ConservativeINC

This is a serious blow to the left-wing blogosphere that thinks it actually calls the shots for the democrat party. All serious contenders for the democrat presidential nomination have come out saying that they will not be able to get troops out of Iraq before 2013! Here’s the lead to this story from AP:

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

“I think it’s hard to project four years from now,” said Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in the opening moments of a campaign debate in the nation’s first primary state.

“It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting,” added Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

“I cannot make that commitment,” said former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

From apnews.myway.com

Realization of this situation hasn’t just dawned on democrat presidential candidates either, it has dawned on the democrat party as well. They could be doing a lot more in the senate and house to oppose the war in Iraq but they don’t. According to the Politico, an online paper started by ex-Washington Post staff (so it slants to the left in my opinion), they agree.

There is a lot more Democrats could do to change, or at least challenge, the politics of the war in Washington, even if they do not have the numbers to impose new policies on President Bush.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) could force a vote a day over Iraq. She could keep the House in session all night, over weekends and through planned vacations.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could let filibusters run from now till Christmas rather than yield to pro-war Republicans.

Such tactics might or might not be politically sensible, but in their absence, anti-war lawmakers can hardly say they have done everything possible to challenge the war and bring attention to their cause.

From politico.com

Democrats are relying on their left-wing base’s ability to forgive this transgression against current liberal dogma. They may be right for the next election since there is such hatred and contempt for republicans from those on the left that it might outweigh their necessitating strict adherence. But how long will that last?

Having read some of the left-wing blogs recently I don’t think it will be long. Some from their side have stated that they already “own” the democrat party. And when someone has ownership of something they may require results at some point, don’t you think?

And I would be bereft in my duty to you if I did not mention one other little news article that plays a part in this story. According to examiner.com President Bush is advising Hillary Clinton with regards to Iraq. Is it just a coincidence that Senator Clinton has softened her stance on Iraq recently or is due to what she has heard from the president?

My guess is that it is based on the situation on the ground over there that she has changed her stance. If, hypothetically, the left-wing kookosphere got its wish and troops began a withdrawal right now and were all gone by 2009 when Hillary takes office (HYPOTHETICALLY!). Iraq would be ripe for the picking to whichever thugocracy had the most power at that point. Based on its large Shiite population the going theory is that Iran would take over Iraq.

In a situation where Iran had control (maybe it would be a puppet like Syria is to Iran right now) of Iraq it would have control over an immense amount of oil, which it could use to accelerate whatever plans it might have. Furthermore, Iran would be on the doorstep to one of the world’s largest oil fields in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis, who are mostly Sunni, would hold no special place in the hearts of the Shiite Iranians meaning the Iranians would probably not have a problem taking over control of those Saudi oil fields.

If Iraq falls into the wrong hands it could very well become one of the greatest disasters in history. Hillary does not want this to happen on her watch. BigT

Tell Your Friends! Bookmark Me!



Take Me To Your Homepage!

What the heck, lets go for another round of news.

The title of Halo 3 maybe should be changed to the savior of Microsoft’s entertainment division thanks to the day it had yesterday. According to Yahoo! the game made $170 million dollars in its first day of release easily outpacing every other videogame and movie ever. Yeah, people don’t like blowing things up and killing.

The Worldwide Standard has an article that has all the links you need to see regarding the brave monks in Myanmar. Some monks have died, rights have even been more restricted, and hopefully they will win a victory for themselves and freedom. But not if China has anything to do with it.

It would seem the pillar of human rights, China, is doing all it can to financially prop up Myanmar due to Myanmar’s strategic location.

China’s relationship with Burma is the closest of any it has in Southeast Asia. It views that nation as a strategic ally, coveting the potential use of its ports on the Indian Ocean and easier access to oil from Africa and the Middle East. China has provided economic support key to keeping the dismal economy afloat, and has built roads, bridges, airport facilities, power stations, factories and telecommunications networks. It has also modernized Burma’s army, including an infusion of weaponry valued at over $1.4 billion when the junta took power.

China is a despicable regime that is at least partially responsible for propping up many regimes that destroy basic human rights. We need to call them on the mat for this horrific behavior before too long because every day that goes by with a monk living in a virtual prison is another day that humanity loses a bit of its soul.

