When US Representative Jack Murtha publicly characterized our troops as "broken, worn out" and "living hand-to-mouth," I decided to check the allegation out. Since Murtha was complaining mainly about military equipment, I reasoned that the symptoms would show up at major theater repair depots.

So I sought out the opinion of an NCO I know, who supervises mechanics at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. Early in his deployment, this soldier had mentioned trouble getting parts and snafus like the engines of some "up-armored" Humvees not being able to handle the extra weight of the armor.

The sergeant had not heard about Murtha's comments; outside news sources are few at Arifjan, and the soldiers there are too busy keeping things in good repair to spend time surfing the 'net.

more...

Posted by: Bluto at 11:26 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

Yesterday the Senate passed a Republican resolution rather than the Democratic sponsored resolution setting a weak time table for withdrawal from Iraq and adding reporting requirements on the White House after a whopping four minutes of debate. Was this a wise move?

I ask you Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard?

William Kristol: Pathetic

All honor to the 13 Republican senators who stood up against the me-too, we-want-to-get-out-as-well-but-not-quite-as-quickly, Republican leadership: Bunning, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, DeMint, Graham, Inhofe, Isakson, Kyl, McCain, Sessions, Thune, and Vitter. Let's hope their colleagues reconsider and join their ranks in the near future.

The answer is: Correct!!! it is pathetic. Obviously the Senate is pandering to the polls here and Al-Zaqueery can be satisfied that his predictions about US behavior are sadly accurate.

Prediction: Al-Qaeda in Iraq will now bide their time waiting for the US to bow to pressure both domestic and foreign to do what he canÂ’t. Push the US out and get his opportunity to establish an Islamic fascist state in Iraq.

Freddie "The Beetle" Barns?

Fred: Oh shut up Howie.

Posted by: Howie at 01:45 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 2 kb.

Yes since Gov Rod's helpers seem so interested in my saftey let's see what their boss is up to.

ILL Republican Newsletter Nov 4th

·ROD WON'T TALK. As of today, the new Blagojevich administration policy, regarding confirming subpoenas delivered to state agencies, will be 'not to say anything' and refer inquiries to the U.S. Attorney's office. This week's state agency receipts included four new subpoenas in what appears to be an investigation, agency by agency, into suspicious hiring practices. Apparently, there are so many incoming subpoenas that confirming each and every one would take up too much of the governor's press office time. The U.S. Attorney's office is not in the habit of commenting on ongoing investigations. The administrations' disappointing decision puts an end to any transparency the office may have had. A veil of secrecy over the administration's legal wounds will prove to be a politically damaging practice. (Sun Tim es 11/4)

· ICC CHAIRMAN FAILS TO PASS SENATE. Marty Cohen failed to receive enough votes from the Illinois State Senate this week to be confirmed as the new ICC Chairman. Cohen was seen as a politically motivated nomination by Governor Blagojevich, who wanted to appear to be consumer friendly to voters through Cohen's history as an advocate who has long fought the same energy providers he would be required to work with as ICC chair. Cohen came out and slammed both Democrat and Republican Senators who have received contributions from the energy lobby. If the Governor really supports Cohen, he should return the $110,000 that he received from the energy lobby. (Tribune 11/4/05)

ILL Republican newsletter 11/11 : NO COAT TAILS FOR ROD. Who knew that only three years into his administration Governor Blagojevich would have such little clout in his own party that the collection of petition signatures would be such a challenge? A Democratic precinct committeewoman from Sangamon County complained this week about the trouble she is having getting people to sign petitions for state- wide candidates. "Quite a few of the people have adamantly stated they will not sign it because Blagojevich is on there," the unidentified committeewoman said. (Journal Register 11/10/05)

· RIDING THE ETHICAL EDGE. State employees have had dual roles as it was revealed that more than four hundred parole officers were asked by the Blagojevich administration to distribute letters to community organizations advertising Rod's political accomplishments. The Department of Children and Family Services ("DCFS") received a similar request from the administration to use their employees to hand out letters praising the Governor for his policies for welfare recipients. DCFS employees turned down the Governor's request. The use of state employees to tout the governor's political accomplishments to the public walks a very fine ethical line. Democratic state Rep. John Fritchey agreed with the criticism, "Regardless of the legality of their actions, in this day and age having state employees undertake this kind of activity is going to unavoidably raise questions as well as cynicism." (Daily Herald 11/8/05)

more...

Posted by: Howie at 03:41 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.

Today is Election Day and Ohio citizens will be asked to decide on five controversial statewide issues. Having reviewed each of the five issues, Interested-Participant recommends the following:

ISSUE 1 - Vote NO

- Issue 1 would allow the bureaucrats and politicians to spend $2 billion from a bond issue on roads, bridges, and R & D. I see it as another spending scam, costing the taxpayer at least $2 billion. Before voting, think about just how much more of your money you want the state to piss away.

