Voice your opposition to Ahmadinejad

Everyone feels differently about internet petitions. At least they are a method of voicing one’s opinion in a tangible way.

We came across this petition about the 21st Century Hitler from Tehran. Maybe it will not do any good but signing sure made me feel good. I wish more could be directly done, and if it can I’m game for more.

Maybe signing will give you a little lift too.

Iraq-the Pelosi/Reid Post Office Congress loses again.

Today, the Unites States Senate rejected the latest Democrat attempt to implement their defeat at any price agenda in Iraq. The Levin-Reed proposal failed to achieve even a sheer majority. Thursday, the Feingold Amendment to “safely redeploy” the US forces from Iraq was dealt a humiliating 70-28 defeat right after a majority of the Democrat Senate Caucus personally ratified the vile MoveOn libel of Gen. David Petraeus.

The absurdly unconstitutional Webb amendment to limit military deployments overseas (Iraq) failed, although by a smaller margin on Wednesday.

The week that was in the 11% Pelosi/Reid Post Office Congress.

Murtha, red faced lying cad.

You know I love to berate the cad John Murtha. Seldom is every deficiency in the body politic manifested in one person but Murtha has ‘em all, a veritable super infection of contagious duplicity.

The case against the Haditha Marines is falling apart. Nearly all of the charges against nearly all of the Marines involved in either the false “rampage killing”, as the liberal press described the Haditha incident, or the “cover up” that the MSM running dogs fabricated from the fog of war have been dismissed. All indications are that the few remaining charges will also be soon dismissed.

Murtha, the morally repulsive toady of appeasement and purveyor of pork, rushed to proclaim the Marine brothers in arms he claims to love guilty of murder when it suited his political needs. That was low, but arguably truthful when uttered.

Now that the case against the Marines has disintegrated Murtha and Murtha’s claims exposed as lies, ABSCAM Murtha demonstrates that his cowardice extends beyond the geo-strategic policy of appeasement he advocates. Rather than apologize for his defamation of American heroes Murtha now claims that an anonymous source in the military mislead him. Hot Air and Wake Up America have great coverage of this story.

If Murtha is lying about the unnamed source (most likely) then he needs to apologize for repeating a defamatory lie. If not and he rushed to spread a defamatory lie based on an anonymous source then he needs to apologize and pay damages for his grossly reckless disregard of the possibility that the anonymous source was incorrect before globally broadcasting a false murder accusation. If ever someone deserved to find the word “Defendant” after his name in a civil defamation case it is ABSCAM Murtha. Never mind the propaganda bonanza with which a United States Congressman’s accusation of murder provided to the global Jihad.

Congressman Murtha needs to shine some light on what lead him to tell such a monstrous lie; he needs to apologize to the Marines and the nation for that monstrous lie; and then he needs to resign. Be gone you damn curse, begone!

So to which gulag do Hillary’s Health Commissars send…………….

………… the anti-social American who cars so little for his fellow citizens that he dares to go without government mandated “insurance”.

The American Evita ‘s position is clear, a federal mandate that every American must purchase health insurance is the best way to obtain universal health insurance coverage.

Even worse, she also admits that the punitive sanctions to enforce the federal mandate have only not yet been proposed. In Clinton speak that means she will disclose the penalties right after the election.

Evita then goes on to describe exactly one such sanction, a person will have to provide proof of health insurance to apply for a job!

How is that not socialist, paternalist and a huge step down the road toward totalitarianism?

You can find your ideal candidate…………

……… by clicking here.

I was a little surprised at the Real Sporer’s ideal candidate, although not all that surprised. It would be fun to see how many of our readers could guess the ideal Sporer candidate.

Answer honestly and learn who you really, secretly, want to be President.

Bipartisanship on display in Des Moines.

The Real Sporer has learned that former Rep. Ed Fallon (D), an unsuccessful candidate for Governor last year and current Republican Representatives Jeff Kaufmann (Wilton) and Jodi Tymeson (Winterset) are holding a public press conference, that sounds more like a rally with reporters invited, tomorrow, September 18 on the West steps of the Statehouse. I hear the event kicks off at 1:30 in the afternoon.

