Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
---------------------------------------------------
Dear Todd,
I hope the un-democratic Democratic Congress is treating your office well. At least when the Republicans ran things, the Democrats were allowed to bring bills and Amendments to the floor. By the way, did you read the prologue? Good. Now let me explain why Burbank is going the way of Asbury Park.
Even though the city has a secure tax base from Burbank Airport, Warner Brothers Studio and NBC, the city neglects it's small business' and residents. Since January, I have noticed as rents and the price of homes began rising, more people are leaving. If you drive above Glenoaks Boulevard or across any street below Victory Boulevard, there are more "FOR RENT" or "FOR SALE" signs across town. There is always a price for extra security, and the Burbank Police are one of the better forces in Los Angeles, but the price is also taking away local residents who have lived here for years. Unfortunately, to make up for the dying residential tax base, I have seen more tickets being offered around town.
For a slew of small business' along San Fernando Road, they are losing revenue as the city continues to build. Last year, the city tore down the AMC 12 and it's parking structure and put up the AMC 16 and is putting up condominiums . The one thing the city forgot was parking spaces. Now, I have no qualms if a city wishes to make money (I am a Republican after all), but the Democratic majority City Council wishes to give their support to the big business' only (not unlike Microsoft only supporting Democratic candidates) to the detriment of small business and residents, that ain't kosher.
To top it off, this is the base of the California Republican Party. There is no outreach to Republicans under 40, there is no Republican representation at any level. But I'll tell you more in my next letter.
Joe'y'
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The California Encyclicals -- Prologue
Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Todd,
Congratulations on your new baby! And further Congratulations on finding a job on Capitol Hill. But, as I told you in an earlier email, California is not a good place to be if you're a Republican. First look at this editorial by the Los Angeles Times.
The Times does not report on the Local GOP. Also, there is also many problems within my hometown of Burbank, the Republican party of Los Angeles and the California Republican Party. These next few posts will tell you why.
Joe'y'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Todd,
Congratulations on your new baby! And further Congratulations on finding a job on Capitol Hill. But, as I told you in an earlier email, California is not a good place to be if you're a Republican. First look at this editorial by the Los Angeles Times.
The Times does not report on the Local GOP. Also, there is also many problems within my hometown of Burbank, the Republican party of Los Angeles and the California Republican Party. These next few posts will tell you why.
Joe'y'
Sunday, March 25, 2007
The I, Claudian theory of Modern Presidents
Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------
Tonight was the last episode of Rome on HBO. Great show, great cast, the show understood the real history. If you follow history, the next series to follow is I, Claudius (the book or the miniseries). During this time, I re-read Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars to back up my theory of modern Presidents as representatives of the Julio-Claudian's. Here is the theory:
The Augustus: Augustan Presidents deal with civil strife, internal threats and defer the limits of the office as Augustus limited the Empire. They are controversial in their time because they change the structure of Government in some way (i.e. Augustus had his Triumvirates, then Empire). Augustans limit outside attacks to maintain the Republic.
The Tiberians: Tiberian Presidents maintain the Republic from their successors, yet go to war with the Political class. Tiberius almost allowed a coup by his Chief of Staff, Sejanus and allowed himself to fall into a decadent atmosphere on his island villa on Capri. The general public loves a Tiberius, but the political class knows (or is harmed) by his sins.
The Caligula: Caligula seemed like a relief for the political class after Tiberias, they were wrong. Caligula cared about neither Empire or civility. Where Tiberius' sin was to take from the political class by force, Caligula by madness. The public is also destroyed by a Caligula's madness. There have been no Caligula Presidents since FDR.
The Claudians: Literary and literate. Claudius expanded the Empire to Britain and kept the finances flush. A Claudian President re-builds the Republic after internal troubles and expands into the literary sphere as well. The Political Class looks down upon them as "not being good enough," These are the theoreticians of Presidents. Woodrow Wilson was one.
The Nero: Neros enjoy the stage. If their way is not accomplished, then hell literary breaks loose. The Republic teeters from Nero Presidents.
Now from FDR, here is how I see the theory play out:
Please tell me how this theory works in your worldview.....
-----------------------------------------------------
Tonight was the last episode of Rome on HBO. Great show, great cast, the show understood the real history. If you follow history, the next series to follow is I, Claudius (the book or the miniseries). During this time, I re-read Suetonius' The Twelve Caesars to back up my theory of modern Presidents as representatives of the Julio-Claudian's. Here is the theory:
The Augustus: Augustan Presidents deal with civil strife, internal threats and defer the limits of the office as Augustus limited the Empire. They are controversial in their time because they change the structure of Government in some way (i.e. Augustus had his Triumvirates, then Empire). Augustans limit outside attacks to maintain the Republic.
