The Left likes to use that term alot to pick at a certain cable news network. But the circus in Crawford more accurately fits the definition:

Cindy Sheehan kneels before a cross with her son’s name on it, touches his picture, wipes her tears. It’s an outpouring of emotion that is part of a scheduled news event organized daily for the television radio and print reporters who crowd in to capture a mother’s grief.

Ah, the beauty of scripted grief. Brought to you by:

Visine Tears… when you just can’t make your own naturally….

Yep, the same Cindy Sheehan that said (tip: Matt), “I�m like if I truly was a media whore do you think I would like maybe get myself fixed up a little bit before I went on?” One would hope.

Having breakfast with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) Friday morning.

Update: Sentor Brownback was very in tune to my position on most issues. One phrase he said stuck out in my mind. When speaking of the U.S. and our leadership position in the world he said, “We are a country full of goodness, and that leads to a country full of greatness. If we lose sight of our goodness, we’ll surely lose our greatness.” Some topics we discussed:

Abortion: He agreed with me that the women’s reproductive rights right to kill the unborn issue will be a hot topic as Hillary moves closer to the Democrat nomination for 2008. It will be the chance for the Left to put a “personal” touch on the issue. He introduced the Fetal Pain Bill to open the dialogue and it appears to be working.

He pointed out the irony that the Left’s message is “if you make it into this world” we’ll take full care of you, but we retain the right to prevent you from arriving”. I added the irony that the message could be extended to say, “if you make it into this world and commit a crime, we’ll take even better care of you.”

Immigration: He favors a work-visa program and gave an interesting statistic. He said Social Security reports a full 400,000 people in this country have a Social Security Number of 000-00-000. Four hundred THOUSAND. He asked the rhetorical question, “I wonder how many of those might be fraudulent?” He would like to see the Social Security Administration be able to share data with the Immigration folks.

I asked him which is argument is more of a political liability: 1) to close our borders to future illegals or 2) sending those already here back home. He said #2 is the tough one. The question is whether immigration reform will allow them to register in the U.S. to be part of a program or send them home to register and regulate re-entry.

Government Reform: He discussed the BRAC issue (since it’s a big topic here) and said it was amazingly non-political. In fact, he said something that I think could be a sleeper issue if someone were to run with it (hint, hint Senator) and that’s applying the BRAC process to government as a whole.

BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure) is the congressionally authorized process DoD has previously used to reorganize its base structure to more efficiently and effectively support our forces, increase operational readiness and facilitate new ways of doing business. He thinks the BRAC method (which includes a single congressional, non-amendable vote) should be applied to every corner of the federal government. It would certainly be a good way to eliminate the inefficient programs and agencies in favor of more efficient ones that actually serve the people properly. I agree.

Energy: He says ANWR should be moving ahead in the Fall, but thinks the answer lies in alternative fuel sources. While he doesn’t think the technology and infrastructure is in place yet, he does have an idea to bridge the gap. It focuses on the fact that the average American drives less than 20 miles per day. He advocated the hybrid vehicles that allow the driver to use battery power for the first 20 miles of any driving trip before the car switches over to gasoline usage. Sounds like a plausible concept.

Tax Reform: He has a great idea for tax reform. When he started out by saying, “we could leave the current tax code in place…” I was quite skeptical, but then he said he proposes a separate Flat Tax and taxpayers could opt one or the other. (the real pro-choice party strikes again). He discussed converting the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax) into an Alternative Maximum Tax for that opt-in program as well. He also thinks the idea of a Consumption Tax is reasonable.

Bloggers: Senator Brownback asked my take on bloggers and our impact on the political process. Obviously my answer is biased, but I told him that bloggers were definitely a big force in 2004 and I predict as blogging gains more momentum as a resource for those seeking information, it will become a bigger factor in 2006 and 2008. I told him I didn’t necessarily see a replacement of MSM happening anytime soon, but blogging certainly gave a voice to those who previously didn’t have a pulpit that could compete with MSM. I said that blogging is sort of the reinvention of what original journalism was all about. It’s about citizens speaking to citizens regarding newsworthy events. It’s no longer top-down force-feeding, but there’s an upward surge of information now as well.

All in all, I’m very impressed with Senator Brownback and sincerely appreciate the privelege and honor to meet him this morning. Keep fighting the good fight.

On a side note, I also got the chance to meet David Wallace, Mayor of Sugarland. I was impressed with him. He’s pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-same sex marriage, and pro-lower taxes. He supports Bush in the war on terrorism and is in favor of tougher border control. My kind of Republican. I think if Tom Delay ever leaves his seat in District 22, Wallace might be a good replacement.

Update 10/06/05: John at RightWingNews posts his new interview with Senator Brownback.

This is an example of “peace-loving” anti-war activists. Al-Jazeera and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi thank you for your “support”. Traitor.

Courtesy: John Yetter

Update: I originally posted that this was from Crawford, but without absolute confirmation, I’ve removed such reference (as idiotic as this person is, I can’t imagine anyone stupid enough to wear a jacket in Texas in August). Regardless, she’s still a traitor.

