some of the items I list under either category. Let me know your reasons why you disagree, or agree, in the comments.]

Senator Hillary Clinton:

Pros


• Wife of President Bill Clinton
  
• Long-time Healthcare advocate
  
• Determined
  
• A lawyer
  
• A current 2nd term Senator
  
• Well known internationally
  
• First female Presidential candidate with a chance
  
• Forgave the infidelity of President Clinton
  
• Various polls state ~1/2 country favors her
  
• Very liberal in most all policies
  
• Pro Abortion


Cons


• Pro-abortion
  
• Has never directly run or owned any business
  
• Entered elected office after career of President Clinton
  
• Initial attempt to pass Healthcare reforms failed horribly
  
• Consistently appears to hold no actual position on most policies
  
• Speaks like a lawyer
  
• A female candidate
  
• Various polls state roughly ½ the nation strongly dislikes her
  
• Staff has at least 2x planted questions in her public appearances
  
• Had committee member attack Republican candidates by surprise at CNN/YouTube debate
  
• Very liberal (supported MoveOn.org in Gen. Patreaus ad)
  
• Has received the most money from lobbyists and institutions of any candidate of any party
  
• Took $1 million from wanted fugitive
  
• Involved in multiple scandals
  
• Pro-Illegal Immigration
  
• Anti-death penalty
  
• Anti-school vouchers
  

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Heartland Presidential Forum, moveon.org, political debate, President Clinton, presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, TV One

Ok, I just saw the Swift Kids ads that are appearing on television. I am insulted and offended. Not because they are attacking Democratic candidates, attack ads seem to be par for course in politics today, but because they are using kids and are themed in the most insulting manner.

I realize that this is a smear ad. I realize that its intention is to match the cute innocence of children with political messages. But it fails horribly. Take for example the Swiftkids ad against Senator Barack Obama.



This is insulting. First they start off with an insulting play of his name. “Black orama” is one that instantly caught my attention. And I feel it was an intentional statement aimed at the race of Sen. Obama. That somehow his race affects his ability to lead this nation. That borders on racist.

Then it’s the old, “his name is too hard to say” line. I’ve generally heard such a comment from people missing many teeth and with far less education than my 11 year old nephew. It’s an ignorant comment.

Then to suggest that a persons name has an effect on their abilities. Again it seems to be an insult based on the race of Senator Obama. Because his name is not a traditional W.A.S.P. styled name that somehow confers a lack of something that say President John Fitzgerald Kennedy or President Millard Fillmore had. If anyone is swayed by such a comment, I am ashamed that they have a right to vote.

And then one of the kickers. Senator Obama is not Black? Since when? I suppose under the seemingly drug induced logic of the makers of this ad; I would not be Black either. I’m sure the racists that have called me N-word throughout my life would beg to differ. And what makes Senator Barack Obama not African American? That his mother is White? I’m sure that if most African Americans looked back in their family trees they would find a mixing of the races. My family includes Irish blood as well as White slave owners. But I’ve never had anyone mention that to me. And lets not forget that many White Americans have blood that is equally mixed, as some of the descendants of Thomas Jefferson learned from DNA tests not long ago.

The fact is every aspect of this ad is insulting and racist. It makes no credible claim against Senator Obama. It plays on the most base of reasons to not vote for this candidate. It oozes fear and ignorance.

I don’t doubt that most will reject this garbage instantly. But just like the small minds that created this ad, there are some that will be swayed. It’s a testament to the need of more movement forward on race relations in this nation. It disgusts me, and I have issues with any television station that will run this.

Much the same can be said about all the Swift Kids ads. They are without taste, credibility, or talent. They are vacuous in the claims they make and benefit no one. None should ever see the light of day, or coverage on television. This is no different than the MoveOn.org ad against General Petraeus. It insults all Americans, and diminishes everyone.

I hope to never have to see an ad like this again. Hopefully this post will help ensure that our nation’s politics never have to be dragged through filth like this again. And I suggest that everyone who sees this post asks their Congressional Representative and Senator to denounce these ads, just as they should have with the MoveOn.org ad. And I will judge those that will not vote, or vote in favor of this ad, as harshly as I did those who voted for MoveOn.org, or failed to vote.

