Saturday - November 04, 2006

Weekend Editorial

John Kerry: The Kamikaze Kid
-- by Michael Reagan

If the American people need a single reason why they desperately need to vote to keep the Congress in Republican hands next Tuesday they need only look at Massachusetts Democrat Senator John Kerry and recoil from what they behold, the way a vampire recoils when confronted by a cross.

It’s not that the defeated 2004 Democrat candidate for PRESIDENT is by himself a major threat to the safety and welfare of the United States. We narrowly escaped that dreaded fate two years ago, and by now it should be obvious that politically he’s going nowhere.

That became clear when Sen. Kerry gassed up his plane, took off and crashed Kamikaze-like onto the deck of his party’s ship, sinking it just days before it was to come into port and thenceforth rule the electoral waves.

With the crew jumping overboard in a frantic effort to avoid being anywhere near John Kerry, it’s obvious his hopes for a future in presidential politics were burned to a crisp in the wake of his suicide mission.

The real reason why L’affaire Kerry matters to the commonweal is the fact that his views and opinions are not his alone: John Kerry is the face and voice of the Democrat party. What he believes, they believe; what he wants (except for another shot at the presidency), they want.

When John Kerry stands up and implies that the members of our armed forces now engaged in a bloody and dangerous war on behalf of the American people are a bunch of poorly educated high school dropouts, he is expressing what his colleagues in the Democrat leadership believe. The only difference between Kerry and the rest of his party’s bigwigs is that they aren’t stupid enough to say so in public.

Those Democrats who haven’t scurried for cover in a frenzied attempt to separate themselves from the outraged reaction of the American people to Kerry’s disgusting charges are now attempting to convince us that Kerry didn’t really mean what he said when he told a high school audience, “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

_{Michael Ramirez - Investors Business Daily}

They can’t deny he said what he said. So they try and tell us he didn’t mean what he said. What they are really saying is “BELIEVE us and not your lying ears. You didn’t really hear what you heard.”

Attacks on American troops are nothing new for John Kerry. Remember, this is the man who came back from his brief four-month tour of duty in Vietnam to charge his fellow American servicemen with rape and murder.

This is the same John Kerry who just last year told CBS’s Bob Schieffer, “And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs.”

These sentiments, however, are not merely his own, they echo those of his fellow Democrats. John Murtha, for example, charged Marines in Haditha with cold-blooded murder. Senator Dick Durbin compared our interrogators at Guantanamo to the monsters who worked for Pol Pot, one of the greatest mass murderers in history, and those who worked in the inhuman Soviet gulags and in the Nazi death camps.

For decades, like John Kerry, Democrats have displayed their utter contempt for the American military. They showed it when they insured America’s defeat in Vietnam when they cut off funding for the military and they now say they will do the same in Iraq.

If the voters want their country to follow John Kerry’s example, shout “Banzai” and gas up and take off in a Kamikaze mission against their own safety and security, they will vote to put the Kerrycats in control of Capitol Hill.

Should they do so they will rightly earn the scorn and contempt of future generations of Americans who will have to live in the wreckage they created.

---

_{Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s new book “Twice Adopted.” Order autographed books at http://www.reagan.com. Email Comments to mereagan@hotmail.com. ©2006 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/04/2006 at 10:19 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - October 31, 2006

Miracle Cure?

In this week’s editorial, Michael Reagan looks at the hot issue of this campaign - and one that has special meaning for him ... embryonic stem cell research. Meanwhile, research in adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells is already providing cures and medical breakthroughs without destroying potential human life.

British scientists announced today that they have grown human livers from umbilical cord blood stem cells that will have the immediate benefit of providing testing cells for pharmaceutical companies and someday provide entire human livers for transplant ... and, as Michael says, that’s the truth of the matter ...

_{Mike Lester - The Rome News-Tribune (GA)}

Stem Cell Research – A Little Truth Wouldn’t Hurt
-- by Michael Reagan

Stem cell research is one of the major issues in many campaigns across the country in this election year, and it is being demagogued like few others.

In the interest of truth in politics it’s worth noting that there are two kinds of stem cells research – one involving embryonic stem cells (ESC) and the other using adult or cord-blood stem cells. The overwhelming number of candidates, Republican and Democratic, favor research on stem cells gathered from adult and core-blood sources.

But many, mostly Republicans, oppose ESC research because harvesting the cells requires killing a living human embryo, and in many cases result from cloning human embryos for the sole purpose of harvesting the stem cells from the embryos killed in the process.

All across the country, Democrats and their lackeys in the media distort the issue by portraying those opposed to embryonic stem cell research as being opposed to all stem cell research, refusing to draw the crucial distinction between the two types.

In addition to this dishonest tactic, proponents of ESC research inevitably claim that it is the form of research holding out the most promise as an effective means of curing a host of serious physical and mental disorders, while either ignoring or downplaying the incredible results now demonstrated in adult and core-blood stem cell research.

Moreover, a great falsehood been spread that President Bush and fellow Republicans opposed to embryonic stem cell research have attempted to ban it outright, when the truth is that all they have done is to seek to deny it government funding. Those who want to pursue it are free to find other sources of revenue, which—if the promises made on its behalf were credible—would be readily available from sources such as drug companies.

Such funding is not forthcoming, and for very good reasons. Think about it this way: there are about 70 to 80 million baby boomers right now on the cusp of reaching the age where they will be susceptible to Alzheimer’s disease.

With that many people just in the U.S. facing the threat of falling prey to Alzheimer’s disease, wouldn’t you think that if there were an answer to the problem—as the use of embryonic stem cells has been widely touted to be by its proponents—that the drug companies would be falling all over themselves to throw money at those wanting to do ESC research and come up with cures that would make them hundreds of billions in profits?

The fact that the drug companies have turned their back on ESC research should tell you something. One reason is that there is absolutely no basis for the claims that ESC holds a promise to cure all sorts of ailments from Alzheimer’s to Parkinson’s, or even spinal cord injuries. It’s all smoke and mirrors and most of it is based on a single source—the thoroughly discredited claims of South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-suk, who has been convicted of falsifying his research data.

One damning result of the ESC research that has been done is the fact that when the cells are injected into lab animals many grow brain tumors – some malignant and fatal. Thus far, that is the sole fruit of ESC research – fatal brain tumors. Drug companies aren’t interested in funding that kind of outcome. There’s no money in producing brain tumors.

