Blogging Hiatus

Let me apologize for my blogging hiatus. I have been tending to other matters, and well...politics has been slow as the Christmas season has distracted our attention. Merry Christmas to all...and may our blessings this evening and next be with the troops and this great nation.

Deterrence

For Americans who believe pulling out of Iraq is an option, let me offer an opposing viewpoint. Deterrence is a big part of why we have developed the expansive armory available to us today. In addition to high-tech weaponry and well trained troops, how we fight and win wars also "deters" those who threaten our safety. Pulling out of Iraq soon, may save lives today, but jeopardize many more lives in the future if it is cast as a American weakness. No, America is strong and will prevail. Instead, America must step up efforts to make victories swift and decisive - in part to win...but in part to deter.

Arnold 08?

This is doubtful at best. However, the people at www.amendforarnold.com like to think they have a shot! Check the site, and let me know what you think... Does Arnold have a chance of becoming the leader of the free world? At the very least, it might be worth picking up an Amend for Arnold t-shirt - those will have to be collector's items someday...

Chief Justice of the United States

NBC reported today that the Chief Justice of the United States, William Rehnquist, would be on hand to swear in President Bush in January. However, the reporter went on to say that this should quell speculation that he will be resigning as a result of his thyroid cancer. I am assuming the reporter meant that it will quell speculation to the extent that Rehnquist will not resign at least up until Bush is sworn in... but I think (just maybe) this raises an interesting misconception about the Chief Justice's role in the inaugural process. Specifically, the Chief Justice has no constitutional responsibility to administer the Presidential Oath. So have other judges administered the oath? The most recent example I could think of, would be District Court Judge Sarah Hughes, who administered the oath to Lyndon Johnson aboard Air Force One, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy. In fact, the person only needs to be an officer of the notary public. Clearly, this opens the door to many individuals who could give the oath in an "honorary" capacity. Therefore, Rehnquist could resign, but also swear in the President. Some have suggested that Bush had toyed with the notion of having his father administer the oath in a special "father to son" moment. However, in the end it will be Chief Justice William Rehnquist and I am not suggesting, nor could anybody argue - there could be a better choice... I think the most important thing is that it seems Rehnquist will likely be up and feeling better in January!

One other thing I wanted to mention... The Chief Justice is correctly referred to as "The Chief Justice of the United States," and not as "The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court," just for future reference to all...

Liberal Low

As I mentioned earlier, Rumsfeld greatly values the Q & A sessions with soldiers abroad. (See Below: "Live from Kuwait...") Rumsfeld asks that these Q & A sessions be unscripted so as to show that neither he nor this administration have anything to hide. However, a shameless liberal reporter (a Kerry supporter) planted soldiers in the audience to ask Rumsfeld loaded questions - and what did Rumsfeld do? Secretary Rumsfeld answered the questions pointedly, honestly, and with great clarity... Lets take a moment though to think about this...A liberal decided to tamper with the Q & A session just to make Rumsfeld look bad! It didn't work. However, it begs the question - what right did that democrat-pandering-reporter have, to steal a very special opportunity that those troops were given to question Secretary Rumsfeld, in their own words? Pretty pathetic, isn't it? I guess thats just how liberals choose to operate - covertly.

Liberals Against Commandments

I think its interesting that liberals (dems) call themselves uniters, yet they so blatantly disregard the fabric of this nation. That which binds us all is religion. Our laws, our society, it is all born out of the laws of christianity - seriously. The 10 Commandments are at the core of our Constitution - they were the basis of many early common law decisions that still impact court decisions to this day - they are a part of our nation's legal history. Liberals hate this. As a part of of our legal history shouldn't courts feel free to display the 10 Commandments along with our constitution - Bush thinks so - Dems (Kerry, Clinton, etc...) think we should be stripped of their presence.

Have you ever heard people say that maybe democracy won't work in Iraq? - While I disagree with this assertion - the notion is predicated upon the observation that their society is not conducive to democracy (a characteristic instead, of western civilization). However, our societal norms that make our society conducive to democracy has a great deal to do with the overwhelming prevalence of christianity (especially catholicism) throughout the development of western civilization. The founders of our Constitution embraced christianity and its values... why not dems?