Tree Hugger, the pathetic website that called attention to the horrible state of Zimbabwe (with regards to invasive species of plants of course, not to its brutal dictator), does it again. It is giving plaudits to Cuba for pledging to plant trees. Sure, killing unborn babies to improve your infant mortality rate is not great but planting some trees while your citizens starve is a great thing! Just imagine if liberals got their way and we all lived like Cubans; VOTE HILLARY!

Another in a long line of liberal hypocrisy about freedom of speech can be found in San Francisco right now. At Columbia it’s alright that Ahmadinejad can have possibly the biggest propaganda win in a generation but the oh so great people of San Francisco won’t let the Marines film a recruitment commercial.

Liberals are patriotic, just not patriotic of America.

Oh, and about Ahmadinejad’s propaganda. Just in case Ahmadinejad’s version of what happened at Columbia didn’t completely stick Chris Matthews is coming to the rescue! Matthews said, according to News Busters,

Didn‘t you hear him allow the fact that there was, in fact, a Holocaust?

Actually, Mr. Matthews, what he said was an obfuscation of his real feelings. Ahmadinejad said

Can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished, forever done? Can we close the books for good on a historical event?

There are different perspectives that come to light after every research is done. Why should we stop research at all? Why should we stop the progress of science and knowledge?

You shouldn’t ask me why I’m asking questions. You should ask yourselves why you think that that’s questionable? Why do you want to stop the progress of science and research?

… There has been more research on physics than it has on the Holocaust, but we still continue to do research on physics. There is nothing wrong with doing it.

This is what man wants. They want to approach a topic from different points of view. Scientists want to do that.

Is there really a discussion about whether or not the Holocaust happened? Please, liberals, rush to this guy’s defense even more because we all know that the only reason you support this maniacs right to speak is so you get to seem sophisticated and worldly at your cocktail parties. Ahmadinejad should have had the door shut on his face.

Well, at least no one could ever accuse a liberal of advancing a cogent argument. As the blogosphere is ripe with such examples I’ll just decide upon this brilliant piece from Crooks and Liars about how privatizing Social Security is bad:

After long delays, due in part to the refusal of the White House to cooperate, …a GAO report [was released] assessing the costs to taxpayers of a 2005 White House initiative to support the President’s efforts to privatize Social Security.

The initiative included campaign-style events featuring the President and a roster of top Administration officials as well as the creation of a “Social Security Information Center” in the Department of the Treasury. The analysis shows that the White House effort cost more than $2.8 million, including more than $1.6 million for staging the events, more than $800,000 for Air Force One and Air Force Two travel, and more than $200,000 for the creation of the Treasury Department’s privatization war room and website. The $2.8 million estimate is an underestimate of the true costs, as it does not include the cost of staff time, Secret Service protection, and other expenses.

Really, is this the best that you guys can do? No mention of how retirement is too important to be left to someone looking to make money? No? Well, maybe they’ll have a better day tomorrow. At least that’s what right wing bloggers are predicting.

After ticking off a number of reasons why we are in trouble for 2008 a post at Right Wing News has this to say:

Will this situation improve significantly by election time in 2008? I expect that it will, but probably not enough to allow the GOP to go on the offensive in 2008. At best, we can hope to hold the presidency, only lose or gain a handful of seats in the House, and only lose a seat or two in the Senate.

It probably won’t be long until the bloggers on the right reprise their premortems that they invented before the elections in ‘06. Even if they are correct in their predictions I think it is totally irresponsible for them to do this because that isn’t their job. They don’t need to be cheerleaders but I think it is appropriate to try and stress our core values at all times.

After the election is over, sure, figure out what happened. But throwing in the towel even before the game is over is just rank defeatism and who wants to vote for that? Well, if this post from The Corner is correct, not many Hispanics are going to vote for the republican party either.

In an exhaustively researched survey of 145 precincts and 175,000 votes, Richard Nadler of America’s Majority Foundation concludes that when Republicans talk about enforcement-only, deportation, and criminalization of illegal immigrants, they get slammed politically.

A big part of me just wants to be reactionary and say tough. But there is a way that you can tout enforcement of immigration laws while still touching on issues that appeal to Hispanics as well. Maybe even introduce a law that would increase the amount of immigration allowed predicated on the governments ability to enforce our current immigration laws (i.e. a boarder fence that stems illegal immigration).

The conventional wisdom is that whichever party wins over the Hispanic vote will be the majority party in the future. The conventional wisdom is usually wrong but it seems quite probable that in this instant it might be right.