In contrast to the dismal results of ESC, research on adult and cord-blood stem cells has produced real results, helping to cure such maladies as sickle cell anemia, lymphoma and juvenile leukemia. As a result funding is no problem here.

Claims that the president and his party are opposed to stem cell research fall flat on their back when you recall that last year Congress overwhelmingly passed—and the president signed—a bill funding the saving and storage of therapeutic core-blood stem cells and providing $150 million to fund storage of the cells.

That’s the truth of the matter.

---

_{Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s new book, “Twice Adopted.” Order autographed books at http://www.reagan.com. E-mail comments to mereagan@hotmail.com. ©2006 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 10/31/2006 at 01:31 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Health-Medicine •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - October 26, 2006

Boo!

It’s Thursday and that means it’s time for another dose of Tom Purcell’s editorial humor. This week Tom has an imaginary conversation with a school administrator over Halloween. The result is predictable of course but it’s still fun to watch. Well, not exactly fun ... as it cuts too close to the truth. Read on and try not to snicker ....

_{Sandy Huffaker - Cagle Cartoons}

Halloween Ban?
- by Tom Purcell

Ban Halloween from public schools?

That’s right. No costumes. No parades. No parties. It’s happening all over America.

But it’s autumn. There’s a chill in the air. The leaves are a brilliant orange and gold. Kids are supposed to celebrate Halloween at school.

Supposed to?

Look, Americans embraced the Halloween tradition long ago. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says Celtic pagans believed that at the end of the harvest season, Oct. 31, ghosts and evil spirits returned to the Earth. The Celts wore masks to hide themselves from the spirits.

Yes?

Then in the seventh century, Pope Boniface IV established All Saints’ Day, which eventually fell on Nov. 1. The evening before All Saints’ Day became a holy, or hallowed, eve and thus Halloween.

Interesting, but what’s your point?

Well, as the Irish immigrated to America they brought the Halloween tradition with them. Today it’s totally secular and totally harmless.

But some Christians in our schools think it’s extremely harmful—they think it’s a celebration of the dark side, and they forbid their children to participate in it.

Posted by The Skipper     on 10/26/2006 at 01:31 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Education •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - October 20, 2006

Gay Activists

_{Gary McCoy - Cagle Cartoons}

The Outing Game
- by Michael Reagan

Mike Rogers is a scandalmonger who calls himself a “Gay activist blogger” devoted to “outing” alleged closet-gay Republicans. He claims that his sleazy activism is justified because it reveals the alleged hypocrisy of Republican homosexuals who refuse to promote what he insists is the real gay agenda.

Last week his target was Republican Congressman David Dreier. His latest target is Idaho Senator Larry Craig who he charged has engaged in homosexual sex with at least four men – a charge the senator vehemently denies.

Significantly, he refuses to identify his alleged sources for the accusation, surrendering by his refusal any claim to credibility. Rogers says that digging into the private lives of politicians who support anti-gay legislation is perfectly legitimate, adding because the senator both supported and voted for the Defense of Marriage act, he has a perfect right to out him.

Rogers is one of the so-called gay activists who is going on nationally syndicated radio shows and writing newspaper columns to punish what he believes are gay Republicans for not agreeing with the liberal agenda of gay marriage or whatever the else the gay issue of the day is.

He’s outing all of these targets, not caring who he hurts, simply because they don’t agree with the radical gay agenda. There is no outrage from the Democrats or the media that there is somebody out there punishing conservatives who don’t agree with the liberal gay agenda.

They don’t understand that conservatives don’t look first at people’s sexuality. They look at a person as a whole person. There are people however, who have been described by a gay Republican talk show host as “professional homosexuals”—people who see nothing else but a person’s sexual orientation.

When they get up in the morning and look in the mirror all they see is a homosexual. They see absolutely nothing else about themselves or their lives. Yet just as the radical Muslims have taken over the Muslim faith, these professional gays are putting themselves forth as spokesmen for the entire gay community and being accepted as such by the liberal media.

They are not. The majority of gays want nothing to do with Rogers and his fellow professional homosexuals. I know a lot of gays who live in California. Most of them are not supportive of gay marriage. Most gays are not supportive of the radical gay issue of punishing the Boy Scouts because they won’t allow homosexuals to be scoutmasters.

These are the issues that the activists are pushing. Most gays are embarrassed by the gay activists but they can’t say anything since they will be ostracized within their own community, just as a black who is conservative is ostracized within the black community.

If a gay speaks out against the radical gay agenda he will be driven out of the gay community, and that includes speaking out against the professional homosexuals who pretend to represent the entire gay community and are accepted as such by the lamestream media.

We are now seeing the outrageous practice of liberal radio talk show hosts allowing radical gays to go on their shows and broadcast their slimy messages, identifying as closet gays conservative Republicans who will not kowtow to them and their demands that they support what Rogers and his ilk claim is the only legitimate agenda for homosexuals.

Rogers may claim his aim is to advance his cause, but it is nothing more than his method of punishing those who disagree with him. He’s telling his targets, “Do what I demand or I’ll expose you to ridicule.”

I don’t care if a Republican politician is gay. What I care about is his agenda. Is it a conservative agenda or a liberal agenda? I vote for those who support my conservative views.

Liberals take it as an article of faith that conservatives hate gays. That’s absolutely untrue. What we don’t support is the radical gay agenda. We are utterly opposed to gay marriage, homosexual scoutmasters or promoting the gay lifestyle in our schools.

And, as I said, most gays agree with me and not with Rogers on these issues.

---

_{Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s new book “Twice Adopted.” Order autographed books at http://www.reagan.com. Email Comments to mereagan@hotmail.com. ©2006 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 10/20/2006 at 06:29 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - October 13, 2006

The Great Wall

The article in the October 6 edition of the Washington Post that Michael Reagan refers to in the editorial below begins like this:

Doom and gloom. Republicans are liars. Bark! Bark! The WAPO splashed this crap on the front page in a last ditch effort to help bring down Republicans in Congress. Unfortunately, Michael Reagan did a little research into the bill and it turns out the WAPO was, as Humphrey Bogart put it in a memorable scene from “Casablanca”, misinformed.

