Leave Bill Clinton Out of This!

In a show of my own anti-liberal non-partisanship, I write this entry into the White Horse.....

Republicans pointing to the powers exercised by other Presidents (such as Clinton) may feel obligated to justify Bush--

I say "leave Clinton out of this!"

That's because I believe Bill Clinton may have needed certain executive powers to PROTECT the sovereignty of the USA. I have respected ALL presidents who have been elected during my lifetime. The ones I can remember are Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bush#1, Bill Clinton, and Bush#2. I have revered them all, and respected them all, regardless of party.

So my opinion--in fairness--I say leave Bill Clinton out of this "spying" argument. His reputation is tarnished enough already. Leave Abraham Lincoln out of this too.

Wait a sec.....

Maybe we should re-write LINCOLNS history through the prism of media liberalism????

Would his fight to stop Slavery be mischaracterized as a political conspiracy to gain power? Simply because he was republican--surely he MUST be weak on civil rights? So what's with this "abolish slavery" thing?

Boy oh boy do I digress!

King Bush

As much as the title of this post is sure to stir my liberal readers anger, I certainly am serious about considering the terminology. As much as the liberal democrats despise hearing this, in times of war our U.S. presidents (whoever they happened to be) have always functioned very much like a King. Certain powers and authorities have always been bestowed upon the President to make it easier to conduct war, and many "legalities" are discarded for the sake of the common good. It's only common sense--not rocket science.

Now, don't start attacking my reasoning by jumping on the very first vulnerability you thought of. Don't try to get technical with me! If you are thinking "this isn't TECHNICALLY a war" then I submit to YOU the following:

Perhaps you hate the republican majority more than you hate the overseas terror problem. Perhaps you think the true enemy lies within and is not radical terrorist islamics. REGARDLESS, the brutal attacks of 9/11 common sensically constitute acts of war.

"But Jeff--TECHNICALLY our congress never declared war" you might continue to assert.

You know what--I challenge you to go read the Constitution......
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2
and search the procedures of declaring war. Search for the protocol and verbage requirements for declaring war. You'll read a long time and find no such requirement for specific verbage.

Now I submit that congress did INDEED declare war, immediately after 9/11, and granted King like authority to the President to combat the problem.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23:

Go read this piece for another summarization of what I am telling you.....

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9169

Let's use some God-damned common sense here people--President George Bush doesn't have some huge master conspiracy by which he plans to strip your liberties and privacy away. George W. Bush has no plan to "spy" on American citizens--UNLESS they are the enemy. Democrats know this full well, and it should SICKEN you that they have used the precariousness of OUR situation to hammer the President with constitutional and legal "technicalities." I understand liberal dems do not trust Bush, but enough is enough.

Now--I also submit to you that other Presidents have done questionable things during times of danger. (By the way--since we are getting "technical" the constitution equates WAR and TIMES OF DANGER)

If you dems say "we are NOT SAFER" since 9/11, you logically assume we are IN DANGER (Michael Moore doesn't think so....but anyway)
Furthermore, if we are NOT SAFER since 9/11, and it's fair to say we were IN DANGER on 9/10/01, logic tells me--you must think we are in TIMES OF DANGER.

We all know this to be true--no one more so than our troops in Iraq--we are in TIMES OF DANGER.

Let the President do his job and just imagine that it's Bill Clinton.

Retraction about liberal denial

Here's the headline CNN is using to report the Iraqi vote! (Click the title above)
This is simply mind-boggling to me! They lead off with THIS! Now you see why I have a blog--I am driven absolutely out of my mind by their slanted and heavily-HEAVILY biased reporting. Here's what is so unbelievable--this story about the capture of Al Zarqawi--it happened a YEAR ago, and not TODAY when a landmark election is taking place.

I want you all to think about the corruption in this reporting--think long and HARD,

They must have said to themselves.....

"How can we run this story and make it look BAD for the Bush administration?"

