I never was that into politics until the beginning of last year when President Bush announced that the new strategy in Iraq would be a surge. I was shocked at all the opposition that President Bush got from the left. So I started to follow what was going on in our country very closely.
In the last year I've seen and heard people call for President Bush's impeachment for, so called, "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity". I've also seen Iran grow bolder in there opposition to America because of all the fighting here. Liberals just cannot seem to understand that, no matter what we do, if we don't bow down to Islam then terrorists and sponsors of terrism(i.e. Iran) will never stop taking innocent lives. When you try explaining that to a liberal, who lives in a fanasty world of nothing but peace and marijuana, they call you a "war monger". I've learned to wear that name with honor and pride, just like I do as a member of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".
Now here we are, a year after the troop surge in Iraq, and violence is down, Iraqis are joining together to combat terrorists, American and Iraqi troop deaths are down, we're beginning to remove troops from Iraq, we're handing over control to the Iraqi military, Iraqis are sharing oil revenues, all political parties are being represented, laws are being passed and citizens are beginning to feel safe to walk the streets and return home. And what do the anti-American liberals say? They say that would should have pulled out all our troops a long time ago and leave millions of innocent people to die. We should of pulled out and let Iran take the country over and use it as a training ground for terrorists. We should never have gone in, even though their King (Bill Clinton) said that he also believed the intel. Our government was in on 9/11. We should give terrorists rights that we have in our courts. That we should allow Iran to do whatever they want. That we should let Iran take out Israel. That our troops are the ones causing terror. That we should SURRENDER! Even after they say all those things, they have the audacity to say that they support the troops, that they are more patriotic than I and that we are the enemy.
If we follow the path that liberals want to go down then what we are going to end up with is country that is inferior to those like Iran, China, Venezuela, Russia, North Korea and Syria. We will have a country were freedom no longer exists. But hey, it's okay because we will have the freedom to go and get high. I don't want a country like that and I hope you don't either.
Thank-you for reading and God Bless.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Republican Chaos
Iowa was Huckabee's, Wyoming Romney's and New Hampshire belonged to McCain. I think it's pretty fair to say that the Republican race is very chaotic and very wide open. Rudy is waiting for Super Tuesday and Thompson is hoping for the South.
Fred Thompson will most likely not stay in it too long because he basically has no strategy.
It's probably do or die for Romney in Michigan. He has lost two races in which he has outspent his opponents by at least 7 to 1 or more (not to mention one was his neighboring state) and he has run a pretty negative campaign, voters don't seem to respect that very much. Romney may not drop out after Michigan because he does have the money to stay in the race for a while, but it would be highly unlikely that he gets much support. If Romney cannot win Michigan (the state in which he was born and his father was governor), I think it's pretty fair to say that his chances are pretty much gone.
Rudy is putting all his dice in Florida, but that may not work with Huckabee right there with him. If Huckabee can pull off a victory or good showing in the states leading up to Florida and Super Tuesday, and it looks like he could, then he may get enough momentum to upset Rudy in Florida. A loss in Florida would greatly hurt Rudy's campaign and would give McCain and Huckabee a better chance to make it a two man race between them.
Huckabee got a huge boost from Iowa and showed that he is viable from his third place in New Hampshire. He is currently running second in Michigan and South Carolina to John McCain. A second place finish to McCain in Michigan would most likely knock Romney out of the running (although Romney would probably stay in a little longer because he has the money) and give him more support in the primaries following Michigan, but a loss in South Carolina could do great damage his campaign because of the number of Christians in South Carolina. If Huckabee cannot keep those evangelicals then he will lose his greatest base of support.
John McCain has the brightest future in this race (in my opinion). He proved, like Huckabee, that money will not buy an election and defeated Romney in New Hampshire. He is also showing the he is the most trustworthy by telling the truth about his record and just straight-talking with the people. He's stealing Romney's support in Michigan and Huckabee's evangelicals in South Carolina. Another advantage the McCain and Huckabee both enjoy is their ability to attract the Independent vote.
Now I just want to set a few things straight for the people: Romney attacked John McCain about his record on the Bush tax cuts. The truth about that, and what McCain makes very clear, is that he didn't support the tax cuts because they didn't have spending cuts along with them. Romney also attacked McCain on supporting Bush's immigration bill but fails to mention that he also supported it until he decided to run for President, just another one of those flip-flops that are so common in Romney.
