Shameful. Just Shameful

on Saturday, September 22, 2007

Just a few days ago a resolution hit the Senate floor expressing support for both the troops and for General David Petraeus - the man whom the Senate unanimously voted into his position as Commanding General of the Multi-National Force in Iraq by a vote of 81-0. Here's an excerpt from the resolution's text. Read it carefully:

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;
(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and
(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group

Sounds worthy. But check out who voted against the resolution that supports both the troops and Gen. Petraeus:

There you have it kids, official proof that Hillary Clinton does not support the troops. Hillary, (who, by the way, still reportedly hasn't returned the dirty Hsu money as promised) appears to have sold her soul to in a cowardly attempt to retain her funding from the Devil himself, George Soros. Sad to see that Hillary (who wants to be your commander-in-chief) would rather side with the extreme left in order to score political points rather than support the troops that she herself wants to command. What a disgrace.

**Take note that several of Hillary's pathetic cronies in the Senate voted against supporting the troops as well (Harry Reid, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, Robert Byrd, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, etc). Also notice that, once again, Obama is too cowardly to pick a side and decides to not vote. Why am I not surpirsed at his cowardice anymore?**

Hat Tip: HotAir (To whom I always turn when I need a pic of a Senate or House roll)

Bin Laden is Alive. Really. (PS - Not Really)

on Sunday, September 16, 2007

Look how easy it is to fudge a Bin Laden video.
(Make sure you watch the whole thing)

Hat Tip (Allahpundit)

Hillary's Campaign of Corruption

on Saturday, September 15, 2007

Check out Hillary's latest cabinet of kooks:

1) Norman Hsu -
As if the Clintons didn't have enough scandals under their belt, here comes yet another embarrassment. But just who is Norman Hsu? It comes as no surprise that the Clintons have, once again, turned to the Chinese to funnel money into their campaign for world domination presidency. But this time they may have pushed the envelope a little too far - even for a Clinton. Hsu is, more or less, a businessman whose life has been riddled with fraud and scandal. He reportedly led several illegal Ponzi schemes (similar to a pyramid scheme, except you pay off older investors with entry funds from newer investors) and even bankrupted a handful of companies at which point he admittedly became involved with the Triad gangs. In 1992 he plead guilty to a grand theft charge, but on the day he was supposed to appear in court for sentencing, he fled the country and hid in Hong Kong for several years. After returning to the United States 2 bankruptcies later, Hsu invested in several more companies and ultimately became a large supporter of the Democratic Party. In the last 3 years he has raised over $1 million for the Dems and became a well-known 'bundler' to the tune of $850,000 for Hillary. This $850,000, which Hillary has used to support her run for presidency, came from Hsu's illegal business tactics for which he was supposed to be jailed.

But now I ask, why is it that a man who has been a fugitive on the run for 15 years has been able to donate to Hillary without her knowing that he was a fugitive? Answer: She knew he was a fugitive all along. But that has never stopped a Clinton from taking dirty money before, has it now...

Just a few short days ago, Hsu (again) skipped out on his court appearance, posted bail, and went on the lam once more, but was caught before he could get too far. During this time, Hillary has been backed into a corner. Her campaign has defended this mishap by claiming that they run background checks on all supporters like Hsu, but said that they ran a "flawed background check" on Mr. Hsu in that they left out his two middle names when doing his search so nothing bad ever turned up on him.

Liar liar, pants on fire...

Ok, first of all, you don't run a background check by name only. A background check requires exact, specific information including items like: A Social Security Number (or if they don't have one, a taxpayer ID number or I-551 documentation), a birthdate, an address, etc.. So there is no way in Hades that Hillary can dodge this by stating that the background check was "flawed." That's impossible. So the claim that they misspelled his name is a complete lie - and Hillary knows it. And secondly, just how effective are these in-depth background checks if they don't even notice that they are looking up the wrong guy!?

