“Life Must Go On As Usual”

It’s hard to admit making a mistake, but I owe the regular visitors of this website; along with my fellow contributors here, an apology.

The same day Congresswoman Giffords was shot, I reacted badly to the first article written by the AP on the story.  The article, which I linked to on my post where I specifically blamed the left, was written about 30 minutes after the tragedy.  This early on they were already linking Sarah Palin and the tea party to it.  In all honesty, my post was a reaction to that. (Along with a Facebook page I had found that has since been deleted portraying Loughner as a liberal).

As much as I disagree with liberals on pretty much everything, it was wrong for me to link the violent behavior of one idiot to an entire political party.  What I did was no better than what liberals (some of them) were doing to Sarah Palin.  As such, I shall remember that not everyone on the left is clinically insane and I apologize to Mel, Mark, Chris, and Philip (along with our regular visitors) who have to “share” this space with me.

That being said, I’d like to move forward with another aspect of how our country is prematurely responding to this tragedy. 

Aside from Sheriff Dumbnik’s running around and blaming everyone on the right; taking the attention away from him and the Police Department there in Tucson who had been getting warnings about Jared Loughner for the past three years, I have a huge problem with shutting down Congress over this.

It sends the wrong message.

On October 12, 1984, Margaret Thatcher was headlining the annual conservative conference in Brighton.  While the workaholic Iron Lady was preparing documents at 2 a.m. for business at the conference the next day, a bomb went off in the hotel.  Luckily, Margaret Thatcher and her husband had been moved to another room earlier in the day.  Nevertheless, many were killed and injured.  Mrs. Thatcher was immediately treated and examined for light injuries sustained and went to the police station. 

Almost immediately, the media and others speculated whether or not the conference would remain scheduled.  Upon exiting the police station, Lady Thatcher made her first statement to the media:

You hear about these atrocities, these bombs, you never expect them to happen to you.  But life must go on, as usual.

She also added that her conference would not be cancelled and would continue to go on “as usual” she said sternly.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXTJ6g3no5M&feature=related]

The next day with very little sleep, Mrs. Thatcher kept her committment and arrived to the conference.  She not only defied the wishes of the bomber, she also showed up on time and said:

The fact that we are gathered here today, shocked but composed and determined, is a sign not only that this attack has failed but that all attempts to destroy democracy by terrorism will fail.

Lady Thatcher wasn’t showing cruelty to the victims who lost their lives.  As a leader of a nation, she had to resume business as usual to let the enemies of civilization and freedom know that she and her people in majority were in control and their rights to freedom and political process would not end. 

Similarly, as a political leader, John Boehner made a very decent and honorable statement in honor of Congresswoman Giffords.  Now, members of the media at the Washington Post are questioning his sincerity because he did not cry when he made the statement and also thought it was wrong for him to point out the fact that public servants of all levels were and always will be at some risk, but it was no reason to be deterred from doing their jobs.

Perhaps someone should tell the writer, Courtland Milloy, that we are supposed to learning a lesson about political rhetoric from this.

To reassure you, the shooting made us all sad, Mr. Milloy.  But on Saturday, I had to stay at my office anyway.  I had to get our income tax software ready for our filing season.  I had to make sure my files were cleaned out ready to be filled with new paperwork.  I had to organize my desk and clean out my drawers.  Then on Sunday, I had to go back.  Monday, I had to work and meet with clients.  Today, I had to go to a tax seminar to further prepare for my work that is vastly approaching.

Similarly, Congress should not be shutting down over this.  The best way to let lunatics like Loughner know that the only thing their potential dangerous violence is going to get them is a one-way ticket to the electric chair is to not allow our daily lives to be changed.  The world keeps on turning and “life must go on as usual.”

Joy Behar and other liberals — obviously ignoring Sheriff Dumbnik’s warning of political rhetoric — responded to Boehner by calling him “Boner” (the same party who created the term “teabagger”) — and somehow turning his promise to the people who elected the new Congress that they would indeed proceed with their promise to begin doing what we sent them there to do into an act of hate.  It makes you wonder who decides what political rhetoric is.  It also makes you wonder what “hate” is.