ISSUE 2 - Vote NO

- Issue 2 is nothing more than a scheme to allow for new and innovative ways to queer the voting system. Presumably, it lets voters mail in absentee ballots for any reason up to 35 days before an election. This is ludicrous. Election Day is the day people should cast votes unless there's a good reason for having to vote absentee.

ISSUE 3 - Vote NO

- Issue 3 would amend the state constitution to delineate the dollar amounts allowed to be contributed to political candidates. Tellingly, Issue 3 contains more words than the Declaration of Independence and would be more suitable as a state law or regulation than a constitutional amendment.

That said, it's bad either way. Unions could take members' dues and give to political campaigns without consent of the member. It places restrictions on advertising, who can contribute, and when contributions are allowed. In its entirety, Issue 3 is a solid promise that near every politician and contributor will end up in noncompliance and, possibly, in court. The measure is a nightmare and it doesn't belong in the constitution.

ISSUE 4 - Vote NO

- Issue 4 would amend the Ohio Constitution to create a redistricting commission to determine legislative districts. This commission would be unelected and stuffed with political appointees. Voters would have no recourse if the commission acted inappropriately or unfairly. Essentially, redistricting would be in the hands of bureaucrats. Do we need more bureaucrats in Ohio? Bureaucrats that spend and spend and are unaccountable to the voters? I think not.

ISSUE 5 - Vote NO

- Issue 5 would change the constitution to eliminate a significant part of the Ohio Secretary of State's job. Issue 5 would create a commission of political appointees to oversee elections. Consequently, if the measure is passed, no longer will a person (Secretary of State) be responsible for the integrity of the election process. Responsibility will be with a bunch of people pointing fingers at other people. Therefore, nobody will be accountable for election problems.

Listen, when the founders of the constitution assigned responsibility, they knew what they were doing and, so far, their decisions have worked well for over a century. There's no overriding reason to restructure the constitutionally mandated government. What's next? Do we replace the governor with a commission?

Issue 1, on the other hand, is simply a tax and spend implement. No rational thinking voter would believe that the government needs more money nor more leeway on how they spend it. Anyone voting for Issue 1 should accompany his/her ballot with a power of attorney document to allow the state to confiscate all assets. Issue 1 is advertised as a "jobs" measure. Don't believe it. Issue 1 is a "spending" measure.

In conclusion, despite the fact that all of these five statewide issues are bad law, they don't belong in the Ohio Constitution. The Ohio Constitution is the upper-tier, controlling document for governing the state of Ohio. It should not be the document to dictate day-to-day operations of state agencies which is what Issues 1 through 5 do. Everyday operations of the state should be mandated in rules, laws, and regulations passed by the legislature. A state worker shouldn't have to consult the Ohio Constitution on a daily basis to do his/her job.

Remember, vote NO on State Issues 1 through 5.

Companion at I-P.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 07:13 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 720 words, total size 5 kb.

First we have California ballot initiatives. See California Conservative.

Also tomorrow New Jersey and Virginia select Governors and NYC selects a Mayor.

This post is open to any and all NJ, Virginia, NYC or California election related posts. So fight it out boys & girls tomorrowÂ’s votinÂ’ time

Posted by: Howie at 04:12 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

President Bush's tax panel has released new proposals for changes to the tax code. So far, I'm not seeing anything to get excited about. Of course they've found new ways to screw the wealthy, because we all know that it's their "duty" to give everything they worked to earn back to the people who like to sit around, watch soaps and spit out babies.

Some of the proposed changes would include:

Eliminate the alternative minimum tax
The AMT is a parallel tax system originally intended to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes by eliminating many of the deductions and credits they get under the regular income tax system.

But because the income-exemption levels have never been indexed to inflation, by 2010 the AMT threatens to catch more than 30 million taxpayers, mostly from middle-income households. The estimated cost of repealing the AMT is $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

The panel was instructed to come up with proposals that are revenue-neutral, meaning they would have to produce the same revenue as expected under the current system. As a result, the panel had to take a hard look at the tax breaks offered under the current system to see where they could make up for that lost revenue, while at the same time ensuring a new tax code was fairer and more growth oriented than the current one.

So, basically, they are simply moving this tax upward in the pay scale. So once again, if you make more, they're going to take more away.

Alter homeowners' tax breaks
The panel recommended lowering the mortgage interest cap, which is the amount of a loan on which home owners would receive a tax break for interest paid, from $1 million to the average regional housing price in the range of $227,000 to $412.000.

The deduction would be converted to a credit equal to 15 percent of interest paid on mortgages up to the interest cap. A credit is a dollar-for-dollar reduction of the taxes you owe, while a deduction only reduces your taxable income by a percentage equal to your top tax rate.

Generally speaking, the higher your mortgage loan and the higher your tax bracket, the more likely it is that you'll see less of a tax break than you would under the current system.

And once again a Socialist's dream. Tax you on your mortgage based on how much you pay and how much you make.

