Uncooperative Talk Radio 10-30-06

This weeks show will be on Monday at 6pm Mountain.

We are trying allot of different equipment, techniques and time slots. Blog Talk Radio is also still in Beta form and they are constantly making changes. So, check in for updates and changes on this blog, or my host page on BTR.

Next week we will be doing three shows again on Saturday, Sunday and Monday at 6pm Mountain

Remember, you can also call the show and IM the show with comments on Yahoo instant messenger (user name: uncooperativeproducer), so tune in!

Listen Live

5pm Pacific
6pm Mountain
7pm Central
8pm Eastern

Is Impeachment Really “Off the Table”?

From National Review Online:

In November 1983, Rep. John Conyers and six other Democrats introduced a resolution to impeach President Reagan for his decision to invade Grenada. The invasion was unconstitutional, the resolution charged, because it “usurped Congress’s power to declare war, ignored treaty obligations, and violated First Amendment rights of the public and press in preventing reporters from covering the invasion in its first few days,” in the words of a United Press International report describing the resolution.

“The genius of the Constitution is that it provides for the constitutional remedy of impeachment in the event that the executive arrogates his constitutional duties and oath of office by abrogating powers which, in turn, undermine the integrity of the office,” Conyers said. “After careful study and thought, it is now my position that the president’s recent military actions in Grenada constitute this abrogation of the duties to which he is sworn.”

Conyers is the only one of the seven Democrats who remains in Congress today. (The others were Reps. Ted Weiss, Julian Dixon, Mervyn Dymally, Henry Gonzalez, Mickey Leland, and Parren Mitchell.) If Democrats win control of the House on November 7, Conyers will be in line to chair the House Judiciary Committee, which has the responsibility to initiate bills of impeachment. His possible elevation raises the inevitable question: If John Conyers wanted to impeach Ronald Reagan over Grenada, why wouldn’t he want to impeach George W. Bush over Iraq?

Top Democrats are trying to stop such speculation. “Impeachment is off the table,” said Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who would likely be Speaker of the House if Democrats win, on 60 Minutes Sunday.

“And that’s a pledge?” asked CBS’s Lesley Stahl.

“Well, it’s a pledge in the — yes, I mean, it’s a pledge,” Pelosi said. “Of course it is. It is a waste of time.”

Pelosi’s statement reflects the belief of many Democratic strategists that impeaching the president would have disastrous political consequences for the party. It is conventional wisdom among insiders in both parties that the Clinton impeachment in 1998-1999 was an enormous mistake for Republicans. But after impeaching Clinton, the GOP went on to win control of the House and Senate three more times (so far) and of the White House twice (so far). Impeachment did not exactly cast the party into the political wilderness.

In any event, that kind of definitive, no-impeachment rhetoric is not coming from John Conyers. Instead, Conyers has spent the last several years carefully assembling a case for removing the president. His most recent effort was a 350-page report, released in August, entitled, “The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance.” The report never mentioned the word “impeachment,” but Conyers made it clear that he believes the president has committed several impeachable offenses.

“Approximately 26 laws and regulations may have been violated by this administration’s misconduct,” Conyers wrote on the DailyKos and Huffington Post websites the day the report was released. “The report…compiles the accumulated evidence that the Bush administration has thumbed its nose at our nation’s laws, and the Constitution itself.”

Conyers’s accusations were quite specific. On the war in Iraq, for example, he accused Bush of violating four laws: Committing a Fraud Against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371); Making False Statements to Congress (18 U.S.C. 1001); War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148); and Misuse of Government Funds (31 U.S.C. 1301).

The fraud committed by the president, Conyers argued, was making the decision to go to war in Iraq before asking Congress for the authority to do so. (The reason for that, Conyers says, was that the president was “avenging [his] father and working with the neo-cons.”) The false statements, according to Conyers, include the president’s mention, in the 2003 State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Africa. And the violations of the War Powers Resolution and Misuse of Government Funds came when the president moved some military assets to the Gulf region before Congress voted to authorize the war.