They are defeatists--they are socialists--they are elitists who think they are smarter than all of us--they are foolish--and most of all, they are COWARDS. The left wing media. Allow me to name names--

Bill Maher
Chris Matthews
Dan Rather
Katie Kurick (or whatever the hell her name his--she's still a dish)
Tom Brokaw
Most everyone at CNN
Most everyone at MSNBC
Most every writer for the St. Louis Post Dispatch
Most every degreed professor in universities across the land
Liberal college students who throw pies at and threaten Ann Coulter--demanding freedoms of speech and abortion yet not granting freedom of speech to those who oppose them.
People who demand we say "happy holidays" and not "Merry CHRISTMAS"
People who want to take Christ out of everything public.
The list goes on and on.

If you expected a "retraction" well--I lied!

Liberals in DENIAL

In an unbelievable display of poor reporting--the CNN webpage (which is suppossed to contain "news") makes absolutely NO mention of the Iraqi vote ANYWHERE in plain site.

It's typical of the leftist media, because this vote is good news for both the Iraqis, and America. This vote is proof that the Bush plan is working. This vote is proof that the democrats are wrong about most everything that spews from their corrupted mouths.

CERTAINLY--this vote is "Big" news.....

So why is it clearly HIDDEN by the leftist media? I can't find out ANY good news about the vote from CNN.com!

http://www.cnn.com/

Folks--go check any other major "leftist" news website and you'll probably see the same lack of reporting.

The democratic leadership is deafly quiet too....although I heard John Freakin Kerry calling for a Bush impeachment and then claiming he was "joking"

Saddam-Al Queda link

The link between Saddam and Al Queda /War on Terror

I really can’t believe I’m forced to do this, basically rebutting democratic claims that “Bush cooked intelligence,” and “misled us about the link between Saddam and Al Queda,” then “rushed to war,” in the “wrong place at the wrong time.”

Give me a break---

Although the democrats have sort of withdrawn from their full frontal assault, I am no less enraged and therefore feel compelled to throw ALL THIS back in their faces. I seek to keep this debate alive for the sake of flogging the leftist media.

First of all, my memory just isn’t that short.

Second of all, being an independent, my eyes are not blinded and my judgement is not confounded by a sheer hatred of President Bush.

So my choice in this post was easy, I’ll just use the democrats own words (which they are hoping we are too stupid to remember), show my sources, and make a few comments…..enjoy!


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921-3401r.htm

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to SaddamBy Rowan ScarboroughTHE WASHINGTON TIMES


…..In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan…….

TWH: Did you hear that? Two “official” pronouncements of an “alarming” alliance. Remember—the towers fell LATER….

……The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists. The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."


Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan



TWH: So Clinton was willing to bomb stuff over there based on this intelligence, the very SAME intelligence that democrats now claim President Bush “cooked” Hey—what’s this “Sudan” thing—Clinton was bombing stuff in Afghanistan-Iraq-AND Sudan (Don’t get me wrong though, I fully support the actions he ordered, although hindsight now tells us we should have been MORE involved earlier on)

By the way, If I had MY way, we might be blowing up Al Jazeera facilities right now! I would threaten Al Jazeera and say “if a terror group gives you a BEHEADING tape, either tell us where to find that group or we’ll destroy your broadcast facilities. Period” I mean-Al Jazeera MUST have a line of communication to the terrorist thug “beheaders” right? The films aren’t just beamed into their possession, they get delivered somehow—trace that evidence back—GIVE us the evidence, or get blown up!


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/politics/09intel.html


Yet the new york times keeps trying (see link above) to rewrite history and make false assertions that none of what I just discussed ever happened.

My memory is NOT that short—or inaccurate!

That’s all the time I have today.

Busch Stadium old (foreground) and new (background)

Open Propogandist

In the spirit of good faith, I openly admit this entry is propogandist! I believe every single word, but must openly admit I am motivated by a desire to STOP the democrats.....

Because I think they are flat wrong, they seem to have questionable motives, they seem to have questionable intelligence, and frankly-they are out of line! It is common sense people.

You must IMMEDIATELY go to www.gop.com and watch the video.

I feel compelled to support the RNC right now, they are the ones who can keep on defeating the ignorant "left" in this country.

What an irony it is too--the liberal college professors with their almighty degrees--and I'm sitting here condemning their logic with utmost confidence! The supposed "smartest people in the land" are teaching this absolute liberal BILGE to our children, and worse yet, believing it!