It is true that Congress allocated an initial $1.2 billion for the fence that will cost, according to the Congressional Budget Office, about $3.2 million per mile. That’s enough for about 370 miles of fence to begin with but it’s a start and DHS has already confirmed their plan to start building the initial 370 miles of 15-foot-high double steel fences-with a high-speed-access road running between them along the California and Arizona border.

Perhaps the WAPO thinks the entire border security project, which will take years to build, should be funded all in one gulp the first year - and is should all be spent on a “Great Wall Of China, Western Version”? That would make no sense whatsoever. Perhaps the WAPO needs to take a refresher course in basic economics - and basic geography, if they have the time.

There’s even more to the story. Michael Reagan went directly to the source, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who wrote the bill to find out the facts of the matter. If you’re tired of Mexico flipping us off on the border issue, read on ...

Go To The Source For The
Facts About The Border Fence
- by Michael Reagan

For reasons I’ll never understand, some of my fellow conservative talk-show hosts have turned to that bible of liberalism – The Washington Post – to get the “facts” about the U.S.-Mexico border fence just authorized by Congress.

If they wanted to get the real story—and not the misleading one they read in the October 6 edition of the Post—they could easily have done what I did and called Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and the man who wrote the bill mandating the building of the 700-mile border fence.

Chairman Hunter knows what he is talking about. He also wrote a bill in the 1990s during the Clinton administration that created the 14-mile-long double fence in San Diego.

The new bill, he told me, uses the same language as his first bill and will have the same effect – the fence will be built despite the Post’s insistence that it won’t. The bill doesn’t say the fence will be built or may be built – it says flatly that it shall be built.

Here are the facts. In a story headlined “In Border Fence’s Path, Congressional Roadblocks,” the Post reported that as soon as Congress had authorized construction of a 700-mile border fence last week, members “rushed to approve separate legislation that ensures it will never be built, at least not as advertised, according to Republican lawmakers and immigration experts.”

According to the Post, “… the House and Senate gave the Bush administration leeway to distribute the money to a combination of projects—not just the physical barrier along the southern border. The funds may also be spent on roads, technology and ‘tactical infrastructure’ to support the Department of Homeland Security’s preferred option of a ‘virtual fence.’”

These so-called “loopholes”, the Post said, “leave the Bush administration with authority to decide where, when and how long a fence will be built, except for small stretches east of San Diego and in western Arizona. ”

In other words, the Post interprets the bill as a scam meant to win votes but not really mandating that the 700-mile border fence would ever be built. The truth, according to Duncan Hunter, is that the amendments, were passed because if they built the wall as described in the first bill they would have been building it through homes and other buildings.

So they needed to amend it to make sure that other people could have the discretion to build the wall around buildings instead of through buildings. His press conference Wednesday, President Bush was asked: “Are you committed to building the 700 miles of fence, actual fencing?”

His answer? “ … We’re just going to make sure that we build it in a spot where it works … we’re actually building fence, and we’re building double fence in particular—in areas where there is a high vulnerability for people being able to sneak in.

“You can’t fence the entire border, but what you can do is you can use a combination of fencing and technology to make it easier for the Border Patrol to enforce our border … And so I look forward to not only implementing that which Congress has funded, in a way that says to folks, the American people, we’ll enforce our border.”

The president described the plan as “a combination of fencing and technologies—UAVs, sensors … You’ve got some rugged country; you’ve got stretches of territory where you don’t even know where the border is. You’ve got urban areas, like El Paso, or Southern California, where people have been able to sneak in by use of urban corridors. And so, therefore, fencing makes sense there.”

The president cited areas of the Arizona sector, where there are “literally neighborhoods abutting the border, and people come—a hundred of them would rush across the border into a little subdivision, and the Border Patrol would catch two or three, and 97 would get in.”

Buttressing Duncan Hunter’s claim, the president noted: “This border requires different assets based on the conditions—based upon what the terrain looks like. And that’s what we’re doing.”

Finally, If you want to make sure the fence is never built: vote Democrat on November 7.

---

_{Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s new book “Twice Adopted”. Order autographed books at http://www.reagan.com. Email Comments to mereagan@hotmail.com. ©2006 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 10/13/2006 at 01:23 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Tuesday - October 10, 2006

Exploring The New World

In today’s editorial, Tom Purcell is confronted by his son, a product of the modern, politically-correct education system over Christopher Columbus and the result is an exercise in futility. It would also be quite funny if it weren’t so painfully close to what a lot of parents have to endure nowadays.

I wonder if this kid knows that in 1492, another momentous event took place in history ... the Spanish finally got around to driving the last of the Muslim invaders out of Europe for good. Well, at least for five hundred years anyway. Don’t look now but they’re back ... and our children are being taught that Columbus was an evil man ...

_{Mike Lane - The Baltimore Sun}

Columbus Day Oct. 9th
- by Tom Purcell

“Dad, why does America celebrate Columbus Day?”

“Well, Billy, in 1492, Christopher Columbus sailed from Europe to America and founded the very first settlement in the New World. His arrival marks the beginning of America as we know it.”

“But didn’t he discover America by accident, dad?”

“Columbus believed the Earth was a sphere. He thought he could reach the Far East by setting off on a westward course. Though he stumbled upon what is now the Bahamas by accident, he was still a great explorer and a great man, Billy.”

“A great man, dad, or a racist oppressor?”

“Pardon me, son?”

“When Columbus came to America, he brought with him the greed of the white European males who subsequently colonized America for the dough. They fought and killed the Indigenous Peoples who were already here and took their land and their gold. Columbus eventually died a very rich man.”

“Well, Billy, an unfortunate part of human history involves countries invading their neighbors to take control. This has happened in many parts of the world, including Europe, which has a long history of war. But remember that Indigenous Peoples were also prone to war and fighting to expand their control well before Europeans arrived.”

“Well, Columbus is also responsible for many germs and diseases that Europeans brought to America, causing untold suffering and death among the people who were here before us.”

“Have you been drinking too much caffeine lately, Billy?”

“America’s history of environmental destruction can also be laid at Columbus’ feet, dad. As soon as the Europeans colonized America’s pristine lands, they cut down the trees and plowed up the fields. Can you say soil erosion, dad?”

“Son, did I ever tell you that you take after your mother’s side?”

