Sunday, 14 December 2008
 

Classy Cussing for Disgraced Democrats
Contributed by Ron Winter

CAUTION: CONTAINS STRONG LANGUAGE AND ADULT SITUATIONS!!
An example of just how difficult it is to be a woman in politics these days surfaced late this week when the Democrat Attack Machine, known here as the American Terrorist Media, ATM, went after Patti Blagojevich, wife of the embattled Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich.

Aside from the rampant misogynism that also launched the attacks on Hillary Clinton, and the ongoing character assassination on Sarah Palin, the reasoning behind the attacks on Mrs. Blagojevich is that she swears!

The government has wiretapped tape recordings of her husband allegedly trying to sell Barack Obama's now vacant Illinois Senate seat to the highest bidder, and in the background a woman who allegedly is Patti Blagojevich is yelling obscenities. How dare she?

What gives with this woman? Swearing!?

I know what you're thinking and you're right. Back in the 60s one of the premier identity factors for the new, liberal, liberated, feminist-type woman was taking the shackles off their mouths, and cursing word-for-word, obscenity-for-obscenity with the guys. And not just any guys, because most educated and refined guys didn't use four letter words and related curses, especially in the presence of women.

No, the sign of the liberated woman was using the worst type of gutter language in the presence of anyone, anywhere, to show that aged social conventions were no longer in vogue. But obviously times have changed and it no longer is a sign of the ultimate feminist to stand toe to toe with any man in the room and swear him under the table.

Considering that no one has claimed she has Tourette's Syndrome, Patti Blagojevich apparently didn't get the memo. Or maybe she was a journalist in a previous incarnation and is just trying to conserve words and get her point across in as few as possible. Interesting isn't it that the only time a Democratic woman's use of the King's English becomes an issue is when the ATM decides she is no longer a useful tool for the prevailing political agenda.

Continue reading Winter's Soldier Story at www.RonaldWinterbooks.com

Contributed by Ron Winter on December 14, 2008 at 11:41 AM in Ron Winter | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Saturday, 29 November 2008
 

Terrorist Attacks in Mumbai, India Reveal Tactical Shift in War on Terror; Look To Scottish History to Solve Afghanistan, Pakistan Dilemma
Contributed by Ron Winter

The death toll is still climbing in Mumbai, India where Islamo-fascist terrorists struck Wednesday, targeting American and British citizens, Jews and police. News reports say the carnage and chaos were well planned, and the targets were pre-selected.

Among the dead in the initial moments of the assault were police officials who would have been in a position to direct a coordinated counter-assault. As a result the terrorists roamed freely, killing, taking hostages, and digging in for a protracted battle.

The attacks in India point out tragically just how simple it is to turn normal life into unthinkable horror. And they underscore the extent to which free societies must exert themselves if they are to deliver a death blow to terrorism.

Although security officials believe the attackers were members of an extreme Islamo-fascist organization based in Pakistan, and presumably had terrorist dollars and organizational capabilities backing them up, their weaponry was mostly small arms, grenades, and assault rifles. Mumbai, formerly Bombay, sits on the shore of the Arabian Sea and the attackers arrived aboard motorized rubber rafts.

Depending on the point of origin and the route taken, it is about 600-800 nautical miles from the shore of Pakistan to the water's edge in Mumbai, far too long and uncertain for a voyage entirely by motorized rafts. Thus, Indian security officials surmise that the rafts were launched from a larger ship.

But even arranging for sea transportation is not that difficult in areas of the world where pirates roam. In short, although there was significant pre-planning and intelligence gathering to launch the assault on Mumbai, the level of organization necessary to do it was not that complicated.

With US forces victorious in Iraq, and the Iraqi parliament approving an agreement outlining responsibility for its own security, it is obvious that worldwide terrorist organizations are looking for softer targets. They also need some form of "victory" to draw attention away from their overwhelming losses in Iraq.

As the assault continued into its third day, international news organizations reported on the possible identity of the attackers.

Foremost among the organizations blamed was Lashkar-e-Taiba - which in the depth of hypocrisy means Army of the Righteous. Attempts were made to shift the blame to a heretofore unheard of domestic (Indian) terror group, calling itself Deccan Mujahideen, but evidence indicates that the attacks originated with Pakistan/Afghanistan based "traditional" terrorists.

Although the terrorists claimed to be citizens of India, analyses of tape recordings between the attackers and the media indicated they were speaking with Pakistani accents.

Lashkar-e-Taiba reportedly originated in Kunar, Afghanistan, on the border with Pakistan, adjacent to the wild and Taliban/Al Qaeda friendly Tribal Areas. Regardless of which splinter group actually did the shooting, it is obvious that with Al Qaeda defeated in Iraq, there is a shift in emphasis to targets closer to its last remaining stronghold on the Afghan/Pakistan border.

Herein lies the reference to Scotland. One of the saddest chapters in Scottish history is the brutal end of the clan system by which the Scottish Highlands were emptied of inhabitants, their way of life, the homes, their language, and their culture.

Scotland and England ceased to be separate countries beginning with the Union of the Crowns in 1603 - which actually placed a Scottish king on the throne of England - and their Parliaments united in 1707. Nonetheless, there was still animosity between and within both countries, based to a large degree on religious issues as well as politics and nationalism. Catholicism was favored by some, opposed by others, and wars were fought and monarchs toppled over the question of whether Scotland would accept Catholicism as its state religion.

(To this day the National Church of Scotland is Presbyterian, although it is not considered the "state" church.)