The eminent domain debate certainly created strange alliances and tomorrow’s has to be among the strangest. However, strange as it may seem to find Jeff Kaufmann on the same side as Ed Fallon, their pairing, along with the ever-congenial Jodi Tymeson, evidences the widespread rejection of the overreaching eminent domain powers for which Gov. Culver and the Democrat legislative leadership are always in search.

Outside of a few large corporate oligarchs and overweening government commissars, few Iowans support the Democrats unlimited eminent domain power in the hands of government is a good idea. The idea that a man’s (or woman’s or transgender’s or whatever other mutations of language and biology the 21st Century brings) is their castle is as much a part of our concept of ordered liberty as is the idea of free speech.

The eminent domain powers of the sovereign (King George III in this instance) were a very sore spot for the Founding Fathers. While all rational thinkers acknowledge that the small “s” state must sometime take private property for public use (that’s how roads are built) it is quite a different proposition for the state to take property because it thinks that some other private citizen may make a better use of the same property. However, one’s perspective might change if you are among the small number of people who personally and directly benefit from the government’s ability to obtain and provide desired property.

The Iowa House rejected the Vilsack eminent domain overreach by a vote of 91-8 back in July of 06. Polk County Democrat Jo Oldson, whose husband is, and I know this will floor you with surprise; a lobbyist, supports taking your house and giving it to her husband’s fast growing suburban clients like Coralville and West Des Moines. More surprisingly, Walt Tomenga voted to sustain the veto. I am told Walt is retiring this year so that leaves Jo Oldson as the only Polk County representative to support unlimited eminent domain.

Another interesting vote in favor of government taking private property and giving it to other, “better”, private citizens is Jack Hatch. Hatch is one of only eight Senators to vote to unleash the full eminent domain appetite of government. Jack is kind of the anti-Fallon in the public integrity department. Not surprisingly, Jack has become a real estate developer, who finds himself the direct or ultimate recipient of significant government largess. Just think of what Jack could do if his cronies on the Democrat City Council and the Democrat Board of Supervisors could quite literally take property from anyone and give it to Jack for a housing development. That kind of power is like John Mauro and the rest of the CIETC gang on confiscatory steroids.

Please drop by the Golden Dome tomorrow and defend your castle. Public service and democracy working properly are rare visitors in that neighborhood these days and we should see them when we can.

Sunday Talk Review-Meet the Press (NBC)-The Democrats looked even worse.

Tim Russert featured a head-to-head debate on Iraq between Senators John McCain and John Forbes Kerry. McCain immediately framed the terms of victory in Iraq as the defeat of Al Qaeda (and presumably its affiliates) in Iraq, reversal of Iranian influence in Iraq and the achievement or progress toward a functioning government that upholds aits own sovereign military security.

Russert responded with a list of casualties as the reason for withdrawal. McCain showed mature leadership in admitting that casualties, however mournful their occurrence, are the cost of success. McCain then described the consequences of defeat as genocide, Iranian expansion and possibly a major Saudi-Iranian war in Iraq.

The Kerry doublespeak then began with intonation of the words civil war and then drifted off that into a strange argument that the American presence lacks sufficient troops to secure every neighborhood in Iraq. The attack then meandered into a list of Iraqi political failures during the last several months.

Kerry then blamed every problem in the Middle East on the Iraq campaign. Russert then asked JFK (Light) for the Democrat Iraq policy. Kerry said the US would exit Iraq in a year. The statement was impregnated with questions of consequence. JFK (Light), just how in hell would that diminish Iran’s influence in the region? Why would Al Qaeda leave just because the US left? Serious questions that the mindless liberal critique leaves unanswered.

McCain discussed the very serious national security implications of setting a date for withdrawal. McCain moved hard into the Saudi, Iranian, and Syrian response to American withdrawal. Every problem in the region would worsen, McCain argued.