Labels: Congress, Democratic candidates, election 2008, moveon.org, political ads, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President Millard Fillmore, Senator Barack Obama, Swift Kids

**This can be found at All American Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

For those that are unaware, November 10th was the 232nd birthday of the Marine Corps.



As they have since the inception of the Marines, today Marines are protecting the lives of citizens and the ideals of America across the world. The Marine Corp birthday was not a day off, or even time off for many of our brave sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers. 24 hours a day, every day, they protect us and give their lives for the privileges we enjoy without thought.

Like all Veterans of all the Armed Forces, I salute what they have done, and continue to do.

Perhaps people in places like San Francisco forget this. Perhaps organizations like MoveOn.org choose not to recognize this. I for one will never forget nor fail to recognize.

America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth, with all of our flaws included. That is directly tied to those who stand up and defend those freedoms, rights and choices. Never forget

“The cost of Freedom is never free.”

Semper Fidelis

Labels: Marine Corps, moveon.org, San Francisco, Semper Fi

What a guy, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He is such the authority on what insults the Armed Forces and troops in Iraq. I’m so pleased that he can stand up and let us know all those people that HE is the watchdog of America.

Actually, Sen. Reid has help in his pursuit of defending the image, respect and honor of the military. MoveOn.org and Media Matters are there to provide him the tools he needs. You know who both those groups are.

MoveOn.org, the supremely left group that so loves our military (the very people who enable such a group to exist and publicize their views without harm) they impuned the credibility and loyalty of the General in charge of Iraq, thus questioning the loyalty of everyone in that commanders chain of command. They publicly, on an international basis, attempted to humiliate the Armed Forces and all that they do for our nation, without question on a voluntary basis even at the cost of their lives.

Let’s not forget Media Matters. An organization that purports to identify failures in media to report accurately, and to identify acts that demean and insult the American people. Sadly none of this can be done without inaccuracy, misquotes and out of context statements. From their recent out-of-context accusation of racism, where every public African American “leader” including Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton found none, to stating Rush Limbaugh attacks the American military when Mr. Limbaugh correctly cited a soldier that was found to have made statements to the press that never happened.

What friends of Senate Majority Leader Reid. The constituents of his state must be quite proud when he says,

Rush Limbaugh owes the men and women of our armed forces an apology

But when it came down to a vote to condemn the aforementioned ad by MoveOn.org Sen. Reid voted against condemnation. That is an insult. That demands an apology.

The factual comparison is that Senator Harry Reid, on the basis of my understanding of his voting record and comments, stands behind extreme left groups that wish to demean and belittle the very people who defend their right to free speech. That he approves of tactics that seek to personally attack individuals that differ from those organizations views. That misinforming the public for the purpose of improving the political status and election chances of candidates they approve of is justifiable.

This is who Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid aligns himself with.

I don’t care what the personal political views of Sen. Reid are. He has his right to believe what he wishes. As a politician he has an obligation to follow the views of his constituents, not rich billionaires that fund political groups with an agenda (such as George Soros), or political groups that are directly seen as extreme even in their own party.

Politicians, specifically the 24 that chose to vote against condemning the MoveOn.org ad (includiung Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton) and the Senator Barack Obama’s non-vote, may wish to obscure or ignore these issues. I say keep them in mind.

When it comes time to vote, there will be many that may have forgotten what some have done. Sen. Reid is among those that hope that, as do organizations like MoveOn and Media Matters. I will not. My vote is worth a long memory that includes candidates and politicians so dedicated to extremist money that they chose them over our military.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: george soros, media matters, moveon.org, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Reid

For all the talk and condemnation of the MoveOn.org ad personally attacking Gen. Petraeus, what affect does this all have on the Average Joe? Where does this entire fluster shake out? The Presidential election and the effects on the nation.

After 2 weeks of denials, the New York Times has finally admitted they broke their rules. This is a big deal. It’s not that the NY Times dropped the price of the ad some $70,000. MoveOn is funded by billionaire George Soros, they can afford whatever price the Times makes up. The question is whether the news organization is impartial, which this proves it is not. The paper broke rules against favoring a political party, running an attack ad, and several other regulations that the Times has in place for themselves. That’s a blatant move, and thus a virtually explicit declaration of ultra-liberal political affiliation.