This animosity, and efforts to restore a Scottish monarch, led ultimately to the Battle of Culloden in 1746, in which the pro-government forces (backed by England) brutally defeated the outnumbered and significantly outgunned Scottish Jacobites. The loss on the battlefield was only the beginning, and the real impact came in the following years during the Highland Clearances, more than a century of unchecked brutality.

During this time land speculators from England, backed by the English Army, invaded traditional Scottish Clan lands, threw the inhabitants out of their homes and communities, shot many, hanged many, and forced others to the coasts where they lived in abject penury. Tens of thousands were forced onto ships heading anywhere else in the world.

To accomplish this the Highland Scots were ordered to disarm, a violation of which brought instant death. To facilitate the army's access to the highland clans, many located in inaccessible areas where they had thrived for centuries, the English built roads and bridges to enhance the movement of troops.

But one of the most effective tactics used by the English in the Highland Clearances was not the brutality, which often has the affect of uniting the afflicted, but the practice of separating the clan chiefs from the clans.

The English did this by inviting the highest and most powerful chieftains to London, where they were assimilated into the English society. Their children, especially those born in England, were educated in English schools, taught English customs and within one generation any attachment to the Highlands was removed from their collective consciousness.

Today, if you travel north along Scotland's east coast, and then inland from the town of Helmsdale, to the lands once populated by the most northern clans you will find ... next to nothing.

If you go to the Helmsdale home page on the Internet you will find references to the emptiness of the land between the coast and the next inland settlement. Where the clans once thrived, now there are only scattered domiciles, and little to remind travellers of what once existed there.

I am not advocating using these tactics on the inhabitants of the Tribal Areas on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. I don't advocate ripping people away from their homes, their families and their heritage.

But if the leaders of those tribes are going to conspire with extremists seeking world domination, then I do advocate separating the head from the body. One way or another, the leaders of these vicious attacks have to be separated from the people they are recruiting for their dirty work.

The Highland Clearances are a historical blot on the history of England, and a devastating era in Scottish history. But, from the standpoint of English rulers who wanted to ensure that they were never again threatened with invasion from the wild clansman of the Scottish Highlands, they were devastatingly effective.

The attacks in Mumbai have shown that no one in the free world is safe from terrorist attacks, launched by zealots who use murder, torture and mayhem as a means of imposing their will on everyone else.

But if free world forces can figure out a way to achieve the same level of effectiveness as the Highland Clearance, separating the head from the body and redirecting the energies of those doing the fighting - without brutalizing innocent civilians - there may still be some hope for the human race.

Contributed by Ron Winter on November 29, 2008 at 04:35 PM in Ron Winter | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Thursday, 27 November 2008
 

Somewhere a Veteran is Hungry on Thanksgiving
Contributed by Ron Winter

Michelle Malkin ran an article on her blog the other day about the National Park Police hassling a Vietnam veteran for handing out Buddy Poppies on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

The veteran, John Miska, served in Vietnam and is active to say the least in his Veterans of Foreign Wars Post in Arlington, VA. But the park police say that because he accepts donations from some people who take a poppy, even if he doesn't ask for them, he is thus a panhandler, and that makes him a lawbreaker.

You can read the entire article at Michelle's blog here: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/25/disabled-vet-branded-panhandler-for-handing-out-memorial-poppies/

I'm certain I met John on one of my many trips to DC in the past few years and there is a good reason why I remember the encounter.

John was distributing the Buddy Poppies, which are little paper imitation flowers that that VFW uses to remind people of the blood shed in war. On that particular day I was looking to see how many people were wearing VFW or American Legion garb. We were standing up to the pro-terrorist coalition ANSWER, and there were damn few representatives from the major veterans organizations standing with the thousands of veterans who took it personally that the pro-terrorism crowd wanted to deface our memorials.

So when I saw a guy wearing a VFW hat and offering the poppies I took note. I also am the Buddy Poppy chairman for my local VFW post and organize our annual vigils in my town on the weekend before Memorial Day. My community, unlike the National Park Police, has an abundance of generous people who appreciate and support veterans and we thus are able to help the less fortunate among us - which is the sole purpose of the Buddy Poppy program in the first place.

The poppies harken back to World War I and specifically the poem On Flanders Fields, which talks of the horror of war and the need to remember veterans who fought in those far off battles.

I guess all that is lost in the government bureaucracies that are running our country right down the sewer.

But, John has friends like Michelle Malkin and she isn't one to let an issue like this go unchallenged.

From her blog: Now the Charlottesville-based Rutherford Institute has stepped in and filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the National Park Police.

John Miska enjoys volunteering and spends most of his time helping injured veterans and distributing "Buddy Poppies."

"They're handed out as a remembrance of veterans' sacrifice. The poppies are red, representing the blood the soldiers shed and it's a reminder and it gives people pause to think," said Miska.

"People see me standing there and they approach me and ask 'may I have a Poppy' and I give them a Poppy. If people are moved to offer a donation we accept the donations," said Miska.

According to president of the Rutherford Institute Miska hasn't done anything wrong, he has only expressed his First Amendment rights.

"People occasionally give him money. There's a statute, it's a D.C. law, that says you can't aggressively solicit money, but he doesn't do any of that. We feel it's a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which guarantees you the right to assemble or guarantees you the right to free speech to hand out Buddy Poppies," said John Whitehead, President, Rutherford Institute.

Miska says this experience isn't going to stop him from his mission and that it will only encourage him to do more.

"I took an oath to the constitution to preserve, protect and defend and I feel if you don't stand up for you rights you will lose those rights," said Miska.