Conyers also alleged that the president has broken three other laws, Anti-Torture Statute (18 U.S.C. 2340-40A), The War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441), and Material Witness (18 U.S.C. 3144), with his policies on the treatment of prisoners in the War on Terror. And then, Conyers alleged that the president broke four more laws, Obstructing Congress (18 U.S.C. 1505), Whistleblower Protection (5 U.S.C. 2302), The Lloyd-LaFollette Act (5 U.S.C. 7211), Retaliating against Witnesses (18 U.S.C. 1513), in the Valerie Plame/CIA leak affair. Finally, Conyers alleged the president broke five more laws, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. chapter 15), Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222), Stored Communications Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 2702), and Pen Registers or Trap and Trace Devices (18 U.S.C. 3121), in the NSA warrantless-wiretap matter.

I doubt he did all this work for nothing. Not to mention, I just heard the number of supporters for Conyers Impeachment Bill has risen to 20% of the Democrats.

Democrat Victory Another bin Laden victory

Michael F. Scheuer, a 22-year veteran with the CIA, created and served as the chief of the agency’s Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center has something to say about this election.

From The Washington Times:

But what will bin Laden and his Islamist allies think? Well, if Republican defeat comes to pass, they will first thank the Almighty — “Allahu Akhbar!” or “God is the greatest!” — for tangible proof of approaching victory. In Spain, Thailand, and Britain — where Prime Minister Tony Blair suffered the fate of Messrs. Aznar and Thaksin for the same reason, but is leaving gracefully — al Qaeda and its allies see politicians winning power who argue: “The military option has been tried and it has failed. We must seek other-than-martial means to defuse the Islamists’ appeal and power.” As in Europe and Thailand, this has been the refrain of Sens. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Rep. Jane Harman, and a swath of Republicans who value their seats more than U.S. security.

If Americans vote for what sounds like sweet reason from the Democrats, bin Laden and company will rejoice. What they will hear is the death knell for any prospect of effective U.S. military resistance to militant Islam. With the Republicans out, the Islamists will be confident that Democrats will deliver the best of both worlds: less emphasis on military force and a rigid maintenance of U.S. foreign policies that are hated with passion and near-unanimity by 1.3 billion Muslims. If Osama approved of music, he would be whistling “Happy Days Are Here Again!”

He points out how Bin Laden has been winning a different battle.

First was the defeat of Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar’s conservative government after the Islamists’ 2003 attack on Madrid’s train station.

Next down the drain was the government of Thailand via last month’s military coup. After the coup, rumors of deposed Premier Thaksin Shinawatra’s corrupt activities spread, but at base the Thai generals seized power because of the increasing intensity of the Islamist separatist revolt in Thailand’s three Muslim-dominated southern provinces. Nearly 2,000 people have died there since 2003, the central government is losing its grip in the region, and Mr. Thaksin’s military response to the unrest was making little progress.

The Thai generals named a Thai Muslim as the new premier, and he has said it is time to slow military operations and talk about autonomy for the Muslim south.

Bin Laden, his lieutenants and their allies are no doubt pleased by the destruction of the Spanish and Thai governments and the exhilarating message it sends to the worldwide Islamist movement: The infidels are weak, politically divided, terrified of using full military power and think we can be appeased. In short, war works; keep at it.

Even so, bin Laden, et. al, know the biggest prize looms just ahead — the chance that the Republican Party will be ousted from one or both houses of Congress.

Yeah, I know, I am a fear mongerer, but this man knows Bin Laden and al-Qaeda better than anyone; I will listen to him.

How will you vote on November 7th?

Remarks by the President at Vern Buchanan for Congress Reception

I heard parts of this speech and I was not happy with the way the LSM was covering it, or shall I say not covering it, so here is the transcript.

From The White House:

Sarasota Bradenton International Convention Center
Sarasota, Florida

1:35 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. I’m proud to be here. I appreciate you turning out — (applause) — to give me a chance to say that Vern Buchanan is the right man to be the United States congressman from the 13th congressional district. (Applause.) He is smart, he is capable, he is successful, he shares your values, he loves his family, he practices his faith with sincerity. He’s a decent, honorable man who deserves to be elected to the United States Congress. (Applause.)

And I want to thank you for helping him. I appreciate you coming out. It makes me feel good. I know it makes the Congressman-to-be feel good. But it gives us a chance to remind you that we’re in the final stretches of this campaign. And he’s been working hard, and his family has been working hard. And he’s going to count on you to turn out the vote.