Hillary's camp has known about Hsu for a very long time. In fact, a campaign director for Hillary publicly stated that they have been looking over Hsu's public records for some time now. So how can one honestly believe that they didn't know anything about this guy?

Fact is she knew he was dirty the whole time, but she wanted his money and influence anyway. After all, if the Wall Street Journal and numerous right-wing bloggers can find out all this dirt on this guy, then why not Hillary Clinton - a United States senator and government official with unlimited resources to gov't records?!

2) Sandy "Docs in my Socks" Berger -
Hillary Clinton has announced that her National Security Advisor is none other than... Sandy Berger - the very same man who plead guilty to stealing and destroying classified documents related to the Clinton administration’s anti-terror efforts (or lack thereof), immediately before Bill Clinton’s testimony to the 9/11 commission. Berger on numerous occasions snuck into the National Archives and stuffed classified documents into his pants, jacket, and even into his socks in an attempt to destroy them before Clinton's mistakes became known to the public. At first, he too lied in an attempt to cover up the scandal, but ultimately plead guilty to the charges. He was forced to pay a fine and, in an attempt to avoid cross-examination by the Bar Counsel, he surrendered his license to practice law.

And now Hillary wants him to be your National Security Advisor.

Something is terribly wrong with this girl.

**This post's sources are (like all my other posts) left out to avoid clutter. But let me know if you need 'em and I'll send 'em your way**

Osama Still Bin Dead

on Monday, September 10, 2007

I already stated in a previous post that I think that Osama Bin Laden is dead - Well guess what, I still do!!

Osama has reportedly put out a new video which features a bumbling rant that rivals most liberal blogs - Osama: "Argh! Taxes, corporations, global warming, and mortgages!"

Keith Olbermann must've written the transcript for Mr. Bin Laden's tirade.

However, the true message of the video lies in the ultimatum offered by Bin Laden himself: "Join us, or we'll kill you."

Ah, but which form of Islam are we to embrace, oh gracious one? If it's Shi Islam, which hierarchy are we to follow? The Lebanese of Hussein Fadhlallah, the Iranianone of Khamenai, or the Iraqi with its four great Ayatollahs? Or if it's Sunni Islam then which doctrine do you recommend? The Shafi'i, the Hanafi, or the Salafi doctrine?.. Also, how will you regulate and moderate our conversion?

But he didn't clarify that for us, did he? Clearly the 'sheik' is full of it. It's quite obvious that Bin Laden has no intent on ever sparing the lives of Americans - the great 'infidels.'

But let's look more closely at the video itself. As I already said, I still think he's dead. Here's why:

Check out the following picture:

Take a real good look at the two faces. How can one honestly think that it's the same guy? Several things don't add up. For example:
1) Osama has a serious kidney infection which makes him look very ill and requires him to be on regular dialysis. Yet the man on the right, to echo numnerous sources, looks perfectly healthy.
2) When the U.S. attacked Tora Bora several years ago, Bin Laden was severely injured - almost killed, actually. In the attack, his left hand was crippled. But once again, the man on the right uses the injured hand without issue.
3) The shape of Bin Laden's face on the left is like an upside-down triangle. The man on the right has a face shaped like an oval.
4) The location and shape of the cheekbones don't line up.
5) The Osama on the right's eyebrows are thicker, darker, and hang at a different angle.
6) The nose is totally different.
7) The mouth and size of lips are different as well.
8) The video is quite blurry. Maybe so that you can't tell that it's not really Osama.
9) Finally, the beard. It's an obvious fake, but this doesn't necessarily mean it's not him. He could be hiding in a region like Southeast Asia where Muslims generally don't have beards. As this picture of a beardless Osama shows, he could walk around completely unnoticed if he shaved.

