Archive for May, 2006


May 31, 2006

This is the word you will hear too many times until November: "Haditha".

Haditha is a town in Iraq that is full of terrorists. These guys are blowing up women and children to try and drive us out. Why? Because our boys, even on a bad day, have more fight than they can handle.

Rep. John Murtha (ex-Marine) is accusing the Marine Corps of covering up something terrible that happened there. Apparently, several marines killed women and children, and they weren't exactly caught in the cross-fire.

I don't know Rep. Murtha, but I do know this: he is out of line. Let the Marine Corp finish their investigation, let these men (and they are real men!) stand trial. Let them have their say in court, and let the court find them innocent or guilty. It is not our job to judge them. That duty belongs to God and the jury.

And Rep. Murtha, the only cover up that is happening is between your mind and rationality. The Marine Corps have done everything by the book. 

Until they are tried, our boys deserve to be innocent until proven guilty. I will not have our marines tried in the court of public opinion, because frankly, they deserve the benefit of a doubt. And frankly, we are a nation of laws, not of men.

IF they are found guilty, I hope they are punished to the full extent of the law. I hope they are held up as a negative example, and brought whatever dishonor they deserve. I won't excuse them for their guilt, because there is no excuse for what they may have done.

IF they are found innocent, I expect Rep. Murtha to publically apologize, and every other person who has wagged their finger before the trial to do the same. But Democrats have a history of being long vicious in accusations and short and insincere in apologies, so I won't hold my breath.

Americans have committed war crimes in the past, and will probably commit war crimes in the future. The difference between us and them is that we don't excuse it, and we make sure that they guilty are punished. That's a message that will tell the Iraqis that they can build a nation of laws. 

Democrats Obstruct Military

May 31, 2006

Olympia moonbat Democrats tried to block a military supply ship.

I understand how you probably feel when I label these guys as Democrat. Sen. Tracey Eide and Rep. Adam Smith, along with Sen. Cantwell do not want to be associated with this element of their party.  (Indeed, it is no longer an element—it is a controlling interest.)

However, when you base your party platform on preventing President Bush from executing the bill that the congress passed—with bi-partisan support, no less—authorizing him to use whatever methods necessary to combat terrorism, to topple Saddam Hussein, and to monitor America's network for terrorist connections, then you are only encouraging those moonbats to go out and try to do things like this.

When will the Democrat party stand up and declare themselves on America's side in this war?

Why do we have to listen to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean mince words and denounce President Bush's execution of the war, without going as far as to say he actively opposes it?

Why can't Senator Cantwell come out and say, "I know we will win this war, if we continue to hunt terrorists down, one by one, and capture them in Guantanamo Bay."

Why can't Senator Eide say, "I honor the veterans of this war and the Vietnam war, and pray that God will bless their families that have sacrificed so much, and bless this war effort that we will be victorious, and we will see those who oppose freedom and democracy burned in the trashheap of history?"

Why can't Adam Smith come out and say, "I am proud to support this bill that will fully fund our heroes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the world, even though I know that we don't have the money now for it, because, God help us if we don't win this war!"

Why is it so hard for a Democrat to stand up and say, "God bless our troops AND their mission! May the enemies of freedom around the world die a horrible death!" 

Folks, there is a nagging feeling in your stomach, and it says that there is only one party who supports freedom, democracy, and equality. Even if, tomorrow, all these democrats came out and said exactly what I wrote above, you wouldn't believe them. Because actions speak louder than words.

Only one party prays for victory, even if the mission is impossible. Only one party is sacrificing their political position to fight a war that is increasingly unpopular, because it is critical that we win this war, even if it costs us the presidency, the house, and the senate. Only one party is standing between our children and those terrorists around the world who chant, "Death to America!" while praying to their false god that he will deliver nuclear capability to their country.

Only one party deserves your support this year. 

Protest Warrior Hacker Indicted

May 26, 2006

You probably didn't hear this, but last year, Protest Warrior's servers were hacked. Credit card numbers were stolen.

Except it wasn't the run-of-the-mill hackers trying to make a few bucks. These were political opponents of the War in Iraq. Investigators were able to obtain evidence that the hacker was targetting conservative websites.

There is a world of difference between Americans and the far-left anti-war wing of the Democratic Party. See, we don't commit crimes to make our political points. We just exercise our free speech and let the voters decide.

Anyway, like the case of the kids who slashed the tires of the vans of republicans the night before the election, this kid was caught. Now he is indicted. 

Judicial Nominations Moving Forward

May 26, 2006

The Republicans still know what we care about. Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Appeals Court recently. That was after a long hold up by the democrats.

And the new CIA director—Gen. Michael Hayden—has been confirmed as well.

You won't hear this in the newspapers, but this is a major defeat for the democratic party. They can no longer effectively oppose any of President Bush's nominations. 

Immigration Bill

May 26, 2006

I wish to state from the beginning, although I disagree with some facets of Mike McGavick's take on the immigration issue, it will in no way make me less likely to vote for him.

The senate passed the stupidest bill on immigration, so stupid that I couldn't have imagined anything like it. 