I took the same oath as John and I feel the same way. And as I normally do on Thanksgiving I would like to call your attention to the fact that millions of American servicemen and women are not at home today. Many are in combat zones, facing enemies who not only don't celebrate our national holiday, they would spit on it if they had the chance.

These defenders of our country, our freedoms and our way of life are not here to speak out for themselves so it is up to people like John Miska to do it for them.

Think for a moment if you will, that right now there is a soldier standing a lonely watch in a desert outpost. He might be thinking of turkey, but even if he gets it, he won't really be able to enjoy it as he would at home.

Elsewhere a Marine is pulling his field jacket closer as he braces against a bitter mountain wind, looking for signs that terrorists are about to launch an attack. He is keeping one eye on the sky, hoping a resupply helicopter will be coming to his area, possibly loaded with hot meals for the grunts.

Across the world American sailors are standing watch on vast oceans, while airmen are refueling patrol aircraft in distant and lonely airfields, and coast guardsmen are intercepting drug runners, terrorists, or saving the lives of those in peril.

Right here in America, veterans who have served their country honorably are hoping for a crumb, or a warm place to spend the night, not even daring to think of sitting down to a traditional Thanksgiving Dinner. Except those who have found John Miska or been found by him.

He helps organize dinners at his VFW post, and makes certain that wounded hospitalized vets are not forgotten. That's a big, big job but Miska does it, and only asks that he not be hassled.

I don't think that's too much to ask. Somewhere today a veteran will go hungry because there aren't enough John Miska's in this world. But somewhere else a veteran will have an opportunity for a meal and a few hours away from the cares and woes of daily life, thanks to people like John.

Do you think the Park Police bureaucrats who don't understand the meaning of Buddy Poppies could take a few minutes to look them up on the Internet and for just once try to lighten up? Maybe at the same time, if it isn't too taxing mentally, they could reflect on the fact that 93 percent of all living Americans are free to live their lives because a mere 7 percent have served in the military - going all the way back to WWII and earlier.

If that 7 percent hadn't sacrificed, and continue to sacrifice to this very minute, the bureaucrats who are stuffing themselves today just might understand the true meaning of hunger and want.

Maybe, for a change, they could go to John Miska's VFW post and help serve meals to deserving veterans this holiday season. Maybe they could accompany him to a hospital when he visits the wounded and disabled.

Maybe then they would get an idea of the real meaning of Thanksgiving.

Contributed by Ron Winter on November 27, 2008 at 10:50 AM in Ron Winter | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 17 November 2008
 

Sarah Palin Soars as News Media Wilts; Is There A Connection? What Do They Mean, Redefine the GOP?
Contributed by Ron Winter

After the presidential election results were in, the mainstream media, apparently realizing it had gone further overboard than usual in its despicable treatment of Alaska Governor and GOP Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, decided to cut her some slack.

In an effort to make voters forget that it had gone on an orgy of character assassination and voter manipulation through bogus "polls" and savagely inaccurate "stories," the media suddenly backed off a bit. But just a bit. We even had a mini-outbreak of positive publicity about Gov. Palin.

Americans, those who truly are Americans and usually don't work in the media, were way ahead of the non-Americans who do work in the media. Suddenly the non-Americans in the media have produced new "polls" that aren't really any more reliable than the bogus polls used before the election, but the new ones now say her popularity is rising. How incredibly surprising.

This mind you, in the wake not only of some of the most vicious personal assaults since the heyday of Stalin and Hitler's propaganda machines, but also from remorseless attacks on Palin from the incompetents - or Democrat plants - who ran John McCain's presidential campaign.

Can you believe that these Nimrods - the same people who without Palin's authorization went on a spending spree in Manhattan's priciest clothing stores and then blamed Palin for spending too much on clothes - tried to cover their own asses, after McCain fell through his, by saying she brought the campaign down?

Let's get it all out on the table shall we? The one thing the pollsters were accurately predicting before the election was an Obama landslide and the only reason he didn't get it was McCain's choice of Palin for his VP running mate. If she hadn't been on the ticket, McCain would have fared just about as well as Mondale vs. Reagan in 1984.

Meanwhile, as reporters, editors, producers and publishers suck up to political elitists in the hopes that in the next election the media won't be a non-entity - as it should have been this time - the public is responding by turning off the media in a big way.

In Connecticut, two daily newspapers that at one time were stalwarts of the region's fourth estate - The Bristol Press and the New Britain Herald - are on the auction block and slated for closing if no one will buy them. This is not an anomaly.

The Journal Register Company has hired a broker to sell newspapers it owns not just in Connecticut, but in Pennsylvania and Michigan too.

Then we have the Hartford Courant, Connecticut's largest daily newspaper which bills itself as the country's oldest in continuous publication. The Courant has shrunk physically to the point that it looks like an enlarged roll of paper towels with gag writing on it instead of news.

Even though Connecticut's population has increased along with the nation's, the Courant's daily circulation has shrunk substantially and last summer it reduced its editorial staff by 25 percent. That was on top of less obvious shrinkage in staffing and coverage that had been going on at the Courant for years.

Nationally, the New York Times is suddenly a shining example of larger papers that no longer are considered viable investments. It too has shrunk to the point that its motto, All The News That's Fit to Print should be changed to Just What Fits. The reason is the same one as the decline in readership at papers like the Courant, the Herald and the Press. The public no longer trusts the media, and with good reason.

The Times' pro-communist, pro-terrorist bias is well known. Its treasonous publications of national security matters that put our troops who are fighting the War on Terror in even greater danger has been well documented. But even on a regional level the bias is equally intense, it just covers a smaller area.