“And what about slavery? It was the Europeans who created a flourishing slave trade in America. They did it to develop the land cheaply, so they could make giant profits. Columbus even made slaves out of some of the Indigenous Peoples who attacked him and his men.”

“Son, do you remember where your mother hid the bourbon?”

“I’ll tell you another thing, dad. Some people believe the only reason we even celebrate Columbus Day is because he was Italian, and the day is also a celebration of Italian heritage. Some believe that when FDR made Columbus Day official in 1934, he did so not just because Columbus discovered the New World, but because Italian immigrants in America represented millions of votes.”

“Look, Billy, there are a lot of ways to look at what Christopher Columbus symbolizes. You can focus on the negative attributes, and there are some, or you can do what America has been doing for many years now: focus on the positive.”

“Positive, dad?”

“Sure, Billy. Columbus represents the spirit of exploration, the spirit of pushing forward into the great unknown to find greater and better things. This has always been the spirit of America, the land of innovation and new ideas.”

“What kind of ideas, dad?”

“How about the ideas of freedom and self-government, Billy? After Columbus opened a gateway to the New World, other European countries established colonies here, too. Eventually, some amazing historical figures would evolve in North America. They would create and fight for a way of life that has proved to be extremely successful - their ideas are still spreading and changing the world for the better.”

“Really, dad?”

“Yes, son. The concept of freedom has taken root so solidly in America that people are free to criticize or praise anything, including whether or not Christopher Columbus was a hero or an ogre, or whether or not Columbus Day should still be celebrated in America. Now, do you have any other questions about history?”

“Sure, dad. Was Benjamin Franklin really a predatory male chauvinist womanizer?”

---

_{Tom Purcell’s weekly political humor column runs in newspapers and Web sites across America. Contact him at TomPurcell@aol.com. Distributed by Cagle Cartoons syndicate, call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 for reprint info.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 10/10/2006 at 06:53 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(1)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - October 07, 2006

Where’s The Beef?

_{Gary Varvel - The Indianapolis Star-News}

Distractions And Hypocrisy
- by David Limbaugh
_{(TOWNHALL) - Friday, October 6, 2006}

Do you remember how many times during the Clinton years Democrats told us everyone lies about sex and that Republicans were shamefully distracting the Clinton administration by harping on White House cover-ups about sex with an intern? Well, we have far worse distractions now being promoted by Democrats about far less important matters and during far more dangerous times.

When Clinton was president he lamented, “I just want to get back to the work of the American people.” That deserves to be echoed by Democrats today, because we need to have a genuine debate on the issues that really matter—the war against the jihadists, the economy, marriage and abortion, and other vital issues—before the November elections.

Will Democrats, if they regain control of either—or both—houses of Congress, use their newfound majority to further stifle the president’s prosecution of the war on terror? Will they de-fund our soldiers in Iraq and demand a timetable for withdrawal? Their incessant criticisms of Iraq being “the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” imply that they would.

Likewise, would the Democrats undo the partial reform measures aimed at sealing our borders? Would they try to roll back tax cuts? The public is entitled to know what the Republicans stand for and what the Democrats stand for, and the media is supposed to be the vehicle to make sure that we do. But the media seems uninterested in these issues. Their sole focus seems to be to try to embarrass, if not emasculate, President Bush and the Republicans and return the Democrats to power.

Don’t tell me the media and the Democrats are morally outraged about any aspect of the Foley matter, because that dog just won’t hunt. They have absolutely no moral standing to complain about anyone else’s laxity over deviant sexual behavior.

You know the drill. You’ve read and heard the Democrats’ sordid track record on these matters. They not only didn’t condemn Democratic congressman Gerry Studds for his actual sex—not perverted flirting—with a page; they gave him ovations. Congressman Barney Frank remains a respected Democrat even though an aide ran a prostitution ring out of Frank’s apartment. The Democrats told us that Clinton’s defilement of the Oval Office was a private matter. They champion the advancement of the radical homosexual agenda and safeguard partial birth abortion.

“No, no, no,” they cry. This is about Republican hypocrisy. The GOP pretends to be the party of values and yet embroils itself in this salacious scandal. But Republicans are not guilty of hypocrisy here—they immediately purged Foley when they discovered the extent of his disgraceful misconduct. And if Speaker Dennis Hastert had dropped the axe on Foley earlier, based on what he was told about the initial e-mails, you can be sure that the ACLU, the gay lobby, and apparently indignant Democrats would have cried homophobia at the top of their lungs.

It’s the Democrats who are the hypocrites. Here they are castigating Hastert for not taking action that they would otherwise describe as homophobia. This should be a non-scandal because it doesn’t involve the Republican Party, or in fairness, even its House leader. Based on the facts we know now, it involves Foley alone. Let’s put the brakes on this rush to judgment against Hastert until we see what facts the investigation reveals.

The real scandal is the Democratic Party. As I point out in my book “Bankrupt: The Moral and Intellectual Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party”—and document in detail in their own words—the Democrats are unhinged in their Bush hatred, trying to parade under a false banner of being a “values” party themselves, and have no real political platform at all, except for opposing the Republicans on everything, most of all on the war on terror. And the real disaster would be if Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker of the House or Harry Reid becomes the Senate majority leader. Can anyone really see Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid as responsible war leaders in Congress?

Democrats have disingenuously told us they couldn’t wait to make this election a referendum on President Bush’s policies on national security and the war in Iraq. But they have done everything they could to avoid this discussion because they still have no policies of their own to offer on the war—and they have even less to offer on the economy, which is robust and booming. They will ride the Foley incident as long as they can, but eventually—sometime before the election, they’ll have to give us some answers. Too bad for them. They don’t have any.

Posted by The Skipper     on 10/07/2006 at 12:45 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Politics •  
• Comments (13) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - October 06, 2006

Not So Fast, Tonto

It’s Friday, at last! It has been a rough week for all and it’s past time for the weekend. Michael Reagan gives you some food for thought as you prepare to wind this week down. Michael doesn’t think the GOP is in as bad a shape as the Donks think. He also thinks the tables are about to turn on the Democrats and the Party Of Evil™ is going to have a rude awakening on November 7. Rush Limbaugh agrees. So do I. Mheh-heh-he ...