The Tiberians: Tiberian Presidents maintain the Republic from their successors, yet go to war with the Political class. Tiberius almost allowed a coup by his Chief of Staff, Sejanus and allowed himself to fall into a decadent atmosphere on his island villa on Capri. The general public loves a Tiberius, but the political class knows (or is harmed) by his sins.
The Caligula: Caligula seemed like a relief for the political class after Tiberias, they were wrong. Caligula cared about neither Empire or civility. Where Tiberius' sin was to take from the political class by force, Caligula by madness. The public is also destroyed by a Caligula's madness. There have been no Caligula Presidents since FDR.
The Claudians: Literary and literate. Claudius expanded the Empire to Britain and kept the finances flush. A Claudian President re-builds the Republic after internal troubles and expands into the literary sphere as well. The Political Class looks down upon them as "not being good enough," These are the theoreticians of Presidents. Woodrow Wilson was one.
The Nero: Neros enjoy the stage. If their way is not accomplished, then hell literary breaks loose. The Republic teeters from Nero Presidents.
Now from FDR, here is how I see the theory play out:
Truman -- Claudian
Eisenhower -- Augustan
Kennedy -- Tiberian
Johnson -- Claudian
Nixon -- Claudian
Ford -- Augustan
Carter -- Nero
Reagan -- Augustan
Bush I -- Augustan
Clinton -- Tiberian
Bush II -- Claudian
Please tell me how this theory works in your worldview.....
Friday, March 23, 2007
Endgames
Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------
Two players have moved their pawns and knights around two separate boards, but they play on the 64 squares of Geopolitics.
When you play Chess, the goal of the game is to trap the King. Pieces move diagonally and horizontally; some are sacrificed, others play offense or defense. Between Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats on one board, and the Iranians on the other, the question becomes what is their Endgame?
The Iranians took Naval Personnel from the HMS Cornwell. They claimed that the ship was in disputed waters. Right now, the Iranians lost the Russians help with their Nuclear Reactor and they are not in good standing with the world community. How does threatening Israel, threatening the UK, not paying the Russians equal a foreign policy of a peaceful nation? Unlike China, they do not want to become an Economic power; Unlike North Korea, the Iranians do not want money (they have their oil funds). What do they want? The Iranians want to become the Primary Pan-Arabic nation since Nasser.
Meanwhile on the home front, Speaker Pelosi barely passed the Iraq Supplemental Bill. For the past three years, the Democrats have been against the Iraq war. Fine. But what is their plans? Most Democrats think that 9/11 is a conspiracy. For twenty years, Afghanistan was the base for the Al Queda. Israel was the Proving Ground. By bringing the fight to Iraq, that is the terrorists new Proving Ground. The democrats say "Leave Iraq," Will the terrorist organizations (NGO's all) stop attacking soft targets in Israel or the United States? What is the Democratic parties Endgame on the War on terror? And wouldn't they have problems with Iran?
-----------------------------------------------
Two players have moved their pawns and knights around two separate boards, but they play on the 64 squares of Geopolitics.
When you play Chess, the goal of the game is to trap the King. Pieces move diagonally and horizontally; some are sacrificed, others play offense or defense. Between Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats on one board, and the Iranians on the other, the question becomes what is their Endgame?
The Iranians took Naval Personnel from the HMS Cornwell. They claimed that the ship was in disputed waters. Right now, the Iranians lost the Russians help with their Nuclear Reactor and they are not in good standing with the world community. How does threatening Israel, threatening the UK, not paying the Russians equal a foreign policy of a peaceful nation? Unlike China, they do not want to become an Economic power; Unlike North Korea, the Iranians do not want money (they have their oil funds). What do they want? The Iranians want to become the Primary Pan-Arabic nation since Nasser.
Meanwhile on the home front, Speaker Pelosi barely passed the Iraq Supplemental Bill. For the past three years, the Democrats have been against the Iraq war. Fine. But what is their plans? Most Democrats think that 9/11 is a conspiracy. For twenty years, Afghanistan was the base for the Al Queda. Israel was the Proving Ground. By bringing the fight to Iraq, that is the terrorists new Proving Ground. The democrats say "Leave Iraq," Will the terrorist organizations (NGO's all) stop attacking soft targets in Israel or the United States? What is the Democratic parties Endgame on the War on terror? And wouldn't they have problems with Iran?
