Liberal Jokes and Conservative Quotes

Sunday, April 02, 2006


We are often told that the slippery-side argument is just the rant of crazy paranoid ideologues that worry too much. Well, at least with McCain-Feingold, they were right. When the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 passed both the house and senate conservatives were told not to worry and that this would prevent harsher future regulation under a democrat administration. Well it has only been four years and still with a Republican controlled congress the talk of more regulation has started up again. This time 527’s and the internet, the two last realms for unregulated political speech left, are under attack. With House bill H.R. 513 and Senate S. 1053, nearly all 527 groups would be forced to become political action committees. To make matters worse, bills that would protect free speech like H.R. 1606: Online Freedom of Speech Act, are not even getting a floor vote. Well it seems like the Republican Party has not only become the party of spending but also the party of regulation

Sunday, November 13, 2005

They Will Pay!!!!

The RINOs think that have won but we will see who has the last laugh in 06. The Congressmen of the RINO group known as the Republican mainstream partnership, which is funded by George Soros no less, stopped both ANWR and the budget cut on Thursday. Let me make my self clear: This is a civil war for control of the Republican Party. This is war of ideologies, there is both good and evil and they are evil. They are the enemy within that will slowly tear apart out party unless utterly destroyed. As Rush says:

“They're not "moderates." Don't hit me with that. There's no such thing as a moderate. A moderate is just a liberal disguise, and they are doing everything they can to derail the conservative agenda.”

No longer can conservatives sit on the sidelines watching as they are slapped in the face by the President, Senate and House, they have spent their time and money to form. We must once again rise up, as we did during the 1980, 1994, and 2004 races.

There are two ways we can do that. First we need to beat both liberal republican and democrat incumbents, with strong conservative nominees. The second is a more painful decision, if unable to upset a RINO in the primaries; we must sit at home and not vote. For years we have heard; “Every republican counts”, “We must build our majority.” Well look at were that has gotten us. We can lose 14 house members and 4 senate members and still remain our majority, if all other incumbents win. People what we can afford to get rid of:


Mike Dewine of Ohio
Olympia Snowe of Maine
Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island


Charles Bass of New Hampshire;
Sherwood Boehlert,
New York;
Jeb Bradley, New Hampshire;
Mike Castle,
Vernon Ehlers, Michigan;
Ferguson, New Jersey;
Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania;
Frelinghuysen, New Jersey;
Jim Gerlach,
Wayne Gilcrest,
Inglis, South Carolina;
Nancy Johnson,
Tim Johnson,
Sue Kelly, New York;

Friday, November 11, 2005

Alito's Judicial Imprudence

Judge Samuel Alito, of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, is by all estimations a brilliant man. He may not be as sharp as Chief Justice John Roberts but is nonetheless highly intelligent. This doesn't translate into ethics though. Perhaps it was an oversight on the part of Judge Alito. It is a serious lapse, though, a lapse of Bernie Kerik proportions. Alito invested heavily in Vanguard mutual funds, something that was brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings back in 1990. He agreed - maybe even signed a document to this effect - to recuse himself from any case in which Vanguard was involved. Some years later, Vanguard was sued and the case went to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Sam Alito heard the case and ruled in favor of Vanguard. Of course, he would have been stupid not to preserve his economic interest in ruling for them, but that he didn't recuse himself is a tad interesting. We shall see where this long and winding road goes. If Bush is handed another major defeat like rejecting the nominee or even another withdrawal he will be completely exposed and have nothing left politically. Already he's in trouble. The Republicans in the House are selling out by the score and senators look to be jumping ship - a ship held together by duct tape and bailing wire.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Democrats' Pre- War Quotes

Keep in mind that Congress can receive the same intelligence that the president. They have just as high security clearance. They also get briefed by the CIA director just like the President.

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998 "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Ted Kennedy > September 27, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Jay Rockefeller > October 10, 2002 "There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002 "[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."

Dick Durbin > September 30, 1999
"One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that
North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."

Bill Nelson > August 25, 2002
"[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam
has chemical and biological weapons,
and I expect that he is trying to develop
a nuclear weapon. So at some point,
we might have to act precipitously."

Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002
"Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

John Kerry > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has 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 of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.