_{Daryl Cagle - MSNBC.com}

All’s Not Lost for the GOP
- by Michael Reagan

The chattering class has been all agog over so-called generic polls showing Democrats will give GOP members of Congress a royal beating in the November elections - and this was before the so-called revelations about Mark Foley’s shenanigans, which sent them into a state of sheer ecstasy.

As heartening as this may be to the Liberals and their media lackeys, neither of these apparently GOP-unfriendly harmful revelations are going to be the main determinants on November 7.

What really matters in most of the 435 House races is the enormous advantage House members have in the simple fact that they are incumbents. And they are all beneficiaries of what I call the incumbent protection act.

According to a study, “Redistricting and Incumbent Protection in 2001-2002,” by the Voting and Democracy Research Center, elections to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2002 were dramatically less competitive than elections after the last round of redistricting in 1991-1992:

“In 2002 fewer than one in ten races were won by less than 10% and fewer than one five races were won by less than 20%—less than half of the number of races won by those margins in 1992. Only four incumbents were defeated by non-incumbent challengers, the fewest number in history, and the average victory margin was nearly 40%. Our 2003 Dubious Democracy report has additional data quantifying this alarming state of affairs.”

Their conclusion: “This lack of competition in a post-redistricting election makes it quite possible that House elections toward the end of the decade will be less competitive than any in history.”

Democrats and Republican incumbents have schemed together to create districts for themselves that all but guarantee the members can hang around Capitol Hill for as long as they want. And the voters back home will oblige them.

The old adage that “all politics is local” holds true for members of Congress. In other words, local politics plays a major role in a congressional election. Only rarely do national issues overshadow local issues. That’s another shield that protects incumbents from the national winds of change.

As far as what they are now calling “Foleygate” damaging the re-election chances of individual Republican members of Congress, the fact is that the effect will be negligible to zero. Moreover, the Democrats, by jumping feet-first into the scandal may suddenly discover that they will be the ones who get hurt.

Take Nancy Pelosi as an example. She brazenly accuses the House GOP leadership of failing to protect “the children,” implying that they willingly exposed pages to being sexually molested by Mark Foley.

What hypocrisy! This is the same Nancy Pelosi who wants Boy Scouts to be exposed to homosexual scoutmasters. Does she really think the voters are going to let her and her party get away with this outrage?

Moreover, there are investigations now in progress by the FBI and the House Ethics Committee that are going to turn over the rocks and uncover the complicity of at least some top Democrats - and a whole slew of sleazy operatives working on their behalf - in what was a conspiracy that kept the sordid charges against Foley undercover until they could be used as a last-minute assault on the House GOP.

The real cover-up was theirs.

Finally, if Rush Limbaugh is right - and I think he is - the reaction to this sleazy Democrat plot by the Republican’s conservative base is not anger at Speaker Hastert and his colleagues but instead, at the Democrats, who will pay the price on November 7.

They’ve got it coming.

---

_{Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s new book “Twice Adopted”. Order autographed books at http://www.reagan.com. E-mail comments to mereagan@hotmail.com. ©2006 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 10/06/2006 at 01:43 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Politics •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - October 01, 2006

Weekend Editorial

Michael Reagan whips out a hammer and hits the nail right on the head in this weekend’s editorial. I have long felt that the current partisan attacks by the Democrats and the hatred and bias from the liberal mainstream media border on treason. In a time of war, these damnable acts by the Left are a disgrace and completely without honor or conscience.

We have troops overseas putting their lives on the line every single day and some of them pay the ultimate price. The Leftists in this country who enjoy the protection provided by those troops are at the same time providing aid and comfor to the enemy by revealing secret projects by the government to foil further attacks and by a constant stream of attacks on the current administration.

Why not call it treason? I’ll let Michael explain ....

Let’s Dare Call it Treason

-by Michael Reagan

Benedict Arnold was a war hero whose courageous actions at the Battle of Saratoga helped turn the tide for the colonists in the American Revolution, so it is not fair to him to compare him to the sniveling nest of traitors now endangering our national security in the name of cheap partisan politics.

They are not Benedict Arnolds - they are in a class all by themselves – political and journalistic hacks willing to do anything to win an election and oust an administration they loathe even if by so doing they endanger the safety of their fellow Americans.

Time after time, for months on end, we have watched the spectacle of government officials in the intelligence agencies violate their oaths by leaking the most sensitive secrets to dedicated anti-American newspapers such as the treasonous New York Times.

Vital anti-terrorism operations designed to monitor communications between terrorists overseas and their agents in the United States or track the international movement of funds meant to finance terrorist activities have been compromised, if not rendered useless, by leaks to the Times and The Washington Post.

Both newspapers loathe the Bush administration and the Republican Party, and both have wallowed in self-congratulation for their coups against the security of the American people, delighted to be inflicting harm on the president and his attempts to safeguard the American people if it will help turn the Congress over to their Democrat allies.

They are being enabled by what amount to moles lurking in the CIA and other intelligence agencies, who ignore the fact that they are committing real crimes by betraying their oaths for the most sordid of political purposes.

This latest episode, the leaking of the purported April National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to the Times and the Post, however, is a different kettle of rotten fish. To begin with, the stories in the Times and the Post distorted what was in the NIE – a fact that quickly emerged when relevant parts of the authentic document were declassified and released.

What has emerged since the latest leaks were publicized is the very obvious involvement of the Democrats in the whole shameful episode. It is very easy to understand that given the superior record of the GOP as a proven protector of the safety of the American people and the pitiful record of the Democrats in that regard, it’s obvious that the leaks were designed to raise questions about the Republicans’ ability to safeguard the national security, and thus bolster Democratic claims disputing that record.

What is at stake here is simply the government’s ability to do its job of fighting a global war against a shadowy enemy that has made no secret of their goal of killing us and conquering the West.

That government simply cannot do that job as long as there is a fifth column operating within our borders. And that fifth column is composed of The New York Times and the rest of the liberal media dedicated to crippling the administration’s ability to fight the war and ensure the safety of the American people.

Call it whatever you want, but no matter what name you give it, it remains treason. And if the nation is to be protected from deadly attacks against the homeland by the enemy, the people involved in this treasonous activity have to be stopped from their ongoing betrayal of the United States and the American people, and stopped now.