The Courant gave overwhelmingly favorable coverage to Democrats in the recent election, including imposing a virtual blackout on coverage of the GOP candidate for Congress in its own district. In fact, the absence of coverage of the GOP candidate was so blatant that a case probably could be made that the Democrat received unreported in-kind donations of free "advertising."

It bears noting here, however, that there were bright spots in the darkness of the media blackout. Dennis House from Channel 3 television did a great job of covering both sides of the Congressional election.

And Steve Collins of the Bristol Press was out front every time with his blog column. In fact, when others refused to even mention that a Republican was in the race for Congress, Collins was writing in-depth articles giving fair coverage to both sides.

It is unfortunately true though, that Collins and House were the exceptions rather than the rule.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin is finally free of the constraints of campaign handlers who obviously didn't want her on the ticket, and the results are clear. America is seeing the real Sarah Palin and discovering why she had such high favorability ratings in her home state before the Democrats' media propaganda machine kicked into high gear.

As Palin goes about the business of building a solid foundation for whatever may transpire in four years, the Republican Party is said to be working to reestablish itself. Some factions are saying the party has to be reformed and redefined with a broad liberal agenda to make it palatable to a wider ranger of voters.

I agree with the other side that says there is nothing wrong with the core values of the party, but there sure as hell is something wrong with offering up candidates who don't live up to them, don't adhere to them when they are in office, and turn out to be something else, even though they wear the GOP label.

If this last election was lost because the GOP didn't attract enough women and minorities, then the real job ahead of us is to communicate with women and minority voters exactly what the GOP has to offer them, versus the Democrats. We also have to communicate with - or write off - Jewish voters who went for the Democrats nationally in a big way, despite McCain's claims that he would cut into that demographic.

But first and foremost the GOP has to field candidates who really are Republicans and adhere to the values of the Republican Party.

Sarah Palin is at the top of that list, as is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. I don't expect either of them to get much of a break from the media. It has its own agenda and will follow it lemming-like right down the sewer.

Republican candidates will have to find new ways to communicate with the voters and circumvent news organizations that will never give them a fair break or anything remotely resembling competent, unbiased reporting.

If the GOP is to reemerge as a true competitor it doesn't have to redefine itself, it just has to live up to its own definition, and do a far, far better job of communicating that definition to the next generation of voters.

Contributed by Ron Winter on November 17, 2008 at 07:00 AM in Ron Winter | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 28 August 2008
 

What If McCain Picks A Woman VP?
Contributed by Ron Winter

Well, what if McCain does select a woman as his running mate? Personally, I think it would be the death knell for the Democratic campaign, based of course on the assumption that his selection is a good one and can stand up to campaign scrutiny.

I've heard the same point made by quite a few of my veteran friends - male veterans - and if you can convince that crowd, I think the American voter is more than ready for a woman in one of the top executive posts.

There are at least two Republican women, and one business Chief Executive Officer whose names have been mentioned as possible VP selections, but the MainStream Media, well, actually, all the media, have given them short shrift.

They are Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, and former eBay Ceo Meg Whitman.

All are pragmatic, accomplished leaders who have set firsts with their elections and careers. They have shown they have a tremendous grasp of the issues, aren't afraid to step up when the going gets tough, and all could step into the president's role should anything happen to McCain.

On a purely political level they also would certainly draw large numbers of Democratic women voters to the GOP in response to Barack Obama's disrespectful treatment of Hillary Clinton. Then there's the stage-managed sham called the Democratic Convention that was engineered to cloak the closeness of the Democratic race between Obama and Clinton.

But there is another issue that should be addressed regarding the Republican Party and its relationship to the voters. An esteemed colleague spoke with me about this issue just this morning and I have learned to heed her advice.

The fact is, she said, the GOP looks old, stodgy, stuck in its ways. Even though Obama has close relationships with a convicted felon, and an anarchist with a history of bombing the US Capitol, the mainstream media has made sure that most Americans don't know this unless they are Internet savvy.

Thus Obama comes across as young, fresh and energetic, even though he is simply another political hack, produced by the Chicago Democratic political machine operated by the Daley family for decades. It helps the GOP somewhat that he selected Joe Biden as his running mate, another Democratic politician who hid out in college and law school during the Vietnam War, but now acts like a bad ass.

Biden's just another career Washington insider with a lot to answer for regarding his relationships with lobbyists, not to mention taking credit for other people's work.

But that still doesn't alter the fact that many people don't take time to really study a candidate's background before deciding who they will support. Unless the opposing campaign can get sufficiently detailed, yet sufficiently brief, materials into voters hands with a reasonable assurance they will be read, it is difficult to offset the duplicity of the media.

So let's take a minute to look at our Republican women and see what they have to offer.

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

Hutchison was first elected to the US Senate in 1993 in a special election, making her the first woman Senator from Texas. In 1994 she was re-elected to a full six-year term.

In 2000, Hutchison received more votes for her re-election to a second full term than any other statewide candidate had ever received. Voters overwhelmingly returned her to office in 2006.

In the Senate she was elected as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, making her the fourth-highest ranking Republican senator and the highest ranking Republican woman. Hutchison also serves on the Republican National Hispanic Assembly (RNHA) National Advisory Committee.

She is former Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and is a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

On immigration she supported funding for an additional 1,500 Border Patrol agents to strengthen enforcement of immigration laws. In 2004, she helped pass the National Intelligence Reform Act, which included provisions she authored to ensure greater screening of air cargo.

