State Of The Union 2005

President Bush gave the annual SOTU address tonight. It was pretty useless IMO. It felt like a rehash of so many prior speeches. Time for speeches is over. Now is the time for action -- REAL action.

Highlights:

• Cindy Sheehan, socialist anti-American anti-war activist, was invited to the SOTU by an irresponsible congressman and managed to get her deranged self arrested before the event started. Momma Moonbat tried to unfurl an anti-war banner and was quickly evacuated by the Capitol police. She is a joke and a national embarrassment at this point. Sympathy time is over for this loon.
• Bush was defiant about immigration - and that's a mistake. He claimed that the economy can't survive without all the immigrants (he conveniently left out the word "illegal" before "immigrants"). And he repeated his call for a guest worker program that "rejects amnesty". I can see clearly why Dubya was a C student at Yale. He can't read very well (Amnesty - "a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment").
• Bush said that we're addicted to oil as a country. DUH! He mentioned a litany of alternative energy and energy-saving initiatives. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'll believe it when I see it. I am absolutely sick to death of politicians talking about this and not delivering on it. Everyone in the country knew this was a URGENT ISSUE more than 30 YEARS AGO during the Arab oil embargo. Thousands of politicians and eight presidents later and we're still as hapless and clueless as always. So you'll forgive me if I'm a little skeptical that a president whose family currency is oil will be the person who can finally deliver us from evil (literally in this case).
• Bush was able to introduce the two new Supreme Court justices (Roberts and Alito) who were sworn in this past year. That, to me, is about the only thing I felt good about. And I feel VERY good about that.
• And finally, the Democratic response was given by newly-elected Virginia governor Tim Kaine. Right off the bat, he talked about his background as a missionary. Maybe he is sincere, but it just seems forced, manipulative, and disingenuous when a Democrat talks about religion or his/her faith. I'll bet the mere mention of his faith had a lot of the Democrats' base screaming at their TV sets. While I'm also suspicious of some Republicans who wear their faith on their sleeves, it almost never seems natural coming from any Democrats. Maybe 30 years ago, the Dems could pull it off without sounding phony, but the circa 2006 Democrats have made it abundantly clear how unwelcome blending of politics and religion truly is in their ever-shrinking neighborhoods.

Kerry calls for Alito filibuster; From Switzerland, no less

John Kerry, failed 2005 presidential candidate, is now calling for a filibuster of SCOTUS nominee Samuel Alito. The fact that a Senate Dem has decided to eschew common sense and kiss up to the ultra-liberal minority in the US by pursuing this inane strategy is not surprising. The fact that Kerry (a liberal amongst liberals) is the one doing this is also not surprising.

The most interesting aspect of this call to arms, however, is the fact that Kerry was trying to drum up support for this bold move from Switzerland, where he is attending the World Economic Forum. Kerry is Mr. "Global Test", so I know his overseas itinerary is very important to him. Still, if this issue (which the left claims will irreparably harm our country for the next 25 or 30 years) is so important to Mr. Kerry, you would think he could have made more time for it on his busy globetrotting schedule. It appears, however, that our windsailing Johnny Boy got all the way to Switzerland before he stuck his finger in the air to see which position to take. Once he saw a chance to stand out from his peers, he leaned a different way and started hoping against hope for that gust of wind that never seems to come.

The one thing I am a little surprised by? Apparently, Kerry has not compared Judge Alito to "Jenjis Khan". Not yet, at least.

Insurgents turn against Al Qaeda

According to Reuters, Iraqi insurgents in the Sunni city of Ramadi are turning against their former Al Qaeda allies. Apparently, they see more hope in the political process than in the path of destruction championed by Al Qaeda. Who would've figured that blowing up innocent Sunni and Shia women and children wasn't a winning strategy for Al Qaeda? You can't get anything by the Sunnis. That bunch is as sharp as a tack.

;o)

I think Al Qaeda needs a new PR firm. Who knows? If you give 'em a good shave, put a business suit on them, and get them to stop blowing innocent people up, their whole "jihad message" may win over more people.

Halliburton: The reality check keeps bouncing

According to MSNBC, Halliburton allegedly gave troops contaminated water last year. I can't say that I'm shocked. Halliburton keeps screwing up and continues to stick out like a sore thumb in what has to be the most shameful aspect of our involvement in Iraq.

It's like having a company's owner hire his good-for-nothing frat buddy to run a part of his business. He hopes that the buddy does a good job so that the owner's obvious cronyism won't be exposed for the travesty that it is. However, fratboy keeps showing up drunk for work and fails miserably in every conceivable way.

Halliburton is that drunken, miserable failure.

