Will Hillary Leave?

Sniper fire was taking place...

We had to duck and run.

Will Hillary Clinton leave quietly?

A top Clinton adviser boldly claimed-

"It doesn’t matter how many states Obama wins. Hillary will be the democratic nomination by way of ’superdelegates"

This has got to send chills down the spine of any person who is supporting Obama for president. The thought that Obama could win the nomination with a majority vote from the people of America…

Only to loose it all to Hillary on a technicality.

Being a conservative, I find a tad bit of humor in the situation.

First off- The Clinton’s current actions validate all the years we conservatives spent warning people about the Clinton’s. That the Clinton’s would stop at nothing, (lying, cheating, and stealing) to gain power.

Secondly- I believe John McCain can beat Hillary Clinton in a fair match-up. I am not sure that McCain can beat Obama. Shades of JFK vs Nixon come to mind. I can see John McCain in place of Nixon, sweating profusely, while dictating his agenda. All the while, Obama gets standing ovations from the masses by saying nothing. (But saying nothing in a hell of a good fashion..!!)

I just do not believe McCain can beat Obama.

However, if I take my conservative badge off of my sleeve for a moment, I am an American first and foremost.

I hate to see anyone "take" an election, who didn’t win it.

I hated to see the 2000 election screw up.

Even though my candidate won, it wasn’t the proper way to win an election. I have always resented the fact that Al Gore decided to drag the election process through the US court system. The founding fathers already had a system in place for this type of close election and it has been used many times in the past, it is called: "The US Congress." Many times in the past, congress has selected the president when elections are too close to call.

Al Gore, knowing that republicans held congress, decided to use the court system instead. And Al Gore lost.

But still, with that said, I would rather see a clear election with the people picking the president.

So I despise the fact that Hillary may have found a way to go against the will of the people and place herself in this election.

It seems that Hillary Clinton is not going to leave quietly.

It would be easy for me to say that- "You folks on the left created this Frankenstein, by raising the Clinton’s to stardom."

I mean, it is not like you didn’t receive warnings about the Clinton’s. (What was the beginning of the TV show- "The Twilight Zone?" ’Warning, there is a signpost up ahead. Next stop, the Twilight Zone.")

There were freakin’ signposts all over the place.

We republicans did prove in a court of law that the Clinton’s do lie. There was much evidence that the Clinton’s were involved in money laundering and a shady land deal with "Whitewater." Today, you have Chinese people landing in jail for illegally giving money to the Clinton’s.

(And most importantly for this editorial.)

There was evidence that the Clinton’s used FBI and CIA files illegally, to gain knowledge on political rivals. (Rivals that might NOT necessarily be republican.)

If you are a prominent democrat who has been in DC since the 90’s, you have got to wonder what the Clinton’s know about you.

What are the Clinton’s willing to do to win this election..??

In this writer’s mind, I believe the Clinton’s will not go away quietly.

Outwardly, the Clinton’s will use ’superdelegates’ to go against the will of the people.

But I believe that behind the scenes, the Clinton’s will use every trick in the book to force top democrats to look the other way when the s**t hits the fan.

When Obama wins the popular vote, however Hillary is given the nomination by superdelegates, you will see a herd of top democrats paraded before the congressional podium, claiming that everything is on the "up, and up.."

"The Clinton’s win, fair and square.."

These top democrats will do this because of political pressure (political blackmail) from the Clinton’s, under the guise of "healing the nation."

However, I fear what will happen to America when the first Black presidential nominee is cheated out of his victory.

African- Americans, rightly so, feeling cheated by the "party of the people"…

It will tear this country apart and I do not want to see that happen.

(Even though it would benefit my Conservative Party if Hillary did all of this.)

So my short answer to the question in the title of this editorial is "no", the Clinton’s will not leave quietly.

The Clinton’s, who were once loved by the Democratic Party, will feel cheated and abandoned by them.

They will use every trick in the book to win this election.

Yes, I believe the Clinton’s will try to destroy the Democratic Party.

What can "we the people" do to stop this madness..??

First off- I can’t do anything to stop it. I am a conservative / republican. I have no rights in the way that you conduct your democratic nomination process.

Secondly- You created this Frankenstein monster, you are going to have to deal with it.

-Quit giving the Clinton’s a "pass" on everything they do. Demand that journalists inquire "why the Clinton’s were receiving illegal campaign money from the Chinese?" You would never let a republican get away with this kind of stuff, why would you let the Clinton’s. Maybe get congress involved. You hold the majority in congress. In general, quit looking the other way when the Clinton’s "pull a fast one."

-Find out who the hell these "superdelegates" are. Find out why the superdelegates are favoring Hillary Clinton? Send mass e-mails to your favorite news services. Demand that they do some "actual reporting" on why the superdelegates favor Hillary. Tell them it is "not enough to just copy the latest AP headlines." You want information on these people."

-Write to your democratic congress. Tell them that they must follow the "will of the people."

But above all, you must remind the Democratic Party that they work for you. It is not the other way around.

I realize that it will be difficult for many of you. Most liberals were trained from birth to believe that the government is "all powerful" and should control all aspects of your lives.

But that is not the way the founding fathers intended this country to run.

You must tell the democrats in congress that you pay their salary and your vote must count.

Or…

You could sit back, do nothing, and let it all happen.

(I can’t help you with that. I am a republican and democrats are not going to listen to me.)

You are welcome to grab a chair, get yourself a cup of coffee, and join me as we watch this Democratic Party train- slam into the station.

(Aaahh, sorry. You’ll have to bring your own coffee.)

Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republican

Re-post from Feburary 17th 2008

The Angry Republican Video Broadcast

What if Hillary is elected president?

Warning- This video is "shocking."

Look into Hillary's eyeball (I dare you)

It was Thursday evening, (March 20, 2008) Gov. Bill Richardson, who had worked for the Clinton’s in the past and was a friend, felt compelled to tell Sen. Clinton in person...

He called to tell Hillary that he was endorsing Barack Obama for president.

"Let me tell you: (pause) we’ve had BETTER conversations." Gov. Richardson said.

Someone should write a book about the Clinton’s.

