A “Nudge” for Duncan Hunter…

hunter1.jpg 

In re-living the Texas straw poll earlier this week, a great article followed up.

In this same straw poll, is should be noted that John McCain won only eight votes out of 1,300.

“U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter of California won the poll, easily besting former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who had many supporters at the gathering but whose bring-the-troops-home message did not thrill the voters, who were delegates to past state or national GOP conventions.

Most candidates blew off the poll. But Hunter, a Vietnam veteran, stumped Texas leading into it and hammered his commitment to the Iraq war, his belief in fair trade and his advocacy for a fence on the Mexico border.”

I am a bit ticked off at Fox News for not making this a bigger story.  As I type this, they are discussing Fred Thompson.  I do like Fred, but Hunter appeals to me a bit more for the following reasons:

  • He built the fence beween San Diego and Mexico.
  • He’s a true Vietnam Veteran.
  • He is promising committment to completing the Iraq war the right way (victory!)
  • His son is in Iraq right now.
  • The people of Texas in a poll selected him over Fred Thompson.  Not to be a suck-up to Philip and Jennifer here, but I do not think there is a better representation of America’s heartland than Texas.
  • It was fun to watch Ron Paul stomped out by both Duncan and Fred.

One more thing to consider.  Fred Thompson is a Tennessee Senator.  What does that mean?  It means he had to be the minimum amount of conservative that he had to be to get elected there (a very red state).  Hunter on the other hand has won elections in the very blue land of San Diego consistently getting 70% of the registered Democratic vote as well as 60% of the hispanic vote.

By the way, he kept the support of hispanics after building the fence.  Which I think is a great representation of what hispanic-Americans REALLY think about illegal immigration.

We have about 120 days until the Iowa caucus.  I am begging you folks to at least check out all you can on Duncan Hunter.

Ron Paul Clearly the Night’s Loser…Hunter Breaks New Ground

hunter.jpg(Duncan Hunter

After the debate tonight, hopefully Ron Paul will get the message and switch the party name after his own.  He is clearly not in line with Republicans or the Republican base. 

He aligns himself with us by opposing Roe vs. Wade and calling it a massive mistake.

He aligns himself with us by supporting strong border patrol.

But he trashes us and utterly embarrasses us on National Security.  He is clearly appealing to the anti-war nuts and using the same talking points we hear from people like Rosie O’Donnell.  Here are a few snippets from what he had to say:

The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be slam dunk, and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said. Why not ask the people — (interrupted by cheers) — why not ask the people who advise not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.” 

“We should not go to war — (cheers, applause) — we should not go to war without a declaration.”

“We have no need for our national security to have troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and going into Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran is the worst thing we can do for our national security.”

“I am less safe, the American people are less safe for this.”

“The American people didn’t go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the neoconservative hijacked our foreign policy.”

“We’re losing elections and we’re going down next year if we don’t change it.”

I’m not quite sure who said it was going to be a “cakewalk.”  (Lie #1) Since all the liberal and Ron Paul-like types were carping about casualties during a war, Republicans have appropriately responded by politely reminding them what happens in a war.  The enemies are afraid and they shoot back.   We have also pointed out how incredibly difficult this war is compared to others because we indeed are not fighting ONE MAN or ONE COUNTRY, we are fighting an entire ideology and trying to get a strong foothold in the center of it all in Iraq to continue to minimize it.  Nobody has called it a “cakewalk.”

(Lie #2) Next he lies again (pointed out by Duncan Hunter and quoted below) when he says that the “war has not gone well one bit.”  Aside from Hunter’s list of accomplishments, Paul fails to mention ridding the world of Saddam, his lunatic sons, watching Iraq participate in three major acts of Democracy, and killing/capturing hundreds of thousands of terrorists and insurgents.

(Lie#3) He claims we did not go to war without declaration.  Paul also denounces the idea of war in Afghanistan (the one even liberals pretend to support).  Wasn’t 9/11 a hint?  Wasn’t Saddam making a purposed bluff to the U.N. about WMD after 9/11 a hint?  Pretending that 9/11 was not a declaration of war or a hint that this very sick part of the world was out of control with hateful fanaticism leads me to believe that indeed Ron Paul MUST be purposely trying to appeal to the 9/11 conspiracy nuts.  After all, if 9/11 was not a declaration of war by our enemies, it must have been something orchestrated by the Government, right?