Reduce the marriage penalty
All tax brackets, family credits and taxation of Social Security benefits for couples would be double those of individuals. Under the current system, some married couples filing jointly end up paying more in taxes than single taxpayers with the same income because of the way various deductions, creidts and tax brackets are structured.

Now this I can get behind. But why stop there? Why not eliminate the marriage penalty altogether? If it's wrong, it's wrong. It's not just a little bit wrong, in a certain bracket.

Reduce tax breaks on employer-provided health insurance
When you work for a company, your employer typically foots a large portion of your health-insurance premiums. That money, which is not reported on your W2, is tax-free to you.

The panel recommended capping the amount of tax-free money that may be used to pay for health insurance to $5,000 for single coverage or $11,500 for family coverage.

Now hold on just a minute there, hoss. Maybe I'm misunderstanding that, but are you talking about taxing me for money that my employer pays for my health care? Or are you just talking about taxing my employer for the good thing that he's trying to do for me and my family? Either way it's a crappy deal. Kentucky politicians have already managed to make health insurance in Kentucky so high and so complicated that nearly no one will carry it. If you now start taxing the money we use to buy it, you're going to totally screw us out of health care. Small companies like the one I work for will simply not be able to afford to pay it anymore, so I'll end up losing what little I've got. How exactly again does that qualify as taking care of your constituitients? Oh, I get it now. When you do this, I'll go broke trying to pay for healthcare, and I'll be forced out of my job because my employer is broke too. Then I can take advantage of your wonderful welfare system that you've set up with the money you just stole from me and my employer! Oh wow! I can't wait!

Repeal the federal deduction of the state and local tax deductions
Under the proposals, taxpayers would no longer be allowed to deduct the state and local taxes they pay on wage income, investment income, and property.

Former Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, who is the panel's vice chair, on CNBC Tuesday morning explained part of the panel's reasoning this way: "If people in California want to pay extra taxes to have their trash picked up, people in Texas shouldn't have to subsidize it."

That's right, just because your state and local governments take your money doesn't mean you don't still owe it to the federal government. After all, they've got to have their piece of the pie too.

Reduce the number of tax brackets
Under the panel's first proposal, which is a streamlined version of the current income tax, the number of tax brackets would be reduced from 6 to 4. They would be: 15%, 25%, 30% and 33%.

Under their second proposal, which combines the income tax with a progressive consumption tax, there would be only three tax brackets: 15%, 25% and 30%.

In the long run, this would probably end up screwing me. But I'd certainly like to see more on this than the proposed percentages that they want to steal from me. Where are they planning on dividing these brackets? Will most of America fall into that 25% bracket? If that's the case, then my taxes are going to go up quite a bit.

So basically, what I'm reading is that you can kiss those nice little tax breaks that Bush gave you last term goodbye. Then you can prepare yourself to bend over and take it. Because everything I'm seeing here looks like a bunch of liberal appeasement programs planned to give the goverment plenty of pork to work with.

When are the American people going to say that we've been screwed enough? When are we going to realize that the current welfare system is a sham? When are we going to demand that our "leaders" get their spending under control and stop stealing our hard earned money? I say the time is now. If we don't get this situation under control immediately, than it is going to get much worse much faster. Conservatives were able to rally together and stop the nomination of Harriet Miers, why can't we rally together and start demanding that our elected officials begin acting like the conservatives they ran as? These proposals haven't been passed into law yet. It's not to late to change them. Write your congressman. Start lobbying. Take control.

Quotes in this article courtesy CNN

Posted by: Drew at 10:30 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 1214 words, total size 7 kb.

ItÂ’s official blogs have graduated from the interesting oddity of the day to a real threat to established power. The first indication is Denny Hastert has started a blog. Now Forbes Magazine has taken notice. Yes blogger power is uncontrolled, untamed. No matter left or right ordinary people are not supposed to be able to speak. It bucks the system and the system wants control. This is not a left or right issue it is a freedom issue.

I've one thing to say here: Well F*ck you very much Forbes!!!

Others: Micropersuasion, La Shawn BarberÂ’s Corner and Damianpenny.

Below I will list my qualifications to post here. If you are not taking part in the greatest revolution in speech since the US constitution, better get with it. The powers that be donÂ’t like it. It will not be Denny they will want to silence.

1 : username.
2 : password.
3 : balls.

Posted by: Howie at 10:28 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Forbes can sniff filthys jock.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at October 28, 2005 10:54 AM (5ceWd)

2 real balls not required. Only metaphorical ones.