(OK.. Hundreds of people already have.)

But there are two problems with every book written about the Clinton’s:

Every book written about the Clinton’s is either a "love them" or "hate them" type story. I have never heard of a book that includes both the good and bad stuff on the history of the Clinton’s.

The second problem with every book written about the Clinton’s: they do not include the "ending."

We are living through the "ending" right now.

This week, Hillary released sections of the documents logging her time spent at the White House.

I haven’t heard much about these documents since their release, so I can assume two things:

Everyone is still riffling through them.

Or..

No one gives a rat’s ass.

I am sure that Hillary’s team gaped over every page in these documents and there is nothing released to the public that could hurt Hillary.

However, here at The Angry Republican, we have found a couple of things in the Hillary White House documents that you might find interesting.

So we decided to focus our attention on Hillary Clinton.

(Mainly because, like everyone else, we spent a whole week picking on Obama.)

Which brings us to:

The 10^th Angry Republican Video Broadcast.

This one focuses on the Hillary White House documents, and we interview a person "who knows the Clinton’s."

We call this video:

"Look into Hillary’s eyeball. (I dare you..!!)"

If you hated that video, be reassured that you never have to look at it again. (Provided that you never "click" the center button on the video.)

However, if you enjoyed The Angry Republican Video Broadcast, you can view all of our videos here:

AR’s Video Workshop and Sick Rick’s Pics

(Note)- This is a FREE site. It costs you nothing to view it.

All material, including the video, was written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republican.

New to- The Angry Republican

The "Sean Penn- Fox News doomsday clock."

Sean Penn stated that Fox News’ days are numbered and NEAR the end.

So we have decided to keep track of how many days have elapsed from the date of Sean Penn’s prediction.

Hey Writers…

Have you ever wanted to write a kick ass, aggressive political editorial?

But there is one problem…

You do not want to put it on YOUR blog site because idiots will attack your free speech rights and "troll" your blog? They will flame you, until you puke.

I know the feeling..!!

Why not send that original editorial to us..??

Get that anger off of your chest without having to deal with the idiots on your own site.

You do not have to use your real name, blogger name, etc. (Unless you want to.) We, The Angry Republican, will NEVER indulge who "really" wrote an article.

What, you do not trust us..??

Well, you can mail your editorial to us with no return address. Mail to: AR Productions, PO Box 976, Meadville Pa, 16335. However, if you "snail mail" your editorial to me it will take longer because I will have to type up the freaking thing. (Unless you send it on CD disc- Microsoft compatible.)

The best way to send an editorial is by my blog site e-mail.

There is no money involved and your work remains- yours.

We are asking for conservative and liberal viewpoints. Each editorial MUST be written by you. (It cannot be a copy of someone else’s work.) Keep in mind that my "real job" takes a lot of hours, I cannot always get right back to you.

To the folks who read The Angry Republican,

No…

I’m not running out of ideas for this site.

One of the complaints I have received from viewers is that we do not put out enough posts per week. That we "miss" some of the important news stories each week.

I have always wanted to keep this site stocked with original work. With my schedule, I cannot put out more than 3 or 4 editorials a week.

This was the best way that I could think of to solve that problem and still remain an original material site.

Thanks for reading The Angry Republican..!!

I hope you will have a nice Easter Day..!!

AR Babonie

A real eye opener

Once you folks on the left have opened up that door, you cannot shut it for your own convenience. That door is open for all to use. And use it, we will…AR Babonie

Listening to the many call-in shows this week on talk radio, I could tell the Obama- Rev. Wright story caught many Black Americans off guard.

"Why are people jumping on Obama just because his preacher said a few dumb things..??"

Welcome to the "Wonderful World of American Politics..!!"

Black Americans can now say they have had a presidential candidate get beat up by the American press.

Some of these callers seem puzzled, like they didn’t understand "the game."

If I could yell through the radio and somehow reach these callers, I would have said-

"Where were you for the past- 100 years..?? You didn’t hear all of the jokes and mud that was thrown at Bill Clinton? You didn’t hear all of the jokes and slander thrown at George Bush?"

What..

Did you think this was something we reserved for "typical" White Guys only..??"

Hell no..

We do this for everybody who wants to be president.

So the question remains: Why did it take this long to attack Obama..??

Some of the reason may have been that people in the news media were fascinated by Barack Obama. Maybe they didn’t want to "dig deeper" into his life. So they reported current events and focused on his speeches.

I believe some of it was "fear." Reporters and News Networks- being afraid that they would be labeled "racist" if they reported negatively on Obama.

But mostly, Obama was the "great unknown." He didn’t have a long voting record in Washington. He had never run for president in the past, so we couldn’t highlight policy shifts in his agenda.

To me, this whole story is less about race and more about political rivalry.

What Rev. Wright said was racist, that is true. Obama, calling is grandmother a "typical White person" is borderline racist, (I know what Obama meant, but still- he is lumping a group of people together in a stereo- type).

Obama would be attack whether he was White or Black, that doesn’t matter. Obama would be attack because he is running for president.

I believe it has little to do with skin color.

For years, I have listen to left-wing bloggers talk about Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell when each of these preachers have said something stupid.

The left tries to paint a picture that ALL conservatives feel the way that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell do on issues.

It is a way to scare their base, (and some moderates) into voting democratic.

I have never been to a church where Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were preaching. I have never listened to a sermon delivered by these men.

I’m not even sure if President Bush, or Dick Cheney ever attended a service with Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell?

Just a simple Google Search on "Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell" will produce 26,800 hits. Most by left wing sites touting how these REPUBLICAN preachers are homophobic, racist, and their views on 9/11.

We can’t even prove whether John McCain or George Bush even attended several of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell services, let alone attend for 20 years.

But it doesn’t matter, the left will lump us all together in a story.

Once you folks on the left have opened up that door, you cannot shut it for your own convenience. That door is open for all to use. And use it, we will…

It has little to do with color.

Barack Obama walked into a political game that has been taking place in American politics for years. He is just the latest victim. (But he will not be the last.)

Hillary supporters are taking part in this "game" because they want Hillary as president, just as simple as that.

Is it a fair and noble thing to do? Probably not. But we need to know whom we are electing as president.

