Make your own widget at www.nooz.com
Google
 
Web www.truthbyamerica.blogspot.com

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Arizona senate seat for sale


"Tell Jim Pederson Arizona is not for sale", reads a number of signs around the Phoenix area.

What a crock! John Kyle has been controlled by special interest for a long time now, what an interesting accusation from someone who allows oil companies, drug companies, and other groups to influence his decisions, instead of the people of Arizona.

Also, I think Republicans are the last group of people to accuse anyone of trying to buy elections.

But it's interesting to see that someone with possible ties to Abramoff, Halliburton (the war profiteers and company which has stolen billions in taxpayer dollars), big oil companies (they're popular these days), pharmecutical companies, and other special interest groups is demonizing someone who's campaign is mostly self funded, with money he earned, through honest means.

So to summarize this brief post, John Kyle is someone with ties to numerous special interest, possibly even the Republican criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and makes his decisions based upon these groups best interest, instead of Arizona's. Jim Pederson's campaign is mostly self funded, with money earned through honest means, and thus, will be free from special interest control, allowing him to make decisions based upon OUR interests, not Halliburton, big oil, or someone elses interest. Gee, no brainer here, Pederson vs special interest, I chose Pederson.

So in November, Arizona can send a message to Washington, and that is, Halliburton, ExxonMobile, pharmecutical companies, Abramoff, and others, Arizona's senate seat is not for sale!
Great Speech!


Well, it's been over a week since I've had the chance to post anything. It's been pretty busy around here. I've managed to completely fix my sprinkler system (finally) and now I don't have to drag around the hose all over the yard for two hours, it's actually quite nice, and now my yard is green and beautiful!

My lawn is not the subject of my post, for now anyway. Actually, I caught Bush's speech the other day, and wow, I was excited! I mean, his assurances about Iraq and....well, here ya go, right off of www.whitehouse.gov .

Reporter: A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

Well sir?

Bush: I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.

Nice. Okay, let me pause it right here. First of all, let's not kid ourselves, Saddam was a horrible, evil murderer. I mean, he used those chemical weapons in the 1980s that Reagan gave him with horrible efficiency. So I'll give him a point for that.

"Capacity to make weapons of mass destruction"....ouch! That might leave a mark. No weapons of mass destruction, nor any capability to produce them was every found, this means labs or mobile labs, like the one's the administration claimed was there, minus one point.

"had relations with Zarqawi", eeek! Wrong again. Yes, Zarqawi was in Iraq, however, he was under the cover of our no fly zones. Intelligence documents found in Iraq indicates that Saddam was possibly looking to even kill or capture Zarqawi. Even better, Bush declined numerous opportunities to kill Zarqawi. The Pentagon had drawn up plans to kill him, knowing full well where he was, and yet, the administration, more obsessed with a non existent threat, killed the plan to kill Zarqawi so as not to damage their case for war. Okay, minus 2 for this one, that was a double LIE!

Bush: Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question -- my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

Okay, we're at -2 right now. Let's see. "Now, look, part of the reason we went into Iraq was -- the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction." And... "It turns out, he didn't".....Wow! Give him a plus 2! " but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction." Oh, deduct one point from the original two. No labs were found, no mobile trailors...did they even find lighter fluid?

Human suffering?? I thought it was "confirmed that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear program"? So much for that. But at least Iraq is a much calmer, more civilized nation than before we invaded.....ooops, deduct one point.

my answer to your question is, is that, imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens...deduct 3 points for once again, using the Karl Rove strategy of referring to Saddam and 9/11 in the same phrase even though the two are not linked. But this is the strategy by the GOP, make you think the two are related, when in fact, Saddam had not attacked America, Bin Laden did, and Bush invaded a country that was not a threat. Don't buy the bullshit, the facts are obvious on this one. No Fox Propoganda fake document or a troubled GOP senator is going to change what is the fact.

Reporter: What did Iraq have to do with that?

Go on sir....

Bush: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Exactly, but proceed.

Reporter: The attack on the World Trade Center?

Yes, what was the connection? I thought Mohammed Atta had met with Al Quaida in Prague? I mean, your administration said, like the nuclear program Saddam had, that is was "pretty well confirmed".

Bush: Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill to achieve an objective. I have made that case

Well sir, you got that part right, he had nothing to do with it, in fact, none of the hijackers were from Iraq. Even better, most of them were from Saudi Arabia. By the way, I hear your family and the Saudi royal family go way back, way back. Even your dad has had business dealings, many of them, with the Bin Laden family, although to be fair, the Bin Laden family "disowned" Osama.