I never really liked Dick Cheney. I don't think anyone does. Maybe W does, but I doubt it. And it was a shameless abuse of power for Cheney to throw no-bid contracts at his Halliburton buddies like he was tossing beads and candy off a float at Mardi Gras.

Even if Halliburton was the most qualified company for the jobs it does in Iraq, they shouldn't have been hired. The fact the Cheney used to be their CEO creates a perception of impropriety. And using them undermines the Republican cause in a perpetually corrosive way.

You know -- The most mouthy and radical Dems keep saying Bush should be impeached. Well, I think that Cheney should be impeached. And it should be the Republicans that do it. Only then could they undo some of the damage and unload some of the baggage than bears Cheney's signature.

Contentment - is it really that elusive?

This post about contentment over at Creative Survival really made me think. In it, Cyndee talks about a letter she received from a friend. I especially appreciated this passage:

My whole life it's been, when I'm sixteen I'll be able to drive, when I graduate I'll be able to live on my own, when I'm married I'll be able to have sex... on and on looking forward to what was to come and never truly appreciating where I was at the time. The Lord has taught me to really appreciate where I am right now!

And then this:

I just wish I could have enjoyed where I was before instead of always looking to the next thing.

Wow. Truer words have not been spoken. Many of us do tend to wish our lives away. Being "in the moment" is toughest when the chips are down, but just imagine how good life can be if you can really savor life even in the worst of times.

Thanks, Cyndee, for sharing such a thoughtful and inspired message.

How about a little justice, Souter?

I think an appropriate term would be "boomerang activism".

A group of activists are trying to get Justice David Souter's New Hampshire home seized so that a hotel can be built at that location. The activists are angry about the Kelo vs. City of New London Supreme Court decision that allows the government to take the land/homes of citizens and sell it to corporate interests. This decision was an extension (outrageous extension to many Americans) of the policy of eminent domain, which allows the seizure of private land for public/governmental uses.

Since Souter was in the majority opinion on this decision, I think it's poetic "justice" that he is going to experience first-hand how unfair and hurtful this legislation can be in real terms.

Is it a mean-spirited move by the activists? Probably, but it's well-intentioned and completely fair.

Will it make Souter realize his wrong-headed decision? I suspect so, although I doubt he'd admit it publicly.

Will it do anything to reverse the decision? I hope so. I'm not sure how the mechanics of the Supreme Court work, but if a reversal is possible, it could and should happen in this case. If not, perhaps a similar case would be sent to the court and a more rational ruling could be made that would supersede the Kelo ruling. This is a case that seems to unite liberal and conservatives in that it seems to put government AND corporate interests above the interests of the average citizen.

Your activist rulings have unpleasant consequences, Justice Souter. If you don't yet realize that, I can only hope that you will soon.

By the way, I wonder if anyone is researching where Stevens, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer live? Souter didn't birth this baby all by himself.

:o)

Feinstein warns against filibuster; Leftists squeal

In today's Washington Post, Dianne Feinstein warned against a filibuster by Dems against Alito.

"This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."

That's the smartest thing I've ever heard her say. She usually seems uncompromising in a "dim bulb" sort of way.

Of course, this made the KosKids scream with flurries of profanity and bile-spewing. If you look at the comments, you'll see just how unhappy these campers are with the entire Alito situation and, after her WashPo editorial, with Dianne Feinstein. Many of them are ready to burn her at the stake. And she's one of their own.

You would think by now that these folks, at least the smart ones, would start to "get it". They are a superminority (super in terms of how strongly the minority term applies) of the minority party. Their hatred for Bush and conservatives must be blinding them to the fact that they are outnumbered in a Little Bighorn sort of way. Their numbers are small already and ever-dwindling. Their significance has been buoyed primarily by a MSM that keeps desperately trying to make them relevant. It hasn't worked.

This reality-based community is getting a healthy dose of true reality these days. And they don't like it one bit.

Lobbying reform? Not likely with this bunch.

With Tom Delay not in the running (thank goodness) for the House majority leader position, it appears to be a three-man race between Roy Blunt of Missouri, John Boehner of Ohio, and John Shadegg of Arizona.

All three candidates appeared (as summarized on RedState) on today's Fox News Sunday and made their cases. Chris Wallace pointed out that each one of them has had his own ethical (or at least borderline ethical) lapses.

Blunt had, in 2002, inserted language aiding Phillip Morris into a bill. And his wife is a Kraft Foods/Phillip Morris lobbyist. This was only one example of his dalliances. Boehner had taken 31 trips paid for by lobbyists, amongst other things. And even Shadegg, who had less egregious lapses than Blunt or Boehner, had returned donations indirectly associated with Jack Abramoff.