Majority--a word that angers the liberals--they can't believe it---but people like myself are still in the MAJORITY.

Ha!

A Piece of Me

I believe:

An "entitlement" mentality exists pervasively throughout the United States of America. I liken this mentality to socialism, and personally explaining my feelings would equate to the definition of socialism in my mind. That is because it seems to me like socialism is the primary result of the democratic party agenda.

One question I yearn to answer is:

Is this result (socialism) an intended or unintended consequence of the liberal agenda? Do these democrats actually WANT socialism, or is socialism a byproduct of their hapless and wreckless meanderings??

What gives us the right to earn whatever we demand for any task, no matter how remedial? Shouldn't job "outsourcing" be viewed as a clue that we might be overinflating the value of our own skills here on this earth? Just because we are American makes us worth more? I think not because in my eyes, we are all truly created equal. The unkown child who starves to death in some obscure third world country has no less rank than any President, King, or ruler. We should approach life as equals, and nobody on this planet is worthy to rise above anyone else in the human struggle. Success on earth is measured solely by the number of hours you happen to stay alive.

All this is a very simple concept to make your own, and it truly works in life. Your own personal success will never be hampered by honesty. Place yourself as EQUAL to anyone you encounter, not HIGHER, not LOWER, and you will be safe.

Trust in final Justice-it is a trust in God.

...and that's a "piece of me"

Air Marshalls kill an American citizen

He was arguing with his wife, claimed to have a bomb in his carry-on, and was acting erratically. He was shot and killed by Air Marshals.

Link above and below

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/07/airplane.gunshot/index.html

Attack on Democrats!

Today, John F. Kerry accused our troops in Iraq of being terrorists. Think about this......

What JFK is saying is an act of treason by virtue of character portrayal. JFK should be ashamed, and so should anyone in this country who has ever cast their vote for this gutter dwelling fool.

In my favorite fashion--here's a pseudo-clip time lapse of John Freakin Kerry:


John Kerry, February 23rd, 1998. "Saddam's already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential terrorist activities on a global basis, it is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." John Kerry, February 23rd, 1998.

Keep in mind--George W. Bush is nowhere near Washington D.C.,It's 1998! Bush Jr. was as Rush Limbaugh puts it--still in Texas drinking long necks....

Here's John Kerry, October 9th, 2002. "I'll be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our country."

Meaning--Saddam is a dangerous guy in 2002

Three months later, January 23rd, 2003, John Kerry, "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. Now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction must not be allowed to continue."

Must NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE--OH YEAH KERRY--OH YEAH!

January 31, 2003, just eight days later. "If you don't believe Saddam is a threat with nuclear weapons then you shouldn't vote for me."

MOST of us didn't! That just burns you democrats doesn't it? You refuse to accept it again don't you? Bush STOLE the election again right? In Ohio this time right? Who would of thought Ohio? How brilliant is Karl Rove? He's a leaker though--we've proved that by the non-indictment for the subsequent charges isn't it obvious?
YOU liberals are dumb as a box of rocks!
Kerry then shifts....

Here's John Kerry yesterday (December 4th, 2005) on Face the Nation. When asked about all of this, Bob Schieffer says, "At one point you did vote for the resolution authorizing the president to take military action. If you knew then what you know today, would you have cast that vote?"

KERRY: No
KERRY: Assuredly not

SCHEIFFER: Why did you do that and what has changed since you did that?

KERRY: Well, so much has changing since I did it -- you know, I did it for the simplest of reasons. I believed the evidence that we were given, number one. I believed the word of the president of the United States when he said he would do what he promised us with respect to how he'd take us to war if he did. The exhaustion of the remedies of the United Nations, the inspections, the planning, of caution, all of those things, he did nothing.

People-we just caught JFK in a flat out lie here! JFK is not being honest—go read this again and then consider the timeline! In 1998 Clinton was President!

The lie is so obvious folks--this ain't ABOUT BUSH!

Democrats---THIS IS YOUR LEADER!

White Horse rules

Original content is posted by myself--and comments are fully moderated by myself. There aren't any rules except this--do not use profanity.