I have faith in the American people that they understand the bigger picture.  Boehner reserves his tears for moments of triumph.  When we overcome obstacles and tragedies and evils and plow through it in a way that only American exceptionalism can guarantee.

It seems to me that the people blaming Sarah Palin, criticizing Boehner, and everyone else on the right are the ones spreading the hate now.  It also seems to me that they reserve their tears in a sad effort to exploit tragedies to argue for bigger government and more infringements on our freedoms and liberties.

Americans are learning and we won’t forget.  But one thing remains true: “life must go on, as usual!”

‘What about the Bush Administration?’

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WMahJK4y70]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyEx6GCYUEo]

Do liberals really believe they have a complete pass from answering any questions or factually answering any allegations of corruption against their beloved President by saying ‘What about the Bush Administration?’ or ‘the last eight years….’?

I have such a new love and respect for Michelle Malkin.  This girl can fight!  And while she doesn’t make the hosts jump out of their skin and leap with vocal rage like Ann Coulter has with both Matt Lauer and Barbara Walters, she does a darn good job.

In both of these videos, Malkin discusses corruption and cronyism and with Joy Behar gets the ‘What about the Bush Administration?’ line. 

I’d like to point out that all conservatives were angry about Mike Brown and Harriet Miers and actually fought against Bush for appointing them.

Simply because these folks existed though does not excuse the true corruption hanging around the White House these days. 

Be prepared as the veil continues to be pulled off.  Now it’s time for every alleged act of corruption out of the Bush administration to make a comeback.

Valerie Plame, call your agent!  Maybe you can get that book published, after all.

Coulter vs. Behar (What was Larry Thinking?)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwlefyZKkE8]

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_-Gd85vwJ8]

Well, I have to go to a friend’s birthday party out on the town tonight and as fun as that will be, I could have enjoyed watching this glorious 16 minutes over and over again.

Ann Coulter was scheduled to appear on Larry King Live and Joy Behar filled in.  I have a feeling now that Joy will not make that mistake again – at least without the rest of her “team” on The View.

This is precisely why I cannot stand Elisabeth Hasselbeck.  THIS is how a Republican should handle a liberal loud-mouth like Behar.

The 16-minute exchange even won this comment from Entertainment Weekly –

I always enjoy you on The View, Joy, but last night on Larry King, I’d have to say, you got served by Coulter.

The conversation begins with talk on the Stimulus, or as Ann refers to it as, “The Reward Failure Act.”  It then moves on to Ann giving Joy a thrashing over Behar’s comments that Rush was an “extreme right winger.”   Then they discuss the fact that conservative women have more orgasms than liberal women do.

One thing I thought Coulter was capable of  (and perhaps she was just being nice after all the other thrashing she delivered in her “play-it-cool” style) is something I noted toward the end of the interview when, in response to Coulter’s comments on single mothers being responsible for “80 percent of the inmates in our prisons.”

Joy shot back:

“but there are tons of people out there who were raised by single mothers who are doing quite well”

“why not look at it from that end?”

Huh!?  If we could decrease crime by 80%, do we stop that for the purposes of looking at it from the wrong end?

Speaking of wrong ends, how many times did Joy and Whoopi (and Rosie) prattle on about the number of military deaths in Iraq or the number of civilian casualties during the conflict?

Hundreds of thousands of troops were deployed, hundreds of millions won’t be gassed by their own dictator in the future of Iraq, hundreds of millions survived the conflict and they now have the Democratic right to vote!

Just when is it okay to look at any issue from the end where the cons exist?

Get some popcorn, sit back, and be prepared to laugh and laugh hard – especially when Ann advocates torturing Guantanamo inmates with old episodes from The View.

Coulter’s Bitter Whip of Knowledge Strikes Again

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5CzavxLzz8]

I was thinking of coming out in defense of Ann much earlier in the week, but I happen to know she’s thoroughly enjoying the “firestorm” she seems to miraculously create every time she cites problems in our society.  In fact, the same problems she cites are the same problems liberals cite when they’re trying to convince us to be more tolerant of illegal immigration or to explain why they need to take more of our money to pay for the irresponsibility of others – or as a liberal would call them: “social in-justices.”