Is this really the best of the lot? Do we think for a second that any of these three will undertake serious reform? I don't. It's like putting a fall-down drunk on a weekend bender in charge of your local chapter of Alcoholics Anonymous.

If the Republicans don't think that this is serious, they're wrong. If they don't think that people care, they're wrong. If they think that this storm will just blow over and that they can easily retain the majority in the House, they're wrong.

As it stands right now, I doubt I will vote for any incumbents this November. When possible, I will likely vote for a non-incumbent Republican. And I will also seriously consider any socially conservative Democrats or Independents.

I'm fed up with this entire bunch of ethically-challenged opportunists. I want this cleaned up. I want term limits. I want true leadership. And I want it now. It should've happened back in 1994 when the Republicans took over the House. Twelve years later, I can't distinguish the 2006 Republicans from the 1993 Democrats. And that's shameful and embarrassing.

Interesting development in Pakistan

There's possibly a significant development out of Pakistan. A CIA airstrike from a drone may have killed Bin Laden's #2 guy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. If you'll recall, Al-Zawahiri is the chatty one. He puts out more videos than MTV does these days. He's always "infidel this" and "infidel that". And to top it all off, he is a physician. I guess that makes him something of a modern-day Josef Mengele.

Now it would be good news indeed if we expedited the good doc's initial face-to-face with Allah, but that news would be tempered somewhat by the fact that there will be a hundred more cockroaches eager to take his place. However, what might be more significant is that we (the CIA) bombed this guy while he was in Pakistan. If I recall correctly, the prospect of the US carrying out any military initiatives in Pakistan was a very touchy subject two or three years ago. Now, though, we apparently have drones (unmanned surveillance aircraft) doing at least some recon there. And if we have drones in the 'hood, then we can drop a fiery "jihad" on a hot target at a moment's notice.

This could prove very useful when coupled with a Pakistani government that now seems to be interested in purging itself of radical islamists.

UPDATE: Now Pakistan is lodging a complaint about the airstrike. I'm hoping, though, that this is one of those "we'll deny it in public" claims and that Pakistan's government is still playing ball with us behind the scenes.

A conservative government in Canada, eh?

Our friends north of the border may be poised to elect a conservative government in the upcoming election that is being held as a result of the fall of the liberal government last year. Conservatives are currently leading in the polls. Personally, I have taken a poll and it revealed 100% support for the conservatives. As a disclaimer, though, I should mention that my sample size consisted of one person (my friend, Deanna, who is the only Canadian with whom I regularly communicate). So my sample may not be entirely representative of the population as a whole. :o)

While it has no direct bearing on me, it would be nice to see a more socially conservative government in Canada. US liberals are always so eager to proclaim how "out of touch" America's conservatives are with the rest of the world. Our horrific attempts to "legislate morality" are labeled as archaic and backwards-thinking and will surely...SURELY...lead us straight into a theocracy the likes of which even the Muslim world has never known (which is an irresponsible and ridiculous statement).

Anyway, it's nice to know that maybe not all Canadians are ultra-liberal. I have pretty much given up on California, New York, and Massachusetts. They seem to be beyond hope. However, these recent developments in Canada are very encouraging.

Perhaps Jesusland is bigger than the US liberals thought.

:o)

Former Brave voted into Hall of Fame

Yesterday, Bruce Sutter was voted into the MLB HOF. Sutter played for the Braves during some of their misery years (1985-88 in Sutter's case). I'm glad that one of the premier relievers of the modern era has been recognized with this honor. Now the HOF voters need to, at a minimum, get Goose Gossage and Lee Smith in as well.

I wonder if Sutter will wear a Braves hat on induction day. Somehow, I doubt it. He did finish up in Atlanta and he apparently still lives in Atlanta, so he still has ties to the community. However, he didn't perform as well here as he did with the Cubs or the Cardinals. Also, he only spent three years here. He spent four years in St. Louis and five years in Chicago.

If I was a betting man, I'd think that he be wear a Cubs hat when he formally enters the Hall. He had his longest tenure there and, arguably, his strongest years there in terms of his stats and impact to his team and the league.

Either way, though, this was an honor that was well-deserved and long overdue.

Teddy Kennedy's "mainstream"

The Senate Judiciary Committee started the hearings today on Samuel Alito's nomination to the US Supreme Court. As is customary, the senators on the committee all gave a preliminary statement. Teddy Kennedy, gasbag that he is, again went on and on about how it is the Senate's responsibility to make sure that Judge Alito is not "outside the mainstream".

