There a bit of controversy brewing tonight over some comments made by President Bush. Here is what President Bush said,

“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along

…

We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history”

Did he name names? No. Did he imply any particular U.S. Senator, Representative, or anyone else? No. He didn’t mention anyone by name and he gave no example of what he was speaking about, but what he said was true. He simply made a statement of fact.

Some people do seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists. Some people at the time, including U.S. Senators, also thought we should have sat down and talked to Hitler. Don’t get your political panties in a bunch. What President Bush said was the truth.

So why did a number of Democrats get all bent out of shape this afternoon?

Barack Obama accused the President of a “false political attack”. How? Even though President Bush never mentioned Barack Obama by name, Mr. Obama has said that part of his strategy of “change” and “inspiration” was to sit down at the table to talk to terrorists and the countries that sponsor them. I’ve heard him make that statement. He said it. So why is he upset? Even if President Bush was aiming his statements at Mr. Obama, how was his statement false?

Nancy Pelosi said President Bush’s comments were “beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation”. President Bush spoke the truth, is that something she’s unfamiliar with? Who is she to talk about dignity? If I remember correctly, Nancy Pelosi visited Syria herself in April of 2007 even though it was against official U.S. policy. Maybe she’s taking offense because she thought of herself when President Bush was speaking?

Of course, seeing the opportunity to jump on the official Democratic Party “I’m Offended” bandwagon, Senator Joe Biden said,

This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset … and make this kind of ridiculous statement

Ridiculous statement? How was his statement ridiculous? Several people in our government, candidates and non-candidates alike, have said they would sit down and talk to terrorists, or the governments which sponsor them. If anyone can understand being on the negative end of appeasement, it’s the Jews, so why not make those statements during the 60th anniversary of Israel? Of course, Joe Biden pipes up everytime there is something for Democrats to feign offense at so this is no big surprise to me.

Not being one to be left out of the conversation, Hillary Clinton said,

President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush.

Again, why not make those statements during the 60th anniversary of Israel? Why are Democrats so “offended” by the facts? Whether they are historical facts (the statement about the American Senator wishing he could have spoken to Hitler) or current facts (some people do want to sit down and talk to the terrorists), why are Democracts so offended by them?

Personally, I think President Bush’s comments were right on the money, especially in light of Former President Jimmy Carter’s recent trip to visit with the leaders of Hamas. Jimmy Carter has said time and time again that the only road to peace is to sit down and talk with the terrorists and the countries that sponsor them. So, once again I ask, where was the falseness, unworthiness, or outrageousness in President Bush’s statement?

Republicans and Democrats both have done some really stupid things lately, and there are many different things we can and should be offended at. I don’t think the truth should be one of them.

– Powered By Stuffr! –

I knew it was just a matter of time before Bob Barr tossed his hat in the ring. I am less than thrilled though.

Former Republican Congressman Bob Barr of Georgia, dismissing the major party candidates for failing to offer dramatic change, announced Monday he is seeking the Libertarian Party nomination for president.

Voters “want a choice,” Barr told a gathering of about 40 journalists and supporters in a small room at the National Press Club.

He’s right, we do want a choice, but we would prefer a choice of people we could actually support for President rather than a wide field of those to vote against.

– Powered By Stuffr! –

In 2006, Democrats told us to vote for change. People voted, Democrats took over the Congress, and things have changed. They have changed dramatically.

Since the Democrats took over the price of gas has risen from just over to $2 per gallon to more than $3.50 per gallon. Unemployment has risen from 4.5% to 5.0% and consumer confidence, which was at a 2 1/2 year high, is falling faster than property values. More people are facing foreclosure now than at any other time, and things don’t look like they’ll be getting better any time soon.

Yep. Americans wanted change in 2006, and we got it, didn’t we?

Today, Newt Gingrich said,

If a majority of the House Republicans vote for real change, they should instruct Republican Leader John Boehner and his team to come back with a new plan by the Wednesday before the Memorial Day recess.

…

This plan should involve real change in legislative, communications, and campaign strategy and involve immediate, real action, including a complete overhaul of the Congressional Campaign Committee

Honestly, at this point, it won’t take much to be seen as the party of change and reform, the question is, which party will portray themselves as the one that can accomplish those goals?

