Thursday, September 27, 2007

I don't get her pep-talk speak

Nice picture, Fraley, but I have to elaborate.

Katie Couric sounds like a whiney cheerleader to me -but for the losing team. She seems to think that US expressions of patriotism are just too jubilant:
Speaking at the National Press Club Tuesday evening, CBS "Evening News" anchor Katie Couric pulled back the curtain on her personal views of both the war in Iraq and former “Evening News” anchor Dan Rather.

“Everyone in this room would agree that people in this country were misled in terms of the rationale of this war,” said Couric, adding that it is “pretty much accepted” that the war in Iraq was a mistake."
Oh, it's pretty much accepted, is it?

Just wait, she goes on:
"The former “Today” show anchor traced her discomfort with the administration’s march to war back to the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

“The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying ‘we’ when referring to the United States and, even the ‘shock and awe’ of the initial stages, it was just too jubilant and just a little uncomfortable. And I remember feeling, when I was anchoring the ‘Today’ show, this inevitable march towards war and kind of feeling like, ‘Will anybody put the brakes on this?’ And is this really being properly challenged by the right people? And I think, at the time, anyone who questioned the administration was considered unpatriotic and it was a very difficult position to be in.”
Oh forgive us, Katie, for the waving stripes have hypnotized our nation into believe we are united as a "we." We're so sorry to have made you feel unconfortable.
"Couric referenced comments made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday’s “The Charlie Rose Show,” and said she actually agreed with Ahmadinejad on one point. “Oftentimes Westerners don’t really understand fully the values of this particular culture,” said Couric. “And I think the jury is still out as to whether democracy can really thrive in Iraq.”"
Someone forgot to hand Katie her pompoms and "IRAN ROCKS" t-shirt.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Healthy Wisconsin has a Sick Senate

Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson told the conference committee Friday morning Dems are dropping Healthy Wisconsin "in the interest of moving the budget process forward."

Uh huh. What's the catch?
In its place, Dems offered a DHFS package that includes the cigarette tax increase, the hospital assessment and the BadgerCare expansion Gov. Jim Doyle had proposed.
Still sick.

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Sunday Morning

Today on Sunday Morning, Newt Gingrich addressed Ms. Clinton's health care plan.

I value his idea that at this stage, we should be examining the candidates' plans for America- taking the time to analyze, point out the good parts, and question the bad.

We could use an independent group picking apart the various proposals from both sides of the aisle before we make ill-advised decisions on what is best for America.

Say what?

Giuliani answers his cell phone at the NRA meeting he addressed. Say what?

Where is this proper etiquette? Where is it even cute or likeable? I am quite disenchanted by this political ploy. If it wasn't planned, that means a number of things.
1. It's happened before- don't you think he should have learned from the first time and put the cell phone away?
2. The candidate is addressing a crowd-giving a formal speech. He shoud not have a cell phone on him. DUH, I say to his advisors.
3. It is rude to answer a cell phone during any kind of meeting or speech. Who do you value more? Are you a crackberry? It appears you are. Utter lack of manners.

If this was planned- it means a number of other things.
1. The advisors seem to believe Giuliani will appear cute and a family man- taking a call from his wife, considering her more important than anything he is doing at the time. While believed to be "cutesy" and "adorable," it actually is quite the opposite.
2. The advisors seem to think ANSWERING the cell phone is OK while the candidate is speaking. As does Giuliani himself. WHO SAID ANSWERING THE CELL PHONE DURING A SPEECH IS OK?

He should have silenced it, ignored it, or better yet- left it in the car.

Giuliani is simply unimpressive to me lately. He needs some new advisors. I don't think he impressed the NRA group much either.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Giuliani too Posh for me

Rudy Giuliani has recently rubbed me the wrong way -

1. His latest comment: "I'm probably one of the four or five best known Americans in the world." Talk about snooty. Fit for the British.
"Giuliani told reporters he has made 91 trips to 35 countries in five years and many governments seek him out for advice on security. He was given an honorary knighthood in 2002 by Queen Elizabeth II for his leadership after the Sept. 11 terror attacks."
Well, aren't we just the cat's meow.

and 2. He runs 2 hours late to an event because of passport paperwork issues...

and he still gets praised for turning the toilet that was NYC into a... non toilet?

Seems a little too prissy for me lately.

Back to the race card

Once again, it is the black leaders that play the race card.

