Saturday, December 13, 2008

Pardon me?

In recent weeks, the press has been asking about the pardons that President George W. Bush will be meting out before he leaves office in January. Their questions have mainly been, will President Bush pardon his staff, his cabinet and his subordinates as well as himself prior to leaving office.

Prior to the election in 2006, the Democrats (or liberals, since they are the same) were saying they wouldn't try to impeach President Bush. Once they got the majority, that's exactly what Representative John Conyers (D-MI) started to do.

Leading up to the election in 2008, the liberals (or Democrats, since they are the same) said they weren't interested in prosecuting the White House staff, cabinet under Bush, nor President Bush himself. If the liberals don't intend to prosecute President Bush, nor his people, why is the press speculating on whether or not he will pardon his people or himself? Do they not trust the liberals taking office?

I have no idea if President Bush would pardon any of them. I believe he should give a full pardon to Scooter Libby, but even before that, I'd like to see him pardon the two border guards now in prison for shooting a drug smuggler and failing to report the discharge of a firearm. The two border agents are Ignacio Ramos and Jose Campeon. On February 17, 2005 they intercepted drug smugglers crossing from Mexico. The smugglers had 743 pounds of marijuana. The drug smuggler was shot in the buttocks but survived and ran to a waiting van across the border.

The Justice Department granted immunity to the drug smuggler if he'd come back and testify. The drug smuggler was treated for his injury by the United States, given immunity to testify against the agents and is now suing the United States Government for $5 million.

These two border agents, one of which was named Border agent of the year in 2005 and the other who was a former naval officer, are now serving 11 and 12 year sentences. These two agents should never have been prosecuted, and deserve a full pardon.

I would be surprised to see President Bush pardon terrorists as Bill Clinton did (FALN Terrorists), and I don't know that it's possible for President Bush to match the length of the list of Pardons that Bill Clinton produced before he left office.

It will be interesting though to see if President Bush does pardon his staff, Cabinet and himself. If he doesn't, it will also be interesting to see if the liberals hatred for President Bush is carried out in the form of charges and trials when he's out of office. I suspect that if he doesn't pardon his people and himself, that the liberals will be similar to the bitter ex wife and continue to whine, moan and complain as well as to bring charges. We already know here in Michigan that regardless of what happens there, that for the next four or (God Forbid) eight years, anything that doesn't go well will be blamed on President Bush. Governor Granholm has that speech down to a tee. She takes no blame for anything that's gone wrong in Michigan since she took office. She's constantly and consistantly blamed President Bush.

I hope that President Bush does pardon the two border patrol agents at the very least.

Your comments are welcome.


Friday, December 12, 2008

Talk Radio...Rant

Former General, Former Secretary of State, Former Head of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell said on Fareed Zakaria's interview that Republicans need to appeal more to minorities because the minorities will be in the majority in 20 years. He also asked if we really needed to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Powell must really be upset that Limbaugh commented about Powell's endorsement of Barack Hussein Obama's candidacy a week before the election. Could this be the first salvo to the attacks on talk radio?

Personally, I like listening to Rush. He comments on the news. He shows what the politicians say in their own words and then points out their hypocrisy as well as their two faced comments and the double standards they have, using their own words against them.

Powell is wrong. He sets himself up on a fence. Claims to be a Republican to give himself credibility but then complains about the position he was put in at the United Nations in the lead up to the war in Iraq. If Powell was an honest man, he'd have stood up when he thought he was wrong, or the administration was wrong and refused to give that speech. He has no principles.

He played his game about whether or not he was a Republican or a Democrat prior to Bush being elected. Now he claims to be a Republican but is insisting that we must cater to minorities. It's big of him to say it's okay to be a Conservative. I'm so happy that I have his permission to believe as I believe. I didn't hear him say that he was for the Fairness Doctrine, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's leading up to that.

So let me be clear about what I think of talk radio. Rush is consistent and comments on the news. Sean Hannity is one that I don't like. He interrupts his guests, interrupts his callers and makes everything about him. I quit listening to him quite a while ago. I listen to and like a local radio program called Live with Renk. I like Laura Ingraham. These are all successful people. They give an outlet to conservatives. We aren't stuck with the liberal media on CNN, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, and even Fox half the time. Does CBS still exist? I haven't watched them since Dan Rather had the forged documents story to try and derail Bush in 2000.

Why aren't there more liberal talk radio programs? Because nobody listens. Radio stations lose money when they have liberal hosts. People don't listen to them. Advertisers don't want to pay for ads that aren't going to be heard.

Colin Powell has it wrong. Conservativism will appeal to the so-called minorities. They only need to hear what's being said. We need to get away from putting people into groups. The press did it with their polls saying blacks would vote in higher numbers for blacks, Jews would vote a certain way, Christians would vote another way, the south will vote this way, the northeast will vote that way, and so on. We are all Americans. For all of the talk about ending racism, the liberals and the press are playing a race card each time.