And even if it IS the real Osama, notice that the video freezes at about 1 minute and 58 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 and remains frozen until the end. That adds up to less than 4 minutes out of a 25 minute video in which you can actually see Osama move. Now why would they do that? Maybe the video freezes because Osama is so weak and ill that they had to do several takes because he couldn't speak for more than 30 seconds at a time. There are noticeable frame cuts at 13:19 and 13:25 - clearly some editing has been done to fudge the video.

But that's beside the point; Let's conitinue...

This is not the first time that As-Sahab, as well as other militant websites, have put out fake videos of Bin Laden to make the world think he is still alive. I can remember at least three instances of this - one of which I have already posted about. After all, why would they post 3 fake videos, and then a real one years later. If Osama is supposedly still alive, why not post real ones the whole time?? Why make fake videos with look-alikes if Osama was alive back then?

Some of you may be saying "But wait, Mike! The media and a few authorities have said that the video is authentic! So there!"

Riiiiight... Do you mean the same media and authorities that thought the last 3 As-Sahab videos were real (which turns out weren't)? Or maybe you're referring to the media that bought into this image:

Feb. 1, 2005. Remember this picture? The media went into conniptions when they saw this. They broke regular programming to announce special reports that Jihadists had captured a U.S. soldier and were going to decapitate him if Bush didn't meet their demands. Hmm. Take a closer look at the picture. That, my friends, is a G.I. Joe doll. A doll! And the media totally bought into it! So I'm not too surprised to hear that folks at CNN or Reuters think that this is the real Osama in the video. After all, they were fooled by an obvious doll - so why not a look-alike with some phony beard?

Why Universal Health Care Sucks

on Thursday, September 6, 2007

Miq al-Moor has a new anti-American movie out called “Sicko.” When first reading the title one might assume that this is some sort of autobiographical sketch of Moore. But alas, once again Moore’s documentary about American health care grossly distorts the facts, exaggerates a false view American ethics, and argues that anybody who disagrees with him is a ‘moron.’

But instead of focusing so much on the film itself, I would like to broaden the approach to include all of those who believe that universal health care (UHC) is a solution to the health care problem in America.

Before continuing, I want to make it clear that I admit that private American health care has its flaws. There are numerous problems which many other sources have addressed. But the purpose of this post is to show that the implication of UHC would have a devastating negative impact on America and that the current health care system is superior to UHC in almost every way. Below is a detailed breakdown of some reasons that UHC causes more harm than good:

1) UHC is NOT “free” health care
Not by a long shot. Recent estimates show that setting up UHC in America would cost about the same amount as the cost of the Iraq war, if not more!! Democratic presidential candidates have also stated that resources would be pulled from things like defense and education to help fund their multi-billion dollar “free” health care plan. Another estimate states that income taxes to the American worker would increase an extra 20% (that averages out to be between $510 and $1020 a month)! That’s about the same, and in most cases, less than most premiums cost for an entire family. So in other words, “free” health care would cost more than what most of us are paying for private health care right now. Also, since when does the government manage your money properly?? Name me one branch of government that functions efficiently and spends its money wisely. Just one. UHC would likely be just as inefficient.

2) I have a hangnail – Quick, I need a doctor!
Co-pays and deductibles are put in place to discourage people from going to the doctor for minor problems. Most people don’t want to pay a $30 co-pay just to have a physician look at their stubbed toe. But when a person can see a doctor anytime for anything without cost to them, they see a doctor all the time. As you may already know, I work in an emergency room. Just a few weeks ago we had a lady come into the ER for… a papercut! No joke. But since she didn’t have insurance, it was at no cost to her. She had nothing to dissuade her from going to the ER for such a minor issue. This type of abuse would happen on an epic scale if UHC was implemented. I also happen to know of a man (who again, doesn’t pay for his own health care) who visited a doctor about 50 times in a 2 year period. Once again, he has nothing to dissuade him from visiting the doctor for minor ailments like headaches or mild diarrhea. More patient visits cause longer lines at the doctor’s office – which brings me to my next point…