Ok, wasn’t going to blog this, but LaShawn made me. Ok, so I had commented on her blog and since she asked if I had blogged about it, I felt an urge to do so. You can thank her if you disagree with me.

A recent study has generated discussion on the abortion topic. The study apparently concluded that “fetuses probably don’t feel pain until the final months of pregnancy.” The article goes on to say that it’s will likely present a challenge to abortion opponents.

Since when did the existence of pain become the criteria for whether we should kill another person? If this is the criteria, then it should be legal to kill those under anesthesia, in a coma or on painkillers.

Bottom line, this study is totally irrelevant to the topic.

Update: A reader suggests I’m wrong in that the “study” is relevant. He says the “study” gives more ammunition to the pro-life side because it shows that if pro-abortionists tout this “study” they’re really admitting that unborn children beyond 7 months gestation are human and feel pain. He says the acknowledgement of an unborn child at any age on behalf of the pro-abortion crowd undercuts their position that the baby’s just a mass of tissues until it is born. Good point!

The opposition is shameless.

The Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., the current home of hundreds of wounded veterans from the war in Iraq, has been the target of weekly anti-war demonstrations since March. The protesters hold signs that read “Maimed for Lies” and “Enlist here and die for Halliburton.” …

Code Pink Women for Peace, one of the groups backing anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan’s vigil outside President Bush’s ranch in Crawford Texas, organizes the protests at Walter Reed as well. …

But the anti-war activists were unapologetic when asked whether they considered such signs as “Maimed for Lies” offensive to wounded war veterans and their families.

Al-Jazeera called and wants to pass along the gratitude of al-Qaeda members around the world for continuing to give them marketing material.

It’s ironic that the same group of liberal wackos that find a Christmas tree and an Indian mascot offensive think demoralizing wounded troops is not. Even more ironic is that the troops their making fun of with mock caskets and stupid slogans are the very people who gave these nuts the freedom to act like the a–holes they’re being.

“If I went to war and lost a leg and then found out from my hospital bed that I had been lied to, that the weapons I was sent to search for never existed, that the person who sent me to war had no plan but to exploit me, exploit the country I was sent to, I would be pretty angry,” Luke told Cybercast News Service.

“I would want people to do something about it and if I couldn’t get out of my bed and protest myself, I would want someone else to do it in my name,” he added.

News flash for Luke… these soldiers haven’t lost their ability to speak. They’re capable of telling us what they really feel without your nonsensical “translation”. And here’s what they’re saying, Luke, if you care to listen:

Kevin Pannell, who was recently treated at Walter Reed and had both legs amputated after an ambush grenade attack near Baghdad in 2004, considers the presence of the anti-war protesters in front of the hospital “distasteful.” …

“We don’t like them and we don’t like the fact that they can hang their signs and stuff on the fence at Walter Reed,” he said.

But…

…the anti-war activists were unapologetic…

Big surprise. Then out comes the “chickenhawk” talking points:

But Luke and the other anti-war protesters dismissed the message of the counter demonstrators. “We know most of the George Bush supporters have never spent a day in uniform, have never been closer to a battlefield than seeing it through the television screen,” Luke said.

Oh really? Let’s examine the voting trend of those in uniform and see who they prefer.

Update: Video of the interview with “Luke“. Can someone please tell me what gender it is?

Others:
Jonathon says they’ve sunk to a new low.
TheMan is so mad he could spit.
Drew calls it sickening.
Matt nails it in his title.
Michelle links to video footage of these anti-American a–holes beating up a soldier.
Mark isn’t surprised considering who’s leading the charge.

I know a few from the Left visit this site, so I have two questions for you.

1. If you claim George W. Bush intentionally lied about Iraq’s possession of WMDs, why wouldn’t Bush have orchestrated the planting of some WMDs for us to find? Would’ve been pretty easy and would’ve taken alot of heat off him…

2. If you claim George W. Bush intentionally lied about Iraq’s possession of WMDs, why don’t you accept that many on the Left also lied? I mean, if they really never existed, what makes their claims more truthful?

Just curious.

I am honored that John Yetter has recently found my blog and am humbled by his service and sacrifice to our great country. John posted a comment in response to one of my posts and I want to share it with all who visit this site:

I have the “moral authority” to speak on this subject (31 years active Army service from 1967 thru 1998, including Vietnam, Central America [covert operation], and the first gulf war). Let me make this abundantly clear for those who don’t understand “supporting the troops”.

It is not the active forces that support the troops - they execute the mission. It is not the veterans who support the troops - they’ve been there and are either hawks or doves (no in between). It is the citizens, family, friends and relatives that SUPPORT THE TROOPS!

Now let me define “support” from a soldier’s perspective. It means to encourage the troops to successfully complete their mission. If that mission is a battle or war, it means to encourage them to successfully prosecute the battle or war. It means you stand behind them AND their mission. You CANNOT support the troops if you object to their mission. You can say and write it all day long, but it is oxymoronic (and only logical to a liberal.)