Senator Hutchison's great-great-grandfather, Charles S. Taylor, was friends with Thomas Rusk of Nacogdoches, the first Texan to hold the Senate seat she currently occupies. Taylor and Rusk both signed the Texas Declaration of Independence.

Senator Hutchison graduated from the University of Texas and UT Law School. She was twice elected to the Texas House of Representatives and in 1990, she was elected Texas State Treasurer.

SARAH PALIN

Sarah Palin made history on Dec. 4, 2006, when she took office as the 11th governor of Alaska, the first woman to hold the office.
Since taking office, her top priorities have been resource development, education and workforce development, public health and safety, and transportation and infrastructure development.

She created Alaska's Petroleum Systems Integrity Office and created a Climate Change Subcabinet office to prepare a climate change strategy for Alaska.

Governor Palin is chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and was recently named chair of the National Governors Association (NGA) Natural Resources Committee. She has served as chair of the Alaska Conservation Commission, and as president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

Palin has lived in Alaska since 1964. She earned a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism at the University of Idaho in 1987.

MEG WHITMAN

Margaret Cushing Whitman, known as "Meg" was President and CEO of eBay from March 1998 to March 2008. She also has worked in politics and is known to have political aspirations of her own.

Forbes magazine estimated her worth at $1.4 billion in 2007. She is one of only seven women to have been repeatedly ranked among the world's most influential people by Time magazine.

Whitman was born in Long Island, N.Y., and attended Cold Spring Harbor High School in Cold Spring Harbor, New York. She earned her Bachelor of Economics from Princeton University and her MBA from Harvard Business School in 1979.

Prior to eBay Whitman was in charge of global management and marketing of Playskool and Mr. Potato Head at Hasbro Inc. She also was president and CEO of Florists Transworld Delivery (FTD), and was an executive at the Stride Rite Corporation and the Walt Disney Company.

Whitman was a supporter of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, and after Romney left the race, Whitman joined McCain's campaign as a national co-chair.

Now, when we consider a vice-presidential nominee, one of the things we have to determine is whether they will be able to fill the president's shoes in a national emergency and can they be an effective commander-in-chief?

I'd say that any lady who grew up in Texas, is a descendant of one of the founders of the state, and set a number of firsts in a previously all-male environment such as Kay Bailey Hutchison can probably handle the role. Anyone who can stand tall in corporate America and succeed as Meg Whitman has should not have a problem in D.C.

And, Sarah Palin, who grew up in a state as remote and wild as Alaska, and also set firsts through her election, certainly should be able to look Vladimir Putin dead in the eye and not blink. Palin likes the outdoors, runs marathons and enjoys hunting and fishing. But there is a better barometer of the strength of her backbone.

When the federal government announced it was going to enact regulations declaring the polar bear, which has a growing population, as endangered due to some unproven and futuristic claims about global warming, Palin filed a lawsuit telling the feds to back off.

Oh, and Governor Palin is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. Yeah, she can handle Putin.

I don't know what is in John McCain's mind regarding his vice presidential choice. But the Republican Party is light years behind the Democrats who first put Geraldine Ferraro up for the post in 1984.

Women have been showing they can handle leadership posts around the world for centuries, but still haven't broken the glass ceiling in presidential politics here in the good old US of A. I believe it is high time that we stop being a stodgy old, "we do it this way because we've always done it this way" party and stop conceding that portion of the battlefield to the Dems.

We are falsely portrayed as not accessible to younger voters, many of whom are agree with our basic tenets of smaller government, less regulation and lower taxes. We also haven't done much to show the female voters that we really do believe in what we preach - equality.

John McCain projects a certain image. It is what he is. Some believe it is an image of knowledge and strength while others will try to make his age a negative issue.

We don't need two John McCain's on the same ticket - he is certainly capable of carrying his own share of the load.

But imagine what it would do, not just image-wise but in reality, for our party, and certainly for our presidential campaign team, if McCain was standing side-by-side with a Senator like Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Governor like Sarah Palin, or a CEO like Meg Whitman as his running mate and vice-presidential nominee.

Contributed by Ron Winter on August 28, 2008 at 07:38 PM in Current Affairs, Politics, Ron Winter | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Friday, 22 August 2008
 

Rocky Roads Ahead in Denver;
Obama, The Ice (Wo)Man Cometh!
Contributed by Ron Winter

The Democratic National Convention is upon us and for sheer entertainment value, this is shaping up to be better than the Olympics - way better.

We have protest groups, we have warehouse-sized jails waiting for the protest groups, we have a divided party, we have the ho-hum story of who will get picked to run with Barack Obama, assuming that he survives a floor vote, and then we have the lawsuit!

What's that you ask? Lawsuit?

Why, yes! The lawsuit! It was filed in federal court in Philadelphia Thursday, August 21, 2008, (that's yesterday) by a prominent Democrat, who just happens to be a Hillary Clinton supporter. The lawsuit alleges that Obama has not proved he is really a US citizen, and therefore could possibly be ineligible to run for the highest office in the country.

Now, this issue has been circulating for as long as Obama has been at the forefront of the Democratic race. Pamela Geller at the Atlas Shrugs weblog has been reporting on the discrepancies in Obama's birth certificate for quite some time now. Other investigative bloggers across the political spectrum have been chasing this story with the due diligence reminiscent of the days when the media actually reported the news instead of serving as publicity shills for their favorite candidate.