So I want to thank you in advance for what you’re going to do — (applause) — which is to find our fellow Republicans, to remind our fellow citizens we have an obligation to vote, and when you get them headed toward the polls, tell them if they want a country that’s strong and an economy that’s strong, send Vern Buchanan to Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

I was pleased to meet Sandy, and James, and Matt. Sandy would be the wife — (laughter) — James and Matt, the sons. I told them how much I appreciated them supporting Vern for his run. I know what it’s like to run for office, and it’s important to have a wife and family stand with you. It can kind of get lonely out there on the campaign trail sometimes. And to have that strong family standing with him means a lot for this candidate.

I know what I’m talking about, because I married well, just like Vern married well. (Applause.) And Laura sends her love to our good friends down here in Florida. And we’ve got a lot of friends down here. As a matter of fact, I don’t have a lot of friends down here, I’ve got some relatives down here. (Applause.) You know, Jeb and I share the same campaign consultant — (laughter) — our mother. (Laughter and applause.) And so for you little ones here, my advice is, listen to your mother. (Applause.) At 60 years old, I’m still listening to mine. But Laura sends her love, Mother sends her love, and I know Jeb Bush is strongly for Vern Buchanan to be the next congressman from this district. (Applause.)

I, too, want to thank my buddy, the senator from the great state of Florida, Mel Martinez. Thank you for coming. (Applause.)

There’s a lot of issues that we can talk about. I want to talk about two today. And the first issue I want to talk about is the taxes you pay. It’s an important issue. We have made our position clear. We believe in lower taxes, and we intend to keep them that way. (Applause.) The Democrats consistently oppose cutting your taxes. It should tell you how they feel. See, we just have a fundamental disagreement. They think they can spend your money better than you can. We believe you can spend your money far better than the government can. (Applause.)

When you go to the voting booth in two weeks, the lever you pull will determine the taxes you pay for years to come. Americans will cast their ballots on November the 7th, but you will feel the results every April 15th. (Applause.) We share a philosophy that when you have more money in your pocket to save, spend, or invest, the economy benefits. (Applause.)

He knows what he’s talking about. It’s important for people from this part of the great state of Florida to have somebody who has been a successful entrepreneur represent you. This is an entrepreneurial state. This is an entrepreneurial area. This is a man who has taken risks. He’s built businesses, but more importantly, he’s employed people. He is successful. He understands how the economy works. He has lived the American Dream.

The Republican Party is dedicated to making sure the American Dream is viable for every single American. (Applause.) We understand that if you have more money in your pocket, it’s easier to save for a child’s education. We understand if you have more money in your pocket, a young Floridian can afford a down payment on a new home. (Applause.) We understand that when small businesses have more money in their treasury, it makes it more likely that small business will grow, and expand, and hire new people. Our economy grows and the American Dream expands when you keep taxes low, and therefore I was able to lead the Untied States Congress to pass the largest tax relief since Ronald Reagan was the President of the United States. (Applause.)

And now the results of the tax relief are in. Tax cuts we passed have left more than a trillion dollars in the hands of American workers, and families, farmers, and small business owners. And the American people have used that money to help fuel strong economic expansion.

The Democrats said the tax cuts were not the solution to solving an economy that was slipping into recession. You might remember back in 2001. The truth is the tax cuts have helped make the American economy grow faster than any major industrialized nation. This economy is the envy of the world. (Applause.)

The Democrats said that the tax cuts would lead to a jobless recovery. The truth is that our economy has added jobs for 37 months in a row, and since August of 2003, our economy has created 6.6 million new jobs. (Applause.)

The Democrats said tax cuts would not help increase wages. Well, the truth is real wages have grown 2.2 percent over the last 12 months. (Applause.)

The Democrats said tax cuts would cause the deficit to explode. Well, the truth is that tax cuts led to economic growth, and that growth has helped send tax revenues soaring. And, as a result, the deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of schedule. (Applause.)

The Democrats have made a lot of predictions. Matter of fact, I think they may be measuring the drapes. (Laughter.) If their electoral predictions are as reliable as their economic predictions, November 7th is going to be a good day for the Republicans. (Applause.)

And here’s the truth. One of the reasons that the Democrats will lose on Election Day: because they want to raise your taxes. No, I know they don’t want to tell it that plainly, but that’s what they’re going to do. You know, the top Democrat leader in the House made an interesting statement recently. She said, “We love tax cuts.” Given her record, she must be a secret admirer. (Laughter and applause.)