By the way Conservatives, some Democrats may say to you that they are perfectly fine with christianity - BUT - their candidates (i.e. John Kerry) are endorsed by groups like the ACLU (because they consider Kerry "friendly" to their cause - weeding christianity out of society). They (Dems) are the ones fighting to remove "under god" from the pledge of allegiance - and its the liberal courts/justices (judges appointed by democrats) that are agreeing with them! Don't be fooled! Democrats are even the ones blaming the "Christian" right for the outcome in the election - like it was a bad thing! - A lot of democrats would like to see Christianity erased from society and torn from the pages of our history books - why so anti-christianity dems?

Dean Combustible?

Howard Dean says he wants to be the DNC top dog - and this has some democrats freaking out. Dean is like the person who throws good parties at his house, invites all the cool people, and then actually wants to show up, but nobody wants him there. Keep in mind Dean is a big reason why the DNC beat the RNC in fundraising (see: Dem's Have Financial Edge Below). Now, Dean just wants to be part of the party - but the rest of the party hopes that invite was lost in the mail! Most think he's too combustible - but Dean says, "Nu - uh, no I'm not." Dean saying he's not too comustible is like saying an atomic bomb is not that explosive or saying Alec Baldwin is kinda conservative. Wake up Dean! You're nuts. YEEEE-HAAAA!!!! Sorry, I just had to throw that in there. Interestingly, Republicans have been strategizing on how to gain seats (AGAIN) in the upcoming midterm election and then hold on to the White House (AGAIN) in 2008, but it is the Democrats who might give the Republicans their first big boost. If Nutty-Dean becomes Dem Chairperson - the Republicans should have a victory celebration...(shhhh...just don't invite howard).

What would Dr. Laura say?

Two parents in Deltona Florida went on strike, from PARENTING! What parents do this? Going on "strike" began as a couple's effort to convince their children to help out around the house - so now mom and dad sleep in a tent in the front yard while son and daughter have run of the house. WAKE UP! These parents are without a doubt Kerry supporting, AFL-CIO card carrying, tree-hugging, sign-waving, liberals. Has the concept of "striking" become so prevalent in our society, that now it is a means of parenting? What lesson has this taught these two children? Read the arcticle and try to picture the situation in your head - 'dad has to leave the tent to go to and from the bathroom?' (0r) 'the mom saying it was a last ditch effort?' - HEY DAD & MOM IT'S YOUR HOUSE! USE IT! MAKE THE KIDS SLEEP IN A TENT FOR CRYING-OUT-LOUD! If there are any Dr. Laura listeners - please comment, and let me know how you think Dr. Laura would address this situation.

Impeach Bush?

I'm from California - so I've heard of "Impeach Davis"... but, "Impeach Bush." Hmmm.... I checked out www.impeachbush.org and I found that some people really are trying to impeach the president. The problem is, judging by the high budget website from which they are proliferating this nonsense - we Americans have nothing to worry about, but if you want a laugh...why not check it out?...they'd probably appreciate some traffic at their site.
The funny thing about liberals is that they are more polarized than Kodak. Hey, "Impeachbush.org"...has John Kerry ever stopped by your site...probably not...Clinton...I'm guessing not - who stands with you... nobody. At least somebody use to show up at the hippy get-togethers in the 60's.
Or how about this...do you know what impeaching Bush would stand for... it would stand for disenfranchising 60+ million voters...disenfranchising minorities, women, christians, non-christians, farmers, yuppies - because whether you lefties like it... people from all walks of life support our president....I know, I know...they're all ignorant. Is it possible the people at "Impeach Bush" are a little on the ignorant side?
Conservatives Beware! While John Kerry plays to the middle and would never support this nonsensical site - "ImpeachBush.org" should give you some insight into the types of people that support the democrat party. This is how liberals think...they don't like rules...they don't like elections when they don't win...they don't concede when they lose, etc...
People at "Impeach Bush" - Keep making the democrats proud!

Sports Fans

If you are a sports fan - then check out Moe's Tavern. I linked it on the right! It's a new site, so there aren't many posts, but this guy knows sports, comment on anything - and he will be happy to discuss it with you - But beware, this can become addictive...

Live From Kuwait...Its Don Rumsfeld!

Secretary Rumsfeld fielded questions in a live broadcast from troops at Camp Buehring, Kuwait today - in a clear indication that this administration has no fear of confronting the worries and concerns of the U.S. soliers stationed abroad. Rumsfeld had to field difficult questions - when's more armor coming? - why are reservists getting treated differently than regulars? Rumsfeld was even jokingly asked if he would take some of the troops home with him - so they could go to Disneyland, but Rumsfeld had to say, "sorry, we've got some more important things for you to do..."
Those close to Rumsfeld, who know he's such a compassionate person, say that it really pains him to be placing young Americans in such a difficult situation. He takes these Q & A sessions very seriously and likes for them to be unscripted so that the troops see that he has nothing to hide. We owe a great deal to these brave men and women who are putting themselves in harm's way - and as Americans it should bring us comfort that the current administration has no hesitation to confront solier's concerns in such an open and public format...