Posted by: caltechgirl at October 28, 2005 11:03 AM (2i1hl)

3 Yes yes that's what I meant.

Posted by: Howie at October 28, 2005 11:09 AM (D3+20)

4 I knew before opening the comments on this post that Howie was going to get chastised for number 3.

Posted by: Matt at October 28, 2005 11:12 AM (3TuFG)

5 Very funny, Howie. I think the three qualifications for blogging will be referred to often around here.

Posted by: See-Dubya at October 28, 2005 11:48 AM (ElgOt)

6 it is a revolution in speech, thats very true. its also a revolution in community and provides and remedy for the atomization of society. and all it takes is the big three components of blogging

Posted by: Jane at October 28, 2005 12:01 PM (M7kiy)

7 Don't forget electricity and some sort of computer type device. That's about it. Yep.

Posted by: Impatient Girl at October 28, 2005 12:48 PM (ftixA)

8 And grammar. Dude, I hate bad grammar.

Posted by: Oyster at October 28, 2005 01:06 PM (fl6E1)

9 Well it would be more dangerous if we lived in a democracy, but fortunately we live in a republic.

Posted by: john Ryan at October 28, 2005 02:39 PM (ads7K)

10 Damn right it's dangerous. Dangerous to the status quo. Dangerous to the mainstream media. Dangerous to the people who want to control every tiny little thing, like freedom of speech, for example. FOAD Forbes(sorry for the inappropriate language, but nothing else seemed to fit).

Posted by: jesusland joe at October 28, 2005 03:17 PM (rUyw4)

11 Right on!

Posted by: slickdpdx at October 28, 2005 03:33 PM (MjGRu)

12 What's FOAD?

Posted by: Oyster at October 28, 2005 04:16 PM (fl6E1)

13 FOAD = Fuck Off And Die. Don't look at me that way, we're all adults here. Except for Filthy.

Posted by: Vinnie at October 28, 2005 04:19 PM (Kr6/f)

14 Blogging is what the internet ought to be about. it's a lot less dangerous that the favourite passtime of the internet browsers: pornography. it brings real free speach around the whole world & allows people to hear different opinions/ideas that they would never come across otherwise. there is nothing they can do about it (other than route all access through state servers as in N. Korea/China - and even that is regularly broken), so screw them.

Posted by: Mrs Aginoth at October 28, 2005 04:41 PM (cZrVc)

15 True Mrs. A., but without porn, we'd all still be using AOL on 14.4 dialup modems. Games have always driven computer hardware development, and porn drove website development. In any event, porn is still not as dangerous as Everquest.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 28, 2005 05:36 PM (0yYS2)

16 Of course, number 3 isn't even required metaphorically. Simply make your public id not related to your actual self, and don't blog about personal stuff or your job.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at October 28, 2005 06:02 PM (eer2X)

17 Speaking of balls

Posted by: Oyster at October 28, 2005 08:37 PM (YudAC)

18 For a chick, you've got some set of balls! Ah, the immortal Diceman. Another victim of PC, whose like we shall not see again.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 29, 2005 12:14 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Today is the birthday of our Constitution

On Saturday, September 17, 2005, we are celebrating the 218th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. This day is known as Constitution Day. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Pennsylvania and came up with a great and intricate system of checks and balances. It was decided that our government would have an executive, judicial, and legislative branch. The decision for a bicameral legislative branch came from the argument between the smaller and larger states. The larger states wanted more representation because they had more people, forming the House of Representatives. The smaller states wanted equal representation of every state, forming the Senate.

Cool link.

Hat Tip: Rep. John Shimkus.

Note for Iraqi's this is our second one and it took ten amendments to get it passed. So if you don't like the one you are considering you can always change it. Heck the French have had dozens. Let's see what else Mr. Shimkus is up to. Below the break and it's good stuff. Also this kind of got me thinking. How many think Mr. Shimkus should run for old DICK Durbin's Senate seat? Think about it Mr. Shimkus you'll only have to run every 6 years.

more...

Posted by: Howie at 08:14 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 454 words, total size 3 kb.

I just heard Newt on CSPAN giving a speech that sounded to me like a dry run of his Presidential campaign. He was asked, on a scale of 0 to 10, what the odds are that he'll run for President. He responded that it was somewhere between 1 and 10, which got a laugh. But... it's not zero! To my practiced political ear he seems closer to 10 than 1. For all practical purposes he's running for President now, and the only issue is whether he'll withdraw at some point before November, 2008.

He expressed his thoughts on a number of critical topics, from health care to the "Long War Against Irreconcilable Islam." To me, this sounds like the much awaited Liberalism 3.x. In this view Iraq is just a "campaign," although a clearly important one to us and to the Jihad. I'd also say that if Iowans are getting the idea that we're losing in Iraq that's understandable if their source of information is Mainstream Media. But the odds that Mainstream Media has it right this time are demonstrably zero. (See Michael Yon's thoughts on the inept way media covers the war.) That doesn't mean we're winning "The Long War," though. In fact, I don't think we are. We're essentially attempting to fight Totalitarianism 3.x with the institutions and attitudes typical of Liberalism 2.x. But our military is rapidly making the transition to Liberalism 3.x, and if Newt gets his say the rest of the country may soon follow. I'd vote for him. I thought his presentation was excellent, and I think he has an answer for those discouraged about Iraq, immigration, the economy, etc..