If I were Saddam Hussein- Rush

If I were Saddam Hussein, I would demand that my trial be postponed on this basis:

The honorable Senate Democrats in the United States are doing an honorable investigation to find out exactly what happened to cause me to lose my country, and until these honorable Senate Democrats in the United States get every one of their questions answered about the manipulation and the distortion of the intelligence -- and of course all of the lies about my having weapons of mass destruction; all this before my country was invaded -- I can't get a fair trial, until all these questions are answered by the Senate Democrats. And after these Senate Democrats get the answers that we all know are out there, I, Saddam Hussein, would argue that I never had any weapons of mass destruction, and whatever bad intelligence was generated by a cowboy, fratboy president and his indicted staff, who have poisoned world opinion about me and my government, and as such, I can't get a fair trial anywhere -- and I want my country back. I'm going to make this trial about George W. Bush, and I'm going to be calling as witnesses people like Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy. I'm going to call Chuck Schumer.

I, Saddam Hussein, would say that the Senate Democrats are on the way to proving that President Bush has led a false war, permanently screwed up children all over the world as to how you solve problems. My country is Muslim. We are very different from western countries, and that scares stupid, evangelical cowboys like George Bush. Why, Prince Charles even had to go tell Bush, "You misunderstood Islam," the other day. I'd call Prince Charles as a witness! So what does this cowboy Bush do when his oil baron buddies can't have my oil for themselves? Well, they start a war on false pretenses because everybody knows that this war was about nothing but oil and that's why all the intelligence was trumped up, and that's why all of the lies were told and that's why everybody was told and agreed that I had weapons of mass destruction, is because the world wants my oil led by the cowboy Bush, and I thank God -- I thank Allah daily -- for the Senate Democrats, the Democrats of the United States Senate who are leading this courageous effort to prove what a liar and a disaster on the world stage George W. Bush has been. I can't get a fair trial, and until I get a fair trial -- which is not possible -- I demand my country back. All of this that has happened has been based on lies. The world can't sleep at night. If the world can do this to me, a man with nothing but benevolence and love in his heart for his people, what will they do next? Who will they do it to next? The cowboy Bush -- Cheney, Libby, Rove -- they must be stopped, and it's the Senate Democrats in that great institution, the United States Senate, who are leading the way.

What I'm saying is being said by elected members of the United States Senate. As I listen to the elected senators, Democrats of the United States Senate, as they pursue this honorable investigation of George W. Bush, I say to myself, "This is what I said to the UN. This is what I said to the weapons inspectors." This is what I said to the world when I was confronted with what everybody now knows (thanks to the Senate Democrats) are bogus, fake and trumped-up charges.

Bush is a liar! He lied about the reasons for and the need to invade my country, and I want it back. He hires liars. It is George Bush who should be impeached and convicted in his own country and then tried at The Hague in my place. Not me. I had nothing to do with 9/11. Yet I'm the one paying the price. You may not like me; I am Saddam Hussein. You may not agree with the ways of Muslim leaders in the Middle East, but does that give you the right to invade my country? No! The United States Senate Democrats obviously agree with me. They are honorable people. The world should align behind the Democrats of the United States Senate who are trying to wrong one of the most terrible injustices in the history of the world. It is George W. Bush who must be brought to justice by the brave and honorable members of the Democratic Party in the United States Senate. Because leaders of the world and people of the world, I, Saddam Hussein, say to you that it is the senators, the Democrat senators in the United States Senate are all that stand between peace and bloodthirsty imperialism by the United States. May Allah bless the good and decent truth-tellers in the Senate who will not let George Bush continue his lies to his country and to the world! George Bush hides behind his faith, but he's a liar just like these Senate Democrats are saying.