I have no sympathy. You are not persecuted because you are an African American quarterback. You face the same Monday-morning criticism that the whities do. It's all in your head. You are doing just fine.

More propoganda for the left!

In a disturbing commentary by Ryan Yeomans of Central Connecticut State University- yes Ivy League indeed- I see the left stoop to a new low. Unsure of whether this will get him a coveted seat on the Clinton or Obama campaign, Yeomans drops below the left-wing, Anti-Americans in Congress even and attempts to push President Bush over Bin Laden on the level of "scariness" each poses to our freedom.

"Bush or bin Laden: Who is More Evil?" he asks, and continues, trying to equate cell-phone bill scrutiny with the Trade Towers crumbling like legos. Mr. Yeomans, you are severely off here.

Before I disect your mess of rhetoric, I am appalled that you encourage others to read the transcript of Osama bin Laden's video hate-message to America. This is the fundamental difference between the right and left. The left simply wants America to lose, to placate ourselves in the fact that other people hate us only because of who is in the White House right now. Need I remind you, they have hated us long before Bush was in the White House and will hate us no matter who follows him- Democrat or Republican. The reason they support the democrats in Congress for their words is because they are pro-terrorist in so many ways. A Clinton or an Obama in the Oval Office will only make it less threatening to come onto our soil and attack us once again. I will NOT apologize that my President desires to protect American lives and the wellbeing of our nation. I will NOT apologize that our troops are on the front lines, killing terrorists who despise us.
"The Bush administration was quick to respond to bin Laden’s first video appearance in three years by stating that he is useless, “aside from his ability to hide in caves and spread anti-American propaganda.” White House aide Frances Fragos Townsend went on to say that “This is a man on the run, from a cave, who’s virtually impotent other than these tapes.”

This statement causes me to seriously question the integrity of the White House’s reports. How can it be that a man with more wealth and power than most Americans and the ability to evade our searches for six years is really just hanging out in a cave all day? It seems to me that what bin Laden wants us to believe is exactly what the Bush administration thinks to be true."
Listen pal, you know a lot less than you think you do, and a lot less than our intelligence agencies and the leaders of our government. Drop it.

For some reason your idiocy continues.
"By claiming bin Laden to be “impotent,” they are using this video to mislead Americans into a false sense of security, even though the imminent danger of terrorism exists now more than ever because of Bush’s actions."
Yes, because of President Bush, we are more in danger. HARDLY. Because of President Bush we have not seen another attack on US soil. The response of the President only makes the terrorists angry because a)they can not win without being hunted, b) they live on the run in caves, hiding, cowardly, and c)they know that US resolve is greater than any minor scheme they can pull from their turbans.

Here, you have gone too far:
"As of late, if you were to bring up the president in a discussion you would find that many Americans disapprove of the decisions he has made. At the same time, Osama bin Laden presents many good arguments against the president and many of his reasons for disapproving of Bush are similar to those of anti-Bush Americans. Would it be wrong to assume that there is some kind of connection between feelings of the American people and those of Osama bin Laden? As I would love to make this connection, I ultimately cannot because of the actions of our president. If I were to say I agree with bin Laden, that would mean that I agree with a terrorist; under the Patriot Act, I could be labeled a potential terrorist and my phone could be tapped, and every move I make could be watched and analyzed.

In finding myself in this predicament, I questioned myself as to who the lesser evil actually is. I ask, “Who has done more damage to the lives of the American people?” Personally, I worry more about the next bad decision Bush is going to make than I worry about a potential Osama bin Laden organized terrorist attack."
It does sure seem you agree with the terrorists. Perhaps we should buy you a ticket instead to the next training camp with the likes Daniel Maldonado and John Walker Lindh -other Americans-turned-Terrorists.

Advocating that we abstain from pursuing terrorists on our homeland because it might threaten their rights (oh boo hoo their phone gets tapped!) and believing that Bush's decisions are worse than terrorist attacks at home is utterly irresponsible. You should be very afraid of the next Osama bin Laden organized attack. More importantly, you should be very afraid of what the government could do to you for defending a terrorist over our own President and Commander in Chief.

Those of you who take the opportunity of FREEDOM to bitch and moan about how the Patriot Act infringes on your rights, step back and be grateful you are allowed to criticize the government. Others around the world know nothing of that right. You are also allowed a voice and a vote for your elected leaders. Quit running your mouths and use your vote.