The lawsuit is listed as: Civil Action No. 08-cv-4083 Philip J. Berg, Esquire, vs. Obama. It seeks a Declaratory Judgment and an Injunction preventing Obama from continuing his candidacy. It claims that he does not meet the qualifications to be President of the United States.

Listed as the reasons why Obama should not be allowed to continue with his campaign include allegations that he:
1. Is not a naturalized citizen; and/or
2. Lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia; and/or
3. Has dual loyalties because of his citizenship with Kenya and Indonesia

Additional information that further explains the reasons behind the suit state that Berg filed it because he is looking out for the best interests of the Democratic Party, and for the rest of us too. I for one am tickled pink, so to speak, no pun intended, that a prominent Democrat is so concerned about my welfare that he would file a lawsuit on my behalf.

Further information making the rounds with the news on the lawsuit identifies Berg as a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania; former Democratic candidate for Governor and US Senate; former Chairman of the Democratic Party in Montgomery County; and a former member of the Democratic State Committee. He now practices law in Philadelphia.

Let's not kid ourselves here. This is just one of the many fronts opened up by the Hillary Clinton forces to try to wrest the nomination away from Obama at the Democratic convention. That also doesn't alter the fact that there are serious questions about Obama's origins and whether he is indeed eligible to run for president.

If we go back to columns I wrote crunching the numbers at the end of the Democratic primary process you will see that Obama never did get enough committed delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot - unless a significant majority of the uncommitted super delegates support him.

Usually the super delegates can be counted on to support the candidate with the clear majority, but Obama doesn't have that clear majority and lately he has really been slipping in the national polls when compared to John McCain. The truth is, even though McCain doesn't have universal support within the Republican ranks, the more people learn about Obama the better they like the Republican nominee.

Despite all the rhetoric and unity crappola that has been on television and in the Democratic Party news outlets - also known as the mainstream media - Hillary's supporters want her in and Obama out. They not only believe they have been shafted through the Democrats' nomination process (I agree, they have) they also believe that their candidate has a far better chance of beating McCain in a general election.

Of course, the GOP really doesn't want Hillary running against McCain as it would make for a much tougher race, according to some forms of conventional wisdom. That thinking goes down a road that says McCain is just waiting until after Labor Day and after the GOP convention to really begin unloading on Obama.

Even though they have traded shots at each other's records and stances, the real campaigning won't get rolling until the fall when most people are back from vacation, kids are back in school, routines are re-established and people begin paying close attention to the candidates.

Once that happens, it is quite possible, perhaps even likely that Obama will slip further and further behind McCain, probably to a point from which he can't recover. Democrats who are supporting Hillary Clinton know this and are attempting to head McCain off at the pass.

But that is all in the distant future.

In the just around the corner future we have the Democratic Convention in Denver. I am going to spend more time watching late night re-runs on this than I did watching women's beach volleyball in Beijing, which is really saying something.

I was watching Fox News Channel this morning and they were doing previews of what is coming to Denver, and all I can say is - hold on to your hats. My favorite protest group, and there really is a cornucopia of protest groups to choose from, has to be Recreate 68.

For me to recreate what I was doing in 1968 I need to be in Southeast Asia, standing inside a CH-46 helicopter Super D model, manning a .50 caliber machine gun, shooting at North Vietnamese communists, and hanging out with my Marine buddies afterward.

But for these folks to recreate 1968 all they have to do is run amok in an American city where the Democratic Party is holding a national convention to formally select a candidate for president. They need bags of feces to throw at the conventioneers, and they probably should have a lot of bandages too. The bandages would be for use when the Denver police finally lose their patience and act the way the Chicago police did in 1968 - meaning smashing the daylights out of feces throwing protesters.

Denver's security precautions are so extensive the city looks like an armed camp. Oh yeah, it also is against the law to drag bags full of human feces around for either fun or profit! One would have to assume that extends to animal, mineral, vegetable, fish or insect feces too.

So, my recommendation for this weekend and onward is to stock up on your favorite beverages, adult or otherwise, get some pizzas, some ice cream, some snacks, junk food, stuff you can cook quickly in a microwave and settle down in front of the television.

This should be a non-stop show and with any luck we'll have riots, mass arrests, tear gas, water cannons, cops and maybe even the National Guard with fixed bayonets - just like in 1968. Do you feel that too? I mean the lump you get in your throat, and the tear that forms in your eye when you look back fondly on an earlier and happier time in your life?

You know, philosophically I am a Republican, but I have to admit, those Democrats sure know how to have fun.

Contributed by Ron Winter on August 22, 2008 at 11:15 AM in Dem Dumbness, Obamanation, Politics, Ron Winter | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thursday, 14 August 2008
 

Putin: Latter Day Stalin, or Hitler?
Georgian President is NOT Saddam!
Contributed by Ron Winter

I asked in my last column what Russia's true intent might be regarding its invasion of Georgia, appropriating portions of that country, taking over at least one port city, then allowing looting and murder of civilians, all based on trumped-up claims of protecting its citizens from rampaging Georgians.

Other than using Georgia as a military practice round for its next expansion effort, it seems that Russia didn't really get much from the invasion, unless it was a prelude to something larger.

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer had an answer right away: the next target is the Ukraine, the gateway to western Europe.

Since Krauthammer is one of America's premier commentators on both foreign and domestic affairs, his ability to discern where Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is headed next is well worth considering.

(Yes, I know that Putin has a title other than dictator, but we're dealing in reality here. Putin and Putin alone is in charge in Russia which makes him a dictator. Argue with Putin, the former head of the communist secret police and you'll end up dead, which pretty much defines him.)