Conservatives are taking part in this "game" because we want BOTH Obama and Hillary taken down a few pegs.

And it is working…

A recent poll in Pennsylvania shows that 19% of Hillary supporters would vote for John McCain, if Obama wins the democratic nomination.

20% of Obama supporters WILL NOT vote for Hillary, if she is the nominee. Instead of staying home, they would vote for John McCain.

Pennsylvania Poll

This is not good for the Democratic Party. This could cost them the win.

A recent Fox News Poll- (nationally) shows that if the election were held today, McCain would win. (By 9% over Obama and slightly more over Hillary.)

The Democratic Party knows they must end this political fight between Obama and Hillary.

But how..??

Good question.

I do not have that answer. (Nor, would I want to reveal it, if I knew of one.)

This has very little to do with race. This has everything to do with politics.

Obama just happened to be standing in the street when the Media trucks came flying by.

Obama would have been hit, regardless of his skin color.

For that is the nature of American politics.

Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republican

New- to The Angry Republican

The "Sean Penn- Fox News doomsday clock."

Sean Penn stated that Fox News’ days are numbered and NEAR the end.

So, we have decided to keep track of how many days have elapsed from the date of Sean Penn’s prediction.

The Angry Republican Video Broadcast number 9

"Let’s call up- Reverend Wright"

Remember when- Kum ba yah

Remember when they were holding hands and singing "Kum ba yah"

Those were the days for liberals.

They all stood, side by side, boycotting The Fox News Network.

The liberal democrats, claiming they would not debate or visit "that" Fox News channel, because it would give the Fox News Channel credibility.

Liberal web sites like The Daily Kos preached about the solidarity of the progressive / liberal / democrat movement.

That has all changed now…

Obama has visited Fox News.

Hillary has visited Fox News so many times that I believe the Clinton’s have their own parking space at the Fox News parking garage.

The web site Daily Kos, which used to talk about the unity of the democrats, is almost splitting into 2 sites because of the fights between Hillary and Obama bloggers. (Pro Clinton bloggers do not feel welcome at the pro Obama- Kos web site.)

We conservatives get to sit back and watch it all unfold.

In a post last week, I complained that John McCain should leave the campaign trail and begin to "look presidential." I said that McCain should travel around and visit some of these "hot spots" in the world.

Well, that is exactly what the McCain camp is doing. After visiting Iraq, McCain headed to Israel. Later, he plans to visit Germany and France. (It is so nice to belong to a party that, most of the time, follows its supporter’s wishes.)

However, back on the liberal / progressive / democratic side of the fence…

Hillary and Obama have spent the last three weeks NOT talking about the issues. Instead they have launched- through surrogates- verbal attacks at each other.

The top brass in the Democratic Party is worried.

On the one hand, this "very public" fight between Hillary and Obama has created a buzz between democratic voters, who are turning out in record numbers to vote.

However, because this fight between Hillary and Obama has been so angry, this could cause the losing supporters to just stay home and not vote for the democratic nominee. (Or worse yet- vote for McCain in spite.)

Here is what I can tell you…

Living here in Pennsylvania, I see that Hillary Clinton has a slight lead. Governor Ed Rendell has endorsed Hillary, and many people I talk to have said they would vote for Hillary.

And that was before the Rev. Wright / Obama story broke.

People are funny…

If you walked up to them and asked them a poll question- "Does this controversy with Rev. Wright and Obama effect the way that you will vote in the Pennsylvania Primary..??" Most people will answer "No." (We all probably would- in public.)

But, when you are voting in private. Will what you heard Rev. Wright say about White Americans effect how you vote?

Obama has to have White voters to win.

If Hillary Clinton wins big in Pennsylvania, it will be mathematically impossible for Obama to take the delegate win.

Which means this campaign will be fought out at the convention.

Both campaigns need money..!! Millions of dollars each week to operate.

How long can you keep drawing money from your supporters before they reach the point that they cannot donate anymore money..?? What if the democratic "money well" runs dry from the primaries..?? What if there is nothing left to draw for the general election..??

What if Obama is slightly ahead of Hillary, but Obama doesn’t have the delegate numbers to "lock" the win, and the delegates believe Hillary could better compete with McCain? Will giving the win to Hillary destroy the Democratic Party?

Many, many questions and very few answers.

So, I’m reading some interviews from top democratic strategists who are very alarmed at the current state of this race.

There is only two ways this can play out, that will save the Democratic Party the most grief from its supporters.

(1) One candidate wins most (or all) of the last primaries and is so far ahead of the other that there is no question who is the winner. (Even if they do not have the delegate number to win.)

(2) That it is too close to call. A virtual tie. The Democratic Party and the delegates could then select the candidate that they believe could best compete against McCain.

There is only one problem here…

Hillary is going to receive a bounce because of this "Rev. Wright" controversy. (Obama’s poll numbers have dropped 14 % recently.) And you have those "missing" votes from Florida and Michigan. Half of the Democratic Party believes you should count all the votes. The other half believes that those states screwed up and shouldn’t count.

Folks, I cannot see anyway that this will turn out favorably for the Democratic Party. This Rev. Wright story appeared at the worst possible time. Obama could have locked this thing up, but I believe he will lose some of the votes that he was counting on in states like Pennsylvania.

If I were to make a prediction now-

I believe Hillary will gain ground. However, Obama will still hold the popular vote, (and maybe the delegate lead.)

This should be the end of the story.

(But no…..!!)

Huge debates will occur in Democratic circles about Florida and Michigan- (all those poor people who lost their chance to vote.)

The Democratic Party and the delegates will worry that Obama will have problems with Rezko, Rev. Wright, and Obam’s general lack of experience. They will give the nomination to Hillary Clinton.

This will cause a hell of a mess at the Democratic Convention. (Beating the fiasco of the 1968 Democratic convention.)

This will cause moderate Americans to say:

"These democrats cannot even run an election. How can they run a country? How can I vote for them? I do not trust any of them.."

Meanwhile- Little "old" John McCain will have been traveling around the world. Shaking hands and kissing babies. He will already "look the part."