Does the left seems to believe that rhetoric like "the war is lost" and "I'm more afraid of Bush than Osama," will help us with the Global War on Terror? Do they want to win? No, Democrats would rather score political points while harming our national security. I am in awe of the amount of free speech and RIGHTS we DO have, amidst a war on terror in which the homefront should be nothing but bound together positively- instead we have Cindy Sheehans of the world, wasting time during which they could be bettering society and the Harry Reids who want nothing more than to see the demise of a single man who only wants what is best for our nation.

I will pray for you, Mr. Yeomans- that you may open your eyes and see the damage you and your little question of who is more evil are doing to American morale.

Monday, September 17, 2007

Packer Victory

Does this look like a happy face? Congratulations to Brett Favre, the all-time winningest QB in the NFL. With 286 yards, 3 TD passes and a solid command of the offense in the 2nd half of yesterday's game, Favre owns it- and keeps his boyish charm with an overtly emotional display of excitement.

I am baffled by post-game critiques of the offensive line and our running game though. Did you people miss the first half? Daryn Colledge left more holes in the left line than in a piece of swiss cheese. I thought every snap would be Favre's last, as someone always managed to blow by Colledge on Favre's blind side, and he was knocked, bumped, slapped, or ran into almost every play. What is a Guard for if not to protect the QB?

Secondly, I'm all for DeShawn Wynn coming out of nowhere and possibly claiming the RB starting spot, but gotta feel bad for Jackson. Given the ball and called to the left every single time got him no more than 2-3 yards per carry, not to mention "loss of 1" more times than I like to hear in a game.

And while the second half looked like a different team, even McCarthy self admits they made half-time adjustments to the offensive line, as they should have. But I don't want to be a second-half team. There is no excuse for Favre to be without protection, especially on his blind side. What sense does it make to run an RB to the left when Colledge can't block for him, and Favre ends up running for his life on the same side? We've got to protect on the left.

Third, #20 as everyone referse to him- Atari Bigby- he seems to have some talent, but I think he's acting as a pretty good trickster lately. He seemed to be on the edge of every play- but not directly involved with the stops? I want to see him on the bottom of a tackle next week, then maybe I'll buy the luck of the dread-locks.

I'd like a round of applause for Bubba Franks- catching and not dropping the ball for his first TD in what, 23 games?? Way to go Bubba- keep it up and you'll get the trust back.

Fourth, I have to extend kudos to the methodical pass-dump offs in the second half- 5 yards and then letting the receivers finish off the first down. I thought we drove with ambition and determination, but played it smart and ran down the Giants' defense with the short passing game.

Finally, I am excited for the Chargers next week- I think if we play one week at a time, we can turn some heads and surprise some skeptics. But we've got to be a first half team- we've got to make the adjustments before kick-off, so we don't end up playing catch-up.

P.S. Crosby, brush up on your wind-directions too, and you'll go far ;-)

Friday, September 14, 2007

Telling quotes

from my main man, Newt~
"The country needs solutions, and we need an ability to come to grips with how much change is involved in getting to those solutions. I'm deeply opposed to launching campaigns on late-night television. I think it just trivializes the whole process."
Fred Thompson's rollout has generally not gotten rave reviews. What do you think of it and of him?
Gingrich: "I think that any Republican has to have a core, direct, compelling message of why they would be different than [President] Bush and why they would be different than Clinton. And they have to be able to say it in 30 seconds. And they have to be able to say it so that people in their living room believe it matters to them and their family. None of our candidates have yet found that rhythm."

"The only circumstance I can imagine under which [my wife] Callista and I would be faced with a choice about running this year would be if there is a vacuum in October so deep and people began to be so afraid of Senator Clinton winning that you could actually see by the end of October a scale of resources that would let you be genuinely competitive. The odds are, that won't happen. I'm very comfortable with projects that take more than a sprint."

Do you want to run?
Gingrich: "Not necessarily. I want to serve my country. I don't want to run as an act of habit. I have no great interest in going out to campaign. I have every interest in finding a generation of solutions. So if you said to me, would I be willing to serve my country, the answer is yes. But it won't bother me to spend all of next year running workshops and developing a new generation of ideas, and trying to be available for every American, not just Republicans."

Man, he's good!

Free Health Care in Wisconsin

enough said

the Democratic response

Why have we come to the point where the title of a Presidential Address is now: "A Message from the President...and the Democratic Response." "Dah dah dah dah, on tonight's special report with Brian Williams."

Before the President spoke last night, I could not believe the media were advertising the Democratic response. It took away the importance and poignancy of the moment and what the President was actually going to say- before he even had the chance to say it!!