So, to take threats before they fully materialize, what would that mean? Since there were no wmds, or no nuclear program, do you think they were somehow a threat? Or at least one we couldn't handle in the same manner we handle Iran and North Korea, REAL THREATS? Let's be honest, skyrocketing Halliburton stock, some of which just happens to be owned by your vice president, can't possibly hurt. I mean, there has been a lot of profit off the war in Iraq, a lot of death too. The facts on the ground, again, support my statement that Iraq was not a threat, period. Bush even admitted himself in this speech that there were no wmd found in Iraq. There are, however, wmd in North Korea and possibly in Iran. So why is diplomacy suddenly so important. And why does Halliburton have an office in Tehran? I thought we frowned on doing business with nations that support terrorists....what a crock of shit.

Bush: And one way to defeat that -- defeat resentment is with hope. And the best way to do hope is through a form of government. Now, I said going into Iraq that we've got to take these threats seriously before they fully materialize. I saw a threat. I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him. Now, the question is how do we succeed in Iraq? And you don't succeed by leaving before the mission is complete, like some in this political process are suggesting.

Another load of crap. There was no threat, it's, "been pretty well established" that Iraq was no threat to America and her allies.

"Defeat resentment with hope"???? Sir, people need electricity, running water, well paying jobs, a real future, that is hope. Mass murder, no electricity, water, Halliburton importing slave labor for contract work, that is not hope. Someone please note, everything this man touches turns sharply south. Hope??? I'm sure the Iraqis who have burried their own, the many, many of them, feel a great deal of hope. Especially with unemployment, and no basic infastructure to improve their lives, what hope.

Okay, I abandoned the point system, I didn't feel like adding the negatives (is that an oxy moron) Wow, and they said Kerry was a flip flopper.

So, I do understand that if the Democratic Party takes the House and Senate this year that this is a temporary fix, believe me, special interest money is the problem, not one party. It's the leaders who are the issue. But this is a president that believes in expansion of executive powers, when in fact, he cannot handle the powers he does have. Voting the Democratic Party in power in November will, at least, provide a refreshing change from the constant scandals that plagues the Republican Party now. It will mean the country will be in the process of correcting itself. And best of all, we can finally have real hearings and actually practice some oversight over what I truely believe is the worst president this country has seen.

Now if you excuse me, I have to go work on my lawn.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Correction and something to think about..


Okay, it was brought to my attention that the BCS championship will be held at the Fiesta Bowl. So I'll change my ASU prediction to the Rose Bowl. Makes sense, ASU appeared in the Rose Bowl in 1986 anbd 1996, so perhaps this year.....

And something else I want to go into some more in the coming days. I am going to do a little research on a few things about 9/11. Now, I try to avoid conspiracies, such as explosives at the WTC, Israel being behind the attacks, or whatever it may be. However, this does not mean that a few things don't set off an alarm.

First of all, I believe the towers collapsed because 2 planes hit them, plain and simple. I am not going to dive into that. I don't care how hot steel has to be before it melts, anytime you slam a 757 into a structure, you are probably going to weaken that structure considerably. So no, I am not going to suggest explosives or Jews, or anything of that nature.

Instead, I am going to go into the warnings that occurred, the August 6th, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing. I am going to go into all the other warnings that the Bush administration ignored. I am going to go into Project for the New American Century, and their statement about the need for a new Pearl Harbor to change sway public opinion into going to war in Iraq, since there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the American public would not have been behind an invasion of Saddam without 9/11. I am going to go into why I believe we went into Iraq, and how, while we now know for certain that Saddam had no connections to Al Quaida, how the Bush adminstration tied the two together, not for terror, but for profit, and not necessarily oil. I am also going to give my reasons for not believing in the first place that Saddam and Bin Laden were connected.

I will also explore Clinton, and his fight against terrorism. Many myths abound thanks to neocon talk shows and propoganda heads such as Fox. How Clinton used intelligence and law enforcement to thwart project Bajenko (I probably misspelled that), and how the millenium plot was uncovered, all without scaring the shit out of America. We'll explore the supposed refusal of Bin Laden. And, I want to compare Clinton's handling of the military, to Bush's mishandling of the military.

This will not get done in one post, so stay tuned!

Monday, July 31, 2006

Global warming, the right wing vs. science


There is no such thing as global warming everybody, didn't you hear the great news??? You know what that means, it means we can go back to the old gas guzzling vehicles, get rid of all emissions standards, and burn, burn, and burn that coal baby. Let's light huge smoke stacks in celebration. Katrina had nothing to do with higher ocean temperatures, hell, speaking of oceans, let's start dumping all of our sludge into them, either that or, burn it, hell, who cares, it won't hurt anything.

Dear God, where did these freaks come from. You have Druggie Limbaugh, Bill O'Lei-lly, and others out there campaigning against the idea that there is a global warming problem. Of course, we all know that sending huge stacks of coal smoke, CO2 gasses, and anything else is perfectly fine. In fact, one of the institutions that are coming out against global warming (well funded by the oil companies) is the American Policy Center. If this is the right wing policy center I am thinking of, they also said that is was every persons civic duty to smoke.