The democratic winner- (aahh chosen one) Hillary Clinton, will attack McCain, it will backfire and turn Americans off. (Having lived through the months of Hillary and Obama verbal abuse.)

John McCain will be the 44 president of the United States.

Whether you like it or not…

But that is just my prediction. What is yours..??

Written by AR Babonie for The Angry Republican

The Angry Republican Video Broadcast

The "first 100 hours" is falling into the toilet for the democrats. They take a day off to watch college football. Libs try to stick two democrats into high profile positions, both with shady pasts. (Murtha)

President Carter's staff is fleeing his camp because of embellishments in his new book. (Isn't the name of his new book- "How I saved the Middle East and won a Nobel Prize"- By Jimmy Carter?)

You have Barbara Boxer condemning Condi Rice for NOT having children. (If you do not have children, you cannot lead the country during a war.)

Now, there is a problem, concerning minimum wage for American Samoa. The main company involved is located in Nancy Pelosi's district. (The person that liberals picked to speak for their party.) Liberals immediately rush to cover up and blame republicans. The same way they covered for Mayor Nagin in New Orleans. (no..no- Your district would have to file for that exemption. There are hundreds of districts in America. The Labor dept doesn't set RULES in each district individually. You must file for exemption- which would be Pelosi's chore.)

What you have here is a group of people who voted for change. And that was it- Change.

They knew NOTHING about the people they were voting for. And so they got change. Change for the worst.

You know what is really sad..??

Many people were really sincere in casting their votes for the democrats because they wanted the United States out of Iraq. They also wanted to control political corruption. Democrats promised this to the voters.

I feel sorry for you folks.

Because as of yet, there is no evidence democrats even plan to do one of those promises.

Here Comes the Judge

A federal judge on Thursday struck down President Bush's warrantless surveillance program, saying it violated the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit is the first judge to rule on the legality of the National Security Agency's program, which the White House says is a key tool for fighting terrorism that has already stopped attacks.
This case was brought on by the ACLU.
I am going to disagree with many of the conservative people on this issue. I listened today as the Right attacked this judge for her decision and they talked about her past.
I have always said the warrantless surveillance program was legal until a judge ruled the act unconstitutional. Many on the left claimed it was already an illegal activity. That was an incorrect statement, until today.
As it stands right now, the warrantless surveillance program can continue until the appeals process is complete. The administration said it would appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
So really, this is "much to do about nothing." The decision is not retroactive. No crimes can be placed upon the Bush Administration because this is new territory and other American Presidents have done similar activities during a war.
It would be hypocritical for me to cut down this judge for her decision. I believe in the American system. I think her decision was wrong. I believe this was a tool for catching terrorists and I think the 6th U.S. Circuit Court will overturn this decision.
But, I'm not going to make fun of this judge. She was placed there by an American President. (Jimmy Carter) She has a right to be there.
I did, however, make fun of the ACLU. In a childish fashion, I painted "hippie headbands" on the ACLU's photo.
"Smoke one for me.."

What Do You Want..??

I'm driving down the road today and I have the radio on.
Before a democrat blames right-wing talk radio, this was just your average, top of the hour radio network news. (Just the headlines, no slant.)
Two stories were played back to back. I just get a kick out of this every time I think about it.
The first story is about the new al-Qaida in Iraq leader succeeding Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He is Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian with ties to Osama bin Laden's deputy.

We know this to be a fact. There is no denying this.
So this proves Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It proves that Al Qaeda is fighting us (again, In Iraq). We also know that it was al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11.
The next story was domestic. It was about a debate where some democrats do not want to include Iraq in the war on terror. They say Iraq was a detour from the war on terror.
"These people do hear the news..?? Don't they..?" Osama has quickly replaced his leader in Iraq. This means terrorists are in Iraq. But democrats say Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.
If you can find a democrat that is half-way intelligent, they will argue that terrorists were not in Iraq before we went in and it is America's fault that terrorists are there now.
(Blame America First.) Typical Liberal.
How do these democrats know terrorists were not in Iraq..?? We have proof that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq receiving treatment for battle wounds he received in Afghanistan.
We couldn't even prove, without a doubt, what type of weaponry Saddam was developing. How can you prove that terrorists were not in Iraq..?? But this is irreverent now. We can prove terrorists are in Iraq now.


You can fight terrorists in one location. I guess you could run all over the globe trying to find them. You can ask for permission to have Special Forces enter Saudi Arabia to check for terrorists. (I doubt you will get permission.) You can ask Yemen for permission to enter their country. (Good Luck!)
Or.. You can set up shop and let the terrorists come to the US military. Preferably, not within the US. (Maybe a country like Iraq)

You have been blinded my friend and you have lost your judgement.
Your hatred of President Bush has caused you to forget that the US military is run by a large group of men and women. These people are very intelligent, many have been in the military most of their lives. There are not necessarily more republicans then democrats in the military.
How long do we have to wait until these people understand that terrorists are in Iraq. So Iraq is the continuation of the war on terror.

Sometimes you have to trust the people who have been elected. The people who have decided to enlist and defend this country. I am not talking about a "blind trust." But my God, you do not have to block every move with a million questions and a hundred accusations.
Stop accusing soldiers of hideous crimes. Give a soldier the same justice you would want. "Innocent, until proven guilty."