This is no longer a matter of mere finger pointing. This is time for the handcuffs to come out. If President Bush wants to assure the nation that he is determined to protect them from future 9/11s he is going to have to step forward and loose the hounds of justice against those in the government who are betraying their oaths, and hold the Times and its allies in the media legally accountable for their treasonous activities.

As the president has reminded us, we are at war. With an active fifth column doing its level best to make us lose that war, the time has come to root it out and make its participants pay for their betrayal.

Let’s roll, Mr. President.

---

_{Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s new book “Twice Adopted”. Order autographed books at http://www.reagan.com. Email Comments to mereagan@hotmail.com. ©2006 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 10/01/2006 at 10:03 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Monday - September 18, 2006

We Win, They Lose

_{John Darkow - Columbia Daily Tribune, Missouri}

Iraq: It’s Kill or be Killed
- by Michael Reagan

One of my dad’s more memorable lines was his response to the question about what his strategy was for fighting the Cold War. Simple, he said, “We win, they lose.” That’s the way it worked out; we won, they lost.

We won because the Reagan strategy was to apply relentless pressure on the Soviets with unflinching resolve, to never let up, and to grind the Communists’ faces in the mud at every opportunity while the world looked on, no matter how much it shocked the media and the go-easy-on-the-Kremlin liberals who feared giving offense to our sworn enemies by treating them unkindly and incurring the condemnation of the world’s wimps.

We are now fighting a war that demands similar resolve and a rigid determination to defeat the enemy, whatever it takes, without regard to how it will shock the media and the anti-war left. We are not meeting those demands and as a result the mightiest nation on the face of the earth - with the finest military force ever assembled in all the world’s history – is losing the war, not by being defeated in combat, but by default.

In Afghanistan, as both the media and the Defeatocrats have joyfully proclaimed, the Taliban we drove out is back and giving the NATO and coalition forces arrayed against them a very hard time. Nothing could drive a stake in the heart of that reborn Taliban insurgency better than the killing of their top leadership, yet when faced with a golden opportunity to do just that we did nothing but stand by and watch.

According to NBC, 190 top Taliban leaders attending a funeral and packed in a tight formation were seen by an eye-in-the-sky drone, presenting an easy target for a quick air strike that could have decimated the Taliban leadership and perhaps brought an end to the insurgency in Afghanistan. A black and white photo published on the front page of the New York Post shows what NBC told the Associated Press are the Taliban militants standing in several rows, like cattle being led to the slaughter pens.

It would have been an easy kill and a major victory in the fight against the Taliban, yet our military were forced to sit and do nothing but watch because the oh-so-sensitive rules of engagement forbid attacking cemeteries. And that’s not all. While U.S. intelligence officers in Afghanistan were still raging about the lost opportunity, the military brass was up in arms - not because of a missed chance - but because the embarrassing drone photo was leaked to the media.

According to the Associated Press, Lt. Tamara Lawrence, a spokeswoman with the U.S. military in Kabul, said the photograph was released to NBC by someone who did not have the clearance to hand it out. “It is an operational security issue and the photo was released at an inappropriate level,” she sniffed to the AP. “Inquiries are being made into how it was released.”

This incident is an example of the out-of-control political correctness that is driving the U.S. strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Out of fear of offending the people whose freedom we are fighting to ensure, we are waging a war by half-measures. Our enemy is a furtive force lurking hidden among the civilian population, using civilians as human shields. The only way to deal with these fanatical insurgents is to kill them all, and in order to kill them all you have to be willing to inflict unintended damage on the civilian population, just as we did when we bombed Berlin and Tokyo and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

When you fight this kind of war, you incur the wrath of the media and the anti-war left, who remain ever-alert for any chance to charge the U.S. with committing “atrocities.” When you allow fear of their reaction to dictate the rules of engagement, you allow them to lead you to defeat. “War is Hell,” Sherman once said. It still is, and always will be. Live with it, or go hide someplace and hope the victorious enemy won’t find you and cut your head off, a form of political incorrectness that doesn’t bother them one bit.

---

_{Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s new book “Twice Adopted”. Order autographed books at http://www.reagan.com. Email Comments to mereagan@hotmail.com. ©2006 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/18/2006 at 02:59 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Terrorists •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - September 14, 2006

2008: Clinton/Gore

Dick Morris takes a look ahead past the upcoming midterm elections and examines the Donks’ Dilemna for 2008. Dick thinks it will come down to a battle between The Hildabeast and Al Bore. My God! Karl Rove will be rolling on the floor laughing his pudgy little behind off if this pans out like Morris thinks. Even better would be if the two decided to run together. The only question is ... who would be on top.  Now there’s a visual image you probably could have done without ...

Dems Head Toward Clinton vs. Gore
By Dick Morris

In the past six months, much has happened in the contest for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, but its central dynamic has gone largely unnoticed: Hillary has been dropping and Gore has been moving up. According to the latest Fox News poll, Hillary lost almost half of her lead over Gore between March and August.

In March, Hillary was getting 42 percent of the Democratic Primary field but by Fox’s August 30th survey, she had fallen to only 33 percent of the vote. Gore weighed in at 12 percent in March and rose to 15 percent by the end of last month. Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) each rose by two points, to 13 and 11 percent, respectively.

Most ominously for Hillary, the undecided percentage rose from 10 percent to 18 percent. Even those who had nobody else to vote for had accumulated such doubts about the New York senator that they described themselves as undecided. In this period well before active campaigning, it is unusual for a frontrunner to drop so precipitously without a major scandal or the entry of a new candidate. So why has Hillary dropped?

Democrats are desperate for victory. They seem determined to conduct their nominating process as if it were an audition for the leading role in November. Their newfound pragmatism, born of frustration in trying to defeat George W. Bush, has made electability the sine qua non of the Democratic primaries. And Hillary is flunking the test.

Republican criticisms of her seem to be winning new converts among Democratic primary voters. It is not that liberals are embracing the GOP contention that she is ethically challenged, ultraliberal and Nixonian in her tactics. But a kind of second generation of these criticisms is finding its mark in convincing Democrats that Hillary is too polarizing to be elected.

But a deeper, more fundamental division also seems to be undermining Hillary’s cause: a widening division between the isolationist and internationalist wings of the Democratic Party. With the polarization of public opinion over the war in Iraq, the gap between the anti-Vietnam new left and the Democratic Leadership Council New Democrats is yawning wide. The new left is largely well-educated, eastern and baby-boomer while the new Democrats are more conservative, values-oriented and socially populist.