(Lie#4) He then declares that he is less safe and that every American is less safe.  The fact that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 or that no major American interest has been attacked overseas (the longest span between attacks since they all began in 1979) directly disagrees with him.  I’m a American, could we please leave the lying to what the American people really feel to the Democrats, Dr. Paul?

(Lie#5) He then says that neo-conservatives hijacked foreign policy.  I wonder if he would characterize FDR as a neo-conservative?

The brilliant Duncan Hunter stated in response:

” first, let’s remember that we’ve got troops — those 157,000 folks in Iraq, lots of them in Afghanistan are watching us tonight, and let me just tell you what they’ve done.

In Anbar province, we were having 1,350 attacks a month last October. By the blood, sweat and tears of the U.S. Marines out there, we’ve pulled it down 80 percent. They’ve pulled down civilian casualties 74 percent. (Applause.) And I — I shouldn’t let this one go, because the Democrats made an entire debate in never complementing what the troops have done. This is how we do it.

We’ve got 129 battalions in the Iraqi army that we’re training up. We’re training them up, we are getting them into the fight. When those Iraqi battalions are battle-hardened and they start to rotate into the positions on the battlefield, displacing American forces, the American forces can then rotate out, come back to the U.S. or go to other places in Central Command.

That’s the right way to win; it’s called victory. That’s how we leave Iraq. (Cheers, applause.)”

“let me tell you, right now we’ve seen an 80 percent depression in the attacks in Anbar province, those tough towns of Fallujah and Ramadi — which were incidentally the toughest, most difficult towns, where gun battles were being waged daily. We’ve now knocked that down 80 percent. And my answer is, if you think we’re going to be there for a long time, you don’t understand the determination of the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Army. (Cheers, applause.) We’re going to turn it over.”

I am sad we haven’t paid more attention to Duncan Hunter.  I am also sorry Fred Thompson did not make this debate.  Duncan Hunter is an excellent candidate and in fact did win a GOP straw poll in Texas (Ron Paul’s state).  Hunter received 534 votes and Thompson came in second with 266 votes.  Ron Paul came in third.  But we can see early on in majority how much of an embarrassment Ron Paul is in his own state. 

I’m sorry to all my Fred supporters (like my brilliant site partner) but until Fred comes out on these issues with more zeal, my support is now focused on Duncan Hunter.

Aside from reading Paul’s quotes above, Hunter was the guy tonight who finally articulated the fraud that lies within Ron Paul and his lunatic supporters.  Ron Paul does not represent the Republican Party.  He is dangerous to our security and continues to holler out the same talking points we could have heard a year ago on the The View when Rosie was on.

Anti-Bush or Anti-War?

bushiraq.jpg 

President Bush announced the success in the Anbar Providence in Iraq.   It was also the first time he truly mentioned withdrawing troops showing his desire to get this over with and to get them home.  He stated that when and only when the success is matched across Iraq is when we can start withdrawing troops.  Well, I have no problem with that!  As with anyone else, I want our troops home and safe.

But the question is, what are Ron Paul supporters and liberals going to say about this?  Will they finally acknowledge just a little support while respectively holding onto their anti-war stance?

Or will they politicize the President’s remarks to campaign for 2008 while disrespectively clutching onto their Anti-Bush stance?

We got a small hint from Jim Manley, spokesperson for Harry Reid:

“Despite this massive P.R. operation, the American people are still demanding a new strategy” 

Yep…that’s what I thought they’d say.

Can you imagine the cringe factor within the Democratic party if their leader or his spokespeople had to actually admit success in Iraq?

My Conspiracy Theories about the Conspiracy Theorists

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA2HJvPhnz4]

The more these types of videos show up on YouTube, the more people seem to be getting fed up with them.

Ron Paul’s heyday is ending and we know there is no chance in Hell that he is going to win the primary. 

The same people who posted this video are also Ron Paul supporters. 

The subject of this video features this kook; Barry Zwicker, who right off the bat, ADMITS being an anti-Vietnamer nut from the 70’s and also admits being left-winged and tops it off by admitting that he is an environmental activist.  So obviously; the man is touched.  He’s been supporting anti-human and anti-American causes since the John Lennon “Give Peace a Chance” era.