A Newt candidacy also counters what Democrats feel are their main strengths. He's a conservative intellectual, which flies directly in the fact of the standard characterization of Republican candidates. Also, if his recent appearances have helped Hillary harden her foreign policy and defense credentials they've probably helped Newt soften his image even more. He now occupies a policy area that's not really fixed in the liberal-conservative domain. He has new formulae that resolve the primary socio-economic problems that Democrats feel are their proprietary market share. He has the Clintons' wonkishness, but unlike Clinton (either one) he also has a coherent vision and is serious about realizing it.
more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 02:37 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1360 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Newt in Iowa? He apparently didn't stop here in Iowa City, the apparent liberal capital of the state. (Deep blue county in a blood red state.) Too bad, I'd have liked to hear what he has to say.

Posted by: IO ERROR at August 19, 2005 03:11 PM (HaVXj)

2 Yah, I wish I'd have known. I'd have taken off work to go watch/listen. I love Iowa.

Posted by: tyler at August 19, 2005 03:21 PM (Y9Lwb)

3 If Dr. Rice does not run I like Newt. But, of all the big GOP names the one for me is DR. Rice. Besides having brains she dresses well. Or as my friends say she dresses good. Either way the good Dr. is #1.

Posted by: Rod Stanton at August 19, 2005 06:09 PM (03F0I)

4 Criticizing Bill Clinton; This is where hypocrisy comes in by the bucket-loads. They get pissy when Clinton gets criticized, but gleefully still jump on the Reagan bashing wagon even though he was further in the past. The fact is, I don't care who is the current president. Past presidents' policies are still a strong factor in today's political, economical and social climate and should always be considered when discussing (or arguing) these issues. That's just common sense. This hands-off attitude about Clinton is only because they can't really defend him on so many issues and don't want to be called to task. I'm hoping for Newt's success because I don't trust McCain and Hillary is out of the question.

Posted by: Oyster at August 20, 2005 09:21 AM (YudAC)

5 Who is there besides McCain? Is Kinky Friedman running for the wrong office? We Republicans need a super star. In a hurry. Hillary will be defeated but the other democrats are just as bad (almost).

Posted by: greyrooster at August 21, 2005 07:48 AM (CBNGy)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Regarding Rusty's military service survey of the blogosphere, a commenter objects:

Its disgusting that you legitimize this fraudulent meme of the Left, Rusty.

The meme SPQR is talking about is the often-repeated phrase "chickenhawk" tossed at war supporters who haven't served in the military, or (since G.W. Bush is a veteran, and therefore passes the test) haven't served in combat. Yes, it is a meme, but Rusty isn't legitimizing it. In fact, quite the opposite.

more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 02:22 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

US Attorney Patrick FitzgeraldÂ’s term in office is just about up. He will need to be reappointed by President Bush if he is to continue his work. What does he do? Well letÂ’s see. The CIA leak case, he is after the Chicago city government, he is holding my former governor GEORGE RyanÂ’s feet to the fire. You bet we should keep him. ItÂ’s refreshing to see a man go after both parties and hold them up against the laws they make for everyone else. I mean like they do us. Too often people in power think that the laws are just for you know people like me. Well Patrick Fitzgerald goes after them. America is far better off when politicians know there are people like him who donÂ’t give a ratÂ’s ass about the D or R next to your name. Is he overzealous? Yep, but he is not going after poor little people with no ability to defend themselves he goes after the top. Mr. Bush, give Mr. Fitzgerald to another four year term. I know itÂ’s kind of like letting the fox guard the hen house. But Mr. Bush has iron balls, WeÂ’ll see.

DEAN POLALES: I don't think Democratic or Republican Party politics has anything to do with the way he does his job. And I think his track record in Chicago demonstrates that -- when dealing with political corruption cases, he's an equal opportunity prosecutor.

Posted by: Howie at 02:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 2 kb.

Why when you're the Democratic party, of course. The party of "we've got everything backwards" seems to not be able to tell a win from a loss in this latest congressional race. The AP hosts the story this morning in which Democrats claim a victory in Ohio (why is it always Ohio?) even though their candidate only recieved 47% of the vote. And why did they claim a victory? Because their candidate managed to get 47% of the vote, up from 29% for the last joker they tried to run in that district. Of course there were a number of contributing factors. After warning Bush in the last election that using Iraq and 9/11 would be playing dirty pool, they disregard their own rules and hype their own candidate as a seven month Iraqi war "veteran." Not only that, but the man is a rabid Bush-hater, coming out with statments like the following:

He drew attention to the race with his flame-throwing assaults on Bush, namely for the president's July 2003 "bring 'em on" comment about Iraqi insurgents. Hackett called the comment "most incredibly stupid comment" he ever heard a president make, and said it "cheered on the enemy."