Here is an instance that republicans might be able to win over Hispanic voters on the immigration front. Fortunately for us most Hispanics are not liberals, they aren’t conservatives mostly either but I think it’s safe to say that their personal politics are tilted to the right. And one issue that they probably agree with most conservatives is in the area of protecting this country. So it probably wouldn’t be a good idea to appoint a man who thinks it would be grand if every person had to live under Sharia in America. But that’s what Virginia has done.

This is the same Esam Omeish whom I have debated twice on the Laura Ingraham Show. The first time, he denied that Islamic law mandates death for apostasy. The second time, he acknowledged that he’d be happy to see Sharia law come to the US.

And he’s the nominee to be on the immigration board! Heck, if Fred Thompson just came out against this it would win over a large chunk of Hispanic voters.

While I think it’s safe to say that Hispanics worry about protecting our country from terrorists it is also safe to say that liberals will cry foul at any measure aimed at accomplishing that goal. And that is what’s going to happen when more find out about a program designed to monitor terrorist’s online activities on discussion boards, chat rooms, and blogs.

I guess this is as good a time as any to explain to people that there is no way that anyone is ever going to read what you write online and then go and arrest you. Well, unless you are actually a terrorist. Do you know how much is written online everyday? Do you know how long it takes to translate writings? Agencies like the NSA try to monitor as much as they can, with help from other countries in an effort to circumvent laws limiting domestic spying, but they are limited due to the amount of activity on the Internet and the filters they use.

You dope dealing liberals need not worry about this because it is the government after all and they cannot find illegal immigrants on the streets, how are they going to find you dealing pot out of your ice cream trucks?

BigT’s Linkapalooza:
Syria strikes again.
Master Chief in real life.
State gets their own blog, government efficiency at its best no doubt.
What Hillary will do to Bill if she doesn’t win in ‘08.
The pupil becomes the master - India outsourcing to US.
Our space colonists.
New Zealand’s wikilaw experiment. BigT

Tell Your Friends! Bookmark Me!



Take Me To Your Homepage!

Breaking news: the media thinks that Bush is an idiot. This is - wait, this has been the party line since he took office. Here’s just some reiteration from Yahoo! News’ Odd News section. Bush cannot use the proper grammar with schoolchildrens and an article on preventing Bushisms. In other hard hitting news Yahoo! covers the global links to terrorism between Russian crime lords, Chinese officials, North Korean scientists, renegade nuclear scientists, Iranian Revolutionary Guard members, and Venezuelan kleptocrats - wait, they don’t cover stuff like that or Iran’s lack of homosexuals either.

Maybe some of you remember the brouhaha over Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia and how it was crucial for the survival of free speech that he got a forum to air his views. Well, I guess that the View doesn’t really agree with freedom of speech either. There is talk that their new hostette, Sherri Shepherd, is going to be canned because she questions evolution. To sum it up: questioning evolution = fired; questioning the holocaust = free speech.

And what about freedom of speech for our generals? They know a heck of a lot better what is going on in Iraq then, say, any civilian in America. And guess what they say:

“If the American people are informed properly,” Lynch told reporters after he arrived home on leave, “I believe they will be supportive of the mission. But they’re not getting the right story. As a result, they’re anti the war.”

The media use a “filter” that downplays information about American successes: “All I’m seeing when I watch TV … is the bad news and not the good news.”

But guess what News Busters found out about this article in Editor & Publisher; it omitted all the good news from the original interview! The rest of his interview goes on to say this:

Enemy attacks and U.S. casualties in the 3rd ID’s West Virginia-sized battle zone south of Baghdad are “way down.”

More than 2,000 enemy have been killed or captured there in the past six months.

The enemy has lost “sanctuaries” where it makes bombs, stores munitions, trains suicide bombers and plans attacks.

“But you never see that by watching Fox, CNN and NBC,” he said.

Interesting stuff. But instead of hearing this we hear about a soldier who is going to return his medals to Rumsfeld in an anti-war stunt.

John Bolton, in the top two of UN ambassadors we’ve ever had, reacts to Ahmadinejad’s visit.

In Myanmar there are some really brave people. Their country is being ruled by a junta that prevents the most basic of human rights. Three of the protestors, who are mostly monks, have been killed. This picture tells more then anything I can write though.

From Hot Air we get news that what we heard Ahmadinejad say is actually not what he said. “What?” you say. Yep, that’s right. The real transcript from the Washington Post is different then the official Iranian transcript. Basically, in Iran there’s not even any questions about gays (totally expunged from Iran’s official transcript) and there are other changes to play to the crowd. I know free speech is great but does this really count? Probably if you hate Bush.