Now, to Paul’s credit — he did denounce some of these crazy theories, but he has not come out to denounce all of the support he is getting from these loons.  Moreover; Ron Paul continues to make excuses for terrorists by blaming America for “intervening” after it has been well-documented time and time again of what happens when we refuse to “intervene” as Carter did in 1979 and as Clinton did during his entire tenure.  Ignoring them didn’t stop 9/11!

I mean, the evidence is so overwhleming to folks that the last thing on the minds of Muslim fanatics when it comes to Western civilization is peace!

I’ve always thought that Ron Paul, his supporters, and these crazy 9/11 conspiracy people were dangerous to our society.

My conspiracy theory has developed from these types of folks being simply insane to actually pondering if Paul, his supporters, and/or these nuts are being paid by Al-Queda to vocally denounce America.

I mean, it makes perfect sense to me.  These folks say the exact same thing about the American government to support their cause (when it has been disproven over and over again) and imply that the government is covering up truth.  But miraculously, the provisions provided in the Patriot Act that they are so hysterical over have managed to prevent from hauling them all off to preventative detention or the looney bin where they belong.

These people are either crazy or they are being funded by Al-Queda to betray their country and demoralize Amrica and its troops in this crucial time of war.

We can’t be nice to these people anymore.  This kind of speech should not be tolerated because it is threatening EVERYONE’S security. 

Moonbats Unleashed! (Take this Ron Paul!)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNTWYnPi8yc]

Freedomswatch.org is a new organization finally bringing the truth to the American public by bringing in real troops and family members who lost lives and limbs and still support winning in Iraq.  The funny part is when you head to the forums in the youtube videos comment sections, you will see that the moonbats are out like crazy (there goes their weekend!) . 

All of a sudden it is okay to attack people who lost loved ones and limbs in the military.  Amazingly now that this shows the moonbats (liberals and Ron Paul stompers)  whose side the military is really on here, it took them all of five seconds to reveal their true crocodile-concern for troops and civilians. 

Thank you to all the troops and visit the website today and donate!  We finally need to get the real truth and the real message out there. 

Can Someone Find an AP Article That Cheers for America?

“U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq at 3,724”

To counter this, I searched everywhere for a running count of captured or killed insurgents and terrorists along with a running tally of successes that have occurred since 2003.

For some reason, I can’t find any.

Isn’t that weird?

Well, thanks to this headline Ron Paul and his supporters will have something to campaign on blather about this week.

John Who?

ann.jpg  

With the MSM lovemaking-threeway with Hillary and Barack, it’s a little hard to focus on the insanity of the remaining contenders bucking for President next year.  But, as I have enjoyed pointing out how crazy Ron Paul and his supporters are lately, Ann Coulter is our equal opportunity offender when it comes to having a blast with liberals and their political dysfunction.

Ms. Coulter is an inspiration to many — such an inspiration that the most failing Presidential candidates still feel the need to clutch onto her coattails.   

As pointed out by my punctual news-reading site co-author Philip, John Edwards attacked Ann Coulter again.  This was posted by ABC and reported in the most liberally-biased way possible.  But, I won’t rant about that so much.  If you click on the link yourself, you will see that many commenters went on and for the first time in major news-reporting history in terms of the MSM, a vast majority of the readers and commenters are defending Ann Coulter.

Suffice it to say our champ, Ann, is getting bored with John Edwards.  Poor John, Ann Coulter has not even responded to this latest attack.  John called her a “she-devil” just months after Elizabeth Edwards joined up with Hardball host Chris Matthews to lecture the best-selling author on proper political dialogue.  I wonder if Elizabeth lectured John over this one as she did with Ann?

Reading Coulter’s last three columns, we see that she has fun with all liberals:

August 1, 2007

“Noticeably, Gov. Bill Richardson got the first “woo” of the debate — the mating call of rotund liberal women — for demanding a federal mandate that would guarantee public schoolteachers a minimum salary of $40,000.”

August 8, 2007

“But when that clever retort failed to quiet rumblings from the right wing, The New Republic finally revealed the “Baghdad Diarist” to be … John Kerry!”

August 15, 2007

“All the Democrats’ most dearly beloved anti-war/anti-Bush heroes invariably end up in the Teresa Heinz Kerry wing of the nut-house.”