Oh yeah. Calling them "Minutemen" certainly wouldn't cheer the enemy, now would it? Calling our own soldiers (in which Hackett would be lumped) Getstapo, or Pol Pot wouldn't cheer the enemy soldiers on now would it? Publicly stating your wishes that our troops would die certainly wouldn't cheer our enemies on, would it? Trying to say that everything the President does is wrong and creating a huge rift within this country wouldn't do anything to cheer the terrorists on at all, now would it? All those and more are things that have been done by the Democrats. And yet they want to choose one instance and latch on it. Worry it like a dog with a bone. And then they can't even choose anything that might have real substance.

This race is a harbringer of what is to come in 2006. We're going to see more and more attacks on our President as the Democrats attempt to sling mud in the general direction of the people whom they are running against. We're going to see the wedges of diviseness driven even deeper into our communities as they attempt to portray how "evil" the Republicans are. They count the Ohio race as a victory because they played dirty, smear politics and came close to a win. Of course they also fail to account that most of their runners will NOT be associated with the Iraq war and will be running against an incumbent. But the "reality-based" community will continue to see only what they want and continue to play the kind of dirty pool that divides this great nation and loses them elections. To them, I say "Bring it on!" Because the more of this junk you try, the more support, and elections, you're going to lose. Just think, you might could have had a victory in Ohio if you hadn't been spewing hate.

Posted by: Drew at 04:30 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 522 words, total size 3 kb.

Also today in Ohio there is a special election with two pretty good candidates. IÂ’m not from Ohio so IÂ’ll keep my nose out of it. Well maybe not.

We have a conservative Marine Corps Democrat VS a established well rounded Republican candidate. ItÂ’s a pretty conservative district too. I think Hackett has a chance but for that fact that all the moderates that might vote for him will be at the mall ignoring politics and running up credit card debt. So I think Schmidt will probably win. IÂ’m jealous Ohio has two pretty good candidates here. Good race to watch, well the about the only one to watch right now.

Posted by: Howie at 11:17 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.

I’ve been getting an email every so often from California conservative. I must say that having the time to review and get up a post for me is a pain. Lately I noted that the emails have stopped. Can’t say I blame him. I mean he has taken the trouble to email me and I’ve failed to give it proper attention. One of my projects this week besides sucking air on the blog is to link up and give credit to those that have helped me in my new blogging adventure. So guest posters and regulars email me because I’m working on a post for Sunday to give all of you the credit you deserve for helping out the Jawa while Rusty has been away. I don’t want to miss anyone. So send me your name and site url if you have one and I’ll shamelessly give you a plug this weekend. Right, middle, way right, sort of kind of left I don’t care just no far left crap. Yes the far left scares me far more than the far right. How many times can I use the word “far”. Far more than I think I should. I should look further for more words to replace far or derivatives thereof.

So on to the California Conservative.

It seems Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been having a tough time of late. The new has kind of work off and now the real work is going on. Hey I can relate Arnold. We all get those days where nothing goes right. It seems the Gov is getting some support from an unlikely source here. Check it out to see who it is.

Posted by: Howie at 10:55 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

Well my good Senator Mr. DICK Durbin of Illinois is at it again. Hey I take it out on all parties. If I disagee I say so. It seems DICK shot off at the mouth again. I've been looking for a good Democrat to vote for you know a moderate conservative honest one. Good luck Howie. Yes I'm a big fat swing voter. Kind of out of place aren't I, a moderate in a sea of heavy right wingers. But if this is the guy they are going to put on the ballot for me. Well sorry I just can't do it. Actually I've only Voted for two Democrats that I can recall. Simon and Poshard VS Ryan (that's George Ryan the crook). At least on a state or national level. In local races where I know people I tend to go more by the person than by the party.

From my ILL Republican newsletter dated 07/29.

DURBIN LEAKED INACCURATE INFORMATION TO TURLEY.U.S. Senator Dick Durbin went back on a previous denial that he was the leak for Jonathon Turley's Los Angeles Times column, published Monday, where it claimed that when Durbin asked what Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts would do if faced with a case that conflicted with his Catholic upbringing Roberts said he would have to recuse himself from a judgment. Turley had verified his conversation with Durbin's press secretary before publishing the story but was rebuked Tuesday by the Senator's office. On Wednesday, Durbin admitted that he was indeed the source for the column but that the account was inaccurate because Turley never identified himself as a journalist. "He (Senator Durbin) made a serious mistake that could have had major implications on the nomination process," Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna said, "Senator Durbin's actions are disrespectful to both the integrity of t he process and the people of Illinois who demand the highest level of honesty from their U.S. Senator. (Washington times 7/27/05)

Also seems we have some out of state influence in the 8th district here in ILL.

·BEAN CAN'T RAISE CASH IN THE 8th. U.S. Rep. Melissa Bean (D-8 IL) has been raising a lot of campaign cash, the only problem is that only 7% of her individual contributors are from her district. In her Q2 FEC report, Bean raised more than $130,000 through liberal pro- choice fundraising conduit Emily's List out of Washington D.C. and over fifty percent from individuals outside of Illinois. "Melissa Bean needs to ask herself which group she wants to represent, the people of the 8th district or the people in Washington D.C.," Andy McKenna said, "The evident lack of support will catch up to her in the voting booth."