When we cut taxes on everybody that paid income taxes, she and her colleagues — most of her colleagues — voted against it. When we reduced the marriage penalty, she and most of her colleagues voted against it. When we cut the taxes on small businesses, she voted against it. When we lowered taxes for families with children, she voted against it. When we reduced the taxes on capital gains and dividends, she voted against it. When we put the death tax on the road to extinction, she voted against it. Time and time again, she had an opportunity to show her love for taxes. (Laughter.) If this is the Democrats’ idea of love, I wouldn’t want to see what hate looks like. (Applause.)

You know, you listen to the debate and they’re trotting out the same old stuff. They’re saying they’re only going to raise taxes on the rich. It’s important for people in this district not to be fooled by that language. It’s important for people all across the United States who are making up their mind who to vote for in these elections not to be fooled by the language, “oh, we’ll only tax the rich.”

Some of you are old enough to remember 1992. (Laughter.) They campaigned on saying they will — for a middle-class tax cut. You might remember that rhetoric. But when they took office, the middle-class tax cut they promised turned out to be one of the largest tax increases in history. See, here’s what happens. You get up to Washington, D.C., and you start spending the people’s money if you’re a Democrat, and you start making all these promises on the campaign trail. Then you get up and you say, “Well, I think I’m going to spend money here or there.”

Earlier this year, the Democrats in the House, for example, put a budget alternative to call for $177 billion additional than that which we’re going to spend. The problem is, if they only raise taxes on the rich — raise taxes on people making $200,000 or more — they would fall far short of meeting their spending promises. So guess who gets to pay the bill? All of a sudden, the tax cut on the rich means you have to pay. It means the middle class in America have to pay. America should not be fooled by the empty rhetoric of the Democrats running for Congress. (Applause.)

The best way to make sure that the Democrats don’t raise your taxes is to put Congressman Vern Buchanan in Washington, D.C. (Applause.)

It’s important for you to understand this fact as you’re rounding up people to go to the polls, as you’re getting ready to get on the telephone, dial people and remind them to vote — and if somebody says, well, tell me about this election — when it comes to taxes, here’s the way it works in Washington. Under the current law, the tax cuts we passed, many of them, are set to expire. In other words, if Congress doesn’t be proactive, the tax cuts will go away. And if the tax cuts go away, you’re paying higher taxes. In other words, if Congress fails to act, your taxes go up.

And so they asked the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee — that’s the tax-writing committee — he would be the one who would take the lead in taxes. And his response to a question was, he couldn’t think of one of our tax cuts he would extend. See, this is the attitude of those who want to run the House of Representatives on the Democrat side. He said, he couldn’t think of one of the tax cuts. He couldn’t even think of one that he would extend. Asked if he meant that would consider — asked if that meant he would consider tax hikes across the income spectrum, he said, of course it would. See, they’re genetically — (laughter) — disposed to raise your taxes. (Applause.)[emphasis mine]

I really enjoyed that statement. It was a really good speach the PResident was really on that day.

If there is no legislation renewing or extending the tax cuts, every tax rate will go back up to the old level. The marriage penalty will return. The death tax will spring back to life. The child credit will be cut in half, from $1,000 per child to just $500 per child. So I want people who are listening to the debate in this election to think about what that would mean if the Democrats take control.

If you’re sitting around the dinner table, and there’s two children, your taxes just went up a thousand dollars if they take control. If you’re got three children at the dinner table, your taxes went up by $1,500. If you’re a family of four, and you’re working hard to make ends meet, and the Democrats take control of the House, your taxes just went up $2,000. The best way to make sure you have more of your own money in your pocket to spend on your family is to vote for Vern Buchanan, and we’ll work to make the tax cuts we passed permanent. (Applause.)

I want to talk about another issue, if you’ve got some time. (Applause.) The most important issue facing this nation is to protect you. (Applause.) The most important job in Washington, D.C. is to do everything we can to protect you from another attack. We face an enemy that is brutal. They have no conscience. They have an ideology, which is the opposite of our ideology. They can’t stand freedom. They have desires, and that is to spread a kind of caliphate, a governing organization throughout the Middle East from which to launch attacks and spread their dark vision of the world. They use murder as a weapon to achieve their objectives.

There is no negotiation possible with these kind of people. You can’t reason with them. The best way to protect the American people is to stay on the offense and bring them to justice so they don’t hurt us again. (Applause.)