The Ukraine is an historic target of Russian communists. An estimated 10 million residents of that country were starved to death in the 1930s in late communist murderer Joseph Stalin's drive to take over all of Europe. Stalin created a fake famine by drastically increasing the amount of grain the Ukraine farmers were required to donate to the Soviet system, insuring that there would not be sufficient food stores to feed the Ukrainian populace.

He enforced that decree using troops and secret police to ferret all who attempted to horde enough to feed their families, killing them when they were discovered. It even was a crime to not be losing weight.

Russian communists downplayed the results of the famine, maintaining that "only" six to seven million people died slow, horrible deaths from starvation in 1932-1933, but independent sources have put the ultimate death toll at 10 million. Regardless of the extent of the holocaust that engulfed the Ukraine, the communists gloried in its effects on the population, because it ended resistance to communism.

Western news organizations at the time all but ignored the famine in their unceasing drive to portray communism as the one form of government that would truly make everyone equal.

The comparison to journalists today is obvious, since many of them are trying to portray the Russian invasion of Georgia as analogous to the US response to Saddam Hussein supporting terrorists building bases in Iraq from which to attack the US. The comments in the mainstream media are so ludicrous they would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that people are dying.

Here are a few comparisons to consider. Georgia did not invade a neighboring country as Iraq did when it attacked Kuwait and subjected its citizens to pillage, rape and murder until driven out by an international coalition.

Georgia did not attack its own indigenous population with guns, armor and poison gas as Saddam did to his own people. Georgia did not invite known terrorists into its country to build training camps to attack Russia. Georgia did not provide sanctuary, security and assistance to known terrorist mass murderers such as Abu Nidal and Abu Al Zarqawi as Saddam Hussein did.

Georgia did not violate dozens of United Nations resolutions aimed at preventing development of a nuclear weapons program, nor did it violate an oil-for-food program by paying hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to heads of state and high level officials in countries across the world - including Russia!

The truth is, except for those of the communist mindset, there is very little real comparison between Russia's invasion of Georgia and the United States' intervention in Iraq. Not that the truth stops Barack Hussein Obama's spokespeople from again claiming the US was wrong in Iraq - the war we are winning, which he also said was not possible - not does the truth have any relevance to many in the mainstream media.

But for all the talk in the past eight years about Vladimir Putin and his goals for Russia under his dominance, the truth is in his actions, which thus far are mimicking Stalin - or Hitler for that matter, who attacked the same eastern European countries from his base in Germany.

Rather than being a devout nationalist who merely wants Russia to take is rightful place on the world stage following the fall of the Soviet empire, it is obvious that Putin wants to re-establish that empire, with him in charge. To the people of Eastern Europe who have suffered under both Nazi and communist systems in the recent past, it probably doesn't make much difference which political system's label most appropriately defines their attackers.

The differences between Nazi and communist philosophies are hard to discern anywhere except in a classroom. In practice, they both rely on murder, forced labor, mind control, propaganda and concentration camps to enforce their will on the populace.

Putin's lies are no different from Stalin's lies that were no different from Hitler's lies or Mao Tse Tung's lies or Ho Chi Minh's lies or Pol Pot's lies or Fidel Castro's lies or Hugo Chavez's lies. They all claim they are going to change the status quo for the benefit of the weak, the poor and the downtrodden. But all they really do is take control by force of arms, renege on the promises they made to their supporters, and then murder those who object to being used as dupes and puppets.

That is not opinion. That is historically documented fact.

So, what are we going to do about this? The world stood by and did nothing when Stalin's communist armies took over the countries of Eastern Europe one by one. Journalists of that time lied and produced propaganda for the communists, who murdered millions upon millions of innocents, just as today's alleged journalists are producing propaganda for Islamo-fascist terrorists and Putin's thugs.

Are we going to stand by and let history repeat itself? Are we soon going to be in another cold war with millions of people once again subjected to the excesses of communist debauchery as we were from the 1930s to 1990?

So far we've seen little in the way of direct response to the Russians except for some relief shipments. There has been a lot of talk from various world leaders, but that is eerily reminiscent of the talks that European leaders had with Hitler in the 1930s.

Back then entire countries were swallowed up first by the Nazis and then by the communists as the fortunes of war shifted away from Hitler. Listening to the commentary from that time and comparing it to the modern commentary reveals that both have a similar definition: appeasement.

Vladimir Putin knows this and is milking it for all it is worth. When he went fishing with his shirt off a while back he was sending a message to the other leaders on the world stage - they are golfers and country club members, he is a street fighter.

They may look down on Putin and think he has no means of effectively hurting them, but he knows better. He was flexing his muscles to let them know he believes he can beat them, but they just smirked and saw him as a classless, ineffective buffoon.

Nonetheless, Putin will land a series of shots that individually don't amount to much, but as they continue to pile up will hobble the west and bring its leaders down to his level. Then, just as the realization dawns that they are hurting and in danger of losing to him, Putin will hit them low and dirty with a shot that effectively will take the prima donna western countries right out of the fight.

And as the west grovels in pain, its effete diplomats bad mouthing Putin for being "a dirty fighter," he'll stare down at them from the winner's circle, his face the picture of contempt, and sneer "Da! But I won!"

Contributed by Ron Winter on August 14, 2008 at 08:46 PM in Current Affairs, Ron Winter, Russia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Tuesday, 12 August 2008
 

McCain Was Right About Putin;
And Russia Is Just Warming Up!
Contributed by Ron Winter

When President Bush met Vladimir Putin for the first time in 2001, Bush said, "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

"I was able to get a sense of his soul."

