Say Anything Blog

True to form, Obama is cutting the defense budget.

The Obama administration has asked the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon’s budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent—about $55 billion—a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.

Beyond question, leftists excluded, the Bush administration has safeguarded our country from terrorists attacks.  Now that we have a new president who is generally a pacifist and weak on national defense, another terrorists attack is probably eminent.  The only question is when.

Of course, it’s pretty hard to predict the time of the next terrorist attack against our country but here are some of the government actions which will enhance the probability of a successful terrorist attack.

1. Pulling our armed forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan.  This will take the Al Queda out of their current defensive position permitting more time and resources for offensive terrorists activites.

2. Reducing our military and defense budgets a likely event considering the increasing government deficits.  The Democrats have always looked toward cutting these budgets.

3. Reducing and possibly eliminating our support of Israel which Obama already is proposing.

Terrorism against American resources was widespread during the Clinton years largely because of his weak response.  Expect the same from Obama.

I am bemused by the audacity of Obama and his leftist lemmings who are indifferent to their political temple that rests on a foundation of hate.  They have built their temple on hatred against president Bush, hatred against Republicans, hatred against conservatives, hatred of capitalism, hatred against business and really hatred against anyone that opposes them. 

Now they stand on the edifice of their temple like conquerors demanding that the ones they despised ignore all their prior hateful insults and bow down before them.

There is the old saw that says that ‘those that build houses of glass should not throw stones’.  Like the fragile crystal palace that it is, their temple of hate will one day come crashing down upon them. As they say here in Texas, ‘what goes around comes around’.

Much has been posted here about the characteristics of the candidates and their ability to lead.  Most of this is slanderous innuendo and wild guesses since no one can know for certain how someone will act once they have attained the role of president.  Every potential candidate has had its admirers and detractors.  When elected no president has pleased everyone and all presidents have shown imperfections.  The only thing that really matters in the selection of a president is how he stands on the important issues affecting our nation and its citizens.

Here is how I rate the candidates on the issues I think are foremost.

1. Abortion - Obams should be disqualified by all ‘real’ Catholic, most Christians and other pro-life proponents soley on this one issue. [people like Pelosi and Biden are not true Catholics]

2. Homosexual marriage and as an approved life style - (see 1.)

3. National Defense - Obama doesn’t understand the military and doesn’t like the military.  On the other hand, McCain does and had first-hand experience.

4. Guns - Obama (as would most of the other Democrats) would like to ban all weapons especially handguns and assault rifles.

3. Taxes - Obams would raise ALL taxes to probably record levels.

4. War against terror - (see 3) Additionally like many other liberals, he may not recognize radical Isam for the threat it is.

5. Economy - A nations economy runs on energy and is healthiest when energy is inexpensive.  Obama and the Democrats with their drilling limitations seem unable to recognize this.

6. Constitutional freedoms - Suppression of speech and religious freedoms is rampant in liberal dominated institution.  Obama as as extreme liberal is not likely to oppose this which is seen in some aspects of his campaign.

7. Non-constitutional judicial decisions i.e. activist judges - Obama is unlikely to oppose this since most acivist judges are libersl.

Forget the character disassembly for in the long run of a 4 year presedential term, it’s how he stand on the important issues that matters.

Scarcely a week goes by without some report of possible excessive taser use by law enforcement agents.  A week ago there is this story where Police Taser boy with broken back 19 times allegedly to ‘keep him from getting hurt’!?  This week there is the report Witnesses rattled by death of man who was Tasered.  Now being shocked with a taser even once can’t be good for ones health so multiple tasering should be more harmful especially if the tasered individual has significant health problems e.g. weak heart.  It’s doubtful that the police would know beforehand the medical condition of their victim.

Deaths following application of tasers are a growing concern.

Since 2001, more than 300 people in the United States and Canada have died after being shocked with a Taser, according to Amnesty International, which plans to release a report in October on the growing use of the devices. Five of those were in Pennsylvania, including the August 2007 death of Chad Cekas outside the Fort Pitt Tunnel.