Isn't that what you would want..?? American Justice.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some comments from this article-----------

"If you can find a democrat that is half-way intelligent, they will argue that terrorists were not in Iraq before we went in and it is America's fault that terrorists are there now.(Blame America First.) Typical Liberal."So America didn't start this war? Was it the Martians? Who do we blame for this?"How do these democrats know terrorists were not in Iraq..?? We have proof that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq receiving treatment for battle wounds he received in Afghanistan."There are terrorists in almost every country in the world. How do we know there's no terrorists in Mexico? Who's next, Switzerland?"Or.. You can set up shop and let the terrorists come to the US military. Preferably, not within the US. (Maybe a country like Iraq)"And how's that working for us now? Is this the latest rationalle for going into Iraq? It changes almost daily."Sometimes you have to trust the people who have been elected. The people who have decided to enlist and defend this country. I am not talking about a "blind trust." But my God, you do not have to block every move with a million questions and a hundred accusations."America trusted this administration for four years and the media certainly didn't question them about Iraq. Now that we've been duped there's no more trust. And nobody has been "blocked" from doing anything because the Dems have yet to put together any meaningful opposition."Stop accusing soldiers of hideous crimes. Give a soldier the same justice you would want. "Innocent, until proven guilty." "I agree. Let's also close down Guantanamo Bay. comment by liberalfreak on June 18, 2006 12:56 AM (EST)

Guantanamo Bay may be closed down sometime in the future.Most of the stories from that facility have been borderline propaganda. Gitmo prisoners have it better than the "Tent City" prisoners do in Arizona. (And Gitmo prisoners do not have to wear pink underwear or work on a chain-gang.) There is a movement in this country on getting tougher with criminals. Americans are sick of repeat offenders. You cut someone a break and let him out of prison. They rape a child or kill some innocent person.Tons of mainstream media outlets went down to Guantanamo Bay looking for a liberal "sob-story" that they could run on TV. (Liberals love stories on how Evil America is a bad country doing evil bad things.) The innocent person, locked inside Gitmo. No trial in sight. What the mainstream media saw were "thugs" who tossed glasses of urine at prison guards. These news teams came back empty handed. There was no "Brad Pitt" looking terrorist who sits in the corner- sobbing. Just a bunch of thugs.So I will not surprise you LF, by saying I think we need to be TOUGHER on terrorist. Even the ones in jail.Yes, it was Martians that started this war. They had that plasma ray gun.Saddam started this war. He never followed any of the surrender terms he agreed to. Bush (41) let Saddam get away with it. Clinton let Saddam get away with it. Finally, after 9/11, Bush (43) put a stop to Saddam.Had Saddam followed the terms he agreed to. Saddam would still be in charge of Iraq and we wouldn't be there. We could be focusing on one of the other countries that Manning is talking about. reply by angryrepublican on June 18, 2006 8:55 AM (EST)

In case part of this was directed at me. Here's a comment I left on another blog a week ago that questioned the war in Iraq...Terrorist experts for the most part agreed before Iraq that landing a large military force in a terrorist rich environment like Iran or Syria would be equivilant to hitting a hornets nest with a baseball bat. So it's correct to say that Iraq was a great place to go to fill the need to do something big after 911 without significantly hurting the people who attacked us. But what you have to look at is geography. Terrorists tend to reside in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Sudan; Iraq happens to be dead center of this activity. Iraq is not the war on terror, but is is a great place to start it, as long as we actually do that and don't forget why we're there. Special forces teams can now make quick hops to the terrorists camps in the Middle East without having to suffer the response of "occupying" the country.As long as we are in Iraq we don't have to ask permission from Saudi Arabia, we can go in covertly and just not tell the media the real reason we are in Iraq, to conduct a real war on terror under the radar. The point of my comments was to show that Iraq is just the media friendly war, it isn't the real one that is probably taking place. And if it isn't taking place we are missing an opportunity. comment by manning on June 16, 2006 5:24 PM (EST)

Biff-tastic blogging. Great post. Liberals hate to be called out and exposed so hopefully you will unleash some rants from our more left leaning bloggers. It's about time the democrats put away their Blame the President game-plan and jump on board in the war on terror. comment by bigbob47 on June 16, 2006 12:17 AM (EST)

Thanks for reading The Angry Republican..!!

The sky is falling

With the date of 666 arriving, I thought I would do an article on the end of the world. The number 666 is the sign of the beast. Some people believe 666 points to the arrival of the end of the world. The beast will return to earth.

(I am not saying that Al Gore is the beast. We will talk about Al Gore later.)

When talking about the end of the world, I always figured it would be some wacky fortuneteller claiming "the end is near." Maybe a religious fanatic who thinks he found some secret code written in The Bible or on some old coin.

I never thought it would be respected people of science.
But, it is science that is claiming "the end is near."

What is interesting is that history proves that the panic caused by the fear of something, is sometimes more dangerous than what people are afraid of.
During the turn of the century- 1799 to 1800. So many people believed the end of the world would take place, many farmers didn’t plant enough crops. They just planted enough to survive, but not much extra to sell. This caused a food shortage and some people starved to death. The world didn’t come to an end.
In 1999, many people began to believe that computers would crash at the turn of the century. Banks and companies spent millions to find out if their computers would crash and what could be done to fix this. There was a fear that if people, not trusting banks and the stock market, would begin to pull their money out. This could cause a financial crisis. A bank doesn’t have enough money to close out everyone’s account. America may not have enough printed money to provide the funds if all Americans removed their money from the stock market and banks.
Fortunately, people didn’t panic and there was no stock market crash. We definitely cannot thank the media for that. They played out the "Y2K-end of the world" story for what it was worth.
Today, the wizards and fortunetellers predict global warming is the end. But you can stop it. All you have to do is drive a smaller car. Turn that A/C off. Don’t turn your thermostat above 68 degrees. Wear a sweater. By doing this, you can stop global warming and save the world.

But, can we stop the earth from warming..??

I believe the earth warms and cools over thousands of years. I believe this because scientific core samples prove this. The warming and cooling of the earth can explain why we find aquatic fossils in the desert. But these same core samples also prove humans have little to do with the earth’s warming and cooling. The bulk of the earth’s warming and cooling took place before humans had factories or cars. So humans are not causing global warming.
What can be debated is if humans are causing the earth to warm (or cool) faster than normal. To prove this, you would need temperature readings before the human industrial age. We do not. Gabriel Fahrenheit invented the mercury thermometer in 1714. However, it didn’t get used worldwide until the 1800's.
Galileo used alcohol thermometers 100 years earlier. Galileo’s scale was different and alcohol thermometers are not reliable.
Some scientists argue that humans are causing global cooling. So who the hell knows..??
There is nothing wrong with conserving resources. Nothing at all wrong with getting an alternative power source and getting away from oil. If you want to drive a small car and wear a sweater in your house to stay warm. That is great! But many of us choose to pay the higher fuel bills to enjoy a better quality of life. Quality of life is not a waste of energy. Some of us drive a bigger car because of our jobs, or we like the safety and traction a bigger vehicle delivers.
Why would we drastically change human life on an educated guess..??