As a Conservative, I want all Americans to do better. I want for the entire country, black, white, hispanic, female, male, Jew, Gentile, left handed people, right handed people, southerners, northerners, westerners, midwesterners, easterners, the left coasters, the right coasters, EVERY American to take advantage of the opportunity for success. I believe that's best done by the individual working with other individuals without hindrance of government intrusions.

I'm sick of being told that one racial group is unfairly represented in prisons, courts, or that they are committing crimes in greater numbers against their own race, than other groups are. There is a solution to this. STOP COMMITTING THE CRIMES. Concentrate on improving your own life without stealing property, money or lives of others.

In other words, we're all Americans. My kids are all the same race as I am. I have one that has somewhat red hair, one that has blonde hair and one that has brown hair. I tan easily in the sun. My son doesn't. Does that make him better or me better? No. It makes us individuals. His interest for a career is different than mine. That doesn't make one of us better than the other. It means we each have our pursuits that contribute to this country.

That is the type of thing that talk radio advocates. Not separation from other groups, but combined as one group. AMERICANS. Liberals advocate fighting between the classes. Race, workers, income differences. White collar vs blue collar vs laborer. I believe we are one class. AMERICANS. Liberals advocate dividing people into groups. African Americans, Hispanic Americans, European Americans, and so on. If you're an American whether by birth or by choice, you're an American.

Talk radio does not divide the races and classes. Neither does Conservatism. Colin Powell does. The liberals do. The press does. Having said all of that, I guess I should admit to one group that I'm prejudiced against.....Lawyers. I'm working on it though.

I guess today was my day to rant.

Your comments are welcome.


Thursday, December 11, 2008

Do You Remember....

Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook". Resigned

Bill Clinton saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". Impeached.

And now we have Jesse Jackson Jr saying, " I reject and denounce pay-to-play politics and have no involvement whatsoever in any wrongdoing,"

When a politician speaks, you have to question his words. When a politican says they aren't guilty, there seems to be some guilt there.

Your comments are welcome.


Unnecessary Lies

Following the breaking of the story about the Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich, Senator Barack Hussein Obama made a brief statement saying that he had not been in contact with the Illinois Governor. However, on Fox News, Obama's spokesman, David Axelrod said that Obama had been in touch with Blagojevich (or "bag the riches) about who would fill his Senate seat. In addition, a reporter from Chicago reported that Obama was meeting with the Governor on November 5. The day following the election.

It would make perfect sense for the man elected to be the new President to make suggestions on his successor. I would see nothing wrong with giving his input. In fact, I would expect it to take place. So when I saw Axelrod say that Obama had been in touch, I thought nothing of it other than my belief that politicians should not be appointing politicians to replace politicians.

So why would Obama come out and say he hadn't spoken with the governor? 1. Either he didn't speak to the Governor which meant that Axelrod lied or 2. Obama did speak to the Governor and lied to the American people about it.

There are a couple of possible reasons why Obama would lie. For one, he might be just trying to distance himself from the governor. I can understand that, but you don't distance yourself by lying to the people of America. Another reason could be that Obama has been involved in Chicago politics (the Chicago way), and didn't want it known how involved he was or is.

Assuming that Obama is too busy to be involved in a play for pay scheme, there was no need for him to lie about his contact with the governor. Perhaps he really wasn't in touch with him, but had his surrogates in touch with the governor. This makes some sense because of the way Obama parsed his words when discussing it. He plainly changed his comment from "we" to "I" when he said there'd been no contact.

I don't believe it. I think he has spoken personally with the governor. I don't know that he's involved in this scandal, but I believe he's lying about not having spoken to the governor. This is a lie he didn't need to tell. It's also another example of how we're going to get more of the Clinton years. Remember, Clinton lied when it wasn't necessary for him to lie. Imagine if Clinton had admitted in his Grand Jury testimony that he did have a relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He wouldn't have been impeached. He wouldn't have obstructed justice, and he never would have had to stand up in front of the American people and said "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky."

Since Grand Jury testimony is private, Clinton's testimony would never have been made public. In fact, it's likely that Starr would have begun wrapping up his investigation saying that there would be no charges brought.

Senator Obama is stepping in it when he doesn't have to step in it. It would have been very simple for him to say 'yes, I've spoken to the governor about my successor in the Senate and made my suggestions.'

Unneccessary lies lead to more lies. That then leads to mistrust. Will we be able to depend on what Obama says after he becomes President? Not if he will lie about things that it's not necessary to lie about. We'll never be able to believe him when he needs to lie to us for national security reasons.

Some irony. Bill Clinton was 47 when he took over as President in 1993. Obama is 47. Bill Clinton told unnecessary lies. Obama seems to be following the same track. Unneccessary lies tainted the Clinton administration. We're now headed that way with Obama.