Thanks

I love this blog stuff, and I'd love to add a link to your blog. Please, take a free shot at my posts and add the link to your blog in the text of your comment and it would be my pleasure to add a link from my site...
Thanks to all of you who have been commenting on my site. My blog is very young - but the experience is unique and I have really enjoyed reading all of your comments!
In the weeks to come I will be adding a couple contributors...so those of you who are getting sick of hearing only from me, there is more to come!
For those of you who are students...Good Luck on Finals!
To the rest of you...so I don't forget...Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

San Diego Mayoral Race Finished

I don't know if you can call this a loss for democrats - I don't know if Donna Frye calls herself a democrat. Ofcourse, I don't know much about Donna Frye, other than she's one of those people that's so liberal that they don't really call themselves democrats. That's pretty liberal. Nonetheless, she has lost. It's over. Dems, Liberals, whatever you want to call them, rarely concede in a timely fashion. As such, we are probably weeks away from bringing an end to these lawsuits - but in the end, Dick Murphy will be sworn in - and San Diego's populous can take comfort in knowing their city is in safe hands. With respect to Donna Frye, for those of you not from this area, she was a write-in candidate. That is impressive. The fact that a write-in candidate could almost win such a large city's mayoral race is very impressive - so I have a great deal of political respect for her campaign - but nothing more. Hopefully, San Diego voters won't let this sort of thing ever happen again.

Sunken Ship?

Want to see what a ship that sunk looks like?

Dems Use Memory of Pearl Harbor

DNC Chairperson, Terry McAuliffe, used the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor to attack Republicans. Democrats truly know no shame. First, you can't really take what McAuliffe says seriously, he is a very bitter man. He's losing his job ya know and his final election as DNC chairperson was marred by defeat and failure.

Hey Terry, to quote Rush, "Talk to us when you actually win an eletion." Pathetic. Terry says that unity 63 years ago, allowed the nation to move forward. Terry blames the lack of unity today solely on Republicans.

I see...so, John Kerry's campaign must have been a campaign to unite the country. I don't think so Terry. I recognize there is a lack of unity - but to say that the blame falls entirely on Republicans? Guess what Terry - you lost EVERYTHING - on November 2nd - EVERYTHING! I can hardly hold back my laughter when I think of those Democrats on November 1st spouting off..."I think we're going to win this presidential election by a wide margin"..."I think its going to be a landslide for Kerry"....I mean I feel bad for the Dems. However, if you lost everything - YOU (DEMOCRATS) should feel obligated to go along with us. Why do Republicans have to meet you half way --- at the very least --- you should have to meet us 51% of the way.

To say that Republicans are to blame for the lack of unity - and to do it with the memory of Pearl Harbor as backdrop is just pathetic. Talk to Republicans when you win an election Terry...

McCain v Kerry

Think about it -

Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani seem to be the very-early front runners. If the 08 election were tomorrow (I have to get a life) John McCain would probably be President.

For the Republicans -

I believe Giuliani can out "debate" McCain - he's more composed. McCain tends to be unpredictable and somewhat "touchy" at times. Bush used these characteristics to his advantage when he defeated McCain in 2000. However, Giuliani may have some exploitable ghosts in his closet and McCain has ran the primary route once before. Plus, McCain has gone a long way in the last couple years to nurture his Republican support - that dwindled somewhat after he lost to Bush in 2000. Finally, McCain seems to be ahead of Giuliani in most polling. For now, advantage to McCain.

For the Democrats -

Hillary Clinton would be tough for Kerry to beat. H. Clinton is popular and she would have the help of her husband and his network of political masterminds. Kerry's got a war chest and a substantial advantage with respect to experience. Plus, the consensus seems to be that Kerry exited the 2004 stage with grace and dignity - very important for future presidential bids. This is a big reason why Gore is a virtual non-issue...ever. O.k., so lets say advantage to Kerry.
What does it mean:

McCain v Kerry

These guys are friends - and these would be interesting debates to watch (maybe). I am not currently endorsing either candidate (obviously never endorsing Kerry), but I think its worth recognizing the profound impact this match-up could have on the otherwise "nasty" nature of Presidential politics.

This is a far cry from once being considered potential running mates...