Personally, no one inside either party has given me any hope that things will change or that reform is in the air. No one. That is sad. In every election I have always voted for someone, this will be the first election where I specifically vote against someone. I feel horrible, but I have no confidence in any of the current candidates.

There is no doubt that things need to change in Washington. There is no doubt that many different government agencies need to be reformed. We just need to be careful who we put in charge of those changes.

– Powered By Stuffr! –

On April 28th, Former President Jimmy Carter wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times. I found a few items within the article quite interesting and I would like to point them out to you.

Mr. Carter says,

Although I knew that official United States policy was to boycott the government of Syria and leaders of Hamas, I did not receive any negative or cautionary messages about the trip, except that it might be dangerous to visit Gaza.

Not only does he admit that he knew the current U.S. policy and knowingly defied it for all the world to see, but he lies about the fact that he was not contacted by the State Department. On April 22nd, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said,

“I just don’t want there to be any confusion, the United States is not going to deal with Hamas and we had certainly told President Carter that we did not think meeting with Hamas was going to help”

Mr. Carter does not stop there. He flat out lies again just a few paragraphs down.

Hamas will accept any agreement negotiated by Mr. Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel provided it is approved either in a Palestinian referendum or by an elected government. Hamas’s leader, Khaled Meshal, has reconfirmed this, although some subordinates have denied it to the press.

Remember, this op-ed was published on April 28th. Now, let’s look back to April 21st, when Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said, and I quote,

We accept a Palestinian state within the June 4 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital — a sovereign state without settlements — as well as the right of Palestinian refugees to return, but without recognition of Israel

Meshaal said that himself. There was no subordinate, there was no mistake in the message he was delivering. Yet, Mr. Carter is yet again trying to re-write history and whitewash another failed attempt at diplomacy.

At the end of his op-ed he has the audacity to say that more meetings are needed with the “outlawed” leaders in order to expedite the stalemated peace talks. That’s a load of crap and he knows it.

Everyone knows he accomplished nothing in his talks with Hamas, well, other than posing as a propaganda tool for a group of terrorists, that is.

I’m not the only one who thinks he accomplished nothing. If you don’t believe me, just listen to the Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki, who said,

President Carter came to the region thinking he could achieve something. Unfortunately president Carter left without anything concrete. The only thing he achieved was permission on the part of Khaled Meshaal of Hamas to deliver a letter from a detained Israeli soldier to his family. Nothing else. Hamas offered nothing to president Carter. They reiterated the same positions. There was no change on the part of Hamas.

I find it quite ironic that Mr. Carter titled his op-ed, “Pariah Diplomacy”. Mr. Carter knowingly met with terrorists, against current U.S. policy, then he went on in this op-ed to try and mislead the American people about the results of those meetings. In fact, it appears the only person involved in the meetings who felt the need to lie about their results, was Mr. Carter. How sad is it when you can believe the words coming out the of the mouths of terrorists before you can believe the words coming from a former U.S. President? When it comes to diplomacy and being labeled a pariah, Mr. Carter seems to be in good company.

– Powered By Stuffr! –

I received a “breaking news” alert at 4 o’clock this morning. It read,

Former President Jimmy Carter says Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to “live as neighbor next door in peace.”

Then, at 11:30 this morning I received another one. It read a bit differently,

Hamas’ leader Khaled Mashaal says the militant Islamic group will not recognize Israel.

I was quite shocked at the stark difference between the two, so I decided to do a little investigation to see what exactly was going on. It turns out that only one is true. Can you guess which one was true?

It’s a sad day when a known terrorist can tell the truth with ease but a former U.S. President can’t let words leave his lips without stretching them to their very limit.

Jimmy Carter did say that Hamas was prepared to accept the right of the Jewish state to “live as a neighbor next door in peace”, but he failed to mention that the leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal also said,

“We accept a Palestinian state within the June 4 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital — a sovereign state without settlements — as well as the right of Palestinian refugees to return, but without recognition of Israel.”

He also said that Hamas was willing to offer Israel a 10-year truce if the Israeli’s withdraw from all lands it seized in 1967.