Your comments are welcome.


Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Democrat in White House = CORRUPTION

Here we go again. In 1992, Bill Clinton was running for the Democrat nomination for President. Amid some obscure stories of a corrupt land deal, he was selected to run against President George H. W. Bush (Bush 41 for those unfamiliar). Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, draft dodging, and even reports of him fathering a child out of wedlock were mentioned but not seriously considered during the campaign.

During his first year in office, Whitewater became a household word. There was travelgate, then Vince Fosters suicide (?) possibly related to travelgate, whitewater or other things. Following his suicide(?) there were the reports that Hillary got the cold shoulder from Mrs. Foster because she was having an affair with Vince Foster.

We spent the next 8 years having to listen to the corruption of the Clintons. Travelgate, Arlingtongate, Whitewater, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, culminating in his being caught red-handed (or blue dressed) with Monica Lewinsky. There was a sitting governor indicted and convicted (Jim Guy Tucker). Mike Espy, Webb Hubbell, Ron Brown (died in plane crash), a woman found dead in the Commerce Department offices, blackmail by a foriegn country, then there was the married couple, Jim and Susan McDougal.

Here we are in 2008. The people of the United States have just elected a Democrat to the White House. Senator Barack Hussein Obama has been elected President. By the way, there is no such thing as the "office of the President Elect" and Senator Obama is not officially "President Elect" until after December 15 when the electors finally elect him President. So what do we have now?

Obama has not even taken the office yet and the corruption has started. We've heard again, short-lived reports of a shady land deal, how he forced out another candidate in his own party to get elected to the state Senate in Illinois, questions about his citizenship and even reports of another woman. Now we find out that the governor of Illinois was trying to sell the vacated Senate seat of Senator Obama (he resigned his seat on November 16). The sale portion was to put money into the hands of the governor, his wife, and his campaign for re-election.

Governor Rod Blagojevich, (pronounced bagoyovich) was arrested at his home at 6:15 am on Tuesday, December 9, 2008. There are numerous charges against him and his advisor (also arrested this morning), for bribery in trying to sell the vacated Senate seat of Senator Obama. He also wanted to get his wife appointed to a board which would give her a high paying job which they hoped would be in excess of $150,000 per year. He also wanted to be appointed to the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services. If he didn't get something, he considered appointing himself to the Senate to replace Obama.

In addition, the governor and his aide were allegedly conspiring to demand the firing of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune in exchange for help in selling Wrigley Field.

Again, if we refer back to the Clinton years, we go just a bit before the Clinton years. There was a senator named Bob Packwood who was charged with sexual harassment. The prosecutor in his case was Ken Starr. The Democrats loved Ken Starr because he managed to get rid of Bob Packwood. However, just a few short years later, Ken Starr was appointed to be the special prosecutor in the Whitewater investigation of Bill Clinton. We all know how Starr was vilified by the Democrats for his work on Bill Clinton's corruption.

Let's move ahead to the Bush 43 years. A special prosecutor was named to investigate the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. His name was Patrick Fitzgerald. The only thing he was able to accomplish was to get Scooter Libby indicted for lying to investigators during the investigation. Democrats loved him for getting the indictment, despite Libby not being indicted for outing Plame. Richard Armitage was actually the one that put her name out, and he was never indicted let alone convicted.

Now, Patrick Fitzgerald is the prosecutor in the case against Governor Blagojevich. Already the press is complaining because the governor was arrested at his home rather than being allowed to turn himself in. Patrick Fitzgerald is about to be the Ken Starr of the Obama administration.

In another bit of irony, a Grand Jury has issued subpoenas in the Rezko/Obama land deal.

Do you notice what's missing in all of this information? First thing that's missing is The people. Obama didn't finish his term in the Senate. The Governor of Illinois selects his replacement. Not the people. This is a perfect example of what's wrong with a sitting governor replacing a Senator or a Representative when they don't finish their terms. The way to solve this is not to leave this in the hands of elected officials, but rather to call a special election so the people may select their Representative or Senator to represent them. After all, the people proved they can do the righ thing. They voted out the corrupt and indicted William Jefferson from the House. The second thing missing in all of this is that the stories I read in the Chicago Tribune and the CBS websites don't even mention that Governor Blagojevich is a Democrat. It's not mentioned even once in either of those stories.

It appears we're in for another four years (hopefully not eight years) of investigations and corruption. I, for one, do not want to see another impeachment of a sitting President. I'm afraid though that we're headed that way. For you liberals reading this, fear not. You have 58 Senate seats, so he won't be removed from office.

We're about to have another Democrat in office and we've already got the scandals.

Your comments are welcome.


Monday, December 1, 2008

Zogby Results on Obama Election

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

Not only does this tell us how poor the news media in this country is, but it also tells us that liberals don't think or apply reason.

Your comments are welcome.