My personal take is that we need to enforce the laws that we have on the books right now. If we can't enforce the law, what use is writing more laws that won't get enforced? The senate bill does NOT do that, and doesn't address future problems.
Step one is to build a fence from sea to shining sea. Then secure that fence with the military. Let's stop playing games. Our military's purpose is to defend our country. Let's defend it.

The question is: Are we willing to shoot people that cross the fence? I hope the answer is yes. Why? Because they are breaking the law. Yes, we'll try to take them into custody without violence. But if there is violence, we had better be prepared to show more force than they do. I don't know if you are aware, but there are armed incursions into the US from Mexico, by drug smugglers dressed up as Mexican military. They are using military grade equipment and weapons. Our border patrol isn't trained on how to handle a situation like that. (And by handle, I mean, stopping the incursion.) Our military knows exactly what to do.

Will this cause a political weakening of the will? Yes. But I believe the majority of the country, when they are shown pictures of dead people who were wearing Mexican military uniforms and driving Humvees with the Mexican flag on it, and who were carrying military weapons, will feel no sympathy for the invaders. And all the others will most likely figure out that when our soldiers yell, "Stop!", they had better stop.

The intent is to seal the borders, completely.

Step two is to enforce the law. It is illegal to steal identities and work under an assumed name. It is illegal to hire such people, or at least it should be. When we catch an illegal alien, we put them in prison for their full prison term. We don't release them to the streets hoping they'll show up for the court date. When we have shown that we can and will enforce the law, then I believe there will be a mass exodus back to Mexico. They will deport themselves.
And once they are back in Mexico, then we can forgive them and build a system that brings in more people more quickly and easily, but securely.

I absolutely want immigrants in our country. We are a nation of immigrants. It makes us great. I absolutely don't mind working with Armenians and Mexicans and Canadians and Chinese people—when they are here legally. We can make the process faster, less corruptible, and easier, but we have to do so only after we show that we are willing to enforce our laws.

What can you do to see a sane immigration policy? Start making noise. Donate lots and lots of money to Steve Cofchin (he's running for the House, and they have the only sane policy, which he shares.)

Why is Speaker Hastert Defending Rep. Jefferson?

May 26, 2006

You may have heard about Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert questioning the FBI raid on Rep. William Jefferson's office.

Why would Speaker Hastert, a staunch Republican, defend Rep. Jefferson, a Democrat?

Because Speaker Haster puts his party second and his country first. Republicans think differently than Democrats. We defend and support our country first, and then we play partisan politics second. In this case, Speaker Hastert is trying to defend the legislative branch from potential abuse by the executive and judiciary.

It is absolutely correct for the House to try and defend its turf as much as possible, as it is absolutely correct for you to try and defend your home from searches. This is an unprecedented move. I don't know that the executive branch, with the permission of the judicial branch, has ever executed a search warrant on the office of a member of the legislative. And there is the possibility of abuse. Should the executive try to abuse its powers, this is one of the ways it would do it.

Now, the move is absolutely legal. There is no question that it is. If it wasn't, there would be a lawsuit filed the moment the FBI opened Rep. Jefferson's door.

And remember, it's only an abuse of power if you are exercising your constitutional rights for the wrong reasons. This is an exercise of power for the absolute right reasons. Frankly, the president can go one step further and arrest Rep. Jefferson because he is accused of committing a felony. He hasn't done that, because he really doesn't need to, and I don't think it's ever been done before.

President Bush’s Administration: Conservative?

May 26, 2006

So you think you finally understood the Bush administration. They speak like Reagan, but walk like his father's administration. Well, think again.

The federal government is going to refund $13 billion dollars and kill a tax that no one liked.

Reminds me of one Governor Reagan, who, faced with an unexpected surplus, wrote out checks to all of California's taxpayers. 

But, aren't we running in a deficit? Don't we need that money?

The truth is that tax revenue is much higher than anyone expected. With a booming economy, people are making more in money, and although they pay a lower rate, they are paying more money.

If your head is spinning right now, and you don't understand why lower taxes means more taxes, then consider this. Taxes tell people not to do something because it is more expensive. Lower taxes say, "Go ahead and do it more than you would with higher taxes." The question is: Will they do it enough that it will make more money for the government? Absolutely.

Another way to look at it is to consider what the real effect of having taxes at 0% and 100%. Obviously, at both 0% the government collects nothing. At 100%, no one will do anything and the government will collect nothing. In between, the government collects something.

Let's assume that the revenue is like a hill. There is a peak point where the government will get the most money. Any higher or lower rate, and they will get less. Now, consider that government doesn't need all that money. It can do with much less than that. The hill slopes down on both sides. Either way, you can find a point where enough money is collected. On one side, tax rates are much lower. On the other, it is much higher.

Question: What happens to the economy when there are little taxes? Why, it expands! If government choses the lowest rate possible, it can expect there to be more to tax in the future! Republicans know this. That's why they are setting the rate lower than what they need to balance the books. The economy will grow much, much faster than the interest on the debt. And that means the debt, as compared to the economy, gets smaller and smaller until it disappears into nothingness.