So as we can see, Coulter herself has become quite bored with the Edwardses.  But for some reason, Edwards still feels the need to remind us over and over again of the feud between the two of them.  Could it be that he needs more campaign funding?  Could it be that nobody cares about it? 

This is almost as transparent as famed-9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser writing a book and responding to Ann Coulter MONTHS after Godless came out. 

It gets interesting when Senators like John Kerry and candidates like John Edwards use the name of Ann Coulter on the Senate floor and during their campaigns to get attention.  If war-opposing crazies who don’t stand a chance for making the Presidency next year are going to use her everytime they run out of PR, could they at least pass the hat around?

How about Ron Paul?  That would be funny!

3,000 Americans and How Many Civilians? Thanks Anti-War Folks!

ww2.jpg

Take a good look at this photo.  This is what happens in wars that we win effectively and we move through like champions.  This is what happens when we ignore tree-huggers that run around claiming to love and support the troops while simultaneously waiting for them to be defeated.

Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama took potshots at the military this week.  Read the whole story at Sweetness & Light.  Obama said recently:

We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians”

What an asinine thing to say!  He’s right, we do have to get the job done.  We could have gotten the job done a lot sooner had it not been for the stupid liberals (not to mention Ron Paul supporters trolling the internet) who have done everything imaginable to make excuses for terrorists and lay the blame of all of it on the USA. 

Obama does not realize apparently that concern for civlilians in a time of war is “red-flag number one”when identifying language of people who are trying to protect our enemies.  We had killed and/or captured hundreds of thousands of insurgents and members of Al-Queda.  We have captued the 9/11 Mastermind and while most us were grateful to the military for it, liberals in Congress cared more about his rights to read the Koran and whether or not he was being water-boarded.  We killed Zarqawi and we have rounded up much of Al-Queda’s top guys.

Democrats and supporters of Ron Paul say that this war miraculously gave birth to terrorists.  I say that it got the roaches out of their cracks and gave us the opportunity to drop bombs on them.

But thanks to Democrats, the MSM, and blowhards like Ron Paul, the roaches have been able to run back to their cracks and plan for more attacks as is evident of the large bombings in Iraq last weekend.

We could have cleaned up Iraq AND Afghanistan in a week if we fought this war like our brave men fought WW2 as illustrated in the picture above.  Civilians would have died, and so would have members of our troops.

But because we are unable to fight it the way we once did, more troops and civilians have died slowly over time than would have if we would have handled this the right way from day one.

If it continues this way, we will lose.  Harry Reid can be confident in his position because individuals like himself are making sure of it.  Ron Paul and his supporters and making sure of it, and with Rove leaving, something tells me Bush will be making sure of it.  Just today, General Patraeus — in response to the Al-Queda suspected bombings over the weekend — is already advocating troop cuts.

2008 is right around the corner folks.  We need a real wartime leader who isn’t going to cave-into caterwauling. 

All of our lives are at risk here.  If the way we fight this war does not change, then I will have absolutely no choice but to fully support Giuliani.  At least he will get us past this by fighting this war without much regard for civilian casualty or Democratic whining for Constitutional Rights of terrorists.

While Ron Paul supporters and liberals run around crying about their precious civil rights and bash the Patriot Act, I can somehow in my mind wish that their hysteria would materialize with a few choice amendments to the Bill.  The sad fact is folks; these people are just as dangerous to us as Al Queda is.  By supporting Ron Paul and using their freedoms to bash our President and troops in wartime, it means they have the rights to go on with their blather because of the ways we once fought wars decades ago.  But unfortunately, they are simultaneously making sure that those same freedoms will eventually crumble for all of us.

Is Al-Queda or our other enemies giving much regard for casualties of civilians?  Do they care about treating their enemies with regard to constitutional rights?

We can thank one group ultimately for the death of civilians and troops in Iraq, the Democrats and anti-war crazies!  They have allowed Al Queda to fight us harder and have blatantly stopped our troops and country from properly defending us.

They Never Seem To Answer the Debate…..

Whenever I see a lefty-moonbat blog-post about me, I wonder if they are actually going to refute a point.  Apparently, not this genius piece of writing.  As liberals most often fall victim to, it shows that he was not even able to understand the point with coherence.

In response to the video via YouTube I posted on Ann Coulter, he proclaims (intellectually and full of thought of course) “It’s all in the perception.”