Outside the mainstream? God help us if Chappaquiddick Teddy is the arbiter of what is considered "mainstream". My guess is that Teddy thinks that he exists somewhere within his self-styled "mainstream". Here's an illustration of where he sits, though:

The only people to the left of Teddy on the bell curve are your pure, unadulterated socialists and the sanfran-type anarchists.

Do you think presidential elections don't matter? I'm just grateful that "pickled-at-birth" Teddy is relegated to the small, weak role that he has. Our country is better place because people like him are properly placed into context and herded together at the margins of the political spectrum where they belong.

Marcus Vick hits bottom, keeps digging

Let me get this straight. Marcus Vick:

* Was stopped for driving 38 in a 25 zone and driving with a revoked or suspended license on Dec. 17,
* Stomped on the leg of a Louisville player during the Gator Bowl on Jan. 2, then said it was an accident (a lie exposed by the video of it), then said that he apologized to the victim and was forgiven (another lie as revealed by the victim himself), and now...
* Has been arrested on three counts of brandishing a firearm and pointing it at someone in a McDonald's parking lot this past weekend.

Wow. I'll bet the NFL GM's are now lining up to get a guy who has such strong character and integrity!

My guess is that he'll wind up in the Arena League or in Canada playing football. Or in prison.

What an idiot.

Lynn Swann goes for a TD in Pennsylania

Lynn Swann is running for governor of Pennsylvania as a Republican and he seems like a great candidate at first glance (pro-life and a sports guy is always a good start in my book). His candidacy and the publicity around his campaign could be a much-needed boost to a Republican party that is perceived -- rightly or wrongly -- as being indifferent or belligerent towards the African-American community.

Maybe they could talk John Stallworth into being the Lieutenant Governor. And how about Jack Lambert as the Homeland Security Chief? :o)

I can only assume the Dems will recruit Charlie Waters or Hollywood Henderson to run against him.

But we already know how that would turn out, don't we?

Bush makes a stupid decision

Just when I think Bush has righted the ship, he goes and makes another ill-advised decision by making a recess appointment of Julie Myers as assistant secretary of Homeland Security for ICE. Myers just happens to be the niece of the recently retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers and the wife of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael certifies chief of staff.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't have a problem with recess appointments. And, from what I can tell superficially, Julie Myers has reasonably impressive credentials. What I have a problem with is that this further shows that Bush appoints cronies and friends within his network of acquaintances. This same manner of thinking sent Dick Cheney off to find a suitable VP candidate, only to recommend himself. It sent Harriet Myers off to find a good Supreme Court nomination, only to return with the suggestion that she get the job. It named Michael Brown, the Arabian Horseman, to head up FEMA and eventually fail catastrophically at his job in the midst of Hurricane Katrina. And now this?

Give me a break, George. At a time when your decision-making should be getting better, you continue to embarrass those of us who are trying, really trying, to support you. Do you just ENJOY ticking off the majority of the country? Is this some type of masochistic itch that you're scratching? I just don't get it. And I wasn't a hard sell to begin with.

CLUE
(go ahead. take it. you desperately need one.)

Most annoying liberals

Rightwingnews' list of 2005's most annoying liberals is right on the mark. Not surprisingly, the two leftist blogs I sometimes read made the list -- Daily Kos and Huffington Post. Whenever I think that I've had it with our elected conservatives (not conservatism, mind you), I meander over to Kos and HP and realize what the alternative could be. Their hate-filled screeds remind me that no Democratic "big tent" is large enough to house me and them. Our worldviews are just absolute polar opposites.

Abramoff cuts a deal

High-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff has cut a deal with prosecutors in his corruption probe. It looks like some politicians from both parties could be affected, but most pundits think that this will impact/implicate Republicans more than Dems.

My reaction to Abramoff's deal? Good. And I don't care whether it hurts Republicans or Democrats more. It is way past time for shady lobbying practices to get exposed. Of course, I very much doubt that Abramoff is the only corrupt lobbyist. In fact, I assume that all lobbyists are rotten to the core -- although I freely admit that I don't even like the lobbying practices that are supposedly legal. I can only hope that they chase all these cockroaches (including the lobbyists, politicians, staffers, and anyone else sullied by these and all similar acts) out of the shadows and prosecute all violators to the fullest extent of the law. Money has dominated politics for way too long. And this influence-peddling and vote-buying only further deteriorates the credibility of Washington as a whole.

So, let loose the dogs of hell -- so to speak -- on these ethically-challenged "people" (and I use that term loosely). Maybe they'll finally get what's coming to them and we can truly make our country be "of the people, by the people, and for the people" once again.