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Does anyone know how to play this game?
Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Politico, the Democrats in the House cannot get bills passed. In the House, Majority does rule. In the Senate, only one member needs to block a bill or nominee. The Gang of 14 was created in the Senate to move the Judicial Process along (which is an aftereffect of Bork).
Let's recap: The Democrats have 233 members in the House, the GOP has 201. It takes 218 votes in the House to pass any bill. In the Senate, there is exactly 49 seats even for both parties with 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats. Tim Johnson (D-SD) is in the hospital (I wish him well and to return soon), and the Vice President can cast a deciding vote. So, 48 Dems 49 Reps and 2 Ind (who vote D) and the V.P. (who votes R), in the Senate. To win a vote on a bill, 51 votes. To beat a Filibuster: 60 votes.
The Iraq Bill is being bogged down by logrolling and they couldn't get the votes to get the DC Vote passed. Simple majority needed and it couldn't get done under Pelosi's leadership. I predict that a regicide in the Democrats will happen if they can't get anything done. Will Hoyer take her place?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
According to The Politico, the Democrats in the House cannot get bills passed. In the House, Majority does rule. In the Senate, only one member needs to block a bill or nominee. The Gang of 14 was created in the Senate to move the Judicial Process along (which is an aftereffect of Bork).
Let's recap: The Democrats have 233 members in the House, the GOP has 201. It takes 218 votes in the House to pass any bill. In the Senate, there is exactly 49 seats even for both parties with 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats. Tim Johnson (D-SD) is in the hospital (I wish him well and to return soon), and the Vice President can cast a deciding vote. So, 48 Dems 49 Reps and 2 Ind (who vote D) and the V.P. (who votes R), in the Senate. To win a vote on a bill, 51 votes. To beat a Filibuster: 60 votes.
The Iraq Bill is being bogged down by logrolling and they couldn't get the votes to get the DC Vote passed. Simple majority needed and it couldn't get done under Pelosi's leadership. I predict that a regicide in the Democrats will happen if they can't get anything done. Will Hoyer take her place?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The Battle of the Branches, Round 231
Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------
At SUNY-Stonybrook and American University, I wrote two 50 page thesis' on the Nixon Administration. The first was about the foreign policy challenges of the 1970's and how Nixon's handshake shook the world. The second one questioned whether the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch could work together to appoint Ambassadors while each branch was at war with one another. My thesis was posited that, yes, the country was more important then political points. Ambassadors were nominated from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and passed on the floor of the Senate from 1972 - 1974.
Now we have the Congress going to war with the President over the firing of Judicial Branch officials. The Subpoenas are coming towards the President's staff; The president is standing his ground. This battle is not just about President Bush, but the power of the Executive.
During the Clinton years, the question was always, who can testify against a sitting President? The Democrats laid out their case saying that a functioning President needs both Staff and Secret Service to remain loyal. With these current subpoenas, Senator Levin is saying, "No one should be loyal to a sitting President,"
With Bork, the Senate damaged the ties during the Judicial appointment process. Overtime 2000 damaged the election process. President Bush is leaving in 2009. After 2008, might be a Democrat President and a Republican Congress to challenge him or her. Suppose James Carville or Paul Begala is put on the stand? What if it were Dick Tuck?
My question to you is this, would you push the limit on a Republican President that powers would be lost for a Democratic President? I think most Democrats are hypocrites on this issue, prove me wrong.
------------------------------------------------
At SUNY-Stonybrook and American University, I wrote two 50 page thesis' on the Nixon Administration. The first was about the foreign policy challenges of the 1970's and how Nixon's handshake shook the world. The second one questioned whether the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch could work together to appoint Ambassadors while each branch was at war with one another. My thesis was posited that, yes, the country was more important then political points. Ambassadors were nominated from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and passed on the floor of the Senate from 1972 - 1974.
Now we have the Congress going to war with the President over the firing of Judicial Branch officials. The Subpoenas are coming towards the President's staff; The president is standing his ground. This battle is not just about President Bush, but the power of the Executive.
During the Clinton years, the question was always, who can testify against a sitting President? The Democrats laid out their case saying that a functioning President needs both Staff and Secret Service to remain loyal. With these current subpoenas, Senator Levin is saying, "No one should be loyal to a sitting President,"
With Bork, the Senate damaged the ties during the Judicial appointment process. Overtime 2000 damaged the election process. President Bush is leaving in 2009. After 2008, might be a Democrat President and a Republican Congress to challenge him or her. Suppose James Carville or Paul Begala is put on the stand? What if it were Dick Tuck?