We had a series of interesting votes in Washington, D.C. recently that should explain the fundamental differences between how we view the war on terror and how the Democrats view the war on terror. I felt that the President should do everything in his power within the Constitution to protect you.

And therefore, after 9/11, I made a couple of decisions that recently were brought to a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, which should give you an indication about the differences of opinion. I believe that we must work to prevent attacks from happening in the first place, but here in the homeland — by staying on the offense. But here in the homeland, I understand that the enemy has to be right one time, and we have to be right a hundred percent of the time in order to protect you. And therefore I feel it’s important to make sure our professionals have the tools necessary to protect you. (Applause.)

I felt like that if al Qaeda or an al Qaeda affiliate was making a phone call into the United States of America from outside our country, our intelligence professionals need to know why. (Applause.) This is a different kind of war. Past wars — in past wars, you could watch flotillas of ships or count airplanes to determine the intent or the strength of the enemy; you could watch manpower being moved. This is a different kind of war. It’s a war that requires intelligence so that we can make sure our professionals are able to protect you.

The idea of people — professionals being able to listen to al Qaeda and its affiliates came to a vote on the floor of the United States Congress. The American people must fully understand that the vast majority of Democrats opposed the right of this administration to have a tool necessary to protect you. We just have a different view. They must not think we’re at war. They must think that the best way to protect you is to respond after the attack.

I understand this is a war, and the United States of America will do everything we can to protect you before the enemy hits again. (Applause.)

This is a different kind of war, and we pick up people off the battlefield, and we want to know what they know. I’m sure you’ve been reading recently about some of the people that we have picked up since that faithful attack on us on September the 11th, 2001. We captured a man named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who our intelligence officers believe was the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks. I felt it was important that our processionals find out what he knew in order to make sure I could say to you, standing right here, that we’re doing everything we can to protect you.

I felt it was important for these brave souls who work for the intelligence service to have the tools necessary to inquire to these killers what they know in order to be able to stop a further attack. This vote came up on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. The vast majority of Democrats voted against giving our professionals the right to interrogate to protect America. These are patriotic souls, but their vision of the world is wrong, and we need to make sure that we continue to control the House of Representatives to provide the protection necessary for — (applause.)

This is a global war. There are many fronts in the war on terror. We’ve got some fantastic men and women who wear our uniform. (Applause.) The best way to protect the American people is to keep the enemy on the run. It is hard to plot and plan when you’re hiding in a cave. It’s hard to plot and plan when you know the mighty United States military and/or our intelligence services are breathing down your neck. And therefore it is important to have members of the United States Congress who understand the stakes of the world in which we live and will join me in making sure our troops have all the equipment, all the support, all the pay that is necessary for them to do their job. (Applause.)

A central front in this war, a central part of protecting America from an enemy that would like to strike us again, is Iraq. It’s tough fighting in Iraq. It is tough fighting because the enemy understands the stakes of success in Iraq. A lot of people in Washington, a lot of Democrats, say that Iraq is a diversion on the war on terror. As you know, I have a difference of opinion; I believe it is a central front in the war on terror.

And that’s an honest debate to have, but if you haven’t made up your mind yet, listen to the words of Osama bin Laden or his number-two person in al Qaeda, Mr. Zawahiri, both of whom made it clear that their objective is to inflict as much pain as possible so America will withdraw from Iraq; so they can have safe haven from which to plot and plan attacks; so they can have more resources to develop the weapons they would like to use against us; so they can topple moderate governments.

It is conceivable 20 years from now people would look back on this period of time in the midst of a world in which radicalism and extremism was prevalent, in which allies such as Israel were surrounded by incredibly hostile forces, in which Iran had a nuclear weapon, in which governments were in control of these radicals who then cut off oil supplies to the West. That’s the scenario that will happen if we withdraw before we achieve our objectives.

People will look back and say, “What happened to them in the year 2006; how come they couldn’t see the threat?” I see the threat. That is why we have got a strategy for victory in Iraq. (Applause.)

The stakes are high and the enemy understands that. Our goal is to have a country that can defend itself, sustain itself, govern itself, and be an ally in the war on terror. Our goal was to remove a threat. I made the right decision in taking Saddam Hussein out of power. (Applause.)

And now our goal — and now our goal is to help this young democracy succeed, is to help these brave souls defeat the thugs, and the sectarians, and the al Qaeda, from toppling their dreams.