Did you catch that? I’ll wait while you re-read everything up to this point…

Okay, now did it sink in? Hamas still won’t recognize Israel (wow, big shock there) and they’re only offering a 10-year truce for “peace”. What happens when the 10 years is up? Do they start sending suicide bombers into Israel again in order to “drive them from the face of the Earth”. Duh. Do you really think Hamas would keep peace for 10 years, when the very day they offer this truce they also say they will never recognize Israel?

How do you offer a truce to a country you fail to recognize? How does that work?

Great job, Mr. Carter! Where are you off to next? I hear there’s a small disturbance in the farce in a little country called Sudan. May the farce be with you!

In the words of the wise men of the internet, EPIC FAIL.

– Powered By Stuffr! –

Last year I wondered how the Carter Center could garner so much money from financial backers located in the Middle East. At the time, I wondered,

If your mission is to bring peace to the world, why would you accept so much money from sources that have done so much to damage world peace?

…

But, if he can garner that much money from his Arab friends today, it makes me wonder what he might have done for those people while he was still President…

I started thinking about that again when I heard the news that former President Carter is planning to meet with the exiled leader of Hamas. Until this evening I was just angry that he would even consider such a thing, but tonight I was outraged to find out this isn’t the first time. While members of his own party (as well as ordinary Americans) try to pressure him to cancel that meeting, we learned something that should shock just about everyone.

“I’ve been meeting with Hamas leaders for years,” Carter said.

Carter has said that there is no doubt that if Israel is going to find peace, Hamas has to be included in the process. The problem is, Hamas is sworn to the complete destruction of Israel, so I doubt you are going to find them sitting down at the bargaining table with the very group of people they have sworn to exterminate from the planet. What could be his motivation for sitting down with them? Not just this time, but every time?

All of it suddenly makes sense to me. All of those large donations from the Saudi’s, all of that financial backing from the binLaden Group. They all make sense. Now I know why he is able to get such large donations from all of those people in the Middle East. He’s been meeting with Hamas for years. The generous benefactors of the Carter Center have had him in their back pocket longer than any of us ever realized.

My momma taught me years ago that you don’t get something for nothing. Everything has a price. Whether you pay it up front or it comes back years later to bite you on the ass, you’ve got to pay for it sometime. And now, all of those generous donations suddenly make sense and the cost of them is coming due.

There is no logical reason for a former U.S. President to defy U.S. policy to sit down with the leader of a known terrorist organization. Of course, Jimmy Carter does not want us to remember his presidency. He would rather be remembered for his generous works of charity and working as a diplomat of peace, if you could call him that. I’m not so sure anymore, since we just learned he’s been meeting with Hamas for years.

Make sure you remember Jimmy Carter and his meetings with Fidel Castro the next time you see Cubans trying to make it to the Florida shore. Remember him and how the Carter Center “certified elections” when you learn of attrocities being committed by Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. And don’t forget his name, his role in the peace process, and his meetings with Hamas the next time you see an Israeli bus blown up as a result of hatred from the very group that wants their complete destruction.

I don’t know what else to say about the man. I would like to think maybe he’s just going senile and he doesn’t really know what he’s doing. Then again, if that were the case, you would think someone would stop him along the way.

Jimmy Carter is so smooth, he could sell you Corpus Christi real estate just minutes after a hurricane.

If he isn’t completely crazy, I would love to know how many donations to the Carter Center are directly tied to his “study tours” of the region. How much money does the Carter Center take in when he embarks on one of these travelthons?

– Powered By Stuffr! –

Last Sunday, Barack Obama spoke about trying to win over some working class voters and said,

“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Since then, his campaign has scrambled to defuse the issue, yet, on Saturday he said,

“There has been a small political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter. They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they’re going through.”

He admits in that statement that he believes what he said is true. He actually believes the crap that came out of his mouth last Sunday. That not the whole problem either. He is so arrogant about it that he goes on to say,

“So I said, well you know, when you’re bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country.”

Say what? In my 43 years I have never felt like a politician was “not” listening to me as a voter. In fact, I send letters and email, and contact my Senators and Representatives all the time. I get an average of three letters per week from those representing me and my family in Congress. Even if I felt they didn’t understand my position or agree with my stance on an issue, I was never so bitter as to cling on to my gun, religion, or dislike for people who are not like me. We have never been “well off” my entire life. My mother had to work hard to raise my sister and I, and I bust my ass every single day to provide for my family, and never once did I feel the way Barack Obama described above.