Now, unfortunately, and hopefully temporarily, I smoke. However, I have not fooled myself into thinking that inhaling tar and nicotine is not damaging to your body. In fact, in a recent trip to the mountains, I was walking back from the lake to my truck, going uphill, and trust me, it does negatively affect you. I don't think too many people are fooled into thinking all that bad air being put into your lungs is perfectly fine, most people with half of a brain can agree with that, including me, the smoker.

However, the Republicans would like to treat people as if they were complete idiots. Smoke stacks going into the atmosphere, that doesn't harm anything, right? They even have "scientists" of their own tell you there is no global warming. What is not said however is that these scientists are usually on the payroll roll of big oil companies, the same payroll as....you guessed it, the Republican Party is on, I am noticing a connection.

Basically, whoever tells you that there is no such thing as global warming, is either seriously out of their minds, or lying, one or the other, maybe both, but it is real, it is a problem, no matter how much the Republicans tell you that brown cloud over Phoenix is harmless.

Now, I guess I would consider myself an enviornmentalists. Not the kind that chains himself to a gas pump, or drives a VW bus to an oil protest. But more of the common sense variety. It didn't take a complete idiot to see that the far left (yes, I said far left, they are just as bad as the far right) and there efforts here in Arizona to stop the logging because of the spotted owl, was going to end up costing the enviornment more than helping it. Logging in this state consists of a biologists marking trees to cut, and the loggers essentially maintaining the forest by cutting those trees. Generally, those trees were less fire resistant and more prone to bark beetle, a huge problem in Arizona that has come as a direct result of extremists failing to use common sense. The charring of close to half a million acres in Northern Arizona was in fact, much the fault of the fringe left groups, and now that spotted owl has even less trees to use.

But, as for global warming, it is very real. Druggie Limbaugh, Fox, more times than not they are lying. The fat guy with a drug problem who proclaimed that drug users should be locked away, I see he is still on the loose, this time, using viagra for some sex romp in the tropics (did anyone pick up on that) this after having a problem with, you remember this, drug addiction. Actually, I love it when a Republican asks why liberals aren't more sympathetic, which I guess might be a good question, but most clear minded people really hate that sob so I guess we made an exception.

I will cut and paste from a newsletter sent by the Center for American Progress. I highly recommend that everyone get these newsletters, as they are very informative. Unfortunately, I did not take time to add all of the links as well, but here goes, enjoy! Again, thank you to the Center for American Progress and this very informative email.

Taxpayer-Funded Propaganda Against Global Warming

Corporations from a variety of industries are funding a coordinated, multi-faceted propaganda blitz attacking global warming science. Some of the details were revealed in a memo by the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), a small electric cooperative in Colorado that purchases electricity from coal-based power plants, distributed "to the more than 900 fellow members of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association." The memo, written by IREA general manager Stanley Lewandowski, expresses fear that government action on global warming could impact the profitability of coal-based power generation. In response, Lewandowski says it is necessary to support the scientific community that is willing to stand up against the alarmists. (The term "alarmist" refers to people who believe that global warming is a problem. Such people are also referred to in the memo as those "whose true motivation is to stop growth, develop renewable resources [and] discontinue the use of fossil fuels, especially coal.") One problem: there is no "scientific community" that disputes the basic science on global warming. The memo acknowledges that almost all the doubters have no "involvement in climatology." Their solution is to lavish money on the one climatologist who they are confident will do their bidding: Pat Michaels. The memo reveals that the small Colorado cooperative has paid Michaels $100,000 this year and is aggressively seeking more donations for Michaels from other electric cooperatives. The effort to fund Michaels is described in the memo as part of a larger effort to distort global warming science that involves several Fortune 500 corporations, a think tank, misleading advertisements, lobbying, and a propaganda film.

WHO IS PAT MICHAELS?: Pat Michaels is a climate scientist based at the University of Virgina. John P. Holdren, a Harvard scientist, told the Senate Republican Policy Committee that Michaels has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science. In 2003, Michaels We know how much the planet is going to warm. falsely claim that Antarctica has been gaining ice in recent years. Michaels' views about climate change are at odds with the conclusion of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a rigorously peer-reviewed report that involved thousands of scientists from over 100 countries, which concluded, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" and that, absent aggressive mitigation efforts, future warming will be significant and dangerous. (For a plan on how to move forward, see the recommendations of the International Climate Change Task Force.)