Why, you ask? Because when you anticipate a response by the known opposition, you anticipate that whatever the President says should be and will be countered and therefore loses credibility sheerly by the fact that it is opposed.

Instead, I would prefer the subconscious realization of the Democratic response. We already know they are going to do this- they do it after every speech and Republicans do it as well in response to Democratic officials. But for those of us who do not wish to hear it, I would rather enjoy the Presidential address and follow in his unwavering and allegiant optimism for the troops and the mission in Iraq, and believe things are progressing there.

Even today, the headlines read "Bush Cites 'Success' in Iraq, But Benchmarks Tell a Different Story." This alone immediately discredits everything he said, regardless of the actual truth. "Bush attempts to shore up support?" says one headline? Absolutely he does "attempt," or try to shore up support, but by the nature of that simple word choice, we already know the media believes he has failed in that "attempt."

Please don't believe that I am naive enough to eat everything from President Bush's palm, but I do choose the message of hope and victory in Iraq over cowardly troop withdrawal. And yes, I did listen to the Democratic response. My point is simply, it is no wonder we have such a polarized America, refusing to open their ears and wallowing in defeat. Look at what we're watching and reading!

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

In need of a real surge of hope

John Edwards has seriously confused his priorities:
Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards bemoaned the United States' diminished reputation with the rest of the world in a speech Monday night, saying it needs to once again be a source of hope and light.

Edwards spoke for thirty minutes to a crowd of several hundred at Serb Hall in Milwaukee. He emphasized America’s failure as a prosperous nation to provide universal health care and criticized the recent troop surge policy.

”We don’t need a surge in Baghdad, we need a surge in New Orleans,” said Edwards to great applause.
Again we see the Democrats would rather bemoan the plight of the poor in New Orleans than fight a war that will not end when we pull out of Iraq, but rather, allow a terrorist surge to begin.

I do agree we need a surge in New Orleans- a surge of "Get off your ass and get to work" attitudes. We need to support the troops surge in Iraq. We need a surge in America of politicians supporting the troops, supporting a vision of destroying the terrorist opposition, strengthening the US, and upholding the offices of our leaders with integrity. We need a surge on the campaign trail of candidates who no longer placate lazy Americans with dangerous misleading visions about "Universal health care" coverage or mislead the naive with global warming falsities. We are in desperate need of a surge in America of HOPE. John Edwards, you are not the source of that HOPE with comments like this.

President Bush Speaks at Ground Zero - 9/14/01

Lest We Never Forget

Monday, September 10, 2007

Our enemies are now at home

This could be yet another example proving that the New York Times is the most anti-American newspaper published on our soil. More directly, has far surpassed their Democratic candidates with this act of malicious defamation.

Attacking General Petraeus is the new protocol for liberal left-wing groups that wish to see us pull out of Iraq prematurely and desire the President to fail in his foreign policy. We as a nation must realize not only do we have enemies abroad that wish to do us harm, but enemies at home now that also wish us harm. Should we not face each enemy with equal military fervor?

It is obvious and those who refuse to denounce their attack on General Petreaus have no interest in seeing America succeed -not only in the war on terror- but in the Promotion of Freedom. Those that wish a war here at home are sewing the seeds of hatred into our soil, that terrorists planted 6 years ago. It is even more apparent they are invested in and would prefer our failure and defeat.

President Bush said that we will hold accountable not only the terrorists themselves but also the groups or countries that harbor or support terrorists. MoveOn is supporting the terrorists - how dare we proceed to hold them responsible?

Additionally, from a political perspective we must call to account the candidates who accept money and support from the John Kerry's of the world who refuse to acknowledge their approval of entry into this war and the reasons behind it, and for what? For nothing but political clout in a nation misguided by it's own free press.

I suggest be looked upon as the actual betrayers of our nation. To slander a highly-decorated 4-star general, unanimously confirmed by the senate, as a liar and having betrayed his country, is one of the lowest acts of a group associated with political debate and democracy that I have ever seen.

The contrast alone between those called betrayers and those who betray is stunning: General Petraeus in his full military uniform, stands strong in honor and sacrifice for his nation, promoting truth about the situation on the ground in Iraq and the hope for the future there. To compare him to the shadowly, elitist scumbags -the cowards on the left who merely point fingers and shuffle money to loud-mouth politicians, is absolutely staggering. I am so proud to be on the side of President and Commander in Chief, George W. Bush, as well as General Petraeus and our troops home and abroad.

