Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Obama Would Hold Muslim Summit



I’m sure the summit won’t be discussing dhimmitude, jihad, or peace with Israel since Obama stated, "I will ask them to join us in battling terrorism but we should also be willing to listen in terms of some of their concerns". How does one conduct a meaningful summit with those who have sworn to destroy America, Israel, democracy, and establish a caliphate over the entire world? I have some real concerns about someone who wants to mollify the Muslims and withdraw the troops from Iraq before the job is done. The LA Times called him “Barack The Magic Negro.” He may be magical by assuaging white guilt (I never had a slave or an illegal alien, thus I feel no guilt), and being an alternative to Hillary. He smiles too much to be a Vulcan but check out his ears! Regardless, trying to pacify the Muslims has not worked in the past nor will it in the future. Too many politicians, Republican and Democrat, have tried this and they have all failed. Clinton tried it in Kosovo and as recently as September, the situation continues to deteriorate. They have failed because the Muslim world perceives any mollification as a sign of weakness; dhimmis beware of the great AFGE! A sneaky playground bully never picks on those that he perceives as being strong or defended. He attacks those that present themselves as weak or without resolve. I think that by making a statement that he wants to have the summit is a sign of weakness. Two questions I am left with are, do Ayatollahs fart, and what would Reagan do (WWRD [I need to get the bracelet!])?

Senator McCain


Michelle Malkin, on her blog, feels very strongly against McCain as the G.O.P Candidate. She, like many conservative sources have labeled him a "false conservative". There seems to be some fairly strong feelings about this. What are your thoughts, dear readers?

The long awaited demise of The Silky Pony...


has come at last. This picture, appearing on The Drudge Report this morning seems to show him crying. No real surprise, really. This is the same nancy boy who pays hundreds of dollars for a haircut.

So here is a question: Edwards ran on a platform saying that Americans need a fair shot at success to succeed, and that regular American families are poor and oppressed. How, then, did he lose his party's nomination?

Well, it could be that his party just doesn't give a damn about fairness and poor oppressed Americans. Or... maybe people can succeed already in America without the government helping, and we aren't all poor and oppressed? Huh. Hard to say that Americans aren't getting a fair chance to succeed when your major opponents are a woman and an African-American.

Perhaps he is crying because he, as a rich WASP, didn't get a fair chance to succeed? Perhaps he just needs to cowboy up.

Don't know about you, but his platform just didn't pass the common sense test. Glad voters, albeit Democrats, saw through this already.

Rudy is apparently conceding, as well. And so the race narrows. Super Tuesday (really, now, what's so super about any Tuesday, even that one?) should give us a clear idea who is going to be running from the G.O.P.

Lately, I've been looking into Senator McCain. What do you guys think about him?

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Is Obama The Next JFK?



Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of former president John Kennedy seems to think so.

This NYT's article provides the endorsement for Obama. Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at NRO refers to it as "Caroline Kennedy's Political Romanticism." Ponnuru's erudite statement, "Caroline says that Obama could be a president like her father. I assume that means that he'll be overrated, not that he'll bring us to the brink of nuclear war" This may not be the only reason for concern. Kennedy was a very popular president and had more balls than the entire democratic congress possesses. He did have some flaws. He was human. As Vonnegut was oft fond of saying, "So it goes."


But it could be worse!!!

State of the Union was last night...

And I missed it because of work. However, I read the text of the Address, and I have to admit, I found the following quite interesting:

The people's trust in their government is undermined by congressional earmarks -- special interest projects that are often snuck in at the last minute, without discussion or debate. Last year, I asked you to voluntarily cut the number and cost of earmarks in half. I also asked you to stop slipping earmarks into committee reports that never even come to a vote. Unfortunately, neither goal was met. So this time, if you send me an appropriations bill that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half, I'll send it back to you with my veto. (Applause.)

And tomorrow, I will issue an executive order that directs federal agencies to ignore any future earmark that is not voted on by Congress. If these items are truly worth funding, Congress should debate them in the open and hold a public vote.
Now, I'm sure that pork will still make it through Washington, but at least until next January, it will be transparent.

I also have to believe that this will save the government some money. Murtha must be rolling over in his sty.

This is a pretty bold move, IMHO. It also serves to backup my assessment that President Bush may be the most effective "Lame Duck" President we have had in living memory. Particularly taking into account strong opposition to him in a Democrat dominated Congress.

Perhaps the Dems aren't as unified as they try to make it seem.