JFK (Light) then said Democrats they were not talking about abandoning Iraq-just withdrawing combat troops from combat with someone, presumably not Al Qaeda. Aside from having said that the Democrat plan was to remove all troops from Iraq in a year only five minutes previously, how could the theater become more secure with fewer US combat troops if the number already there is insufficient for victory? McCain treated JFK (Light) like the Washington Generals on this one.

McCain pointed out the utter impossibility of drawing battlefield distinctions between Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and local militias. Do we stop and ask the enemies’ affiliation before we target them? Of course, Al Qaeda operatives could be expected to truthfully answer such a query before detonating the nearby roadside bomb. McCain describes the only choice for the United States in Iraq, victory or defeat. The Democrats blather about some third conclusion to the campaign simply exposes both their moral weakness and the mindlessness of their opposition to the Iraq campaign.

Kerry returned to the theme of a need for more diplomacy. A new liberal tag line appeared “surge diplomacy right now”. With whom JFK (Light), with whom do we negotiate? The Iranians? They want us out as fast as possible. Perhaps the Syrians, who also want the US out in less time than it takes Chuck Schumer to find a television camera. With Al Qaeda, who already have risked global war with the United States to achieve their goals? Diplomacy always sounds nice ‘cause war is hell but sometimes politics simply must be continued by that other means so that both sides recognize a winner and a loser.

In his pursuit of defeat at any price Kerry then shifted to one of the appeasers truly big lies, that there was no Al Qaeda presence in Iraq before US invasion. JFK (Light) has apparently forgotten Musab al Zarqawi, who really was cutting off heads in a manner reminiscent of Genghis Kahn. The canard is both untrue and, as McCain promptly responded, irrelevant. The die is cast; we are at war in Iraq (not with Iraq) and it no longer matter because Al Qaeda is in Iraq now.

Russert then abandoned all pretense of impartiality on the Iraq issue (if any was left) and raised the infantile tag line of no victory without a political solution. McCain advanced the proposition that if the US gets out, Iraq will accommodate itself to the neighborhood, which means as Iran's puppet. Think of the damage Iran can do with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hammas in Palestine and then add the assets of the Iraqi state to the Iranian power base. McCain left the conclusion unstated; there can be no political solution without military security.

Kerry sounded even less lucid this morning than he did during the last Presidential campaign. He read a letter from some infantry privates refuting the Petraeus/ Crocker report. Did I not just hear Juan W just say on Fox that we should not politicize the soldiers? Kerry ended with more blather about conferences and bi-partisanship.

McCain then laid out Al Qaeda’s many statements that they will obtain victory in Iraq because we retreated in Mogadishu, Beirut and the USS Cole. Kerry responded with the tag line that Al Qaeda loves fighting us in Iraq. Great, better there than here. Moreover, why does Al Qaeda promise the global Jihad victory in Iraq? Why do the Iranians want the US out of Iraq? Why don’t the liberals ever answer these fundamental questions?

The liberals leave the questions unanswered because, for a variety or reasons, they fear war more than anything else on Earth. Liberals cannot admit such weakness for political reasons so they resort to the shallow, disjointed and silly reasoning that JFK (Light) displayed this morning.

Sunday Talk Review-Fox News Sunday-Dems look bad.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the lead off guest. Sec. Gates promptly raised perhaps the first, and ultimately only relevant, issue-the consequences of the upcoming decisions about Iraq. Gates pointed to the tremendous empowerment the global Jihad gained by their victory over the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Gates indicated that disliking the manner by which the US entered Iraq has simply become irrelevant from anything but a historical perspective. In a minor political statement, Gates impliedly criticized the failure to address the consequences of the Democrats demand for defeat in Iraq.

Chris Wallace showed Sec. Gates a clip of retired Gen. Jones' testimony about the readiness of the Iraqi military. Gates used the same retort as did Gen. Jones himself last week-factual reality and accuracy of context. The clip is out of context and describes things likes logistic and air support for Iraqi ground units. The report in total describes a number of major improvements in Iraqi capability that is demonstrable on the battlefield. Again, the liberal argument defines the absence of complete victory as a state of complete defeat and failure. By such logic, the US would have surrendered to Hitler in the early days of the Battle of Bulge to avoid 40,000 American casualites over Christmas time in 1944-six months before VE Day.