SUBSIDIZING PROPAGANDA: Your tax dollars are paying for propaganda attacking global warming science. The Intermountain Rural Electric Association, like all electric cooperatives, is federally-subsidized. So when the IREA gives $100,000 to Pat Michaels, some of that comes from federal taxpayers. The group that is being exploited the most is the IREA's 130,000 "members," who finance the cooperative -- and Michaels' $100,000 payday -- with their electricity bills. Lewandowski admitted he did not inform his members, who he supposedly represents, before paying Michaels. Ron Binz, the former Colorado state utility consumer advocate called the payment to Michaels "outrageous. It's an abuse of authority." Binz explained, "Intermountain is a rural electric cooperative. The customers are member-owners. Stan Lewandowski is basically spending other people's money."

THE BROADER CONSPIRACY: In the memo, Lewandowski also described larger efforts to distort global warming science. According to Lewandowski, "Koch Industries is working with other large corporations including AEP and the Southern Company on possibly financing a film that would counteract An Inconvenient Truth." (An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's movie on the dangers of global warming, is currently the fourth highest grossing documentary of all time.) According to the memo, Koch Industries will also finance a coalition attacking global warming science "administered by the National Association of Manufactures." The memo also stresses the importance of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), an anti-global warming science "think tank" heavily funded by Exxon Mobil and other corporations, in these efforts. Lewandowski notes that Michaels, CEI, and Koch meet regularly to "discuss their activities."



Where is the religious right on this issue?
Mel Gibson???


Oh man, this guy's something else. Apparently, in a drunken state, Gibson tell's a police officer that pulled him over that the Jews were the cause of the worlds problems, and that they were the ones who started all the wars. He then asked the officer if he was a Jew. Mr. Gibson, have you lost your mind?

First of all, let me say that it was Hezbollah who started the latest conflict with Israel. I don't think the Jews provoked Hezbollah, unless of course you consider Jews who live in their homeland provoking. This little episode from Gibson hardly surprises me, after all, it was his father that denied the existence of the Holocaust, and Mel has refused to rebuke that denial. Instead, Gibson produced Passion of the Christ, which many people said was anti Semitic. (I cannot verify this claim as I have not seen the movie) So to me, Gibson was on a little bit of truth juice when he blurted this all out to the officer.

I think Al Franken put it best this morning when he said Israel will not agree to a cease fire until they have taken out Mel Gibson. Obviously, he was joking, but even more importantly, Franken was serious when he cleared up the situation during this mornings show, stating that in fact Hezbollah was using civilians as human shields, Hezbollah was to blame for the fighting between them and Israel, and that the United States, and those who claim to support Israel, was in fact, doing very little to help it's ally live in peace.

Mr. Gibson, the Holocaust did happen. It was the most horrible thing to come out of the last century. Israel has returned 97% of the land captured in the 6 Day War in the name of peace, and they are a true democracy with the strongest human rights record of any nation in the region. And Mr. Gibson, I would hardly call a primarily secular nation with a Jewish and Arab population (both vote and serve in government) that is the size of New Jersey, an example of Jewish dominance in the world

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Thanks for the comments azrep. I am sure to have comments sent to me first because a few people have posted racists or hate material, and seemingly are not interested in debating any subjects. For some reason, blogspot has sent me some of the comments a few days after they are posted.
But I like that comment because it points out a specific example. I will still post the bill and it's provisions, but I will be happy to address this too.
First of all, azrep gives the example of a debate with Matt Salmon in which she states there should be no restrictions on abortion. I do not agree either, I feel as though 3rd trimester and partial birth abortions should be out of bounds with the exception of the mothers life being in danger. However, Napolitano obviously feels as though this should be beyond the reach of government.
Basically, one can be pro choice and pro life at the same time. You can feel as though abortion is not an issue for government, while at the same time disagree with the decision people make. Napolitano states she is not for restrictions on abortion, she does not say she agrees with the womans decision, there is a difference.
However, my biggest beef is with those that single abortion out as the only issue that matters, or the most important one, this I find rather absurd, most of the time, those that state this are part of a religious organization. Now, there is nothing wrong with the religion, please do not take my comments to mean this, however, the same religion that people on the right use as the basis for their political beliefs, usually also state other important morals to live by as well.
Christians know Jesus as the prince of peace, yet it seems as though we are engaged in one war after the other. The Bush regime, backed by many on the Christian right, has made a fortune off of the war in Iraq, which has claimed thousands of sons and daughters. My thinking is that someone who is pro life would find this morally disgusting, yet, very little is said. When it becomes obvious that the guy in the peoples White House lied to his country in order to gain support for bloodshed, the Christian community in my view should be outraged, except, little is said. One would think that when this leaders policies have created a wider gap between the wealthy and the poor, and when more and more children who aren't aborted live in poverty, the Christian community would be outraged, yet little is said. Jesus commanded his followers to help the least among them, yet, the Christian right backs a "leader" who does well not to lift a finger for the poor. This leaders own mother stated that those in the Superdome were doing quite well, since they were poor and the Superdome was something they were probably used to anyway, is this what Jesus would have said? Would Jesus have advocated the torturing of other human beings? The White House has.
As for Napolitano, I look beyond one or two issues. For example, when there was a mountain lion scare in Tucson a couple of years ago in a popular hiking aread, Arizona Game and Fish's solution was to put the cat down. Napolitano, with pressure from animal rights groups, wanted it stopped. The problem both Napolitano and the animal rights groups faced was that mountain lion is considered a varmint, and is legal to hunt year round, this should have never been an issue. I disagreed with her on this issue. I also felt as though she moved slow on Colorado City.
However, I give her overall performance as governor of Arizona a very strong A. We have a surplus for the first time in years, we have a booming economy, we have all day kindergarten, which could help pull us out of the bottom of the country in education, she stopped the pork projects that so many of our past Republican governors loved handing out, she has been a solid leader, a great check on the almost useless state legislature we've had, who, instead of working with Napolitano to accomplish great things in Arizona, has sent her useless bill after useless bill, knowing it would be vetoed. (for the record, Russel Pearce is a nut job) As an Arizona native, I appreciate what Napolitano has done in cleaning up the governors office in Arizona.
And even better, Napolitano has no hint of corruption or has not landed in jail, something that can't be said of the past Republican governors. I am still waiting to hear from someone as to why anyone with a working brain voted for Symington as he was being indicted. Go Janet in 2006! Republicans, you have a lot of ground to make up for.
Azrep, thanks again for the comments, your thoughts, whether I agree with them or not, are definetely appreciated here, I am always happy to discuss.
Quick points..