Some could say that it’s not a big deal. News organizations tend to be liberal anyway. I disagree. Writers may or may not be liberal; a news organization should be neutral. This apparent declaration, which the Times tried to justify for 2 weeks, shows that they are not neutral and thus lie to the American people, as I conclude. It’s a strong conclusion I have come to, and if I am correct it means that every item reported about the President, national policies and international interactions may have been tainted. Imagine that, everything that the Times has said has been altered from the truth, either through omission of facts or editing of those facts, to make readers act in one manner or another.

Add to this the fact that not one of the Democratic Presidential candidates has made a single statement to condemn the ad and the problem grows. It’s not that they are breaking political ranks, this issue is beyond that. The Untied States Armed Forces are in place to protect EVERYONE, without regard to political affiliation or individual thoughts. Our soldiers die for the right to have ads, like the despicable MoveOn ad, to be able to appear without someone dying for it. A mere handful of countries can claim the same thing.

The ad attacked not just the General, but every American military person. To say that Gen Petraeus lied or betrayed the nation is to say that every soldier in his command did the same. It is to say that a temporary political point in time is more important than the lives and constitution he has sworn to uphold and protect. Considering his positive and well supported (by both parties) appointment, this questioning of loyalty is deeply misplaced.

What does it say when the potential next Commander-and-Chief has so little respect for the troops under their command that they will allow any attack upon them individually and as a whole. Yes, disrespect for the whole military. Gen. Petraeus did not leak out information or aide the enemy. He did not put our soldiers in harms way, or intentionally cause them to be killed. He has not reported lies or information that has not been confirmed and understood. He has not acted in any manner other than professionally and respectfully, even while his report given to Congress was questioned in its complete truth to his face.

I feel that a vote to not condemn personal attacks against our Armed Forces is a negative signal of what will come in the future. To vote against condemnation is to vote for the MoveOn ad. It’s a statement of no confidence in the military and a Commander-and –Chief must have faith in the military to command. Especially if that Commander has never spent one second in the Armed Forces.

Equally, the failure to vote either way is an act of cowardice in my opinion. Some issues are black & white. You either agree or disagree. To opt out is merely an attempt to play political games, seeking to keep funding without angering the general populace.

We need our leaders, and those who hope to become a leader, to state what they believe and to be accountable for that decision. If money, and political extremism, are the issues that they feel are most important we need to know that prior to an election. The repercussions are too dire to find out after the fact.

And to know that our news media organizations are being honest to us is no less important. If they are equally biased, what is to stop them from creating a new McCarthy, rather than exposing one? Where does the slippery slope begin that leads to a news media that is merely the tool of the government as opposed to reporting on it? It may sound implausible in America, but if our rules and standards falter how can we be sure it cannot happen?

The MoveOn.org ad is more than just an ad. The controversy and reactions are far reaching. And Average Joe should keep in mind what this means and can lead to. If we don’t we may not be able to get back from the road it takes us down.

Labels: General Petraeus, moveon.org, New York Times, presidential cantidates

Well the Presidential candidates continue to bring up some of the most interesting items in blogs and news stories as we approach the primary votes. From comparisons to Hugo Chavez, to reports of web activity, to MoveOn.org. And we still see that most of the nation is very divided on what the future will bring. The issues for the next President of America are widespread and intense.

We are seeing that the internet is being used by more people to discuss more fringe opinions than were ever known to exist by the mainstream before. Probably one of the now best known fringe groups would be MoveOn.org. Not only has this organization come into the full light of public attention, they have made an impact. Perhaps not the intended on though. The vile attack against Gen. Petraeus offended every veteran, military members and family that I know of. Many have come to question the Democratic Party and the presidential candidates that have refused to denounce the ad.

Whether it’s connected or not, we now can see a sites that questions some of the social views of Sen. Hilary Clinton are being compared to Hugo Chavez.