I am begging our nation to show themselves on the side of freedom and support for our troops. Join us here at home, against the War on Americans, against the War against Freedom.

Forgo your copy of today's New York Times, and instead -thank a Soldier.

A new thought

What would happen if we didn't release the video tapes of Osama Bin Laden telling America to abandon capitalism and reform to Islam? What if we didn't allow the terrorists to "mark" the anniversary of 9-11?

What if we didn't propagandize that people in the middle east hate our way of life?

What if we didn't publish an American soldier body count each week? Why can't we decide to celebrate the soldiers fighting for freedom and their accomplishments in Iraq rather than critize the President and placate the liberals with empty phrases like "we support the troops." Support the effort too.

Why couldn't we remember the attacks- but in a way that honors those who died for their country, their freedom, for our continuing freedom? By replaying the footage of the buildings collapsing, followed by our President in total resolve, vowing to track the enemy down and bring them to justice. Not Osama bin Laden reminding us we are hated.

What would happen if we just didn't allow the Islamic radicals a voice?


Friday, September 7, 2007

LMS Dictionary modification

Hippocrite [hippo-crit] noun
[origin: 2007, Little Miss Sunshine, circa August]

1. A massive thick-skinned person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a Hypocrite of gargantuan proportion

3. John Edwards

4. Al Gore

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Michael Vick ain't from no Deep South

Whoopi, I am pleased you have succeeded "Ro," on The View, but on your first day you have to go and defend Michael Vick? So much for geographical correctness. Perhaps Miss South Carolina was referring to the new host when she said, "uh, some people, out there in our nation don't have maps."
"It's like cockfighting in Puerto Rico," she said. "There are certain things that are indicative to certain parts of the country."
I'm sorry, but Blacksburg, VA isn't exactly the Deep South. He went to Warwick High in Newport News, VA. That's southeast of Richmond and north of Chesapeake. These people don't have accents! Nor do they dog-fight!

Va Tech in Blacksburg where he played in college brings you a little closer to West Virginia and Kentucky, but that borders more on scary incestuous farms and families in need of a visit to the dental hygienist, again, not the "deep south" and dog fighting.

The deep south is Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina. And even though Virginia was a southern state in the Civil War- it is not considered "deep" and would rather annex itself and join Washington, D.C.

So as to defending Michael Vick- it's not a cultural thing. It's a gang thing.

To excuse him because it's a cultural thing from his part of the country is unacceptable. Maybe if he were from Russia in the mid-1990s!! The felony Vick committed was immature and stupid, and he deserves the punishment for it. Cultural, please!

In the meantime, let's get Whoopi a map!

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Great step forward...but...

Something is still missing! Milwaukee Public Schools are now going to require visitors to show an ID and wear a Visitor Badge.

This is a great step in promoting school safety and protecting our kids from intruders, possible offenders and kidnappers.

And yet again, the logic behind this new promotion applies to the long-chanted GOP complaint: Show a Photo ID at the polls!
"We do think it's important that we verify who someone is," said Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent William Andrekopoulos.
Agreed. When picking up a child from school, or casting a vote in an important election - we should verify that someone is who they say they are.

Another applicable quote:
Jennifer Alyousef, a parent at Whittier Elementary School, said she thinks tightening the security procedure is a great idea, but hopes that it's enforced in all buildings. "We have a lot of people going in and out of our small school," she said.
We also have a lot of people going in and out of a polling place on election day. Perhaps visiting more than one polling place as well. With all those people, we need a system to keep them straight.

Finally, a third logical explanation:
"This is just to maintain safety," Castillo said. "It's like when you go into airports, it's not very fun to get your shoes off and take everything out of your pockets . . . but we have to understand that's just the way things are now."
Don't you think we've progressed to the point where it's just "the way things are" that voters should have to show a photo ID? After withstanding years of over-votes, buses from Chicago, students abusing the system, haven't we learned that though it might be irritating to some- it's just the way things are? This is just to maintain integrity.

Seems pretty simple to me.

A history lesson

Text: "When is the war going to end? Is this a civil war? Do you have a timetable? Are the British winning?"

Liberals, please note this is a fictional cartoon. The soldiers during the Revolutionary War did not ask George Washington about withdrawal, ending the war prematurely, or if he had a timetable for victory. They were not concerned about withdrawal- or surrender. They were concerned about securing Freedom.