My question to you is this, would you push the limit on a Republican President that powers would be lost for a Democratic President? I think most Democrats are hypocrites on this issue, prove me wrong.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Four Question Redux
Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------
I am not a fan of protests. When I was younger, I used to be among the crowds, but the people remained the same, and the smells of those self-same activists began to rise as well. My feeling is this, why protest when you can be in the room writing the language of the bill to be voted on?
Now that the protests are done, and since we are near Passover, I have another Four Questions to ask. (If you wish to answer the originals, please do so). My only rule here is, be a member of the Democratic Party and be civil, beyond that, please enlighten me:
1) If using the military is "bad", what is the purpose of the military in a modern Nation-state?
2) Why do protestors insist on defaming Federal prpoerty every time they are in Washington, DC?
3) In 1941, America was attacked by Japan, but our first military attack in World war II was in North Africa against the Germans who didn't attack us. Shouldn't FDR have been impeached for lying?
4) Since America is already in Iraq, what will be the fifty year consequence of pulling out of Iraq? Will Al-Queda, hamas, and Hezbollah leave the United States and Israel alone? Remember Iran and Syria in the equation.
-------------------------------------------------
I am not a fan of protests. When I was younger, I used to be among the crowds, but the people remained the same, and the smells of those self-same activists began to rise as well. My feeling is this, why protest when you can be in the room writing the language of the bill to be voted on?
Now that the protests are done, and since we are near Passover, I have another Four Questions to ask. (If you wish to answer the originals, please do so). My only rule here is, be a member of the Democratic Party and be civil, beyond that, please enlighten me:
1) If using the military is "bad", what is the purpose of the military in a modern Nation-state?
2) Why do protestors insist on defaming Federal prpoerty every time they are in Washington, DC?
3) In 1941, America was attacked by Japan, but our first military attack in World war II was in North Africa against the Germans who didn't attack us. Shouldn't FDR have been impeached for lying?
4) Since America is already in Iraq, what will be the fifty year consequence of pulling out of Iraq? Will Al-Queda, hamas, and Hezbollah leave the United States and Israel alone? Remember Iran and Syria in the equation.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Happy Birthday Valley of the Shadow!
Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------
Rather then sing "Happy Birthday!" Let us sing "Spirit Journey Formation Anniversary!"
One year later, this is my original post. I stopped going to the Church, re-read The Great Game and, I now work with an Ad Agency that deals with the Movie Studios here in L.A. My goals and dreams can be seen from this Blog.
This Blog started from the Althouse Vortex (look up to your right and start your own Blog from here) and grew from a Blog about Eugene Delacroix and the Dead to Politics and Policy.
One day, I hope to achieve everything I shoot for.
If you want to help, send me an email.
Thank you for reading. There is more to come.
--------------------------------------------------------
Rather then sing "Happy Birthday!" Let us sing "Spirit Journey Formation Anniversary!"
One year later, this is my original post. I stopped going to the Church, re-read The Great Game and, I now work with an Ad Agency that deals with the Movie Studios here in L.A. My goals and dreams can be seen from this Blog.
This Blog started from the Althouse Vortex (look up to your right and start your own Blog from here) and grew from a Blog about Eugene Delacroix and the Dead to Politics and Policy.
One day, I hope to achieve everything I shoot for.
If you want to help, send me an email.
Thank you for reading. There is more to come.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Who is the Institutionalist?
Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
-------------------------------------------
There is something wafting in the political air that bothers me. It's outgrowth allows a comedian, Bill Maher, to say he wishes our Vice President dead, as well as the numerous commentators at the Huffington Post. No apologies or regrets from either.
When I read The Ambition and the Power by John M. Barry, what really struck me was a line about Former House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostonkowski. To paraphrase, he might have disagreed with Ronald Reagan but he still believed in the institution of the Presidency that Reagan carried with him.
At any given time, there is only:
1 President
1 Vice President
1 Majority Leader of the Senate
1 Speaker of the House
9 Supreme Court Justices
The United States Constitution created all of these jobs (Speaker and Majority Leader through the Article One branch itself), and even when someone I despise (Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Ginsberg) inhabits these positions, I do not wish for their demise, only that they become frustrated pushing their views.
This door was opened for Bill Maher and the HuffPos back with the Impeachment of Nixon, "the Bloody 8Th," and Bush v. Gore lawsuit. What do all of these equal? The Temple of Democracy being brought down around our ears.