Next comes Huckabee. Romney attacked Huckabee because he raised taxes in Arkansas, again Romney is not telling the whole truth. Huckabee raised taxes only after the people voted overwhelmingly for the increase with 70-80 percent in favor. Romney also fails to mention that he raised taxes in his own state (though he calls them fees). He has also claimed that Mike Huckabee gives illegals special privileges, which is not true. What he is talking about is Huckabbe allowing the children of illegals, who have attended Arkansas schools their entire education careers, to pay in-state tuition rates for college. What Romney makes it sound like is that Huckabee was letting any illegal come to Arkansas and get those rates and that's just not true.
I've had lots of respect for Mitt Romney and even supported him as my second choice until he started with a negative ads. A few negatives are ok, but when that's all you do it's not what people respect.
Thank you for reading and God Bless.
Fred Thompson will most likely not stay in it too long because he basically has no strategy.
It's probably do or die for Romney in Michigan. He has lost two races in which he has outspent his opponents by at least 7 to 1 or more (not to mention one was his neighboring state) and he has run a pretty negative campaign, voters don't seem to respect that very much. Romney may not drop out after Michigan because he does have the money to stay in the race for a while, but it would be highly unlikely that he gets much support. If Romney cannot win Michigan (the state in which he was born and his father was governor), I think it's pretty fair to say that his chances are pretty much gone.
Rudy is putting all his dice in Florida, but that may not work with Huckabee right there with him. If Huckabee can pull off a victory or good showing in the states leading up to Florida and Super Tuesday, and it looks like he could, then he may get enough momentum to upset Rudy in Florida. A loss in Florida would greatly hurt Rudy's campaign and would give McCain and Huckabee a better chance to make it a two man race between them.
Huckabee got a huge boost from Iowa and showed that he is viable from his third place in New Hampshire. He is currently running second in Michigan and South Carolina to John McCain. A second place finish to McCain in Michigan would most likely knock Romney out of the running (although Romney would probably stay in a little longer because he has the money) and give him more support in the primaries following Michigan, but a loss in South Carolina could do great damage his campaign because of the number of Christians in South Carolina. If Huckabee cannot keep those evangelicals then he will lose his greatest base of support.
John McCain has the brightest future in this race (in my opinion). He proved, like Huckabee, that money will not buy an election and defeated Romney in New Hampshire. He is also showing the he is the most trustworthy by telling the truth about his record and just straight-talking with the people. He's stealing Romney's support in Michigan and Huckabee's evangelicals in South Carolina. Another advantage the McCain and Huckabee both enjoy is their ability to attract the Independent vote.
Now I just want to set a few things straight for the people: Romney attacked John McCain about his record on the Bush tax cuts. The truth about that, and what McCain makes very clear, is that he didn't support the tax cuts because they didn't have spending cuts along with them. Romney also attacked McCain on supporting Bush's immigration bill but fails to mention that he also supported it until he decided to run for President, just another one of those flip-flops that are so common in Romney.
Next comes Huckabee. Romney attacked Huckabee because he raised taxes in Arkansas, again Romney is not telling the whole truth. Huckabee raised taxes only after the people voted overwhelmingly for the increase with 70-80 percent in favor. Romney also fails to mention that he raised taxes in his own state (though he calls them fees). He has also claimed that Mike Huckabee gives illegals special privileges, which is not true. What he is talking about is Huckabbe allowing the children of illegals, who have attended Arkansas schools their entire education careers, to pay in-state tuition rates for college. What Romney makes it sound like is that Huckabee was letting any illegal come to Arkansas and get those rates and that's just not true.
I've had lots of respect for Mitt Romney and even supported him as my second choice until he started with a negative ads. A few negatives are ok, but when that's all you do it's not what people respect.
Thank you for reading and God Bless.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Iranian Provocation
I'm sure that most of you are already aware of the threat Iran made to the US Navy over the weekend. If you are not then here is the story, Iran Confrontation. This is further proof that, even with the latest intelligence report finding Iran halted it's nuclear weapons program, Iran is still a threat to America. They still have not stopped enriching uranium.Some liberals are comparing this incident to what happened last May when we sent another carrier to the Gulf region in a show of military strength. What happened last May was Iran continually provoking the US, defying the United Nations and murding American troops in Iraq, America basically said, "Hey, back off. We're bigger than you and you need to stop." What happened over the weekend was Iran trying to provoke the US into a fight by threatening our ships and saying they were going to "explode." To say the two incidents are the same is something only an idiot would do, but hey, the liberals I'm talking about are on the DailyKos and you can't expect more than idiocy from there.
The timing of this threat comes as President Bush is making is trip to the Middle-East. When Ahmedinejad came to New York, we didn't do anything like this (although we probably should have).