It seems to me that if police have trouble subduing a person with a single taser shot, they should fall back to the tried and true mathods they used before they had tasers.  What do you think?

Well, the incomparable Ann Coulter thinks so as she writes in Bush’s America: 100% al-Qaida free since 2001

In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been, and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.

I generally don’t write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America’s greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I’ll consider downgrading Bush from “Great” to “Really Good.”

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That’s 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK – or a landmark building, for that matter.

We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan – the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.

The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is “standing up” (as they say); fat Muqtada al-Sadr – the Dr. Phil of Islamo-fascist radicalism – has waddled off in retreat to Iran; and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant naysaying coming from their own country.

Of course the liberals have other non-complementary feelings for the president perhaps because he did not passed himself off as someone they could worshop, you know like a Messiah. To that Ann closes with

But liberals have only blind hatred for Bush – and for those brute American interrogators who do not supply extra helpings of bearnaise sauce to the little darlings at Guantanamo with sufficient alacrity.

The sheer repetition of lies about Bush is wearing people down. There is not a liberal in this country worthy of kissing Bush’s rear end, but the weakest members of the herd run from Bush. Compared to the lickspittles denying and attacking him, Bush is a moral giant – if that’s not damning with faint praise. John McCain should be so lucky as to be running for Bush’s third term. Then he might have a chance.

My feelings?  I concur with Ann 100 percent and predict that we will sorely miss having Bush as our president.

South Carolina senator Jim Demint may have something that could be interesting to dye-in-wool consevatives.  Follow the link and check out the video.

I’m amused by those that say that president Bush has abused our rights comparing him with Hitler while cast adulation on Lincoln who affectively threw The Rule of Law and the Constitution under the bus as he establish martial law over the entire country.  Some of Lincolns many dictatorial transgressions from the book ‘When in the Course of Human Events by Charles Adams

. Called up the militia without Congressional appoval. The Feds had no standing army at that time. The border states separating the south from the north refuse to send troops.

. Initiated a blockade of southern seaports again without congressional approval.

. Suspended Habeus Corpus which affectively established military rule

. Shut down dissenting newspapers and imprisoned their editors.  Actually all persons who criticized the war were subject to military arrest and imprisonment without trial or trial in military courts.  During the course of the war, an estimated 20,000 were imprisoned. 

. Arrested many of the Maryland state representatives and then rigged the replacement election to ensure that the state stayed in the union. 

. Issued an order to arrest Chief Justice Taney for his decision opposing the suspension of habeus corpus.  Fortunately the order was never carried out.

How was one man able to do all this making the nation as a whole bow down to his rule?  The obvious answer is that he as commander in chief was in control of the military.  If this could be done at a time when the Federal government was relatively weak as compared with today’s Federal government, how much easier it would seem to be today for the president to establish total control.  On that question it would seem prudent that we carefully consider who will be our next president.

By now most of you have heard of the Mark Steyn trial at the hands of one of the so-called Canadian Human Rights tribunals for allegedly writing columns that were critical of the Muslims.  From NROs Mark Hemingway:

issue is a cover story National Review’s own Mark Steyn wrote for the Canadian newsweekly Maclean’s, titled “The Future Belongs to Islam.” An excerpt from Steyn’s bestselling book America Alone, the article highlighted the fact that demographic trends suggest that Muslims may well become a majority in much of Europe and that this obviously represents a threat to Europe as we know it. A few Muslim law students objected to the article and filed multiple complaints with Canada’s national and provincial “human rights” tribunals and presto! Steyn’s opinion and Maclean’s right to print it have now been effectively criminalized.

The fact that a few fringe Muslims have reacted to Steyn’s article by invoking a once-obscure Canadian bureaucratic process to hold hostage the rights of all Canadians only goes to prove that Steyn needs to be heard, more than ever.

The Canadian Supreme court in a previous case has effectively given the human rights commissions carte banche to conduct their investigations however they choose.