Twelve million Iraqis went to the polls. They said, we want to be free. You shouldn’t be surprised. Freedom is universal. We don’t own freedom in America. I believe there is an Almighty and I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the deep desire to be free. (Applause.)

For those of you who understand military, I’m running the war this way: I set the goal, and I count on our commanders on the ground and our ambassador in Baghdad to set the tactics in order to achieve the goal. We’re constantly changing. The enemy changes, and we change. The enemy adapts to our strategies and tactics, and we adapt to theirs. We’re constantly changing to defeat this enemy.

But if the Democrats were to take control, their policy is pretty clear to me: it’s cut and run. (Applause.) Oh, they try to claim it’s not. They try to claim it’s not, but if you listen to their leaders, the man I ran against for President in 2004 said we need a date certain from which to withdraw. My attitude is, look, I want to bring our troops home as much as anybody, but I want to make sure they come home with victory, not with defeat. (Applause.)

For the sake of these little kids here, we will fight in Iraq and we will win in Iraq. (Applause.) And when we achieve our goal, we will have dealt the enemy an incredible blow. You know, we’ve got great assets on our side. We’ve got a fantastic country, people that are strong. We got a military that is bold and courageous. (Applause.) We got one other thing going for us, too, and that is the great power of liberty. (Applause.)

Liberty is a powerful, powerful tool. You see, liberty will yield the peace we want. Free societies will yield the peace. We’re in an ideological struggle between extremists and radicals who hate and between moderate people who simply want to live in peace. It’s a struggle between good and decent people and evil killers. It’s a struggle that is going to take a while to achieve. But it is an ideological struggle, and you can defeat an ideology of hate with an ideology of hope. And freedom is that ideology of hope.

You know I — recently I had an interesting experience. I share this with people all around our country because I want to bring to life that which we are now accomplishing. I went to Elvis’ place — (laughter) — with the former Prime Minister of Japan. He was the sitting Prime Minister of Japan then. I went. I had never been there. (Laughter.) The Prime Minister wanted to go there. (Laughter.) See, he was an Elvis fan. (Laughter.)

But I wanted to tell an interesting story. It’s the story about a family — my family — and a story about liberty. My dad fought the Japanese. You’ve had relatives — I know people here whose families fought the Japanese. They were the sworn enemy of the United States. It was a bloody conflict. Thousands of people lost their lives. Young kids volunteered to defend their country, just like people are volunteering today to defend our country, and a lot didn’t come home.

As a matter of fact, it took us a while to get Japanese — slurs of Japanese people out of our vocabulary the hate was so bad. I find it interesting that I’m on the airplane flying down to Elvis’ place with the Prime Minister of a former enemy talking about the peace, talking about bringing peace to the world. (Applause.) For some of you young ones out there, 60 may seem like a long time. For those of us who are 60, it just seemed like a snap of the fingers. (Laughter.)

Something happened between 18-year-old Navy fighter pilot George H. W. Bush and his President — and his son, the President, talking about keeping the peace with the Prime Minister of a former enemy. And what happened was, Japan adopted a Japanese-style democracy. Liberty has got the capacity to change hate into hope. Liberty has got the capacity to help change an enemy into an ally. Some day, some day an American President will be sitting down with duly-elected leaders from the Middle East talking about the peace, and a generation of Americans will be better off.

The stakes in this election are high. (Applause.) I ask you to vote for Vern Buchanan. He’ll be an ally in making sure your taxes stay low so the economy grows, and an ally in making sure the United States government does everything in our power to protect the American people, and to make sure that a generation of Americans can grow up in peace.

God bless, and thanks for coming. (Applause.)

END 2:09 P.M. EDT

You want to see how the Lame Stream Media is covering this speech?

Well, there is only TWO hits in google for the news.


Republicans v. Democrats

Right & Wrong Reminded me that I need to blog on what I talk about in my radio show and podcasts.

The Lame Stream Media and the Left want you to believe that Conservatives are not going to turn out to vote; Bull! I think they will turn out in record numbers and if you don’t, shame on you.

I keep hearing there is no difference between the Democrat and Republican Party and that is not true. They are alike in that they put their party politics before what is good for this country. However, they are very different on many important issues.

Just on the issue of illegal immigration, there is a big difference. Yes, some Republicans -including the president- want amnesty for illegals, but the Dems would give blanket amnesty to illegals in a heart beat. Building the Wall, forget about it that will be gone if they get into power.