Coulter’s appearances also demonstrate exactly what is wrong with liberals – and why their reasoning is lacking.

On “The View” Monday, Whoopi immediately begins the segment by throwing in (and she throws it up again toward the middle of the interview) by stating that Ann Coulter is not married or a mother.

Whoopi demanded to know “what is your problem with single mothers?” in response to Ann’s brilliant chapter in her new book “Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America” that addresses the problems of illegitimacy.  Coulter cites statistics showing that illegitimacy has grown over 300% since the 1970’s and goes on to deliver other facts like that 70% of the prison population is a product of single motherhood, like huge percentages of gang members, teenage runaways, high-school dropouts being the products of single mothers, and like stating how the black/white crime rates become balanced when you erase the factor of single motherhood.

I’m curious.  Why do liberals feel that Ann’s marital status is relevant?  Why does Whoopi suggest that Ann would have to have children to offer a more informed opinion?

What kind of an idiotic argument says: “before you can attack a problem, you must first contribute to it!”  This would be like me telling liberals that they couldn’t have an opinion on taxes until they actually pay some.  How about someone tell Whoopi or Joy that they can never again criticize the Iraq war until they start a war of their own?

Coulter goes on to validate the fact that some women do; in fact, do it on their own when they have no other choice like; for example, in the case of Barack Obama whose father left his mother to raise him alone.  In doing so, she points out that Obama’s book revealed Obama identifying himself more with his father because he was black than with his mother who stayed around and paid the bills.

The girl to Coulter’s right is basically pointless in this interview as well.  First she asks if Coulter had compassion and if she had worked on developing a solution to the problem; meanwhile her fellow-black co-worker, Whoopi is asking Ann why she doesn’t contribute to the problem herself before having an opinion on an issue that is affecting all Americans.  Of course Coulter has compassion.  I have compassion.  Our compassion does not lie with the “victims” created by liberals to argue for insane cases like illegal immigration or higher taxes.  Our compassion lies with the real victims Ann describes in that chapter like the kids themselves who often grow disconnected and frustrated without a dad.  Our compassion lies with the victims created by one of these frustrated kids when they shoot a convenience-store-worker as part of some crackpot gang initiation, when they rape somebody, when they steal from someone, etc.  Yet rather than offend one out of ten single-mothers who happen to churn out kids that do not become criminals, the entire left-wing media and left-wing of the Senate want to continue to put that burden onto us.

Then, in an attempt to cool Barbara’s fire from Ann’s comment about her tone as she read excerpts from her book before Ann came out, the girl decided it was time to drag out the “you’re too mean and I don’t appreciate that” card to impress the scores of simple minds in the audience.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck also proved just how irrelevant she is to the Republican Party in this interview.  Like her co-hosts, she decided to focus on Ann’s tone rather than the substance.  Excuse us Elisabeth, what were we thinking?  After all, we see how successful you have been with your liberal counterparts by handing them lollipops on a daily basis.

When will “Republicans” like Hasselbeck understand that “sweet and acerbic” does not work with liberals who are “working” tirelessly to destroy this country?  Take a look at the blogs, or hell, watch MSNBC for more than ten seconds.

The funniest thing is the way liberals are reading the title.  The headline today on GayWired reads that Coulter and Matt Lauer are both “hypocrites of the week” because:

NBC’s Matt Lauer interviewed conservative author Ann Coulter on the Today Show this week after previously claiming she couldn’t be invited back on the program simply to be ‘outrageous,’ and because Coulter squirmed her way back onto the show to promote her new book about ‘Liberal Victims’ by playing the comely victim.

Of course she was a victim.  The Today Show tried to ban her.  Since when is censorship an American thing?  Which radical Iranian leader was invited to speak at Columbia University again?  This is how simple a liberal’s mind is.  They immediately assume that Coulter is proclaiming that there are no such things as “victims.”  Wrong!  She’s saying that liberals turn the wrong people into victims and because of such they simultaneously open the flood-gates to real victim hood. 