Supreme Court of Canada split 4-3 on a decision that declared that section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act did not violate the charter of rights, and it remains constitutional. Oh sure, the justices in favor made grumblings about applying a high standard when enforcing the Human Rights Act, but despite their admonition, the general interpretation by the human-rights commissions is that they now have free rein to regulate the media. The slippery slope has been a toboggan ride to hell ever since.

This comment by one of the human rights agents says all that needs to be said about the commissions concern about protecting the rights of the people.

‘Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.” —Canadian “Human Rights” Investigator Dean Steacy, responding to the question “What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate?”

In summary

What this means is that everyone in Canada now has fundamental freedoms, provided they’re not in conflict with whatever specious definition of “human rights” the CHRC chooses to apply. The threshold for conviction set by the Human Rights Act is incredibly low, because its highly subjective language means that “likely to cause contempt” is as good as a preponderance of evidence establishing guilt. There’s also the matter of the commission’s tribunals, which — unlike legal proceedings — are largely administrative in nature, so there’s little in the way of formal rules of evidence or procedure. There are few things in life more terrifying than being dragged into court knowing ahead of time that truth isn’t necessarily a defense and that the judge is winging it.

Obama’s own words from Obama’s goal? ‘Jeopardize U.S. battlefield superiority’

Thanks so much for the Caucus4Priorities, for the great work you’ve been doing. As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand with Caucus4Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington.

First, I’ll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president I will end it.

Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems.

I will not weaponize space.

I will slow our development of future combat systems.

And I will institute an independent “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material; and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

Is this the agenda of someone who is concerned with national defense?  Not hardly.  If all of Obamas agenda is implemented, our nation will not be able to respond to any new threats.  This one issue should confirm to every rational person that an Obama presidency would be disasterous to our nation.

As you all know the list of illegal drugs keeps growing because like any ‘good’ government agency the DEA is trying to expand their power base.  Not satisfied for enforcing the substance bans, the drug prohibition czars have decided to go after doctors that prescribe ‘legal’ pain medications in what they have arbitrarly defined as excessive amounts.  How they are qualified to determine that is anybodies guess.  Well, one of the doctors in his defense against numerous indictments has taken the creative approach of challenging the constitutional legality of the specific charges in general and the entire drug war in paricular.

From Pain Medicine: Kansas Doctor Fights Back, Attacks Federal Prosecution and Controlled Substances Act as Unconstitutional

Lawyers for a Haysville, Kansas, physician facing a 34-count federal indictment alleging he acted as a drug dealer in prescribing pain medications fought back last Friday, filing in federal court a motion to dismiss both the indictment and federal Controlled Substances act (CSA) as unconstitutional. Attorneys for Dr. Steven Schneider argued that federal prosecutors in Wichita improperly claimed authority over the regulation of medicine.

A favorable ruling for the doctor would put a serious crimp in this onerous drug war that has ruined the lives of some many and enriched the pockets of illegal drug distributors.

Read the whole thing.

I’m not sure what other logical conclusion can be reached considering how the liberal Democrats have block every energy development that would alleviate our need for foreign oil.
From Gateway Pundit

Over the past 30 years:

Which party blocked the development of new sources of petroleum?—Democrat
Which party blocked drilling in ANWR?—Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the coast of Florida?—Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the east coast?—Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the west coast?—Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast?—Democrat
Which party blocked building oil refineries?—Democrat
Which party blocked clean nuclear energy production?—Democrat
Which party blocked clean coal production?—Democrat

That’s about the complete list.  Oh, liberals do like wind power but not if it’s in a liberal state like California. i.e. wind turbines obstruct their scenic views.  Interestingly the state of Texas who has perhaps the least environmental restrictions has the most wind turbines.

From our friends at Gateway Pundit.

Bernie Ward, the most prominent liberal voice on Bay Area talk radio for more than two decades, admitted Thursday to distribution of child pornography by e-mail in a plea deal that will send him to federal prison for at least five years.