Well mark another one off the list.

Posted by: Howie at 04:32 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 473 words, total size 3 kb.

I got home in time last night in time to catch some of Jim LehrerÂ’s interview with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I must say Condi was much better than in other recent interviews IÂ’ve seen. That incident in Sudan the other day seems to have built a fire under her. She appeared relaxed and ready to move forward. Gone was the tired expression and canned answers. She looked refreshed. Pretty good interview especially the subject of GWT. Look out Hillary this may be the first lady President of the USA. SheÂ’s got you beaten by a mile.

When are we going to stop making excuses for the terrorists and saying that somebody is making them do it? No, these are simply evil people who want to kill. And they want to kill in the name of a perverted ideology that really is not Islam, but they somehow want to claim that mantle to say that this is about some kind of grievance. This isn't about some kind of grievance. This is an effort to destroy, rather than to build.

I think IÂ’m in love. You go Condi. She even talks about the Bolton nomination and I detect that she is not Mr. BoltonÂ’s biggest supporter although she does give the polite answer considering her position. There's lots more at the above link.

Well, that's unfortunate and we -- what we can't be is without leadership at the United Nations. I can tell you, Jim, that I'm spending an awful lot of time these days preparing for the high-level meetings that are going to take place in September where all of the world's leaders are going to be here to talk about refreshing the United Nations after 60 years.
The United States needs to be active in that and we have a good team at the UN, but we need our permanent representative to the United Nations.

A quick review of Mr. BoltonÂ’s problems.

Although the split has largely been along party lines, one Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, has joined Democrats in opposing Bolton's nomination.

Ed at Captains Quarters has more.

IÂ’ve got to say IÂ’m with Captain Ed. While Bolton is the right type of person IÂ’m not sure he is the right person for this position. The perception of him is that he is a jerk. I would hate to see all CondiÂ’s hard work ruined by this guy. IÂ’m pretty sure the President will stick with him. So Mr. Bolton should withdraw himself. I donÂ’t think he can or will be productive in that position. For sure abroad people have a bad perception of him. We need a strong personality there but IÂ’m pretty sure he is not it. My party should not waste political capital on this, is a mistake. Mr. Bolton is a loose-loose for my party and for America. A recess appointment will get the President what he wants but will also enforce the bad perceptions that this Casey Jones run we are on created. Maybe Trade him for Roberts would be good. We also have to consider that appointing this guy on a recess appointment will make the Roberts nonination that much harder. Which is more important?

Hat tip Omnipundit:

Actually I started this in the am until events took over.

Posted by: Howie at 01:28 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 556 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, the biggest non-story today still seems to be the Roberts nomination. Although it seems that today even the big media outlets are running out of different ways to say the same thing. What it all boils down to is this:

1. We don't know anything about Roberts. Anything that has been pointed out is been in the context of cases which he has argued. This does not necessarily express his own personal opinions, simply the opinion he was hired to argue.

2. Senate Democrats are looking for ANYTHING that they can use to hold him up or stop him. My initial prediction was that they will try to hold him up for several years so they can screw Bush out of even one Supreme Court nomination. With all the attention that this has garnered, I don't think they'll be able to do that now. And I think they know that as well. For once in their miserable careers, it seems that the press may be working against the Democrats. Whether they want to or not, they are bringing EVERYTHING out in the open. If you remember, the first thing the deplorable Dems attempted was an attack on Roberts' wife for being part of a Christian organization (or some such nonsense), but with the negative attention that garnered almost immediately, that seems to have been dropped like a hot potato. And now the gasbag Kennedy is being all but ignored in his latest attack.

According to Kennedy, Roberts' commitment to civil rights may be questionable. Of course to bring up an accusation like that Kennedy must have evidence, right? Let's take a look.

Aides to Mr. Kennedy distributed documents from the Justice Department in the Reagan administration that show Mr. Roberts expressing criticism of an extension of the voting rights act, support for a court ruling narrowing the civil rights requirements on colleges, and doubts about a law to combat discrimination in housing.

Now I'm not familiar with the three instances stated above, but I do know that a lot of the laws that are written to help minorities tend to have the opposite effect. They keep minorities from being able to advance as they should and continue segregation whether intended or not. If those are the kinds of laws being referred to, then it's no wonder he argued against them. And even if they aren't, the things that he argued during his stint with the Regan administration reflect the views of the Regan administration and not necessarily Roberts' own views. Kennedy's attempt at using this to smear Roberts is weak at best and simply shows how desperate he is to find ANYTHING to disqualify Roberts simply because he is a Bush pick. Interestingly enough, the mainstream press seems to hold the same opinion, although they don't come right out and say it. The above story in the New York Times, which is amazingly non-partisan, and another small story on the AP wire that doesn't even go into as much detail as the NYT story are the only two that I find this morning to even mention it.