3) Less doctors = longer lines
I come across at least one liberal blog each week that tries to argue that this fact isn’t true. Well, it is. UHC always produces a shortage of physicians. Why, you ask? Because why would somebody want to go to college for 14-16 years just so that they can make $70,000/year. I wouldn’t. I could make that much after 4-6 years of college in some other field. Fact is, current doctors work hard to build a practice because, for him, it is a business; It’s how he makes his living... and when he works harder and studies more, he makes more money. But when the gov’t steps in, they control his salary and end up paying him less which violates free market principles. He no longer has incentive to build a private practice, provide superior care, attract new patients, and make more money. As a result, less people choose to become doctors. Less doctors, combined with increased visits for trivial problems, results in long lines and even longer waiting lists for people like you and I who need to see the doctor for more serious issues.

4) Fewer effective drugs
Drug companies would be hindered by price controls and regulations that would stem from UHC and soon they would be forced to cease research and development of new medications. Research for cures to cancer, Alzheimer’s, AIDS, Parkinson’s, etc., would be severely road blocked. American start-up drug companies would not be able to afford to compete with gov’t mandates, so the market would then be reduced, research would slow to a halt, and the pharmaceutical market would be dominated by a few established monopolies.

5) Hillary Clinton chooses whether you die or live
Hillary, among many other trillion-dollar promises, has promised UHC if she is elected president. What you don’t know about UHC is that the gov’t chooses whether or not you can have a specialized procedure. Need a lung scope? The gov’t will decide if you can have one. Want a C-section instead of a natural birth? Hillary will decide that for you. Need a heart transplant and you are over the age of 70? Well, the gov’t has decided that, since you’re old, you don’t get the surgery and finds that it’s in their best interest that you just die off instead of costing them thousands of dollars. Good Luck! (That's a true story, by the way.) And even if you are lucky enough to make the long waiting list for a procedure, remember, access to a waiting list is NOT access to health care.

6) Destruction of an entire economy
I have had a difficult time finding the exact number of Americans who work in the health insurance industry, but I know for a fact that it is in the millions (several hundred work in our hospital alone!). And if UHC takes over, all of those people will be out of a job. And I can promise you that millions of jobs WILL NOT be created in Washington to replace the ones lost.

7) Sub-par medical treatment
The quality of treatment decreases when UHC is implemented as Doctors Unions don’t govern quality control. Medical schools also need to keep their tuition flowing in if they want to survive the doctor shortage that UHC creates. Sometimes this results in accepting less qualified applicants. Weaker applicants generally make weaker physicians. And, as previously stated, a physician has little incentive to provide you with the best care you’ve ever had. This results in decreased quality of care to you and your family.

8) What?! Campaigning Democrats are demagogues? Say it aint so!
This is one of the best examples of demagoguery I have ever seen from the left. Dems have been calling for health care reform for years now. But it wasn’t until a study came out a few months ago stating that 41.2 million Americans are uninsured that Hillary, Edwards, and Obama said that they would provide health care to all Americans via united health care. In their minds it was like, “We can win 41.2 million votes if we promise health care to all those who don’t have it! Let’s do it!” Clearly, they saw this as simply another issue they can politicize and spin to their advantage to, as they see it, win an election. Well I’ve done a little homework and it turns out that the “41.2 million” number is distorted. Here are the actual facts:
Those 41.2 million people "without healthcare" in the U.S. are roughly 13.7 % of the entire population, which means that a whopping 86.3% of Americans actually HAVE insurance. Also take note that the 41.2 million figure includes people who were without healthcare for at least part of the year surveyed, meaning that some of those actually do have healthcare, but were in between jobs or something. Also, according the U.S. census, approximately one-third of that 41.2 million people live in households with an income over $50,000. And half of that third have an income of over $75,000. This means that at least one-third of those 41.2 million are people who can afford to buy healthcare but are choosing not to. Another third of that 41.2 million are people who are eligible for public health insurance programs but have chosen not to sign up for them. That leaves only about 13 million people (out of a nation of 300 million citizens) that don't have immediate access to healthcare. That's only about 4% of the entire population of America, a number far smaller than the 41.2 million originally sounds.