This is why you buy a house. You know that the value of the house will go up faster than the interest on the loan. When you are ready to move, you will have enough money to pay off the loan, and a lot left over, making finding a larger and more expensive home much easier. It makes sense to gamble with debt if you are absolutely certain the gamble will win all the time.

Lower taxes improves the economy universally, without exception. That's why we lower taxes when we still have a deficit. 

Congratulations, Dave Larson

May 25, 2006

The board deliberated for some time after the interviews. They came back and unanimously voted to appoint Dave Larson.

Congratulations, Dave. I am sure you will be one of the best board members we have ever had. I'm looking forward to many great things. 

Evidence of Moonbattery

May 25, 2006

I can't document all the moonbattery of the extreme left. No, they are much too productive, and we only have so much time in the day. Let me instead list the most egregious examples. Keep in mind that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

First, there's Jessie Macbeth. Short story: A guy comes forward and says, "I'm an Army Ranger, and I was ordered to kill hundreds of innocent Iraqis." He is really a liar, from the top to the bottom.

Next, there's Denny Hastert. You know, the Speaker of the House. He came out and said that he didn't like the FBI raiding a sitting representative's office. Fair enough. But ABC reported that Speaker Hastert was under investigation himself! Except… ABC lied. Just like NBC lied about the memo that said President Bush didn't fulfill his duties in the ANG. "Fake but accurate" is what the moonbats say. In other words, "We refuse to acknowledge a lie for what it is, because we believe it too much to let go."
Next, there's the utter refusal to acknowledge militant Islam as a threat to the civilized world. The snipers in DC? Remember them? Yes, they were trying to satisfy the demands of Allah. And President Ahmedinejad of Iran? Yes, he thinks he is in a holy war with Israel and the Great Satan. "These guys aren't bad," moonbats reason. "They're just misunderstood." Expose that the misunderstanding is really on the part of the left, then they go into a quivering mass of moral equivalency. "Freeing 50 million people from brutal regimes is just like trying to wipe Israel off the map!"

Finally, I want to expose the way the moonbats argue. Normal people are respectful and courteous and try to use reason to argue. For instance, if you believed that we shouldn't cut taxes because it will reduce government revenue, I would try to attack your arguments by showing that tax cuts increase actual revenue. That's an argument that we should have. But moonbats don't argue like that. They employ three tactics: argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad populum, and ignoratio elenchi. If you are not familiar with these tactics, let me outline them:

Argumentum ad hominem is by far the most common. It is simply attacking the messenger without addressing the message. For instance, my arguments about the climate are wrong because I am an idiot, so they might say. Or, I might be on Exxon's bribe list. Or, I am not a scientist (and only scientists can make logical arguments, don't you know?) This argument is easily countered. "Very well, I may be those things, but it is irrelevant. What I stated is true. Refute my statements."

Argumentum ad populum is the assumption that since everyone believes it to be true, it must be true. This is easily countered. "Before Newton", you say, "everyone believed that the natural state of objects was rest. But now we know better: Things move until they are stopped." And you can easily continue. "We used to believe particles were like little bullets, but now we have Quantum Theory that shows us that they are really something like bullets and waves." And go on from there. "But that isn't really right either. Right now they are working on a string theory that might give a better picture of reality." Your mother probably expose this fallacy with the simple statement, "If everyone jumped off a cliff, would you do it to?"

Ignoratio Elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion, is used to distract the audience from the question. It is used in politer circles. When you have circumscribed your opponent and exposed the fallacy of their position, they will immediately begin defending another position, one which you had not been concerned with. Your response to this is not to engage the new point, but to admit victory. "You can't say that I'm wrong, so you are distracting the audience with a different point. Therefore, I conclude that my position was correct."

Moonbats don't operate like you think normal humans should. They are powered by hate, a strange breed of hatred against hate. They are powered by ignorance, and ignorance that is so ignorant that education appears ignorant to them. They are powered by intolerance, an intolerance of intolerance. Think of a walking contradiction, and you will have imagined the perfect moonbat.

Don't try to engage moonbats in the hopes of reforming them. No, only engage them with the purpose of exposing them. They are their own worst enemy. The more pictures you show of them parading without their pants on in front of children (and they do) and with their "Bush is Hitler" posters, and with their drawings of Jews sucking the blood of Palestinian children, the more they damage themselves. If a particular moonbat refuses to expose themself openly, try this trick. Openly challenge them to a debate. for instance:

"Bush is evil," says a moonbat. Reply, firmly yet calmly, "No, President Bush is perhaps the greatest president alive. We are in the strongest economy, we have freed 50 million people from tyranny, and we are finally defeating militant Islam for the first time in history." You have evidence on your side, so plain that it is missed. They only have hatred, intolerance, and ignorance for their tools. Keep your cool as they explode in a tyrade, and watch as those around you realize what has happened to the extreme left.

Less Tax, More Revenue

May 24, 2006

President Bush commented that the cuts in the capital gains tax realized more capital gains tax receipts. Of course, the opinion pages of the nations liberal elite howled with scorn and disbelief. Oddly, they wouldn't give the numbers to back up their claims that President Bush lied.

I set on a course to find the numbers myself. Observe.

Guess what? Lower taxes means more money in the government coffers.