I consider myself an Institutionalist:(N) Someone who respects the institutions of Government and Social protocols.
The modern Democratic Party (1972- Present) wishes to tear down each instition in Government that is not owned by them Despise the President, I can debate you. Wish for his death and I will fight you. I detested Clinton, but I never wished for his demise. When I lived in DC pre-impeachment, the high levels of Republican staffers used to say, "Even if Clinton is Impeached, at least there is a President Gore." meaning simply: we distrust President Clinton, Gore will be fine if Clinton steps down. Because the Democrats attacked the GOP in the House and at the ballot box, the radicals in our party became mainstream.
My curse onto the Democrats out there: Despise President Bush ,but do not wish him or Cheney harm or the Democratic party will go the way of the Whigs.
-------------------------------------------
There is something wafting in the political air that bothers me. It's outgrowth allows a comedian, Bill Maher, to say he wishes our Vice President dead, as well as the numerous commentators at the Huffington Post. No apologies or regrets from either.
When I read The Ambition and the Power by John M. Barry, what really struck me was a line about Former House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostonkowski. To paraphrase, he might have disagreed with Ronald Reagan but he still believed in the institution of the Presidency that Reagan carried with him.
At any given time, there is only:
1 President
1 Vice President
1 Majority Leader of the Senate
1 Speaker of the House
9 Supreme Court Justices
The United States Constitution created all of these jobs (Speaker and Majority Leader through the Article One branch itself), and even when someone I despise (Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Ginsberg) inhabits these positions, I do not wish for their demise, only that they become frustrated pushing their views.
This door was opened for Bill Maher and the HuffPos back with the Impeachment of Nixon, "the Bloody 8Th," and Bush v. Gore lawsuit. What do all of these equal? The Temple of Democracy being brought down around our ears.
I consider myself an Institutionalist:(N) Someone who respects the institutions of Government and Social protocols.
The modern Democratic Party (1972- Present) wishes to tear down each instition in Government that is not owned by them Despise the President, I can debate you. Wish for his death and I will fight you. I detested Clinton, but I never wished for his demise. When I lived in DC pre-impeachment, the high levels of Republican staffers used to say, "Even if Clinton is Impeached, at least there is a President Gore." meaning simply: we distrust President Clinton, Gore will be fine if Clinton steps down. Because the Democrats attacked the GOP in the House and at the ballot box, the radicals in our party became mainstream.
My curse onto the Democrats out there: Despise President Bush ,but do not wish him or Cheney harm or the Democratic party will go the way of the Whigs.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Go tell the Spartans, Stranger passing by
Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------
Living in Los Angeles, I can always manage to catch a movie before it is released. Thus, no commercials or previews before it starts. I caught 300 on Tuesday night. Even though there is no overt political messages here, I saw the foreshadow of history.
300 is based on Frank Miller's Graphic novel, which, in turn, is based on the Battle of Thermopylae. When you read the story of the 300 Spartans who fought against Xerxes' armies at the Hot Gates, you feel as if these men, who lived history, didn't feel the need to become history. Instead they became Legends.
[SPOILER ALERT -- HERE THERE BE DRAGONS]
Before the battle, Leonides went to the Oracle for advice about going to war with the Persians. Since the Oracle was paid in Persian gold, their advice was to wait. After Leonides goes with his 300 men, his wife, the Queen must convince the Spartan Council to send reinforcements. Theron, a legislator, carries power within the council and uses that against the Queen. After the first betrayal, he betrays her again on the Council floor. Being Spartan, she kills him with his sword and Persian Gold pieces fall out of his toga.
[END SPOILER ALERT]
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have..." A Spartan statement, if there ever was. So, where is the modern Hot Gates against a growing Non-Governmental Organization that wishes to franchise?Like the Athenians, most of our European allies have no stomach to fight an enemy that fights in the dark. And our modern academicians try to be America's Delphi, but have already sold out their intellect to the Democratic Party. And the Democrats have also sold out to the Council on American relations [CAIR] as part of the Red-Green-Brown alliance.
Yet, most Democratic websites (and legislators) see President Bush as the enemy and not Islamofacism. The modern Democrats would rather sell our only Democratic ally, Israel, down the river to Iran, then to stand and support our friends. They would rather a Bill Maher hope for Vice President Cheney's death, (along with the HuffPos), then support the Long War.
The Democratic Party and it's allies in the media are today's Therons.
Our Hot Gate is Iraq. It is easy to stand for an issue when it is easy, which Democrat will stand with a Republican President now that it is hard?