Ward, 57, a former Roman Catholic priest, was a fixture on KGO-AM 810 for three hours every weeknight, known in recent years for his fervent denunciations of President Bush and the war in Iraq during his news talk show. He also hosted “God Talk,” a Sunday morning program on religion, and was a prolific fundraiser for the station’s charity drives.

But his career disintegrated Dec. 6 with the unsealing of a federal grand jury indictment, issued three months earlier, that charged him with two counts of distributing and one count of receiving Internet images of child pornography. KGO fired him Dec. 31.

At a 30-minute hearing in federal court in San Francisco, Ward admitted he was guilty of a single charge of distributing child pornography, saying it involved “exchanging an image of a minor engaged in sexually explicit activity” in December 2004. The plea agreement he signed, quoted in court, contained an admission that he had sent between 15 and 150 pornographic images via e-mail.

...Ward initially pleaded not guilty and said he had downloaded a few pornographic images over several weeks as research for a book on hypocrisy among Americans who preach morality in public.

I wonder how you-know-who missed this one.  You think it’s because Ward is a liberal??

You all are at least somewhat famllar with Gores film that predicted a huge increase in ocean levels flooding coastal cities and his other doomsday prophecies.  Well, the esteemed Walter Williams in Environmentalists’ wacky predictions writes that doomsday forecasts are nothing new.

Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let’s look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and “in the 1970s ... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

It’s really amazing that these environmental alarmists have any credibility left at all.  With regard to how much concern the government have about Global Warming, Williams closes by writing.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?

Read the whole thing.

The benefit and safety of flouride in our water system and in other products e.g. toothpaste has been hotly debated over the years.  This subject is revisted in WND’s Fluoride: Miracle drug or toxic-waste killer?

From Pennsylvania to Nebraska and from Europe to New Zealand, there is growing and fierce opposition to plans to fluoridate public drinking water, fueled by a battery of shocking new studies that seriously question a practice routine among U.S. municipalities for nearly the last 50 years

Although the American Dental Association and CDC are avid proponents of flouride there is a growing body of contrary evidence.

A study released in February by the Collaborative on Health and the Environments Learning and Development Disabilities Initiative found excessive ingestion of fluoride can decrease thyroid hormone levels. It also cited a recent Chinese study that links lower IQ levels in children with fluoridated drinking water.

In 2006, the National Academy of Sciences found the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum standard for fluoride of 4 milligrams per liter could cause health problems such as dental fluorosis and weakened bones over a lifetime of consumption.

The EPA’s Headquarters Professionals Union, made up of scientists, lawyers and other professionals, also now opposes community fluoridation.

In January, the New York State Dental Journal reported fluoride overexposure is resulting in children developing tooth disorders including white spots, brownish discoloration and pitting. It also warned children 6 months to 3 years should consume no more than ¼ of a gram of fluoride per day – the equivalent of one 8 ounce glass of water in a fluoridated community.

Sometime ago I read that flouride was a waste product from some manufacturing product and the flouride promotion as a dental aid was just a scheme for disposing of it.

The fluoride added to public drinking water is actually fluorosilic acid. It is described by critics as an industrial waste product. Supporters prefer to call it an industry byproduct. Most of it has come from Florida’s phosphate fertilizer industry.

So is flouride safe or not?  Although the government has confirmed its use, the government has been wrong before so it’s probably wise to limit ones exposure to flouride.

In 1965, a landmark year in the fluoridation debate, the federal government determined fluoride was safe in drinking water at levels as high as 4 ppm. Officially, that is still the government’s threshold of safety on the high side. Yet, in 2006, the National Research Council determined 4 ppm was unsafe and couldn’t assert with certitude that even half that level was safe.

On the basis of the NRC’s review, the Georgia-based Lillie Center last year filed an ethics complaint against the CDC Division of Oral Health. In its complaint the center charged the CDC with “mislead[ing] the public concerning the results of studies about harm from ingesting fluoride,” and “omit[ting] vital information in its information disseminated to the public concerning vulnerable population groups that are particularly susceptible to harm from fluoride.”

Read the whole thing.