"These people are already underpriveledged, so this is working out quite well for them"-Barbara Bush talking about the people sleeping in ankle deep piss and shit in the Superdome in New Orleans.

"What will we do, we're practically broke" -Linda Lay, wife of deceased crook and close friend of the president Ken Lay. The quote was a summary of my own, not an actual quote (that I am aware of), here is the article detailing the trials and tribulations of a thief who may have to have one less butler or do her own gardening.

Still wonder where the policies of this Bush regime come from? Still think they're these great leaders? Still think they were uncapable of lying America into Iraq so that they and their cronies could steal the U.S. Treasury blind? Still think Bush and Lay weren't good old buddies? (Guess some of those in attendence at Lay's funeral) Well, think again. They have a belief in entitlement. They are the most corrupt, the worst leaders to ever darken the White House. They did lie to America so that their cronies could steal your money. Bush was a close friend of Kenneth Lay. I hardly feel for Linda Lay. I wish someone would have taken a bowl of some of that Superdome piss and shit and crammed it down that old bitch Barbara's throat, what a disgusting human being, and she managed to create another one.

I wonder, there is only two possible explanations for Israel's bombing of the U.N. post in Lebanon. Either 1, Hezbollah was setting up positions near the U.N. building, and the U.N. wasn't ordering them away, or 2, that post was helping to provide a little help here and there to Hezbollah, and Israel, to protect it's soldiers, hit the button and looked the other way. Either way, Israel didn't fire rockets into Lebanon first in hopes of starting a war, so the blame for the U.N. observers deaths lie soley on Hezbollah and their backers Iran and Syria, too bad a U.N. "investigation" won't conclude the same.

To someone who today asked me why I fact check our leaders statements, take a look at the statistics in this country, the overall numbers, poverty, debt, deficits, deaths, scandals.....that's why you factcheck, because if you did, Bush would have never been elected........oh shit wait, I forgot, he wasn't, silly me.

And finally, to the gentleman at work who bet me UofA would finish ahead of ASU in college football this year, what planet are you on?

Thursday, July 27, 2006

paying for school


I can't figure out, why can't I get a grant for school?

Oh yeah, I forgot, Bush cut funding for education, oops, my bad. Guess you have to be the slightly stupid son of a wealthy man and his bitch of a wife to get a paid education.

Barbara said the people in the Superdome didn't have it that bad because they were already poor, gee, wonder where Bush get's his policies from?

At least I did better than a C in high school. Good night folks.
Culture of Corruption.


Say it with me now, culture of corruption. We are describing the leaders of the Republican Party and their whores over at the Fox Propoganda Channel. Say it again, Culture of corruption. Culture of corruption.

How bout again, culture of corruption. Click on the link below, it holds a wealth of information and gives you far too much of the truth to vote Republican. See, I take their little smear job of saying the Democrats would have quit during our war for independence. I turn and face it the direction it's supposed to face, it is the Republicans who are the loyalists, loyal to the king's government, against the rights of individuals, and far more catering to an "aristocracy" of sorts. It is the Democrats who are the patriots, who are for the individual, who are for an equal society, one in which government plays a roll in enriching the lives of it's citizens, where government is run by the people, not the elite. My friends, the true patriots, are anything but these Republican leaders.