I, Saddam Hussein, from the bottom of my sizable heart, thank the Democrat senators in the United States and all of the websites that support them, and all of the Hollywood Democrats who are asking the Senate Democrats to continue this investigation. I thank all of the American media, because I think the American media is one of the last bastions of honesty and trustworthiness second only to the Democrats of the United States Senate. So I want to thank the mainstream media of the United States. I want to further point out that if my trial is not postponed -- if I can't get a postponement and if I can't get a dismissal of the charges, and if I don't get my country back -- if there is a trial, I demand that I be brought to the US for trial, in a United States civilian court. I can't get a fair trial in Iraq because it's Bush cronies. I can only get a fair trial in the United States where liberal Democrats run the court system. They're the ones doing the great work, the work of Allah, in order to maintain the lies of Bush and the distortions of the war. I want my country back. The United States does not recognize, the US court system doesn't recognize the Geneva Conventions; they don't recognize the due-process rights of illegal combatants like me or those held at Guantanamo Bay. John McCain and the Democrats wanted them tried under our justice system, and if illegal combatants are to be afforded with such treatment -- if you're going to give real terrorists the opportunity to be tried in your court system -- I, Saddam Hussein, demand to be tried in your court system because I am covered under the Geneva Conventions, and I should receive better treatment. And, by the way, I wish to point out -- and I know many people in the American ACLU will agree with me on this -- I, Saddam Hussein, was not Mirandized by the soldiers who captured me. I was denied a speedy trial as compelled by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. The charges ought to be dismissed. They did nothing but point weapons to me in that foxhole. They didn't tell me my rights! They didn't tell me I had to shut up; they didn't tell me anything I said could be used against me. I was lied to not only by Bush but the by the whole US military, by Rumsfeld. I was lied to by Condoleezza Rice. I can't even count on Colin Powell anymore because he was part of the original cowboy cabal that kicked me out of my country.

If I get my trial in the United States of America as I so rightly deserve, I, Saddam Hussein, would like to call Dick Durbin as a witness because he would be able to testify that US troops are like Nazi storm troopers. He would be able to testify that US troops are no different than the murdering thugs of Pol Pot and the gulags of Stalin. I would next call Senator Kennedy who would be able to testify that US troops are no better than Hussein's thugs -- my thugs. I would call Michael Isikoff of Newsweek magazine. He would be able to testify how US troops mistreat prisoners by flushing their Korans down the toilet at G'itmo. I would do my best to get rid of Rush Limbaugh for turning Club G'itmo into Club G'itmo. It's not a joke what's happening there, and it's not a joke what's happening to me. I would also call Ambassador Joe Wilson, of course. He would be my star witness, because Joe Wilson would testify that I was not a bad guy; I was not somebody that posed a danger. I never once sought uranium from anywhere, because I didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, and Joe Wilson knows it and his wife, Valerie Plame, knows it. And so, my friends, I, Saddam Hussein, throw in with the Democrats in the United States Senate. They are my allies, and until they finish their great and glorious work for Allah in uncovering the truth about the lies and the distortions of the cowboy Bush, I demand these trials of me be postponed and the charges dismissed -- and I get my country back.- Rush Limbaugh

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

Happy But Not Ecstatic

This is the feeling of most conservatives over the nomination of Alito. Not to sound that the conservative movement in never happy even when we get what we want, but it could have been better. I even said in a post weeks ago that I would support Alito if he was nominated, and I do, but recent stories have lessened my overall support.

The lack of conservative confidence can be seen in the new poll:

Are you happy with President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court?

Yes | (67 %)
No | (33 %)
Total Votes: 4085

Although this is not scientific poll most polls are a good source of the conservative pulse.

One of these stories is that Alito ruled against late-term abortions ban in New Jersey, although he did say he voted that way because of a high court decision. Also many conservative pundits, most notably Charles Krauthammer, said that they Alito will uphold Roe because of precedent.

Let me make myself clear: I do not want a judicial ideologue. (When I say judicial ideologue I mean judges who look at cases from the top down and base their decision on their ideological opinions) I do not think that ideologues belong on the bench but rather in elected positions. Scalia and Thomas are not ideologues, no matter what Chuck Schumer tells you, they look at a case from the bottom to the top and judges it merits. They then apply their judicial philosophy, originalism and come up with a well thought out and comprehensive decision.

So the question that conservatives need to ask is what judicial philosophy is Alito going to apply to cases.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Catholic Majority

If Alito is confirmed there will by a 5-4 Catholic majority on the Court. There are also more Catholics in the House and Senate then any other religion. Though whether or not they are real “Catholics” or not is another story altogether. This still shows how far Catholics have come since the days of Nixon. Though Dick Durban, a catholic himself, did question whether John Roberts’s catholic religion would interfere with his independence on the court, most Catholics are not interrogated about their religion as they once were.

Has Reid Gone Mad!

Well once again the minority party, and the fringe left have taken over the senate. Senator Reid called for a closed door session of congress without notifying Sen. Frist. This is an unprecedented move that is a danger to the American system and will bring a war between the parties that I don’t think Reid is ready for or could win. If he is wants to play this pathetic high school game then two can play at that game. Republicans should stop every liberal bill in the committees; they should rush Alito through the hearings, and then use Constitutional Option when they filibuster. Also the house should investigate the merits of the indictment of Tom Delay. Bush should also threaten to pardon Libby. If they want a war we will give them a war.

It is a little coincidental that this comes after one day of the far left anti-war movement saying if Hillary Clinton does not come out against the war that Cindy Sheehan will challenge her in the primaries. Many big donators have threatened to pull a lot of money because of the lack of “outrage” by the democrat establishment.

Roll Call

This is our projected roll call of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court:

59 to 39- for

Sen. Akaka (D-HI) - against

Sen. Alexander - for

Sen. Allard - for

Sen. Allen - for

Sen. Baucus- against

Sen. Bayh - for

Sen. Bennett- for

Sen. Biden - against

Sen. Bingaman - against

Sen. Bond - for

Sen. Boxer - against

Sen. Brownback - for

Sen. Bunning - for

Sen. Burns - for

Sen. Byrd - against

Sen. Cantwell - against

Sen. Carper -for

Sen. Chafee - for

Sen. Chambliss - for

Sen. Clinton - against

Sen. Coburn - for

Sen. Cochran - for

Sen. Coleman - for

Sen. Collins - against

Sen. Conra - for

Sen. Conrad - against**

Sen. Cornyn - for

Sen. Corzine - against

Sen. Craig - for

Sen. Crapo - for

Sen. Dayton - against

Sen. Demint- for

Sen. Dewine- for

Sen. Dodd- against

Sen. Dole- for

Sen. Domenici - for

Sen. Dorgan - against

Sen. Durbin - against

Sen. Ensign - for

Sen. Enzi - for

Sen. Feingold - against

Sen. Feinstein - against

Sen. Frist - for

Sen. Graham - for

Sen. Grassley - against

Sen. Gregg – for

Sen. Hagel - for

Sen. Hharkin - against

Sen. Hatch - for

Sen. Hutchison - for

Sen. Inhofe - for

Sen. Inouye - against

Sen. Isakson – for

Sen. Jeffords - for

Sen. Johnson - for

Sen. Kennedy - against

Sen. Kerry - against

Sen. Kohl - against

Sen. Kyl - for

Sen. Landrieu - against

Sen. Lautenbeg - against

Sen. Leahy - for

Sen. Levin - against

Sen. Lieberman - against

Sen. Lincoln - against

Sen. Lott - for

Sen. Lugar - for

Sen. Martinez - for

Sen. McCain - for

Sen. McConnell - for

Sen. Mikulski - against

Sen. Murkowski - for

Sen. Murray - against

Sen. Nelson of fl - against

Sen. Nelson of ne - against

Sen. Obama - against

Sen. Pryor - for

Sen. Reed of RI - against

Sen. Reid of NV - against

Sen. Roberts - for

Sen. Rockefeller - against

Sen. Salazar - for

Sen. Santorum - for

Sen. Sarbanes - against

Sen. Schumer - against

Sen. Sessions - for

Sen. Shelby - for

Sen. Smith - or

Sen. Snowe - against

Sen. Specter - for

Sen. Stabenow - against

Sen. Stevens - for

Sen. Sununu - for

Sen. Talent - for

Sen. Thomas - for

Sen. Thune - for

Sen. Vitter - for

Sen. Voinovich - for

Sen. Warner- for

Sen., Wyden- against

Bold= Thomas disagrees with Bryan

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Second Term Presidencies

This morning on Meet the Press three former presidential Chiefs of Staff, historian Michael Beschloss, N.Y. Times columnists David Brooks and Bill Safire, Washington Post columnist and dean of political reporters David Broder, and Judy Woodruff gathered in two separate roundtables to discuss the President's second term and the problems it is encountering.

In a special reminiscence, the late President Richard Nixon made an appearance via archival footage from 1988. The late Mr. Nixon made some very good points, namely that second terms aren't friendly. Nixon's statement was made at the time of the Iran Contra scandal, a time where Reagan could have been impeached and it was clear that the lunatics had taken over the asylum. Bill Clinton's initial indiscretion was less political than other things, but his second term still evolved into a political fight enveloping both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue ultimately culminating in the first impeachment and trial of a President since Andrew Johnson in the years immediately after the Civil War. Nixon's own second term is self-explanatory - he resigned in disgrace. Eisenhower's second term was no treat either according to his Vice President. Truman narrowly defeated Thomas Dewey and had no "mandate" to operate. His second term was the start of the Cold War and American involvement in Korea. As far back as Woodrow Wilson second terms have been unkind. The Versailles Treaty debacle and Wilson's incapacitation led his wife, Edith Galt Wilson, to run the White House. The 20th century has not been one of second term success for Presidents.

Leon Panetta (Clinton CoS), appearing on Meet the Press with Hamilton Jordan (Carter CoS) and Ken Duberstein (Reagan CoS), had this to say: "Second-term presidencies are affected by two very important dangers. One is arrogance, where you think you can get away with whatever you want. The second danger is isolation from the American people. You live in a bubble, and everybody in the White House lives in a bubble." I think Mr. Panetta has it right. Reelection to the highest office in the land is certainly an ego boost, one that can last a long while. President Bush believed he had his mandate to do what he wanted. But Iraq, the reaction to Katrina, the events surrounding the Plame affair, and the Miers nomination have brought him down. Energy prices are coming down a little - but heating oil this winter won't be cheap. Ken Duberstein said this:

"But I think he has about three months, between now and the State of the Union address, to start going on the offense, to start laying out some issues that mean something to the American people, to overcome the reaction on Katrina, to overcome the energy prices, the gas prices. I think you're going to start seeing it this week, with a Supreme Court nominee, that can get 65 or 70 votes, not somebody who pleads to the far right, but somebody more than a consensus candidate, somebody who, in fact, will be well-received by the American people and the Senate.

"I think you're going to see Bush go abroad and be the foreign policy big-stroke leader, that, in fact, the-- that America looks for. I think you're going to see him on other issues, whether it's immigration or tax reform, and tax simplification and federal spending, start talking about the big items, the big agenda, as he rolls toward his State of the Union address next January.

"I think this is not a Hail Mary pass. I think this is three yards and a cloud of dust. It's the old Vince Lombardi strategy. As Ronald Reagan did back in the aftermath of Iran Contra. You have to work on it day in and day out, to re-establish that presidential leadership that the whole country looks for."

And I leave you with this final exchange between Nixon, Russert, and David Broder:

MR. RUSSERT: Talking about second term--we had a guest on MEET THE PRESS back in April of 1988 who knows a lot about second terms. His name was Richard Nixon. Let's watch.

(Videotape, April 10, 1988):

FMR. PRES. RICHARD M. NIXON: What I am saying is that second terms are not kind to presidents, particularly in this century. We know, for example, a second term was not kind to even Eisenhower, who was enormously popular. A second term was not kind to Harry Truman. We know it wasn't very kind to me. Under the cir--it wasn't kind to Woodrow Wilson, for example, who had very, very serious problems.

The second term is always very difficult.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: That's the master of understatement there. But, David Broder, is it just this systemic problem with second terms? Or is this one particular and unique to George W. Bush?

MR. BRODER: No, I think there is a generic quality to this and, again, it's what Panetta talked about: hubris coming from the re-election victory and a certain degree of fatigue. I have to say that I thought the president had taken sensible steps to try to ward off second-term problems. He was well aware of this history. And he had, particularly in the terms of agenda, laid out a very ambitious second-term agenda that he thought would give a real focus and purpose to it. Turned out that he misjudged what the country was looking for in a second term. And the question that I think now confronts the president is: "Can I really rely as much as I have on my own sort of gut instincts to guide my policies? Can I trust the people whose advice has helped shape those policies? Or do I really have to reconsider the whole way in which I have governed?" If he's capable of raising that question for himself, he certainly has time to recover, Bill. But I don't know whether he has that capacity.

The President has a tough road ahead. Let's see what he can do.