Enter Al Gore...


Someone put a muzzle on Al Gore during the 2000 elections. Having written the book "Life in the balance", you would have expected Al Gore to be a fanatical environmentalist. One who calls for extreme taxes on gas to force people to drive less. Calling for a cut on all logging to save trees. A politician who demands a large-intrusive government that tells you what you can build on YOUR property. But Al Gore barely mentioned the environment during the 2000 elections.
Today that has changed...
Al Gore is burning tons of fuel. Creating a huge "carbon cloud" at every place he stops to talk about the environment. Al Gore will save the earth. Al Gore is reminding me of those extreme religious leaders who liberals hate. The preachers who preach that YOU should follow Gods word, then these same preachers head out and cheat on their wives, steal, lie, and molest children.

Al Gore is preaching for YOU to save the environment, while he flies all over the globe burning toxic fossil fuels. Does Al Gore live in a house made of wood? Does he use electricity? Does he buy newspapers, toilet paper, and computer paper?
Or is he asking you to do these things..?? Al Gore cannot because he is too important to follow his own advice..??
So…
Regardless of what Al Gore, or global warming scientists, or Militant Environmentalists, or The 666 Beast says..

I think we will all be here on Wednesday.

The Scientific Inquisition

It's funny how things will come to you. I was flipping around the TV this past weekend and I land on a show with dragons. I figured this was sci-fi movie, but it ends up being a factual show that describes how scientists have found a frozen dragon. That is right!! A frozen dragon.. The fire breathing kind. The dragon of legions.

Science tried to explain how the dragon could eat platinum from a cave wall. This platinum might cause the dragon to have a "flammable breath." (I don't know if they actually explained how the "flammable breath" caught fire. What caused a SPARK..??)

But anyway..

When the huge "K29 or C3PO" meteor crashed into the earth and killed the dinosaurs, the dragons headed to the seas. They survived the mini-ice age. These sea dragons became "Sea-Monsters" of the old sailor's myths.
So, I'm thinking to myself.. "You bastards..!!"
All those years in school. Science told me that early man was fibbing. Telling myths. Myths of large Sea-Serpents and Knights fighting dragons.
Now science is saying "Oopps.. We were wrong.."

But science isn't saying "Ooopps." They are reporting these frozen dragons like.. "Oh.. by the way.. We found a dragon and so they are real, and this is probably how they lived and mated and how many eggs they laid and….."

You might say.. "Ok AR, so dragons are real. Science made a mistake. Big deal!"

But this makes me wonder how many other myths could also be true. Myths, like the dragon, that science has said could not possibly be true? But maybe more important.. What is science telling us is true, and it isn't?
The dragons held my attention for awhile. Then I started flipping around the TV again. I landed on a Mel Brooks' movie: "History of the world pt 1". In the middle of this movie, which I think is hilarious, there is a song and dance number called: The Inquisition. Brooks pokes fun at the Spanish Inquisition.
It was then that I realized…

The dragons. Mel Brooks. The Inquisition.

Today, we have an Inquisition taking place in our schools. Science has been wrong. Yet, science is taught as to be fact. I can remember a very hairy female teacher telling us dragons are not real. Then we were told about monkeys walking up right and learning to talk. These monkeys learned to make fire and then created "The Da Vince Code."
It is an Inquisition. Though you believe in God. You believe that God created everything. You head into this dark and clammy classroom. The door squeaks. The floorboards snap. You are terrified. An extremely hairy, tattoo covered teacher tells you to forget all that "God Stuff."

You try and focus. All your young life, you believed God created the world. Today, you will learn life was created in a mud puddle. A speck of organic material is churning and bubbling within that mud puddle. Like an oozing slim ball. Then that speck of organic material becomes a cell, then an ameba, then a hydra, Blah-Blah-Blah, then a monkey, then this monkey tells everyone dragons are not real.

Even though you believe in God, you are forced to learn this other religion called: "The evolution theory."

You must learn it because you must pass a test. Even though the constitution says stuff about not interfering in religion. "Forget about that constitution stuff.." You will learn the evolution theory young man!!"
If you do not learn it, you will not pass the test. If you fail the test, you may fail the subject. If you fail the subject, you may fail the grade.
Welcome to "The Scientific Inquisition"

Homosexuals

A conversation with a liberal

Conservatives take a bad rap when it comes to the topic of homosexuality. Just say the words: "Conservative" and "gay", it brings up thoughts of "Neanderthal" and one who is not progressive.

There is nothing new or progressive about homosexuality. The Roman Empire excepted homosexuality. The height of The British Empire saw a return of homosexuality being widely excepted.
So there is nothing new or progressive about homosexuality. Actually, it is a return to the old ways.
So I have this conversation with a liberal about homosexuality. I am told by this liberal that I am not being fair.
(me) So you believe homosexuals should be able to marry and have the same rights as heterosexuals?
(liberal) Yes, they should have the same rights as anyone else. They are human and it is terrible what conservatives are doing.

(me) What about certain religions that believe men can marry multiple wives? How about Arabs who also believe in multiple wives? Are you going to allow them to legally marry?
(liberal) No, that is stupid. It is wrong to have more than one partner, besides, there are not that many of those people to change the law.
(me) Isn't that the same thing people who oppose homosexuality are saying? That it is wrong and there are not enough gay people to bother changing the law?
(liberal) No.. What?
(me) Lets move on.. You probably feel it is OK for pedophiles to marry young children, because in some cultures, it is OK to..
(liberal) I never said that. I believe that pedophiles should be locked up. That is sick. You are putting words into my mouth. I never said that.

(me) So you feel we should change the law so that gay people can legally marry, but we should discriminate against Arab people who want to marry multiple wives?
(liberal) Marrying more than one person is stupid.
(me) What do you think about that sexy female Florida teacher who had sex with her 14-year-old male student? Do you think she should rot in jail for twenty-five years?
(liberal) What.. Do you have A.D.D. You can't stick with one topic? No, she should not rot in jail for twenty-five years. What male student wouldn't want a sexy teacher hitting on him?
(me) So you think just a little probation was fine a punishment for this teacher.
(liberal) Yes, she lost her job. The kid probably enjoyed it, he is not testifying.