Quick, take a shot as guessing who said this: “Society cannot allow the private sector to do whatever it wants…”
If you said Hillary Clinton, I can’t blame you. That was my first impulse, too, …

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Surprising comparison. One that you might expect MoveOn to make and defend. But they seem quite busy right now trying to claim yet another American figure is a betrayer. Having failed with the first target and ads with this phrasing, MoveOn has now targeted Rudy Giuliani as betraying Americans. The latest set of ads target is work with the 9/11 commission, and ignore his work on 9/11 and the weeks afterwards. But none have ever said MoveOn is good at making any point other than they represent a fringe of America, and due to the backing of billionaire George Soros they can get any ill-conceived message out to the masses.

Avoiding all this drama has been Fred Thompson. New to the race, officially, he has done quite well. The most recent results from Hitwise state that Thompson leads all candidates with views of his website din the last week. His lead is not shabby either, with more than double the second place candidate, Sen. Barack Obama. I will say that the site is very well designed.

So with all the activity on the internet, and still months to go, where do you fit in? Do you have a candidate you agree with? Do you understand the platforms the various candidates support?

If you don’t remember one thing. One of these candidates will be the next President. Know who you are voting for, and what they stand for. Understand who supports them. Otherwise you may be very surprised, at least, by what you get during their presidency.

Labels: 9/11, Fred Thompson, hitwise, hugo chavez, moveon.org, Presidential candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Some of you may be aware that in addition to my own blogs, I also write to and for several other blogs. A few of those blogs are owned by a friend and colleague of mine. While our opinions differ on what exactly to do about the war in Iraq we do agree about Moveon.org. As such I will repost his comments (any emphasis made is my own) about the article Moveon had in the New York Times. You can also find this post at 1800blogger.com:


The beautiful thing about blogging is that eliminates the saying, “It’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.” Hopefully, you hold this blog post worthy enough for your righteous asses to read it.

People always ask me whether I’m liberal or conservative and I always pause before I answer. Then I reply, “I’m not sure, it depends on the topic.” I answer that way because that’s how I feel. The one thing that I truly do believe in is that I need to respect some things in life, whether it’s a person or a religion because it’s just the right thing to do. Generals, religious views, old ladies, old men, clergymen …….. just to name a few.

Think about a General’s life. For as long as they can remember, they pledged allegiance to The Flag of the United States of America. It’s a calling - the same calling experienced by a rabbi or a priest. I really believe that. You make a decision to pursue a position in life not based on economic gain or most other material things but just because its something that you feel you should be doing. For 20 or 30 years, you give everything to this country not to get the title of General. In fact, most ranks in the military come as a by-product of exemplary dedication and hard work. And after you give everything you have for 20 or 30 years, you are awarded the distinction of being called General. I would guarantee you this. Some General sometime over the past 200 years gave their life so you could do what you’re doing today. Personally, I disagree with the war. In life, a smart man cuts his losses and a foolish man stays the course. In 2008, I will have the opportunity to vote and probably vote against any Republican who doesn’t have a plan to end this war because a smart man cuts his losses. This may be the good fight but it’s not the right fight.

Then, I come to your ad in the New York Times. Although, you probably believe in your cause, I often wonder who funds causes like this. Well, I know the answer. People like George Soros and the people who have an agenda. There are millions of people dying in this world and we have diseases such as aids, cancer, heart disease and diabetes killing millions, and your organization made a decision to pay for and display this ad in the New York Times.

General Petraeus or General Betray Us.

So what you did is that little boy who had a calling so many years ago that your work and dedication to our freedom was worth the ad in The New York Times.

One year ago, I contacted a father who lost his 2 boys in 9/11. One was a fireman, one was a policeman. He had no other children. When I saw your ad, I thought of that man. Before running another ad like that, why don’t you think of him too?

For all the people that I personally knew who perished on September 11, 2001, this company, this blog and the World will never forget. Neither should you MoveOn.org.

So allow me to apologize for you.

Dear General Petraeus:

We’re sorry.

Respectfully,

Our former righteous ass

Labels: 1800blogger.com, General Petraeus, moveon.org, New York Times, September 11 2001