So say it with me, culture of corruption, cause that is the state of the Republican leadership, and they must go.
Awwww...


Poor Republican, are you mad at wittle Howard Dean for mentioning Russian, Stalin and Katherine Harris in the same sentence?

Oh man, I laughed my ass off. Harris wants Dean to apologize. Dean's comments were as followed, Bill Nelson is "going to beat the pants off Katherine Harris, who didn't understand that it is ethically improper to be the chairman of a campaign and count the votes at the same time. This is not Russia and she is not Stalin." Apparently, Katherine Harris took offense to this. Well Ms. Harris, I believe the majority of Americans still take offense at you stealing the election and putting into the White House, a complete failure that is now only defended by Republican diehard dittoheads. As it would turn out later, a recount of the entire state of Florida would have given Florida to Gore (as opposed to the counties Gore sued for, which was his mistake, the recount later of the entire state showed Gore won), as Gore had also won the popular vote.

My favorite line in all of this is "well, thank God the election was stolen, what if it was Gore in the White House on 9/11". I must say, if Gore had been in the White House on September 11th, 2001, the day might very well have been just another day. Perhaps, and this is only a theory of course, but Gore would have taken to heart, the warnings by Richard Clarke. Perhaps, and theory again, that had Gore been in office, he would have continued Clinton's anti terrorism meetings in the White House. Perhaps, theory of course, that Gore would have seen the "light blinking red", as intelligence officials have put it , (you can read more about blinking red lights in the 9/11 Commission Report) and perhaps, and just a wild theory, but maybe Gore would have read his August 6th, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, shaken the trees as the saying goes, and had his intel officials on high alert and gathering evidence. Perhaps Bush's "operation ignore" as Al Franken puts it, would have never occurred, and with that, 9/11 either.

I also wonder, would poverty had increased every year since 2001? Would there have been that kind of time frame without 1 net job created in the United States? Would there be a shrinking middle class? Would we have such a closed and secretive government, one that does not respect the Consitution? Would our respectability in the eyes of the world be so low? Would we have seen wages fail to increase with the cost of living? Would we see record gas prices and record oil profits? Would thousands of Americans be alive today if Gore was president? (I think yes)

To the Republicans who blame Clinton and hail Regan and Bush, it's time to quit denying the numbers. The facts are, poverty has increased every year under Bush. Fact, the national debt is at an all time high. Fact, Bush took a surpluss and turned it into the largest deficit. Fact, wages have failed to increase with the cost of living, leading to a shrinking middle class. Fact, CEO salaries have continued to skyrocket while workers wages have not. Fact, record gas prices and record oil profits ARE linked. Oil companies advocated slowing production in the 80s in order to shorten the supply to demand ratio and increase profits. Profit is good, gouging is bad. Fact, Bush has illegaly spied on Americans. Fact, Bush's White House outed a non official CIA operative who risked her life to keep us safe, the White House, committed treason, plain and simple. Fact, this nation has become more divided then ever since Bush took office, pitting religious radicals, far rights, far lefts, workers, elites and everyone else against each other. Fact, thousands of Americans have died needlessly as a direct result of Bush actions or inactions.

I could go on and on, these are all facts, like them or not. I hear Republicans I work with continually run from these, then try and blame someone who hasn't been in office in over 5 (very long) years. But even better, Republicans can call Democrats, liberals, or anyone else who opposes some of the sick, twisted policies of the neocon leadership, names like, socialists, Saddamists, Bin ladenists, terrorists lover, traitor, anti Americans, un Americans, Frenchmen (unknown to Republicans, the Frenchman thing might or might not be true, however, it is no insult either way), treasonists, unpatriotic, Nazis (yes, read the last blog, NAZIS) And now they want to cry about Dean??? Talk about the bully running to the principal when the good kid finally hits back. They have the nerve to make up complete bullshit by saying "we offer terrorists understanding", okay, where did we say that and in what context, just to be sure the speech was on terrorism and how shrinks can help? These Republicans are, well, assholes, jerks, and on and on.

Now, not all of them are. I do not do a good job of clarifying myself. I generally am referring to the leadership, which has hijacked what was a good, proud party, and turned it into murderers and crooks. Unfortunately, most Republicans who support their leaders are more worried about defending the R than taking care of it. They would prefer to ignore their party's actions and accuse the other of generally what their leaders do. To be quite honest, I certainly do not help the situation.

Here is why. I have noticed each week the views on this blog going up and up. I am to the point of over 50 views per day. Occasionaly, I receive messages, some good, some hate mail, ect. I forget to explain this, and that is if you had taken the original founding fathers, I bet that room was filled with that times version of liberals, conservatives, moderates, ect. We were never intended to fight by party lines, my going off on subjects tends to fuel this more than relieve it. However, I do not oppose Bush or this leadership because they are Republicans, I oppose them because these leaders are, very truely, anti American. If you put Democrats in the same position, all the power, special interest money and such, and left them alone for a number of years, we would have the same problem.