(me) So you believe all pedophiles should just get probation. A forty-year-old balding, potbellied, ugly male teacher who has sex with a 14 year old girl should just get probation. A slap on the…
(liberal) NO.. I didn't say that. You are putting words into my mouth. I said earlier, pedophiles are sick and need to be locked up.
(me) I want to get this right.. You believe America should shape laws to allow gay people to legally marry, but we should discriminate against multiple partner marriages because they are silly and wrong?
You believe pedophiles should be locked up because that is sick. Unless these pedophiles are sexy, white, and female. In that case they should just get probation.
(liberal) NO.. you said.. I didn't say..
(me) And you think I am being unfair..??
(End of conversation as liberal walks away, disgusted, mumbling profanities)

Look..
I really do not care what two people do behind closed doors. As long as they do not hurt anyone else.
I believe in God. Some religious people believe the Bible tells them homosexuality is wrong. Maybe it does? Maybe it is wrong? I can't answer that because the Bible also says we should not judge others. There is one, who will judge all of us, someday.
I really do not care if you are a homosexual. I try and treat everyone with respect. (Unless you make a silly political statement.)
I actually welcome a state-by-state vote on gay marriage. I believe there are a few states that would adopt gay marriage.
I am totally against activist judges taking away our right to vote.
People argue for activist judges making laws, by saying "we wouldn't have Civil Rights." Republicans voted for Civil Rights, it was the democrats who voted against Civil Rights in congress. Had activist judges NOT changed the law, America would have passed Civil Rights soon after. (Once those democrats were voted out of office.)


The danger in letting judges make laws, rather than people voting for them..
You get the changes in Property Rights that liberal judges just passed last year. Now, local city (or county) officials can TAKE your property and sell it to "BS Smith", who will knock down your house. Then sell your property to Wal-Mart inc for five times what they paid you for it. Your local officials will receive five times the tax on your property. Everybody is happy and you are kicked to the curb.
There is a danger in allowing activist judges shape American law. Our founding fathers set forth a way of changing laws in America. Through voting. By congress.
So I have no real problems with the gay community. I would be willing to vote on gay marriage. But I do not want judges changing the laws for anything. Including gay marriage.
If I got the chance to vote on gay marriage, you may wonder if I would vote for it?
I will answer this way..
Twenty years ago, gay people asked me to understand them. That they are people too, with rights and needs. I do understand gay people.
Today, gay people are telling me I AM WRONG. My opinion doesn't matter. I am a neanderthal. I should be ashamed.
For a friend, there are many things I will do to try and help. And yes, even vote to change American laws.
But, for a person who insults me. Tells me my opinion doesn't matter..
I will not help this individual.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Run Obama Run, Says Neil

I caught this story in the morning but didn't have the time to fully read it. Rock- song writer / performer Neil Young is suggesting Sen. Barack Obama make a bid for the White House. I will link to this story if you would like to read it.
Here is the news story I am talking about!
The basic idea is this…
In his latest album, "Living With War," Young mentions Obama in the song "Lookin' for a Leader." In it, Young sings of the nation's need for a new leader, singing, "Yeah maybe it's Obama, but he thinks that he's too young."

This does make sense! I can see the strategy working inside the minds of the DNC. Hillary Clinton as president. (This puts Bill back in the White House.) Sen. Obama as the vice president in 2008. Then, (as democrats may calculate) after eight years of Hillary and Bill in the White House, VP Obama would be a shoe in for president in 2016.
During the eight years of President Hillary, Barack Obama could be on a permanent "goodwill tour" of America. Obama is intelligent, I have to give him that. He is a good speaker. He made, what I believe, was the best speech during the 2004 DNC convention.


This would be a dream ticket for some democrats. Think about it.. The first female president. The first MALE … "aahh"… First man. (That was tough for me to say, Bill Clinton- The first,First Man) And the first African-American VP. Lets face it, Americans like- "Firsts."
There is just one small problem..
Hillary is still trying to be everything to everybody. This ends up making her nothing, to no one.
Flip-Flop.
When I'm out working, I try and talk to people. Many democrats are not too excited to vote for Hillary. They will not vote for a republican, they admit that. But they might stay home if Hillary is their choice. Which brings us to the problem Hillary is facing.
You can't please the big unions in those huge factories and still please environmentalists. You can't please the anti-war crowd and still please those who feel you must fight for freedom. You can't please the Bible crowd and still hold on to pro-choice and the gay rights movements.
And so…
Hillary will walk up to the stage. Lick her finger and hold it in the breeze. She will see which way the wind is blowing. She will make speeches tailor made for that audience. The problem is, republicans (those mean bastards) will have recordings of the many different speeches she will make. They will be played back-to-back, and America will see the "Kerry Syndrome" all over again.
But… It is much harder to think (really hard) and list the things you believe. Then, announce to America: "This is what I believe in. If I am going to be president, I will work towards these goals." If people do not like one of your goals, then you make speech after speech trying to explain why your ideas are good for America. If you cannot do this, then you do not get elected.
I remember one time I received a comment that read: "You conservatives are too stuck in your old-fashion, stupid ways. You need to loosen up and go with the flow. Change is a good thing!"
Well… Change is good for fashion designers. People like new cloths. Change is good for cars and interior decorators.
But no one wants a politician who flops around. "Say what you mean, mean what you say!" If you cast a vote for someone, you would like to think they will do what they promised.
Change might be OK for some things. Indecision is never good for a president!

Terrorist Celebrity Poker

I got to thinking about this the other day. Of course, if you read my stuff, you know I have a sick-twisted view of things.
The stand-off we have with terrorists is similar to a poker game with many people bluffing. Iran is trying to bluff and tell us they have a very good hand. Osama makes an audio tape and tells us he is still in the poker game. We all know President Bush will ante up.
But then you have Democrats…
Let me ask you something.. Did you ever (accidentally) bring a bimbo-chick to a poker game..?? I am not talking about a smart girl. A smart girl understands the art of bluffing. They know the game of poker. But, a bimbo-chick never thoroughly grasps the concept of bluffing.