Isn’t it great that the United States provides health care for children that don’t have it? No, it’s not. These kids are not from poor families and, anyways, I think it’s unconstitutional and immoral for the government to take money away from productive citizens and give it to people no matter how good the cause seems. But don’t blame Bush for not adding to spending. Take a look at this graph from a post in Sweetness & Light showing the dramatic increase in spending for SCHIP.

In other news, there’s a major schism growing in the ranks of the Sunni terrorists. According to Counterterrorism Blog this is what was said in al Qaeda publications:

The audio recording released on September 14 from Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was particularly significant–especially to those who follow the very serious internal schisms opening up between Al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood in Iraq. In his address, al-Baghdadi directly attacked other Sunni insurgent groups–such as the 1920 Revolution Brigades, Hamas in Iraq, and the Iraqi Islamic Resistance Front (JAAMI)–as “backstabbing” traitors who have abandoned their commitment to jihad. Needless to say, al-Baghdadi also reserved a strong dose of vitriol for the “degenerate crusader nation of Sweden”, where cartoons were recently published that were viewed as disrespectful to the Prophet Mohammed. In response, al-Baghdadi promised to launch punitive terrorist attacks by mid-October on Swedish “industrial giants” such as Volvo, Scandia, Ikea, and Ericsson–in addition to killing both the cartoon artist himself and his Swedish editor.

This is good stuff and, as the terrorists do, try and leverage this news. We need to put out our own counter-propaganda out there to knock down al Qaeda. Publishing the fact that there is a break among the ideological brethren of hate could significantly weaken recruitment drives by terrorist organizations. Why would anyone well-meaning young Muslim want to join a group that is at odds with other Islamic groups? Maybe even the main stream media - yeah, like that’ll ever happen.

Or maybe the fact that al Qaeda is targeting Muslims would dissuade young Jihadis? Yes, I know this is an old story but it comes from the Huffington Post so we should all be glad that at least they found out about it sometime.

And in other Iraq news, what is being touted as the Biden plan, which might come as a shock to Sen. Brownback who also supported the bill, passed the senate calling for a switch to a more federalized Iraq. I have said in previous posts that I think that wanting a strong and powerful national government in Iraq is probably the wrong way to go and that power should be distributed like it was even before our Revolutionary War.

This move does show that at least some in the senate still care about winning this war. This is the list from DailyKos (the list includes the names of everyone who voted against the denounce the moveon.org ad) of those that we cannot trust in the senate or the house. The list is too long to put here but if you need to know click on the above link and you will find Hillary’s name.

Unfortunately in America race matters. It matters because without it many leftist “leaders” would be left without jobs. Unfortunately this continuance of racial sensitivities is hurting Obama. Some may not vote for him because he is black but many will vote for him just because he is black. This hurts his credibility because the issue is not even about what he has to say or what he stands for. I would never vote for him but wouldn’t it be nice if his race wasn’t a factor?

Boing Boing is an extremely popular blog that sometimes shows its true liberal colors. Most of the stuff on there is great though and this article titled Scroogled in the Wall Street Journal is one of those good things. The interview, in this case, was about how Google, trying to just do good (their motto by the way) is actually doing really bad things because it is saving everyone’s information in the name of doing good. This is a problem because in the post Patriot Act world we live in (this is their liberalness coming out) the government could subpoena our search histories.

Besides the fact that the government can already subpoena our computer’s hard drive with, unless you have a program that is hardy enough to completely destroy all evidence of where you’ve been, the government can already retrieve all this information. But this is missing the point in the extreme.

The real point is that the biggest group of people that is taking control of our lives in the name of doing us good is the democrats. They want to have control over all our health information, financial information, and every single other piece of information available to aid in their control, uh, benefiting of our lives. Forget Google, I don’t want Hillary getting her hands on my private stuff.

BigT’s Linkapalooza:
Left is for Draft.
Katie flag pins are more dangerous than WMDs Couric’s news brethren have dinner with Ahmadinejad.
Lists of Conspiracy Theories from the right and the left.
Women are unhappy thanks to feminist revolution.
George Soros hates democracy, well our version anyway.
And here’s a graph from DailyKos readers saying who really frightens them.

BigT

Tell Your Friends! Bookmark Me!



Take Me To Your Homepage!