The definition of profanity on MY blog is entirely up to me. When you post a comment either good or bad I will eventually release it to the blog--after screening it for profanity.

Some profanity might be allowed at my discretion--depending on content of the message body.

Is that a cross??

So we do not forget.....

Motivation

People often tell me "Jeff-it just isn't worth talking about politics" and I get the impression that many people believe politics do not matter. I disagree with these assertions, and am forever motivated to express my interpretations of politics and do so LOUDLY.

As kind hearted and likeable as I am in life, when it comes to talking politics I have seen people get so offended with me you might conclude I had recently raped their daughter or something. I've seen one very good (and unsuspecting) friend stumble right into a nightmarish argument with me about the movie Fahrenheit 9-11. This friend was feeling confident that I was a liberal, of that I am certain. That's because if you measure my beliefs I tend to fall slightly left of center on many issues. Why then am I so anti-democrat? Well--it is a matter of simple common sense.

Common sense tells me that Nancy Pelosi represents a 'faction' of people who are not in touch with reality. She and her noble constituency all possess the most selfish of motivations. My common sense tells me that these people have long ago forgotten the words of John F. Kennedy "Ask not what your country can do for you, .....ask what you can do for your country." It's obvious, the primary motivation is themselves.

What if we as a country make others the primary motivation for every vote? In World War II, we could have easily just focused on Japan and stayed out of the war in Europe. Roosevelt wasn't exactly famous for convincing the entire nation that the USA should take on Hitler. There was great division in this country as Roosevelt dragged us into a war that would affect us so profoundly--hundreds of millions of Americans were directly affected in some way and still continue to be. The current war will probably be no different in the end--and things are just getting started I am afraid.

But having said this--we as a people can not fall prey to 'short-sightedness' because the stakes are too high for our children.

So when I see the words and actions of democrat politicians contradicting my own good common sense, I am motivated to enact change. War and rumors of war, yet most of us enjoy complete solitude.

Not our brothers and sisters in Iraq though--they are on the front lines. Like it or not! So God bless them, and their mission.

Good News

What's with the endless drumbeat of bad news emanating from the left swung mainstream media? After 10 minutes watching MSNBC or CNN, one is often left with the feeling that the United States of America is the next great tyrannical menace. Some of my democratic friends have admitted they think we are heading that direction, and they sadly liken George W. Bush to Hitler.

But the democratic leadership constantly indicate with their misbased rhetoric that we as a nation are 'already there'

They keywords and key phrases in the democratic rhetoric include: Bush Lied, Bush misled, jobless recovery, torture, rush to war, no link between 9-11 and the global war on terror, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc.

Well let me describe the U.S.A. as it appears in my minds eye, and thus share the 'good news' with you all....

The USA is the great father nation of freedom. We now live in and enjoy a type of 'hyper-democracy' because there is so much freedom of information that everyone has access to almost every tid bit of political and economic information available. The USA is boldly sacrificing her men and women and treasure in order to deal with the global problems of religious radicalism and terrorism. We are hated by some people because we are successful and freedom works. We are a generous nation, despite leftist accusations to the contrary. When our ENEMIES experience a catastrophe we are often the FIRST nation to help them. The USA doesn't deserve to be terrorized by other countries, contrary to what Michael Moore thinks. The USA has a strong economy and will have for decades to come, despite democratic accusations of a mismanaged economy. And in our efforts as a nation, we WILL WIN on all fronts. This is the attitude of President George W. Bush, who is a beacon of optimism, despite being labeled as a "wishful thinker." Our country has freedom of religion, and you will not be persecuted for your beliefs so long as those beliefs don't violate the constitutional rights of others. We are a nation founded by Christians, and we have a Christian President. That doesn't mean we as a nation think the entire world must also be Christian, it just means that primarily WE are Christian.

There is so much good news in this great country, and I can't imagine what it is like to awaken each day hating my country and those who lead it.

Republicans were elected the majority, they didn't steal anything, because the majority of voters agree with Republicans! The mainstream media has lost it's monopoly on influencing public opinion, but not it's influence. I believe that if not for misleading stories and misportrayed character assassinations by the likes of Dan Rather, CBS news, major newspapers, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, CNN, etc., the last two elections would have been absolute landslides. Media deception is the major force keeping the perverted democrats alive...