Gates would not talk about Iranian involvement in Iraq. Gates did duck the question but did make it clear that Iran is acting against the United States in Iraq. The Secretary would not answer the question of the Administration’s hypothetical plans to take military action across the border.

Similarly, Sec. Gates would not go into much detail about the recent threat of Syrian nukes. Gates also said that the Administration was carefully watching both North Korea and Syria. Gates acknowledged that Syrian nukes would be a major issue for Israel and the US. D’ya think?

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Delaware) was the next guest. Joe Biden shows the ludicrousness of the Democrat position. Biden discusses a change in the American military role to border protection and combating Al Qaeda. Biden then argues that if we maintain the status quo policy of victory over the terrorists and the militias in Iraq we will have unrelenting casualties. Aside from the fact that American casualties are shockingly light, how would a change of mission from one combat action to another further reduce casualties?

When confronted with the most recent ABC/BBC (and that’s about as liberal a pair as you can find this side of NBC and BBC) polls of Iraqi popular opinion as evidence that the Iraqis themselves oppose partition, Joe just ducked and argued about other, unknown polling data showing that Iraqis think its OK to kill US soldiers. Joe looked foolish on this point.

The discussion then turned to the facially unconstitutional plan to limit deployments for the military abroad. Sen. Biden only argument was the ad homonym that “the President doesn’t know a lot about the Constitution”. Strange, the liberals lose almost every Constitutional legal battle with the Bush Administration. Read Article I Joe, Congress has only two roles with the military during wartime: (1) Declare War-they already did that for both the larger global war on terror and specifically again for Iraq; and, (2) pass funding-they have already done that for Iraq this year. The Administration will win this one in court also.

Joe then returned to the silly tag line that we will “break” the military if we keep going. Of course, Biden supported the Democrat position of dramatic force reduction throughout the 90’s so it seems that the insufficiency of force for our present global war is a cross squarely located on the Democrat back. Moreover, military retention is high. I wonder if Joe will vote to enlarge the military consistently with the Administration’s requests.

Joe described the treasonous attack on Gen. Petraeus as wrong, the only D to go even that far. Biden attributed the outrage to frustration at “the war”. Biden’s statement did not exactly storm the moral high ground but it did present at least a sufficient statement of disagreement with the defamatory tactics to distinguish Joe’s decency from the rest of the “patriotic” Democrat leadership.

Our usual review ignores the panel discussions, although George and Tim are increasingly using panel discussions in further mimicry of a Fox success, so perhaps our practice might change. Today, Juan displayed the mindless hypocrisy of the liberal view of the world.

Juan attacked pro-victory Iraq groups for using wounded soldiers high morale for victory in commercials promoting victory; while never having spoken a word about the 9.11 widows or the likes of Sen. Max Cleland (not injured in combat) as spokesmen for isolationism and defeat. Juan defended the vile left wing attacks from Clinton, Schumer and their MoveOn.org leaders by claiming polls show people agree. Juan didn’t argue that the defamation is morally wrong nor that the defamers were factually, historically or contextually correct; in a moment of candor a die hard 60s liberal showed their true colors- the success of the defamation was sufficient to justify it’s use.

Juan even closed with a return to Vietnam, citing Gen. Westmoreland’s testimony that “everything was going well in Vietnam”. As we now know from a vast library of both previously classified American documents and statements coming from the Vietnamese themselves the military was right, we were winning in Vietnam. The icons of the liberal press were presenting a false portrait of defeat in Vietnam, not the patriotic soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen who had and were risking their lives in service of the very pestilential propagandists who were undermining the soldiers at home.

Nevertheless, the best line of the show came from a letter from a viewer that caught perhaps the truest difference between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, and the strong from the weak. “Every civilized person abhors war. Liberals fear it.”