Of course Kennedy isn't the only despicable Dem attempting to hold back Roberts. According to the same NYT article, Boxer and Clinton are leading the cry to disqualify him because a) he's not a woman and b) he might take away their precious "right" to kill their children.

And of course the women aren't alone. Senator (traitor) Durbin had this to say:

WASHINGTON, July 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, reported today in an LA Times op-ed that Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill) asked Judge John Roberts last week "what he would do if the law required a ruling that his church considers immoral."

Which is just about the stupidest question I've EVER heard. Are you seriously trying to tell me that every judge on the bench agrees with every law on the books? Can you really say that with a straight face? If so, then why do we have dissenting opinions written on almost every decision put forth by the Supreme Court? Let me fill you in on a little secret, Durbin (and all the rest of you mamby-pamby liberals). Everyone believes something. Even if you don't have faith, you have a sense of right and wrong. And whether you want to admit it or not, all of your decisions are based on that sense of right and wrong. They HAVE to be. Where else would you get a base for making any sort of decision? By attempting to force me to accept things that go against my value system, such as abortion, you are doing the exact same thing that you are so afraid Christians are going to do to you. Do you know what the word for that is? Let's try hypocrite. That's right, you're a bunch of lying, sorry hypocrites.

And it seems that Durbin isn't alone in his thinking along these lines. According to GOPUSA, the call to ostracize Roberts for being a Catholic is going out from others as well.

Lynn Neary
National Public Radio
7-20-05
"And he is Roman Catholic, and that might affect the way he views an issue like abortion, for instance."

Barbara Walters
ABC Good Morning America
7-20-05
"John Roberts is a Roman Catholic. How important to him is his religion? Do you think it might affect him as a Supreme Court Justice?"

Miles O'Brien
CNN American Morning
7-20-05
"He's, by all accounts, a Roman Catholic who adheres to the tenets of that faith. Do you suspect that he will advocate, when the opportunity comes up, reversing some of the key aspects of Roe v Wade, which provide abortion rights in this country?"

I still don't know anything about Roberts except that judging from what little of his personal life I've been able to see he seems to be a good, faithful man who stands by his convictions. But the way things look now, I'm pretty sure he's going to get confirmed despite the smear and scare tactics of a few extremist liberals. And those same liberals are going to come out on the other side with egg on their face for even attempting their dirty tricks.

Posted by: Drew at 07:48 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1048 words, total size 6 kb.

I know this sounds like a skit from Saturday Night Live, but apparently, it's true. From the Associated Press:

NEW YORK -- Andrea Mitchell said she felt angry and humiliated after Sudanese bodyguards dragged her out of a room Thursday for questioning President Omar el-Bashir about his involvement in the country's violence.

Large, gun-toting guards painfully wrenched the 5-foot-3 Mitchell's arm behind her. She was freed after U.S. officials accompanying Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complained.

"Can you tell us why the violence is continuing?" Mitchell asked, as a Sudanese official said "no, no, no, please."

"Can you tell us why the government is supporting the militias?" she asked.

After getting no reply from el-Bashir, she asked, "Why should Americans believe your promises?"

It was then that she was forcibly removed.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 04:49 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

The announcement has been made that President Bush will reveal his nominee for the Supreme Court at 9pm EDT. My thought is that whoever is selected to go before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a thorough grilling has to be presently puckered, knowing full well that every single wart will be discussed and debated. It will be a professional and personal beating.

That is, except for one person, Dick Cheney. He's the only person that probably needs a couple weeks to unpucker from his recent, reported globally in 30 minutes, proctological exam. It seems that he would be a logical choice since he's been immunized to the personally penetrating process.

So, if President Bush desires to minimize pain in the confirmation process, he'll nominate Dick Cheney. And, what fun there would be.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 03:44 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Thought I would take a few minutes and open for discussion this item. It seems some in Iran are not taking the elections there lying down. Most people expect that since that election the minimal reforms and freedoms there will be reversed. LetÂ’s not forget that in their society speech can get you killed or imprisoned. Here we pretty much get to speak our minds. There dissent can be deadly.

"WASHINGTON - As Tehran University students clashed with police in Iran yesterday during demonstrations demanding the release of political prisoners, President Bush, from Washington, joined the growing movement calling for the release of dissident journalist Akbar Ganji."

Dr Demarche has a good post on the fact that not everyone enjoys the freedom to speak that we have. And it don't come cheap as earlier posts today show.

Also Pejman Yousefzadeh apparently an Iranian national who bloggs thanks President Bush for supporting Akbar Ganji.

For those of you out there who hate our President I ask you one thing. Do you really think the islamofacists would allow you to speak such things about the President of Iran should you find yourself there tomorrow? The fact that you can read my speech is a fairly recent development. Not too many years ago all of our speech would have been below the radar. Silenced by the powers that be to keep us in our place. Now it's as easy as clicking post.

Posted by: Howie at 12:05 PM | Comments (42) | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.