America is a country that promotes peace and democracy, but we are also a country that will cut down any threat to our national security. We don't force other countries to do anything unless they are a threat to us. Liberals would have you believe that we are occupiers and that we force countries to do what we want and that is completely untrue. Iran is a threat, Iraq was a threat and terrorism is still alive. Thank you for reading and God Bless.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Ain't It True?
This picture, from TownHall.com, isn't just funny, it also shows the truth about how our enemies feel about Democrats wanting to surrender. The last time I checked, our national security was more important then what terrorists thought about us.You can make the claim that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq and I can respect that view (because we went in on faulty intelligence), but the fact is that we are there and if we were to leave now, it would be catastrophic for the United States. There's no doubt that Iran would just go in and take over, it would also emboldened our enemies all over the world. Attacks on the United States, and our bases and embassies around the world, would rise because we would be seen by our enemies as weak. It would also result in a massacre (genocide) in Iraq. It would be just like Vietnam (and if you think we had a bad image after that, just wait and see what our image would be like if Democrats got their way).
Democrats are always say that President Bush's foreign policy is disastrous and it is ruining our ties with other countries. Well, the only ties it is ruining is ties with countries that are supporting terrorism, cheating on trade and making threats against America. One example is Russia, they are helping Iran with their nuclear program and directly undermining the UN. Other examples are China and Venezuela. If these countries are going to support our enemies, then we do not need good ties with them. On the other hand, Bush has strengthened relationships with the UK, Germany, France, Mexico, Canada and many more. Our relationships with these countries are better than they have ever been.
Democrats just can't seem to understand that America MUST be tough on terror and we must be tough on our enemies. It seems like only time they feel that way is when we get attacked and it will help their political image. Thank you for reading and God Bless
Merry Christmas
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Liberals In Congress Praise Islam But Deny Christianity
Democrats in congress voted to recognize Islam as "one the of the great religions of the world" and condemned the persecution of Muslims around the world. They also voted to honor the Islamic holiday of Ramadan. Now there's nothing wrong with condemning the persecution of anyone or respecting the religion of anyone, but there is something wrong when Democrats vote for religious tolerance for Muslims but refuse to do the same for Christians, especially when it is known that Christians are the most persecuted people in the world, more than any other peoples around the world.
The Ramadan resolution began:
Whereas Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal for Muslims worldwide, and is the 9th month of the Muslim calendar year; and Whereas the observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramandan commenced at dusk on September 13, 2007, and continues for one lunar month:"
The Christmas resolution began:
Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world... Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ...Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others:"
The Democrats that voted yes to Islam and No to Christianity are:
Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke of N.Y., Alcee Hastings, FL, Barbara Lee, Fortney Stark and Lynn Woolsey, CA, Jim McDermott, WA, Robert Scott, VA and Diane DeGette, CO.
This just shows that liberal Democrats want to stray farther and farther away from the values that this country was founded on. It's ridiculous this even happened in this country, which was founded "under God."
I believe that it is now evident, to those who denied it, that there is a war on Christmas in the United States and liberals are to blame. If any of these idiotic Democrats are representing your district, then you need to let them hear your voice and let them know that Christians founded this country and that Christmas is an American holiday. Let them know that the persecution of Christians deserves the same condemnation as the persecution of any other people.
Thank you for reading and God Bless.
The Ramadan resolution began:
Whereas Ramadan is the holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal for Muslims worldwide, and is the 9th month of the Muslim calendar year; and Whereas the observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramandan commenced at dusk on September 13, 2007, and continues for one lunar month:"
The Christmas resolution began:
Whereas Christmas, a holiday of great significance to Americans and many other cultures and nationalities, is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and the world... Whereas on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ...Whereas many Christians and non-Christians throughout the United States and the rest of the world, celebrate Christmas as a time to serve others:"
The Democrats that voted yes to Islam and No to Christianity are:
Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke of N.Y., Alcee Hastings, FL, Barbara Lee, Fortney Stark and Lynn Woolsey, CA, Jim McDermott, WA, Robert Scott, VA and Diane DeGette, CO.
This just shows that liberal Democrats want to stray farther and farther away from the values that this country was founded on. It's ridiculous this even happened in this country, which was founded "under God."
I believe that it is now evident, to those who denied it, that there is a war on Christmas in the United States and liberals are to blame. If any of these idiotic Democrats are representing your district, then you need to let them hear your voice and let them know that Christians founded this country and that Christmas is an American holiday. Let them know that the persecution of Christians deserves the same condemnation as the persecution of any other people.
Thank you for reading and God Bless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