Hillary and Bill are irretrievably on the New Democratic side of the divide. Her vote for the war, her consciousness of the tough-guy role a woman must play to win and the legacy of her husband’s military interventions abroad put her there to stay. But Al Gore has no such inhibitions. He can play the left on the Iraq war with impunity, having been opposed from day one.

We would be wrong to underestimate the impact of Ned Lamont’s primary victory over Joe Lieberman on Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy. As Eugene McCarthy did in 1968 when he challenged President Johnson over the war, Lamont has created a sense that the Democratic primary is the venue to oppose the war and punish those who supported it. Hillary, as a result, suddenly looks very vulnerable.

The former first lady also faces high negatives over a sense that she flip-flops on key issues. Reminiscent of the negatives that surrounded her husband, her flirtation with pro-lifers on abortion, anti-flag burners in Congress and pro-defense spending hawks on the Armed Services Committee has left a legacy that the woman who went down with the ship on healthcare reform never used to have: that of an opportunist.

In the Fox News poll, the Gore, Kerry, Edwards, Warner and Bayh vote totals 43 percent. So the un-Hillary candidates defeat Hillary 43–33. But even more significant is the switch to undecided among Democratic primary voters. Hillary, in a sense, is an incumbent, and undecideds do not augur well for her candidacy. It is hard to imagine Kerry recovering from his 2004 negatives, and Edwards will have difficulty staying in the limelight. But it is not too difficult to imagine Gore giving Clinton the fight of her life.

The 1992 and 1996 bumper sticker may split up in 2008! 

---

_{Eileen McGann coauthored this column. Dick Morris was an adviser to Bill Clinton for 20 years. Look for Dick’s new book “Condi vs. Hillary” available now. Copyright 2006 Dick Morris, All Rights Reserved. Distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. http://www.caglecartoons.com. To reprint, call Cari Dawson Bartley at (800) 696 7561 or e-mail: cari@cagle.com. Email for Dick Morris is dmredding@aol.com. Eileen McGann, an attorney and consultant, is a CEO of VOTE.com and Legislativevote.com. She works with Dick Morris on campaigns and around the world, specializing in using the internet to win elections.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/14/2006 at 08:02 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Editorials •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - September 03, 2006

Triangulation

Triangulate On Terror
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

The American people, as usual, don’t buy either the Republican or the Democratic party lines. They agree with the Republicans and President Bush that the War on Terror is essential. They embrace the GOP’s views on the Patriot Act and National Security Agency wiretaps.

But Americans agree with the Democrats that Iraq has nothing much to do with the War on Terror. The latest New York Times survey shows that a majority believes that Iraq it not part of the War on Terror.

So it’s time for triangulation. Bush and the Republicans need to stop alienating voters by arguing that Iraq is an indispensable front in the War on Terror. They should center their fall campaign to keep control of Congress on the national-security issue sans Iraq.

Bush doesn’t need to reverse course on Iraq. He doesn’t need to pull out the troops and send them home. He doesn’t even need to set a timetable for withdrawal. But he does have to stop talking about Iraq and talk, instead, about homeland security.

Bush and the Republicans under attack - Sens. Mike DeWine, Conrad Burns, Lincoln Chafee, Jim Talent and Rick Santorum, and numerous House members - need to talk about the Patriot Act, the NSA wiretaps and the resources allocated to homeland security. They should talk about Iraq only when asked, and then only briefly.

Yes, the war in Iraq is connected to the War on Terror. Obviously, al Qaeda is behind many of the attacks in Iraq. Obviously, the streets of Baghdad are the alternative to Manhattan as the place in which the War on Terror is waged.

But, equally obviously, it is political suicide to insist on drawing the connection. So, Republicans: Don’t even think about it! Democrats are vulnerable on all of the domestic-security issues. Just as Republicans hurt themselves when they tie Iraq to the War on Terror, Democrats impair their chances to win by opposing the NSA wiretaps and the Patriot Act along with our Iraqi involvement.

The key is for Republicans to talk about the specific instances in which the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretaps helped us to foil terrorist attacks. John Spencer, running against Sen. Hillary Clinton, has pioneered the way by tying her December 2005 vote against closure on the Patriot Act extension and her voluble opposition to the NSA warrantless wiretaps to the plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge.

Evidence indicates that the bridge would’ve been in smithereens without the Patriot Act. The act forced the sharing of information between the federal security agencies and the NYPD, which triggered the flooding of the bridge with New York cops. Telephone intercepts indicated that the terrorist charged with destroying the bridge told his handlers that the NYPD presence made the bridge “too hot.” Feds have indicated to The New York Times that the NSA wiretaps played an important role in the apprehension of Lyman Faris for his plot to destroy the bridge.

Bush and the GOP need to leave a defense of the war in Iraq behind in their bid to keep control of Congress. After all, what is more important to the American people - a war thousands of miles away or the immediate threat to homeland security so recently evidenced by the plot to blow up jetliners over the Atlantic on the London-to-New York route?

Republicans can’t afford to insist on being re-elected for the right reasons. But if they take what American public opinion is prepared to give them, they can yet salvage this election.

---

_{Eileen McGann co-authored this column. Dick Morris was an adviser to Bill Clinton for 20 years. Look for Dick’s new book “Condi vs. Hillary” available now. Copyright 2006 Dick Morris, All Rights Reserved. Distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons, Inc. http://www.caglecartoons.com. To reprint, call Cari Dawson Bartley at (800) 696 7561 or e-mail: cari@cagle.com. Email for Dick Morris is dmredding@aol.com. Eileen McGann, an attorney and consultant, is a CEO of VOTE.com and Legislativevote.com. She works with Dick Morris on campaigns and around the world, specializing in using the internet to win elections.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 09/03/2006 at 05:38 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Politics •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(1)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - August 31, 2006

Boiled Peanut

I really, really hate Jimmy Carter. Surprised? I hate everyone who voted for that SOB in 1976. I was in the Air Force during his term and I have to say I don’t think the US military has ever had lower morale in its entire history than was present during those years. We watched from the barracks as the Nightly News brought us more of his embaressing mismanagement every day.