While I’m at it let me also rail against demanding that the military prosecute a politically correct war. Case in point - our troops still have an active enemy to engage and defeat, but because the political left doesn’t want or support war, the troops are busy building an infrastructure before the war is completed. That drains combat soldiers away from fighting the enemy. It’s like fighting with one hand tied behind your back. If you want a war or battle won, you MUST turn it over to the generals that are paid to do so. When the war is won, then you rebuild an infrastructure. Can you imagine the quagmire we would still be in if we tried to rebuild the infrastructures of Germany and Japan during WWII? The lefties demanded the same political correctness in Vietnam. Instead of letting the military run and win the war, we had to be moral and build infrastructure then as well. Look what it got us - a protracted engagement that gave the left the fodder they needed to dissuade the popular support needed to win. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - the liberal hippie peacenicks snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam! And they’ll do the same damn thing in Iraq if we let them. (Of course they also have a huge ideological support apparatus called the MSM.)

People, if we pull out too soon in Iraq and lose the determination to DEFEAT radical islamofascism we will deserve whatever comes our way. To those who have no stomach to fight and win this war against terrorist - I say LEAVE. Go to Canada or France where you will fit in.

After this tirade I’m sure these words will ring hollow with some; but no soldier (including myself) WANTS war. But we are not afraid of a fight and we will not back down until thejob is finished - if you will let us! Patriotism is not empty words like, “I support the troops.”

Patriotism is a heart and love of country so strong that you are willing to fight to protect the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

God bless our souls willing to fight and God bless America!

Thank you, John.

1. Over 220,000 Iraqis took part in deliberations over a Constitution.
2. Support for terrorism in defense of Islam has fallen in Indonesia (27% to 15%).
3. Support for terrorism in defense of Islam has fallen in Pakistan (41% to 25%).
4. Support for terrorism in defense of Islam has fallen in Morocco (40 to 13%).
5. Support for terrorism in defense of Islam has fallen among Muslims in Lebanon (73% to 26%).
6. Support for suicide bombings against Americans in Iraq has also declined.
7. Confidence in Osama bin Laden is now under 10 percent in Lebanon and Turkey.
8. Confidence in Osama bin Laden has fallen sharply in Indonesia.
9. Between 77 and 83 percent in Lebanon, Morocco, Jordan, and Indonesia say democracy could work in their country.

and from my previous list:

1. Afghanistan held its first-ever modern democratic election.
2. Iraq held a true democratic election for the first time in 30 years.
3. The Palestinians freely elected a leader.
4. Saudi Arabia will hold its first ever national election in November.
5. Lebanon’s pro-Syrian government resigned, paving the way for free elections.
6. Libya scrapped its WMD programs.
7. Egypt is now allowing challengers on the ballot, paving the way for the first-ever multiparty presidential elections.

DNC talking points include the notion that one can’t support military action if one did not serve in the military. Nevermind the fact that many of us have multiple family members and friends serving… no, somehow the Left has convinced themselves that the only moral authority to support military action can come from those who have served.

It was part of their strategy against Bush and his staff - to paint them as “chickenhawks” who eagerly send other people to war and won’t go themselves… or send their own kids.

I guess along those same lines, here are some other things I am precluded from doing:

1. Supporting the Dallas Cowboys because I’ve never played in the NFL.
2. Supporting the Postal Service in timely delivery of mail because I’ve never donned the mailsack.
3. Supporting firefighters rushing to extinguish a burning house because I’ve never carried the hose myself.
4. Supporting the pilot flying my plane because I’ve never worked in the cockpit.
5. Supporting NASA missions because I’ve never been to the moon.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous because… well… it is. Funny what a difference a decade makes on their position. And my liberal friends are now precluded from supporting welfare unless they’ve eaten government cheese.

Update: A reader suggests, “You should not be allowed to oppose the war unless you are in the Peace Corps.” - Good call.

Update: Another reader responds at the cross-post at Townhall: “By that logic, they also can’t support abortion unless they’re women, can’t support affirmative action unless they’re a minority, can’t support the poor if they’re rich, can’t support gay marriage unless they’re gay, can’t support gun control unless they own a gun, and can’t support an anti-corporation agenda unless they work at one.” - Think they’d accept that?

In reviewing my visitor logs, I’ve noticed some visitors come from interesting domains or ISPs. Some of the recent visitors:

1. Kuwait Ministry of Communications
2. HHC, 1st Signal Brigade - Army/Armed Forces Pacific
3. U.S. Department of State
4. U.S. Directorate of Logistics
5. State of Texas General Services Commission
6. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
7. U.S. Air Force - 11th Comm Sq
8. Army.mil
9. Navy.mil
10. AF.mil
11. National Institutes of Health
12. Office National des Postes et Telecommunications (Morocco)
13. Internal Revenue Service
14. U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms

To those of you who serve our great country in the Armed Forces… THANK YOU.

To those of you conducting surveillance… Click here.