What about on taxes? Do you like your tax breaks, because I like mine. No I am not rich, not remotely close to rich I am in the bottom tax bracket. The Dems said they would repeal all of President Bush’s tax cuts.

What about the economy? I like all the growth in our economy, including job creation. Do you like that taxes are lower, while MORE money is coming into the federal tax coffers? Well, if the Dems get their way, they will repeal the tax cuts that made all of that happen.

Do you own firearms? Well, the dems would start coming after your firearms yet again if they get back in power.

What about Judges? Do you want to return the judiciary to their constitutional responsibility of judging law based on the intentions of the Founding Fathers and the legislators? Well, if the Dems get back in power they will put more Left wing judges on the bench who will legislate from the bench.

What about the war in Iraq? Are you ready to quit and leave the Iraqis to the mercy of the nutjobs? Remember how proud we all were when we saw those purple fingers? Are you ready to abondon those people? Because the Dems will cut and run in the blink of an eye.

What about the war on terror? Are you ready to have the dems protect this country from terrorist? Do you want the war on terror to be a “police” matter? Well, that is how the dems look at it.

Are you ready to try terrorist from GITMO on our civilian courts with all the same rights as our citizens? Well, that will happen if the dems get into power.

Do you really want Nancy Pelosi and Harry “droopy Dog” Reid running our country? Do you want FAR Left wing morality to be the morality of our country? Well if they get into power Howard Dean, Pelosi and Reid will be calling the shots. Do you want to live in a country based on San Francisco values?

My advice is to hold your nose and vote Republican. For now we only have two choices and we need to choose the lesser of the two evils while putting pressure on our elected cockroaches.

Social Conservatives Rally Against Gay Marriage in Boston

Homosexual activists would have you believe that Americans are changing their minds about gay marriage, don’t you believe it.

From FNC:

Conservative religious and political leaders rallied Sunday in opposition of gay marriage, arguing that their rights to religious expression are being threatened.

The event, being broadcast to churches nationally, is part of a larger effort to energize conservative voters before the Nov. 7 congressional elections.

Gov. Mitt Romney, a likely Republican candidate for president in 2008, joined several members of the Massachusetts clergy and an estimated 1,000 supporters later Sunday at the Tremont Temple Baptist Church to denounce gay marriage.

The Washington-based Family Research Council chose Boston for the site of its annual “Liberty Sunday” because Massachusetts is the only state that has legalized gay marriage.

“When we look at what has happened with same-sex marriage, as it began in this state and threatens to spread across the country, we’ve seen in its wake the loss of religious freedoms and the ability to speak out based upon one’s moral convictions,” Tony Perkins, the organization’s president, said Sunday.

It is just another step towards secularization of the country. Marriage comes from religion, that is its roots. This would be just one more step to changing the country into the secular progressive view; no right and no wrong. They do not believe in moral judgments, not even in religions.

I truly believe that homosexual marriage would be a step in the wrong direction for this country.

Australia to ban N Korean ships

Just an update…

From the BBC:

Australia is to ban North Korean ships from entering its ports in response to its claimed nuclear bomb test, the foreign minister has announced.

Alexander Downer told Parliament the move would help Australia make a “quite clear contribution” to other sanctions agreed by the UN on Saturday.

The move came as US envoy Christopher Hill arrived in Tokyo for talks on how to enforce the sanctions.

But despite the unanimous vote, disagreements have emerged between the members of the council.

Beijing has indicated that it still has reservations about carrying out the extensive cargo inspections that Washington says are called for in the resolution.

Japan, which banned North Korean ships from its ports last week, is looking at whether it can provide logistical support for US vessels if they start trying to inspect cargo ships going to or from North Korea.

The restrictions imposed by Japan’s pacifist constitution may require the government to pass new laws to allow that to happen.

In a further diplomatic drive, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is due to arrive in Japan on Wednesday.

She reportedly intends to reassure the country that Washington will provide adequate protection in the event that North Korea obtains a viable nuclear weapon – a message she will later take to South Korea.

It [U.N.] imposes tough weapons restrictions, targets luxury goods and imposes a travel ban on some North Korean officials.

It also allows the inspection of cargo vessels going in and out of North Korea for banned materials, although the resolution was weakened slightly at China and Russia’s insistence, to make this provision less mandatory.