Democrats are acting like a bimbo-chick..

So.. al-Qaida's, Ayman al-Zawahri joins the poker game with this statement..
Hundreds of suicide bombings in Iraq have "broken the back" of the U.S. military.
This statement is totally untrue. The American military is as strong as ever. Even a democrat should be pissed off about this statement.
But Zawahri could claim his statement is true by just repeating Democratic Rep John Murtha's statement that the US military is "tapped out."
Or Democrat Howard Dean's statement that we cannot win a war in Iraq.
Democrats..
You can oppose republican policies without under minding the war on terrorism.
There is a way to do that…

The only crime would be

Last week, six retired U.S. generals called for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. They say he doesn't listen to military leaders.Representative Murtha is still calling for a complete US pull-out of Iraq. Mainstream media is able to find polls that indicate Americans are growing weary of this war in Iraq.Iran looks like they are gunning for a fight..The world needs Winston Churchill.

I picked up a book on Winston Churchill last week in thoughts of doing a post on him. (as it relates to today's terrorism.) I heard yesterday that a Chicago Newspaper reporter and Rush Limbaugh both covered this topic. I didn't get a chance to read their ideas and I wish I would have. Anyway, here is my take on it..I don't believe people of the world realize what a threat radical Islam will hold for the future. A fellow like Churchill would be vital with today's threats."Would Churchill approve of the war in Iraq?" I believe so. As a young man, Churchill could only be described as a war hawk. He traveled to where ever war was. Even if the British were only remotely involved, it didn't matter, Churchill went. This took him to Cuba, North Africa and The Middle East. So I believe Winston Churchill would not even think twice about America's involvement in Iraq. He may even suggest more British help for Iraq.Would Churchill call for a retreat from Iraq?NEVER!When talking about a particular battle during WWI, members of The British Parliament were discussing if the British advance would be (ethical) legal… Winston Churchill said this…"The only crime would be to leave before we finish this."I think that statement really hits home on our Iraq situation today. We argue if we should be in Iraq. If we are causing more harm? I could see Churchill standing up and delivering that one line…"The only crime would be to leave before we finish this."With the "Gathering Storm" of Iran and Radical Islam, the world could use Churchill's common sense today.I truly believe, if more nations of the world would joins us, the Iran nuclear situation could be solved without a shot being fired.But, then again, people didn't listen to Churchill until it was too late and Hitler grew strong. At least it would be comforting to know someone else in the world saw a threat.

Making Aliens Illegal

All week long I have listened to many different opinions on the Mexican illegal alien issue. One fellow will say, "build a big fence." The next person thinks we should send the National Guard down to protect the border. Religious people do not want it to become a federal crime to help illegal aliens. Republicans want to throw Jesus in jail and Democrats want to let terrorists dance across the border.
I believe everyone in this country should have documentation. You should be a citizen, or have a valid visa. Your green card should be legal. If you are on vacation, you should have a passport, travel plans and funds. This stuff is basic. Most countries follow this kind of procedure. I would not want to be in a foreign country without valid ID.
If to do this means building a big fence... So be it. We can afford the 9 billion dollars. I think using the National Guard would be just a temporary fix. The National Guard has other important duties to tend to.
However, with that said...
I am very bias when it comes to this topic. I am only the second generation of my family to be born in America. My grandfather came to this country from Italy, looking for a better life.

It would be easy for me to say.. "My grandfather did it the right way.. He became an American, he filled out the paperwork. He learned English and he worked hard." But this is not the whole truth. My grandfather did all of those things. I am very proud of him and it took great courage. But, basically, he saved enough money for a ship ride to America. He landed at Ellis Island and filled out the paperwork and went on his way to start a new life. Legally.
Because my grandfather was from Italy, he was considered a political refuge. The American government, at the time, believed my grandfather was fleeing the government of Italy. My grandfather loved Italy. He was not fleeing for political reasons. He, like many people of that time (early 1900's), couldn’t make a living in Italy. He wanted to try America. If my grandfather could have made a living in Italy, he probably never would have left, regardless of the political system.

Today, it is not the same with Mexicans. I have heard it takes five to ten years to even be considered for citizenship. If you are Cuban and you can set one foot on American soil, you are welcome. If you are Iranian and you can make it here to America and you denounce the Iranian government. "Hell, pull up a chair buddy.. Let me buy you a beer. Tell me all about that wacky Iranian President som-bitch!" 20 years ago, if you were Russian and you defected to America.. We would put your picture on the front page of the newspaper.
But, if you were born in Mexico, you must turn around and go back to where you came from.
If science is correct, no human is originally from this country. We all came here from somewhere else. The first to arrive was ancient man. He arrived poor and hungry. This ancient man became the proud Native Americans. Native Americans were not too happy to see the white people arrive (poor and hungry.) Then the white people were not too happy to see other Europeans arrive (poor and hungry.) You should read some of the editorials written about my grandfather's generation and how people like my grandfather would destroy this country, lower property values, and cause crime.
Today, we are not too happy to see the Mexican people coming here (also poor and hungry.)

There may come a day when America cannot handle the population. But I do not believe that to be true of the present. As I drive across the states, the countless family farms that lay dormant. Food is so plentiful, people cannot make a living growing it. I see the wide-open spaces of America and I believe we can handle a million. Or ten million. Or fifty million more people.
Every new wave of immigrants creates a boom in this country. People need food, housing, and goods. They are not just bodies soaking up America and giving nothing in return, they are consumers buying fine American products. (Products that are made in China... But, that is another post.) History is proof that America can handle a wave of immigrants. Each new wave is bigger than the last. What we are facing today is nothing new.

My opinion, (which means nothing in this big world) we need to tighten the border. People must be here legally. We need to quit making it so hard for decent, hard working Mexicans to become American.
If not..
We may want to remove the bronze plaque that was placed at the Statue of Liberty in 1903, with the words from a sonnet that was written by Emma Lazarus in 1886. Of course I am talking about the world famous sonnet that reads in part...
"… Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand glows world-wide welcome;
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Thanks for reading The Angry Republican