Our government is set up to rule at the consent of the people. The people is the government, they do nothing without our say so. We don't do certain things in the name of "defense", we are to have transparent, open government. Majority rules, minority rightes are protected. If you are Republican, you need seriously to take a look at leaders from your past, Eisenhower, Lincoln, ect, and ask if this is the same Grand Ole Party. I hear numerous Republicans who call in to various shows, C-Span, and others, that say the same thing. This is not their Republican Party, their leaders bear the Republican name only, and they are voting for the other guys in order to clean house.

In the meantime, these leaders do bear the Republican name, they are criminals, they are murderers, they have lied, and hopefully, in November, it's time to go. Then guess what kiddies, it's hearing time!

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

You know, I flip over to Fox, and I can never help myself from laughing. My God, the lying that goes on that station is down right funny. Let me give everyone a bit of information, Fox is for propoganda, and comical value. If you want real news, avoid Fox, lol. Their recent decline in ratings is evident that some are sick of the bullshit, however, I must point out that MSNBC has a few right wing commentators that may be stealing some of the show. I think Scarborough is doing okay, although I was unable to catch his show tonight as I was watching my D-Backs beat the Phillies thanks to a series of bad calls. As an Arizona sports fan, your used to the calls going the other way, so I'll take it.

Speaking of media, I get the George Soros comments once in a while from friends. Apparently, we must ignore Murdock (who owns myspace) and his business dealings with communists China. Alright look Republicans, I get it. When the facts don't support your beliefs, then you must smear the messenger, I get that. But don't bash Soros, who funded Soviet resistance movements in Poland, and who bailed out Air America in the early stages, just because he threw money to the Democratic Party. Soros did it because he believed in the cause, (truth in the media in this case) Murdock did it because there was a market for people who wanted to watch someone tell them what they want to hear, not the facts. This is fine, but cut the Soros comments unless you are willing to go after Murdock.

And I love this, scientists who understand that there is global warming, (for those of you actually ignorant enough to deny this) they are now being compared to Nazis. Interesting, the group that is most likely to follow authoritarian rule is now comparing people who actually believe in the liberal, far left religion known as science, to evil regimes. Interestingly enough, it seems to be the Republican Party leaders that do their best to block access to the facts. Let me just explain, global warming is real, global warming is a fact, global warming is a problem we need to solve. As much as oil companies are trying to market this as a non issue (read that again, OIL COMPANIES ARE PARTIALLY BEHIND THE DENIAL OF GLOBAL WARMING) Now, I guess I'll just use good old fashion common sense. Okay, I am a smoker, unfortunately, it's something I would like to quit. Phillip Morris, however, would love to tell me smoking is not harmful to me. Now, anyone that thinks breathing smoke, tar and other additives into your lungs isn't unhealthy, is either A: in serious denial, B: a braindead idiot C: an executive for a tobacco company, or D: a Rush Limbaugh Republican. Now, let's take this example, and move it to car emissions and smoke stacks. Is that supposed to go into the air? Does anyone think this has no negative effect on the earth? I should hope not, global warming is a problem, it is real, and if you prefer to believe otherwise, then I feel sorry for you. I am not so sure that this will lead to our destruction in 50 years, but it's a big problem, and we need to use our American inginuity to fix it. (To his credit, Al Gore is far more educated on this subject than I am, so take your pick on the 50 years theory)

My question, is where is the religious right on this? Don't they have an obligation to take care of the earth that God gave them? My guess is, that's not a priority as long as we get rid of the gays. (lol)

Okay, and finally. I am a fan of Randi Rhodes, however, this does not mean I don't have my disagreements with her at times. Most show hosts I listen to, Al Franken, Ed Schultz, have voiced support for Israel, obviously, this is in different forms. However, Rhodes, who generally avoids the subject because "nobody can win these arguments" seems to be pushing back a little on this subject. For the most part, I believe that the relgious right here who claim to be pro Israel will push for policies that are clearly not in Israel's favor. For example, the invasion of Iraq. "Pro Israel" lobbies were in full support of this war. I, however, saw that post 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was no threat to Israel. It's military had been depleted, we had no fly zones, and Israel had begun to develope more effective anti missle systems like the Arrow. Now however, I think Iraq is definetely more of a threat to Israel in the future. Our invasion has allowed pro Iranian Shiite elements to gain power in Iraq. With Iran's rhetoric, this can only spell problems for Israel down the road. Our policy in the middle east has helped to radicalize more of the population (bombs tend to do this), thus, leaving Israel in an even worse situation where they have to defend themselves and get the brunt of the criticism from an obviously biased U.N. Again, they are the size of New Jersey, a rocket that can travel 30 miles is a threat to the majority of their populations.