What a crock. Implying that he can’t win over working class people because they are bitter is just plain stupidity on his part. If he was not so arrogant he would know better. With every day that passes Barack Obama proves that he does not have what it takes to be President. When running for President, confidence is a huge asset and arrogance just makes you an ass.

The more arrogance you have, the bigger the butt you have. Then you need to get your fat butt on a treadmill just to keep things under control. It ain’t pretty.

– Powered By Stuffr! –

What purpose does this serve?

Is there a team of scientists somewhere in Britain jumping up and down yelling “we did it, we did it?” I just don’t get why this has to be done. It amazes me how far people will go to “be on top”. It’s ridiculous. These people couldn’t jump any higher if they were using platform beds.

– Powered By Stuffr! –

In every presidential election people come to the polls with hope for the future. They hope their vote will make a difference in what happens in the future. They hope their vote will count for something. They hope, with their vote, things will be different.

In every presidential election people want to be inspired by the candidates who are running. This year is no different. They are looking for the same inspiration this year as they did in all of the previous elections. The level of inspiration is usually tied directly to the level of hope. You can’t have one without the other.

In every presidential election people look for change. No matter how good or bad the situation is at the time, people always want things to change for the better. The candidate who promises the best process of change usually wins the election.

If things don’t change you can’t be inspired, and then there is no hope for the future.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has focused on the terms ‘hope’, ‘inspiration’, and ‘change’ ad nauseum. Mr. Obama is a great speaker there is no doubt about that, but yesterday he proved that he is just that. A great speaker, and nothing more.

As far as I am concerned, this presidential election has nothing to do with sex, age, or race. Many people won’t vote for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, some won’t vote for John McCain because he’s too old and cranky, and others won’t vote for Barack Obama because he is black. That’s just stupid. This election, like every election before it, should be about honesty, integrity, and character.

Barack Obama talks about hope, inspiration, and change, and yesterday he had the chance to back his words with action, and he failed. He failed miserably.

Why should we believe in Obama’s message of hope when he sat in church willingly, week after week, and listened to Rev. Wright spew messages of hate and intolerance?

How can we trust in Obama’s message of inspiration when he financially supported that same reverend year after year?

Barack Obama has attended that church for over 20 years. He says he disagreed profusely with his reverend’s messages, but he never once thought of “disowning” him, or even leaving the services. He attended services at that church, week after week, year after year, and never did anything about it. Nothing. So much for hope. So much for inspiration. So much for change.

I have disagreed with the pastor of my church just two times in my life. The first time, I sat by and did nothing during the service, but I never went back after that day. The second time I got up and walked out during the service. I simply found another church to attend. If you disagree with something based on your morals, principle, or values, you are the only one that can make it clear where you stand. You can’t take a stand on an issue if you are sitting down and doing nothing about it.

Don’t get me wrong, I think we can all be more tolerant, but exactly how tolerant should we be when it comes to messages of hate and intolerance? How long can you sit by and do nothing, calling it tolerance, before you become a supporter of that message? Barack Obama listened to that message for 20 years. He did nothing for 20 years. Now he wants to be president and had a chance to distance himself from that message and what did he do. He did nothing, just like he has for 20 years.

Why should we believe in Barack Obama’s message of hope and inspiration when he listened to that reverend and financially supported that message for 20 years?

When was he planning to change?

– Powered By Stuffr! –

I don’t agree with him too often, but once again my favorite liberal, Doug Wiken, makes a very good point.

The big money in big politics is making me think we need a “None of the Above” option on every ballot to send a message that we are not fooled by fraudulent choices generated by huge campaign funds and corporate media horse-race reporting.

I agree wholeheartedly. At this point, none of the candidates are “the best” of the bunch. In fact, if it weren’t for money we would have many more choices remaining on our primary ballots.

By the time the primary vote came up in Georgia, we were missing half the field. Many dropped out because they simply did not have the money to continue, or they saw the money they were up against and realized, with the media the way it works, it was a lost cause.

It’s shameful that you have to have a ton of money to even think of running for President. If it weren’t for money we might actually learn what all of the candidates stand for.

– Powered By Stuffr! –