Once again, I admit that the current health care system is far from perfect and needs some reform – but universal health care is NOT the way to fix it. In fact, it may be the worst of all the options we currently have available. What we need to do is repair the system that we already have in place. How do we do that? Well here’s what Mitt Romney did while serving as governor in Massachusetts:

To briefly sum it all up, Romney modified a state fund that reimburses hospitals when they treat patients who can’t pay due to their lack of health care (the federal government has a similar fund). With it, they channeled the funds into another account to help float the costs medical premiums to citizens of Massachusetts. Romney then contacted the private insurers directly and asked them what they could do to lower premiums. They responded by stating that Massachusetts has several expensive mandates that force them to push premiums up. They basically said, “Get rid of the government mandates on us and we’ll be able to drop premiums.” So Romney, as governor, did just that. Premiums fell, the fund was set up to help cover costs, and citizens were soon able to afford private health care. If the plan continues as follows, every citizen of Massachusetts will have private heath care within the next decade – and all without raising taxes!!

A similar tactic could be used in a federal setting. Access to private health care could be available to all Americans without raising taxes or causing the other negative effects listed above. But people like Hillary don’t get that. They love Stalinist techniques in which they gain control over every aspect of your life. Do yourself, your family, your doctor, and your paycheck a favor by not supporting those that support united health care.

**Once again, I leave out my data sources to prevent clutter, but will make them available to all who request them**


on Saturday, September 1, 2007

Sorry kids, it's been kind of a slow week as far as politics go so I haven't had anything good to post. That being said, here's the latest:

My wife recently came across an article in which some idiot goes for the red herring approach by stating that President Bush's home uses as much energy as Al Gore's. I suppose that the purpose of their failed article is to get all of King Gore's critics to stop calling out Gore's hypocrisy by saying, "But hey, Bush's house uses lots of energy too, so there!"

Ah, but the difference is that Bush doesn't go on world tours on a campaign to get you and I to never drive a car or flick a switch again. Gore does. See the difference?

But I'd like to delve into this a little further if I may. After a laborious search, I was able to dig up some info on both Gore's and Bush's homes. Here's what I found:

Gore's Home Mansion on Steroids:
Gore's home is about 10,000 square feet, roughly 4 times the size of the average American's home. It's also well-known that Gore's home uses more energy (electricity and gas) than the average American uses in an entire year. The Department of Energy states that the average American household uses 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, yet Gore used about 221,000 kWh in 2006 - that's more than 20 times the national average!! And in August of last year, Gore drained over 22,600 kWh - more than double what you and I use in an entire year! His natural gas bills averaged close to $1,100 per month and Gore paid $30,000 in energy bills in 2006 alone.

Does that sound like an energy fanatic's house to you? Someone once wisely said, "Gore is willing to talk the talk, but not walk the walk." Clearly he is doing this solely for political and personal financial gain.

Bush's Home:
Bush's ranch in Texas in much more moderately sized at 4,000 square feet. One architect has stated that Bush's home utilizes "every 'green' feature that current home construction can provide." A closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps that heat and circulate water at a year-round temperature of 67 degrees Fahrenheit. This water runs through pipes throughout the home that provide both heat in the winter and cooling in the summer. This water is recycled over and over again and the pumps use no fossil fuels (natural gas). This innovative system also only uses electricity at a rate of about 25% of conventional heating/cooling systems. Rainwater from the roof and gutters is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern for later use. Wastewater for sinks, showers, etc., is purified and then sent to the same cistern where it is re-used in the home.

Well now, looks like Bush's home isn't so environmentally unfriendly after all...

...and as for the writers of the original Bush hating article mentioned above... you've been served.