------------------------------------------------------
Living in Los Angeles, I can always manage to catch a movie before it is released. Thus, no commercials or previews before it starts. I caught 300 on Tuesday night. Even though there is no overt political messages here, I saw the foreshadow of history.
300 is based on Frank Miller's Graphic novel, which, in turn, is based on the Battle of Thermopylae. When you read the story of the 300 Spartans who fought against Xerxes' armies at the Hot Gates, you feel as if these men, who lived history, didn't feel the need to become history. Instead they became Legends.
[SPOILER ALERT -- HERE THERE BE DRAGONS]
Before the battle, Leonides went to the Oracle for advice about going to war with the Persians. Since the Oracle was paid in Persian gold, their advice was to wait. After Leonides goes with his 300 men, his wife, the Queen must convince the Spartan Council to send reinforcements. Theron, a legislator, carries power within the council and uses that against the Queen. After the first betrayal, he betrays her again on the Council floor. Being Spartan, she kills him with his sword and Persian Gold pieces fall out of his toga.
[END SPOILER ALERT]
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have..." A Spartan statement, if there ever was. So, where is the modern Hot Gates against a growing Non-Governmental Organization that wishes to franchise?Like the Athenians, most of our European allies have no stomach to fight an enemy that fights in the dark. And our modern academicians try to be America's Delphi, but have already sold out their intellect to the Democratic Party. And the Democrats have also sold out to the Council on American relations [CAIR] as part of the Red-Green-Brown alliance.
Yet, most Democratic websites (and legislators) see President Bush as the enemy and not Islamofacism. The modern Democrats would rather sell our only Democratic ally, Israel, down the river to Iran, then to stand and support our friends. They would rather a Bill Maher hope for Vice President Cheney's death, (along with the HuffPos), then support the Long War.
The Democratic Party and it's allies in the media are today's Therons.
Our Hot Gate is Iraq. It is easy to stand for an issue when it is easy, which Democrat will stand with a Republican President now that it is hard?
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Democrats, please explain.....
Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------
In 1998, President William Clinton was cited for Perjury during Impeachment. The word of the day back then, was "Perjury is fine," This statement was supported by the Press and academia.
Now we have a charge of Perjury against Lewis Libby. If perjury is fine against a Grand Jury in President Clinton's case, why is it wrong now?
----------------------------------------------
In 1998, President William Clinton was cited for Perjury during Impeachment. The word of the day back then, was "Perjury is fine," This statement was supported by the Press and academia.
Now we have a charge of Perjury against Lewis Libby. If perjury is fine against a Grand Jury in President Clinton's case, why is it wrong now?
Saturday, March 03, 2007
The Volitaire Deal
Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you.
---------------------------------------------
At the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference, Ann Coulter made remarks about former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) here. Every single Conservative or Republican Blogger is calling on her to apologize for her remarks.
However, when the Huffington Post has commenter's that wish the Vice president ill, I find it hard to decry Ann when she says provocative things. Now, I have friends who are gay, and I am at times Libertarian when it comes to State and private life. However, the comment was tacky and the joke flopped. But, she is not calling for any one's head, she is not wishing people dead.
I also believe in Voltaire's line, "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it," I haven't seen one organization from the Left defend anyone from the Right for slipping up on words. Not once.
If you see Bill Maher here, he also wishes ill will on Cheney, yet where is the Left Blogosphere's outcry? Every week, Bill Maher wishes harm or worse on Republicans, yet the Left says not one word. Here is my deal (call it a Voltaire Deal), if the Left gets rid of Bill Maher, I will decry Ann Coulter.
---------------------------------------------
At the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference, Ann Coulter made remarks about former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) here. Every single Conservative or Republican Blogger is calling on her to apologize for her remarks.
However, when the Huffington Post has commenter's that wish the Vice president ill, I find it hard to decry Ann when she says provocative things. Now, I have friends who are gay, and I am at times Libertarian when it comes to State and private life. However, the comment was tacky and the joke flopped. But, she is not calling for any one's head, she is not wishing people dead.
I also believe in Voltaire's line, "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it," I haven't seen one organization from the Left defend anyone from the Right for slipping up on words. Not once.
If you see Bill Maher here, he also wishes ill will on Cheney, yet where is the Left Blogosphere's outcry? Every week, Bill Maher wishes harm or worse on Republicans, yet the Left says not one word. Here is my deal (call it a Voltaire Deal), if the Left gets rid of Bill Maher, I will decry Ann Coulter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