He is even more of an embaressment today than he was then, using Coretta King’s funeral to savagely attack President Bush who was in attendance, sucking up to Hugo Chavez and now attacking Tony Blair for helping in the war on terror. I don’t want the Secret Service paying a visit on me any time soon but I will not be unhappy if Carter expires of natural causes in the near future. With that said, here is a British view of Mr. Peanut ...

Don’t Get Carter. He Won’t Do.
By Oliver Kamm
_{(TIMESONLINE-UK) - August 31, 2006}

Next week the former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami visits the United States. Though he will not meet government officials, the visit is significant and welcome. Khatami is reputedly a reformer. It may be possible, through him, to widen the gulf between Iranian pragmatists and theocratic populists.

But there is a risk. The current Iranian regime menaces Israel and has lied to the EU about its nuclear programme. It must not interpret Khatami’s visit as proof of the value of bellicosity. Khatami must get the message that the West will be receptive to concessions, but will face down belligerence. There lies the problem: Khatami’s host in the US is Jimmy Carter.

Carter’s poor reputation as president reflects a record not so much of incompetence as paralysis. He led his Administration mainly in the sense that its internal disagreements faithfully reflected his own philosophical chaos and administrative ineptitude. In domestic policy Carter zigzagged left and right, baffling equally the environmental activists he patronised and the churchgoers whose social values he claimed to share. His proposed system of federal energy controls failed comprehensively. In 1980 he acknowledged that inflation was near a “crisis stage”.

He proclaimed human rights while lauding the Shah of Iran’s repressive regime. When the Shah’s revolutionary successors held 52 American diplomats hostage for 14 months, Ayatollah Khomeini accurately sneered: “Neither does Carter have the guts for military action, nor would anyone listen to him.”

Carter cancelled the B1 bomber in the hope of gaining Soviet goodwill, later acknowledging bemusedly the Kremlin’s persisting “unfriendly rhetoric”. He earned the contempt of friendly European governments by announcing deployment of the neutron bomb and then cancelling it without consulting them.

Last weekend he impertinently attacked Tony Blair’s closeness to George Bush. Doubtless he prefers the model of transatlantic relations he pioneered with Chancellor Helmut Schmidt of Germany, who observed in exasperation that Carter was “just not big enough for the game”.

Less an elder statesman than a soft cushion who bears the impress of whoever sits on him, the 39th president is the last person Khatami should meet.

Posted by The Skipper     on 08/31/2006 at 12:45 PM   
Filed Under: • Editorials •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - August 30, 2006

Katrina: In The Rear View Mirror

In this exclusive mid-week editorial, Michael Reagan looks at Katrina in the rear view mirror - one year later. A year has passed and not much has changed ... the Bush administration has allocated the $11.8 billion asked for to rebuild New Orleans but the money is being held up as the local Democrats in Louisiana argue over how to spend it and blame Bush for the sorry mess their area is still in.

Some things never change ... especially the stoopid people who keep voting for the Donk weasels in spite of the fact that the Democratic Party is intent on hosing the little guy for no other reason than to gain political advantage. Politicians will always pimp themselves out for your vote but a decent prostitute will at least give you your money’s worth instead of just screwing you over, giving you a case of the clap and then blaming somebody else ...

Katrina Revisited
by Michael Reagan

For a long time now we’ve been listening to the Democrats and their toadies in the media complaining about the Bush administration’s handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster and its aftermath.

They charge it up to what they call the administration’s incompetence, implying that had the Democrats been running the show, things would have been handled much better.

It takes a lot of gall to make that charge because as one Town Hall blogger, Cato’s Corner, recently pointed out, the Democrats were in charge before, during and ever since Katrina hit the Gulf Coast.

In the United States, the authorities at the state and local levels are responsible for what happens in their areas. In Louisiana the governor is a Democrat, and the mayor of New Orleans is a Democrat. They were the so-called first responders, and their response was pitiful. They can blame President Bush all they want, but it was their job to handle the disaster and their handling of it was a disaster in itself.

That incompetence continues, especially in New Orleans where the cleanup and rebuilding efforts are lagging far behind where they would have been had they done their jobs competently. And they can’t blame that on the president or the federal government.

The fact is that $11.8 billion has been allocated. That’s everything that New Orleans asked for. They got $6 billion in December, another $4 billion in May, another $1.8 billion recently, and yet they haven’t spent the money.

One big problem: New Orleans has yet to come up with a master plan that will allow people to know what they can do and how to do it.

“The citizens of New Orleans need to know what the plans are, so the citizens can make their plans on whether they should rebuild, repair or sell their homes,” Norman Francis, chairman of the Louisiana Recovery Authority, which oversees federal aid given to Louisiana told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

“A lot of people are holding their money back pending an affirmation that the city really has a broader idea of where it’s going in the future. What kind of a city is it going to be?” added Ken Topping, a California planning consultant hired to help.

Moreover, the city refuses to relax the red-tape provisions to allow the people to get the money to be able to rebuild, which is exactly the opposite of what Mississippi’s Republican Governor Haley Barbour has done in his state. He cut through the red tape to allow the people to get the funds necessary to go ahead and rebuild.

Another reason is that the folks in Mississippi are working together, not standing around waiting for the federal government to rebuild. Officials in Louisiana are still whining, waiting for somebody to do everything for them.

The federal government has supplied the funds. It is the local government that refuses to distribute the money. I was talking to a member of Congress from Louisiana who recalled that the Congress had authorized $6 billion last December but New Orleans made the determination that they were not going to spend any of it until they got the whole $10 billion they were then demanding.

In Mississippi, on the other hand, as they were getting the money they were finding ways to spend it to help the people rebuild.

Tragically, the President is playing into the hands of his critics by implying that he is somehow to blame for the situation. He’s allowing the Democrats to use him as fodder in their attacks on him. He needs to stand up and shout, “We’re not to blame. We gave you the money. If the people in New Orleans don’t have the money it’s not because the federal government hasn’t done its job; it’s because your local government officials refuse to do theirs.”

---

_{Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network. Look for Mike’s new book “Twice Adopted”. Order autographed books at http://www.reagan.com. Email Comments to mereagan@hotmail.com. ©2006 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc. Cari Dawson Bartley email Cari@cagle.com, (800) 696-7561.}

Posted by The Skipper     on 08/30/2006 at 02:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Climate-Weather • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Editorials •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner