Post #198 Conservatives Against Crowley

Sergeant James Crowley wasted government money when he arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. -- there was no crime. Crowley "got" his man -- but at what cost?

Did Gates raise his cane in a threatening manner? No. Did Gates punch Crowley? No! Did Gates throw a book? NO! There is no crime described in Crowley's official version. That is why the charges had to be dropped.

Crowley says explicitly that he arrested Gates for yelling. Guess what? Yelling is not a crime. Yelling does not meet the definition of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts. If Gates had of confessed to a crime or threatened to commit a crime, there would have been cause for an arrest. But nothing that Crowley has attributed to Gates amounts to disorderly conduct.

Ya have a Constitutional right to engage in what Crowley refers to as "continued tumultuous behavior." Ya can call a cop fat, ugly and stupid -- he is paid to have the good judgment and ignore that, not act "stupidly."

And how were the good people of Cambridge protected and served by one of their finest being "downtown" instead of on the mean streets? Conseratives, if ya can get beyond your prefernce for the white man, ya will recognize this case for what it is -- wasteful government spending.

Post #197 Speaking of Dick Cheney...

... and wasteful government spending, Secret Service protection for former Vice President Dick Cheney has been extended.

Normally, former vice presidents only receive Secret Service protection for the first six months after leaving office. This is the first time a former vice president's security detail has been extended beyond the standard duration.

How long? Not being said. It seems that Cheney whined and was officially authorized for extra protection by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on July 17.

So, Cheney sought the aid and comfort of government. As Joe the Plumber would say, "Sounds like socialism to me." No word yet on whether Cheney plans to reimburse the government.

Why the extension? Cheney's paranoia -- the extension was not based on a specific threat against the former vice president. Rather, 1) the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2) the political debate about the Bush administration's strategies, 3) Cheney's active public schedule -- his refusal to stay 'undisclosed' -- and 4) Scooter Libby is out there, and he didn't get a pardon. Who knows what Evil lurks in the heart of a man who writes about bestiality in a novel!?! :p

Post #196 War Is Over, Dick!

Tuesday, June 30, 2009, was the beginning of the end, the deadline for withdrawing American forces from Iraq's cities. It was an occasion for rejoicing, despite some continuing violence. The prime minister there declaring it a national holiday, a day of sovereignty.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney expressed concern Monday that the insurgents were just waiting for U.S. forces to pull out to renew their attacks. "I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point," he said.

Um, you had over five years, a trillion or so dollars, over 4000 American lives, tens of thousands Iraq lives to get it right, Dick! And now we are left to clean up your mess.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So the Iraqi people are rightly treating this day as a cause for celebration. This is an important step forward as a sovereign and united Iraq continues to take control of its own destiny.

And there is more work to be done, but we've made important progress in supporting a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq. And everyone who has served there, both in uniform as well as our civilians, deserves our thanks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

But, take heart, Dick -- FAUX NEWS continues to spew.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "Fox Report," June 30, 2009)

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: But he referred to what we have achieved as a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq. He left out one word, and he left it out because it was a George Bush word -- democracy. That was a Bush idea was to lant a democracy in Iraq.

If we had wanted to have merely a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq, we could have chosen a Saddamist general to succeed Saddam after the war and gotten out.

It's true that the democracy established here is a fragile one. It's still struggling, and we will argue for decades over whether it was worth the 4,000 American lives, as we still argue half a century later with whether or not it was worth 36,000 lives to salvage a democracy in half of the Korean Peninsula.

Nonetheless, it is a democracy, and that's what makes it unique and distinctive, and an amazing achievement in a sea of autocracies and dictatorships, having an effect, by example, on Lebanon, on the gulf states, and even on Iran, where Iranians look to their west and see a country which is also Shiite, Arab, which the Persians consider
culturally inferior, and yet it has a democracy, it has elections, it has an Ayatollah Sistani who says the clerics ought to stay out of politics, nd the Iranians are living under a sixth century dictatorship run by mullahs.

So it's a remarkable achievement, and we ought to emphasize what we have achieved in terms of democracy.

And it's a pity that the president ignores that because the democratic nature of Iraq will establish the basis for a strategic alliance between America and Iraq in the future.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

So, did we take our eye off the ball with a misguided act based on false premises that caused more damage than good? Or will we ultimately have a more democratic Middle East?

It's hard not to believe that we lost sight of the terrorists in Afghanistan because of Dick Cheney's paranoia.

But, until the U.S. completes its withdrawal and the full shape of postwar Iraq becomes clear, ultimate judgment is impossible. But even future successes must take into account American and Iraqi blood and treasure lost from a war of choice.

The problem with democracy is that the outcome of elections is not always desirable. Who do ya think will win the next Iraqi election? An American puppet or an Iraqi for the Iraqis!?! Then, there will be moaning on FAUX NEWS -- and curses for Dick Cheney....

Post #195 Tainted, Pt. II

"Why is the [Republican] party in trouble? Simple. Dubya got a hold of the keys, got high on neocon hooch, and crashed and rolled the family SUV.

"He launched an unnecessary war against a country that had not attacked us. With his utopian No Child Left Behind scheme and his Medicare drug plan, he did his passable imitation of LBJ, and blew a hole in the budget.

"Touting globalism, he presided over the loss of one in every four U.S. manufacturing jobs and ran up $5 trillion in trade deficits. He refused to defend the Mexican border against an invasion, then pushed an amnesty for the invaders.

"This was no Reaganite. This was the neocons' apprentice."

So said Pat Buchanan, May 8, 2009.

Every Republican should repeat that and then explain why ya supported amending the Constitution without an Amendment and why ya supported budget deficit after deficit and why ya supprted globalism. Explain what Reagan believed and why ya believe that.

I think Republicans' newly-found 'principles' have more to do with eing out-of-power than reading and researching about 'conservatism' and what it means.

Post #194, Tainted?

"Do you really believe that we lost 18-to-34-year-olds by 19 percent, or we lost Hispanic voters, because we are not conservative enough? No. This is a ridiculous line of thought. The truth is we lost young people because our Republican brand is tainted."

So said Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

Tainted? With tax cuts and torture? :p

Graham also said: "We are not losing blue states and shrinking as a party because we are not conservative enough. If we pursue a party that has no place for someone who agrees with me 70 percent of the time, that is based on an ideological purity test rather than a coalition test, then we are going to keep losing."

The debate rages: Should the Republican Party purge moderate voices like newly-Democrat Arlen Specter and embrace its conservative roots or seek to broaden its appeal to regain a competitive position against Democrats?

Please, please, I say, embrace 'conservative roots' and explain yourself for the past eight years, Mr. Republican. Michael Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Reagan and a conservative talk show host said, "We've been closeted for the last eight years; it's time for the right to come out of the closet."

Oh, dear. What exactly closet have ya been the victim of? Who put ya there!?! :p

Where were you when George W. Bush asked to take more than a trillion dollars out of the treasury in the form of tax cuts? Whatever happened to 'fiscal responsibility?'

Where were you when Bush wanted to expand the government's reach into your private life by the Patriot Act? Apparently, the belief in limited government only applies when a Democrat is in the White House.

Where were you when Bush wanted to appropriate the Constitutional authority to declare war for himself? Did your support go only as long as it was 'off-budget?'

Where were you when Bush extended prescription drug coverage to seniors, the largest expansion of government into health care since the birth of Medicare?

The question continue.

Where are you on war crimes? Ignore? Investigate? Prosecute?

Any Republican today who wants to lead that mob has a lot to answer for. Now, I think a 'conservative' party can bring a lot to the table, but they need to understand that History has taken another step to the Left -- todays Republicans do not understand that, nor do they understand their own complicity in that.