He begins his post by stating:

“Via Gay Conservative (I’m laughing right now. Sorry. A gay person proud to be a Republican always kind of makes me think of a Jew joining the Nazi League for Jewish empowerment)”

For the billionth time, as long as folks like this can run around proclaiming that it’s perfectly normal to be “liberal-American”, I say there is nothing shocking about being a gay-Republican.  I could say a liberal-American equates a Muslim-terrorist minus the Koran and the energy to do anything about their hate for America.  Unlike the fella that wrote these things about me, I find liberals who proclaim to be American anything but funny.  It’s sad, and it’s kind of sick.  Particularly when they run around pretending to care about equality for gays and blacks, plus let’s not forget their phony concern for our troops as well as their convenient sympathy for Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey Girls while they simultaneously support Stalin and the Taliban.  Perhaps I can direct this fine gent to my post regarding the liberal trick of “we like you more than they do.”

He goes on to say:

“Failing that, she then resorts to sarcasm and says that the August 6th, 2001 PDB entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US” wasn’t specific enough and shouldn’t have roused our Chief Executive to action on his vacation because it didn’t specify that it would consist of 19 Arab men boarding three different aircraft on September 11th and striking two specific targets by name.

In other words, since the PDB didn’t contain the gate and flight numbers on each of the 19 boarding passes, her idiot hero couldn’t have possibly had enough to go on. In other words, we have to spell things out for him in inhuman detail.

Naturally, Coulter didn’t want to go into the fact that Russia, Italy and Great Britain all warned Bush around the time of the G8 summit in Genoa that bin Laden would try to assassinate him or that the Hart Rudman report in December 2000 and Paul Bremer’s National Commission on Terrorism issued a report at about the same time that specified much the same massive threat or that Richard Clarke tried to warn the incoming administration of the al Qaida threat. Instead, Clarke was ordered to find a link between Iraq and al Qaida, despite Clarke telling the administration that it simply didn’t exist.”

First, he’s setting up a strawman to avoid the point.  He also avoids her point that Al-Qaeda is “still determined to attack.”  He mentions the President taking “action” but he doesn’t tell us — as Franken could not — what that action should have been.  The idea that post-9/11, liberals won’t let us racially profile men named Mohammed boarding planes speaking Arabic; and that they are still pretending that there was something George Bush could have done before the attacks is just preposterous.  When they are faced with these facts they jump right back to: “He was warned!”

If Bush would have held Arabs in preventative detention, thrown them out of the country, or directed airport security to give the attention needed, 9/11 would not have happened.  But liberals would have then said that Bush overreacted to the memo, that civil rights of Muslim fanatics should not have been violated, and that racial profiling is uncivilized.   Come to think of it, liberals along with the ACLU would have even had another made-up reason to impeach him on seeings as protecting the country is just not acceptable in their world of tofu and poetry reading.

Liberal policies have been cleverly designed to hurt America, punish anyone who defends it, and silence anyone like Ann Coulter that exposes them and their idiotic ideology which has made it impossible for our CIA and President to protect us properly.  Liberals like Carter and Clinton let 20+ years of attacks happen all over the world and on our soil.  When it is thrown in their face like Coulter gave it to Franken, all they can say is: “Bush was warned!”

So I challenge any liberal-moonbat out there to answer this very simple question: what policy was available to Bush that would have enabled him to find out the specifics and what would they have supported him doing in response?  Most liberals out there as well as Ron Paul supporters and 9/11 conspiracy nuts continue to insinuate that America deserved 9/11. 

I’d be willing to bet this clever chap is against the Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, holding terrorists at Guantanamo, etc.  We cannot even get them to approve of just one of Bush’s anti-terror policies post-9/11 and they continue this endless blather about “He was warned!”

I just couldn’t leave this last part out:

“Although I’m amazed that you didn’t see the delicious irony of Ann sarcastically saying that Bush should’ve just rounded up all Arabs and thrown them out of the country, which is exactly what Ann would ordinarily love to do with them and then some.”

Well sir, if he were allowed to temporarily restrain them or do something of that nature, I suspect that there would be 3,000 Americans still alive and there would not be a gaping hole in lower Manhattan.  Then again, that would be too Pro-America for your crowd, now wouldn’t it?

I have plenty of quarters, the trouble is your game and I’m sorry but it’s a bit rusty.