What we need to do is simple, and I have already said this. We must use globalization in the war against extremism. We must understand that democracy, with poverty, breeds crime, be it in the form of terrorism, or more of the street variety, poverty is to crime what standing dirty water is to mosquitos. If we want to be true allies to Israel, we must understand that it is our responsibility to not act in ways that help to radicalize nations around Israel, but to act in ways that promote western democracy and values. To me, pro Israel doesn't mean we have to be in a constant state of war, pro Israel means we are obligated to take actions that avoid wars with extremists in the future.

I will end with this. We need to kick far left and far right elements out of our own government, then promote enviornments that will allow the many, many moderates in other countries to do the same.

Monday, July 24, 2006

Well
I just got back yesterday from a couple of days in the White Mountains of eastern Arizona. 5 hour or so drive, and I managed a 4 inch trout at Big Lake, I would later snag a 10 inch trout at Black Canyon Lake north of Payson. Overall, being in 80 degrees beats 115, even if it is storming most of the time. Funny, those storms never made it down to water my grass.

An interesting discussion between Sarah and I on the last post. I will admit, she has less patience than I do. After all, she cannot understand why, especially when it is obvious to anyone thinking clearly that Bush lied about the threat posed by Saddam, would pro life groups scream about an embryo, and not an actual human being.

However, the problem I see is not with the Republican voters, so much as the gang member mentality they have. Basically, as long as my side does it, it's okay. They find their little outlets like Fox, or Scarborough, or Druggie Limbaugh, whoever will tell them what they want to hear, and not the real facts. This blind party loyalty is causing more harm than good, as it allows the leaders of the party to rob and steal while their voters allow it because they have an R in front of their name, or are for banning abortion. (To the Right for Life group, abortion is NOT the biggest issue today) I have said, voting Democrat puts a band aid on the problem, however, if you keep the Democrats in full power for a number of years, don't take away the special interest money, then down the road, you will see the same things happening, although in a different variation. If that was the case, I would, gasp, vote Republican, in the interest of cleaning house. No Republicans, a blow job does not constitute mass corruption, war profiteering, lobby control, that does. Either way, the Republican Part corruption is a symptom of the problem, the Democrats are the band aid, the radical religious right, without special interest money, has a few million votes and would not be catered too nearly as much.

As for other situations, I advocated a strike against Syria by Israel. I stand by that, as much as I am against war. I believe Hezbollah must be shut down as a military force. Unfortunately, Bush wanted to cram Democracy down everyones throats so bad, that you may see Hezbollah reappear as a majority in government, much like Hamas, or that crazy guy in Iran who's name I don't feel like typing. Unfortunately, a strike on Tehran would mean possible war with Russia. As much as I have a feeling evangelicals and such are running into their rooms and masturbating at the thought of this, I really believe we need to sit down with Russia and include them in the solution. Israel has already agreed to the need for a multinational force on the border, this is, in my opinion, a good idea. We need to include other Arab nations, Russia, and others, so that we aren't back to the same old John Wayne foreign policy of Bush.

One last thought, as much as I bitch about the radical right, I should also point out the radical left once in a while. As I was driving through the mountains, I saw the areas hit by the nearly half a million acre Rodeo-Chedeski fire from a few years ago. For those not familiar, we had seemingly half the mountains go up in flames. A huge wall which billowed smoke you could see from Phoenix. Many homes and businesses were destroyed in this fire, which was two fires until they merged. One was started by a lady who was lost (presumably having an affair with her boss) and lit a signal fire. The other, by an alcoholic Native American looking for a job as a fire fighter. While these two certainly deserve their share of the blame, it was actions on the part of the far left that caused this.

Years ago, there was a push to ban logging in many places up north in Arizona. The cause, the spotted owl. Now, first of all, I consider myself an 'enviornmentalists", but one with some sense. Many small towns up north were built around the logging industry, and to shut down a town from an industry such as logging because of an owl, made little sense. But even better, the radical left made it appear as though logger cut huge swaths of trees, which was of course, false. In fact, a biologists (us common sense lefties believe those guys) went through various areas, and marked the trees most prone to bark beetle and that would help fuel larger fires due to lack of fire resistant, and those were the trees to be cut, most of the others would be spared. It was how things have been done here for a while.

But along come the radical left, which decided that they would stop this altogether for the owl. So when a fire did break out in a drought season, it now had many times the fuel it would have, and burned probably twice as much as it would have. All I could think was that the loggers never cut down half a million acres like that, where's the owl going to go now.

But, hopefully it grows back in my lifetime. However, my view is that the far left has as much sense as the far right, they just pick different battles. As for me, I was drawn recently for elk and deer, and I am looking forward to bagging my first of either.

Next post, the real bitching resumes!