Democrats whose agendas include: Removing Christianity from our culture, promoting absolutely unrestricted abortions for women and girls of absolutely any age, raising taxes to increase the operating size of the government, passing liberal legistlation that borders on socialism by allowing private entities to take your land if said private entity will generate enough tax dollars, stripping the US public of our firearms, etc, etc.

The good news is--they are LOSING!

John F. Kerry in review (Clicking here will take you to his twilight zone)

Searching for statements from John F. Kerry regarding the decision to invade Iraq I went to the Senators website. (Linked for you!) and reviewed a speech. How on EARTH is this man a U.S. Senator?? What? He also ran for President? God help us....

In a speech from February of 2005:

First JFK (Vietnam vet) talks about supporting the troops....and can't get one sentence out of his mouth without accusing Bush of "harming families"

We support the troops by giving the troops what they need to succeed - and sometimes that means actually challenging the policies that have put them and kept them in harm's way, and harmed the families who pray each day for their safe return.

So tell us John, what does 'supporting the troops' mean to a democrat?

When the Administration in charge canÂ’t bring itself to admit mistakes, "supporting the troops" means that the rest of us, especially in Congress, have a special responsibility to demand that failed policies be acknowledged and changed

Ok, Ok, John, we get the point--you think Bush failed, but how do you support the troops?

And in the long run, "supporting the troops" means supporting changes in our defense policies--in our systems, our budgets, and our military planning--that ensure that the brave American warriors of the future are fully prepared to fight and win tomorrow's battles in defense of America's safety, values and vital interests. Supporting the troops means strengthening AmericaÂ’s military, not just talking about it.

OH! So JFKVietnamam vet) says that we need to strengthen our military in order to support them. Well, what does JFK mean by 'strengthening'?

ThereÂ’s no technological substitute for boots on the ground, and we must always plan for the worst, so we never expose our troops to the unintended consequences of wishful thinking.

So by strengthening JFK means more infantry, grunts, GI's, "boots on the ground", increased numbers....and JFK goes on and on about expanding the army and stuff, with a nice little disclaimer in the speech that NONE of this actually applies to Iraq itself--but we need to strengthen the army--

I'm dizzy from studying this pathetic circular logic speech.

Finally JFK winds up disappointed that we have more than 50,000 troops in Iraq. He says he was promised a lower number---


The administration told us our troops would be greeted as liberators. They said the reconstruction would be painless and self-financing. They believed that U.S. forces in Iraq would be quickly reduced to 50,000 troops. They told us to expect further reductions by the end of 2003. They were wrong. And American forces have paid the price ever since.

That's all I can take of this--but there's much more, go read it yourself at:

http://kerry.senate.gov/text/home.html#

Economic news

In case the anti-Bush leftists haven't noticed, the U.S. economy has been completely healthy for dozens of consecutive months now. Despite hurricanes destroying real estate and lives, pressuring the U.S. supplies of gasoline, and despite constant hate magnified criticism of the President and his administration--the U.S. economy just keeps growing.

But every economic indicator whether positive or negative in its impact to your average "joe" American, is spun by the left empowered mainstream media as "bad for your health" and therefore another "failure" of the Bush administration. If the economy creates jobs they aren't good jobs, if the economy builds more houses there is a housing bubble being created. If the economy stops building houses there is a bursting housing bubble. If interest rates go up there must be inflation. If interest rates go down, we might cause inflation. If Bush lowers taxes, he must favor the rich. If Bush raises taxes he must favor the rich.

There is so much evidence of circular reasoning, a hundred conundrums exist within a liberals mind, but all serve a common purpose:

Present all information in a way that is unfavorable to George W. Bush

The blindfolds of hatred are drawn tightly around the faces of todays democrat voters, preventing them from ever seeing the truth. If they aren't careful, they might live out their lives without truly experiencing the truth.

The truth is that they too live in a winning society. More importantly, we live in a noble society, don't let Michael Moore fool you! We are the good guys--let us not be led astray.









http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/02/D8E8748O0.html

Birth of a blog

The White Horse was loosed on December 2nd, 2005.