Now, of course, liberals want to pretend that her research and facts are false.  Even if liberals were half right (which they never are), we can then say that in lieu of 70% of the crimes committed by juveniles and young adults happening at the hands of illegitmacy, we can settle on 35%.  That would mean if we wiped out single motherhood tomorrow, that our country would be 35% more peaceful. 

Moreover; liberals use the same facts and blatant common knowledge to press their own issues.  In an article a couple of years ago, Lourdes Garcia Navarro (coincidentally in the middle of the conservative fight to keep illegals out of our country) stated:

When Mexicans migrate to the United States, many leave their children in the care of extended families. That’s causing problems back in their home communities, with children doing poorly in school, dropping out or turning to crime.

In the rural village of San Andres Nicolas Bravo in the province of Malinalco, Alexis Silva Carreno, 14, has nearly been expelled from school several times. He says his troubles can be pinpointed to the day in 2001 when his father left for the United States.

Alexis began drinking and hanging out with friends who were part of a local gang led by Mexican youths who had grown up in the United States. He started doing drugs and was eventually sent to a state home for troubled kids.

The headmistress of the school attended by Alexis then said:

“When they don’t have their father or mother, they lack confidence … in the academic sphere,” she says. “It means that they will be more likely to miss school and to drop out. They are also less respectful of their grandmothers or uncles or their teachers.”

And in one bleeding-heart attempt for us to give a damn about illegal aliens from Mexico, activist Ellen Calmus cried:

because crossing the border illegally has become more difficult and costly, migrants don’t want to risk returning to see their families.

But let Ann Coulter cite the similarities in order to expose the scrupulous misguidance of the left and the victim cards they hand out, we get the pleasure of watching Barbara Walter’s head explode while her less-than-competent co-hosts pick up the pieces.

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.

Sheehan Leaves! (This time without Police Force)

sheehan.jpg

Responding to the “attention whore” allegations thrown at her by both parties – or anyone  with common sense, Cindy Sheehan bids farewell on a popular left-wing blog.

Michelle Malkin made note of Sheehan’s cozy ties with Hugo Chavez and also made mention of the TV stations he has acquired that are in need of “far Left propagandist news directors.”

With that in mind coupled with the “attention whore” allegations; does anybody else find it ironic that Cindy Sheehan bids her “farewell” the same week that the nation’s attention has been riveted on Rosie bidding hers?

Perhaps Venezuela will have a left-winged version of The View

After all, the two share similar political views AND fasting habits.

Great Analysis from Keith Blabberman

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk66Rk4Kjjg]

Commenting on the “who are the terroristS?” quote from Rosie, he blames the realistic characterization of her insanity on “Fox Noise.”

As this video points out, many folks on MSNBC drew the same conclusion.

Olbermann’s conclusion: she wasn’t talking about the troops – BUT SHE WAS talking about President Bush.

LOL – Calling an American President a “terrorist” I suppose is totally acceptable to Olbermann.

Someone’s makin’ some “noise” alright, but it aint Fox.

Cling Around the Rosie

rosie_edited.jpg 

Silly me.  I totally forgot about the media’s obsession with Rosie O’Donnell leaving “The View.”  So I suppose we won’t be hearing about the report released that proclaims that Bush was warned about the troubles we would face in Iraq (discussed in the previous post.)

 Though I’ve been at work all day, Fox talk radio as well as CNN and MSNBC have been droning on about how Elisabeth Hasselbeck finally stood up to the big bullying lesbian (self-proclaimed). 

I am growing tired of this story but if it really is true that Rosie finally left because of Hasselbeck’s debate with her last week, I’d be curious to know what would have happened to the duration of Rosie’s tenure if it had been Ann Coulter sitting across from her.

I’m guessing about two weeks. 

Obviously, Rosie is nowhere near the brain that Coulter is.  However; I have to admit that I’ve always wanted blather-engines like O’Donnell or even Michael Moore to have to face Annie.