Obviously when he looked into the window on Putin's soul the shades were pulled down and Bush saw only what Putin wanted him to see.

John McCain on the other hand, said he looked into Putin's eyes and saw the letters KGB, the Russian secret police and terror organization Putin headed until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1990.

Now Russia, under Putin, has invaded the sovereign land of Georgia, one of those former Soviet republics that went independent as fast as it could in the 90s. Georgia became a US ally, and has been petitioning to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Unfortunately, membership did not come fast enough.

Putin travelled to China last week for the opening of the Olympics, as did Bush, and while the cat (Bush) was away the mouse (Putin) revealed that it was never a mouse, but rather a mountain lion and pounced.

Initial reports from China said Bush and (Ras)Putin had a very testy exchange of words before Putin headed home to cheer on his troops as they smashed through Georgia's outer defenses. The mad Russian initially claimed he was sending in troops to support people in Georgian provinces who really wanted to be part of Russia but were being restricted by the Georgian government.

But by mid-morning Monday - east coast US time - Russia had continued its offensive and fighting was reported in portions of Georgia that were not in dispute a week ago.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Putin has been planning this move for years, McCain has been warning about it, and Putin's feigned friendship with Bush was just the starting point to throw him off guard. There is a major pipeline for oil and natural gas running through the disputed territory. Putin has long shown he wants control over energy sources.

Why do you think Russia made such a big deal of the US talking with former Soviet republics about installing anti-missile systems in Eastern Europe to guard against a potential attack from Iran? I'd say it had much more to do with Putin worrying that Eastern Europe would be able to protect itself from Russia.

Putin has been working step by step for most of this decade to reinvent the old Soviet Union and the attack on Georgia is proof. Commentators have said Putin is no longer a communist, but rather a nationalist who was merely consolidating his power in Russia and had no intent of reinventing the old Soviet Union.

I disagree. People who are communists in their hearts and souls never stop being communists. They believe that communism is the only true and proper form of government for all humanity and their belief in the Communist Manifesto requires that they continue the struggle for their entire lives.

We have known for decades, going back to the 1930s and 1940s, that we have had communists in our Congress, in our State Department and in our military, and we still do. We have domestic communist organizations agitating against the war in Iraq, against our military and against democracy.

Do you see the leaders of Code Pink preparing to fly to Georgia to stand in front of invading Russian tanks? No you don't. Do you know why? In the first place, communists world wide support Russian expansionism.

In the second place despite all the rhetoric that domestic communists throw at US forces, they know the Russian military will roll over anything and anyone that stands in its way, and it doesn't give a damn about human rights violations, nor does Putin.

There will be no consequences for Russian commanders who level towns, villages and cities and every living thing in them, unless they fail to level said communities and every living thing in them.

Why do you think Russia has been arming Iran, supplying it with nuclear fuel and highly sophisticated anti-aircraft missile systems? It sure looks like a diversion to me. Keep the US focused on the War on Terror and the possibility that Iran's nutcase leader will develop a nuclear weapon, then hit somewhere else.

But here is another thought. Georgia is just a minor piece of Russia and RasPutin's overall puzzle.

Georgia is in fact, practice. Why? Because unlike the United States the Russian Army has not had much real combat experience since it left Afghanistan nearly 20 years ago. It has fought against the Islamic rebels in Chechnya, but that isn't a big enough war to get sufficient combat experience for a large segment of troops.

The United States, Great Britain, and other countries that have been helping us in the War on Terror, including Georgia by the way, have what is called a "blooded" army. In other words, we have in-depth combat experience and a huge pool of combat veterans if they are ever needed.

By invading a couple of Georgian provinces, the Russians get a couple of quick and relatively easy victories. By continuing their attack into Georgia, even though Georgian authorities have called for a cease-fire, the Russians are giving their troops a stiffer challenge, which they will gladly embrace since they still are riding a combat high after their victories of the past two days.

Meanwhile, George Bush dallied in China, Vice President Dick Cheney issued a strongly worded warning, and Condoleezza Rice has been told to make it clear that if the Russians don't stop this and stop it this instant there will be consequences.

All of which Putin is laughing off as his tanks, ships, bombers and troops continue the slaughter in Georgia.

On the American presidential campaign scene Barack Obama is on vacation in Hawaii and issued a position paper. One of his advisers told Fox News on Monday morning that the US has no right to say anything about Russia invading Georgia, because after all we invaded Iraq when its leaders didn't want us there.

Wow! Talk about no clue whatsoever. The same Obama spokesman then claimed that both McCain and Bush are responsible for Bush's foreign relations policies. In the Obama campaign rhetoric the presence of a murderous despot, Saddam Hussein, who invited terrorists into his country to rebuild their terrorist network to launch further attacks against the United States after 9-11 corresponds to a peaceful country that hasn't harmed anyone.

I think Obama wants to use appeasement as a reason to sit down and be the next American leader to look into Putin's soul. That has to be the definition of clueless.

McCain on the other hand accurately defined Russia's invasion of Georgia as a moral and strategic crisis. He wants Russia isolated, the invasion halted, and Russia punished.

McCain can't do much about it right now, and won't be able to do anything unless he becomes Commander in Chief.

Meanwhile, what we should be determining, is what Putin really is up to. Georgia is practice. Just practice. It gives Putin a little more land, it gives his troops some limited combat experience, but just enough to make them willing to go for more.

The question is where? And when? And what the hell are we going to do about it? This is just the first step, and for anyone who was not alive or has forgotten the brinksmanship that went on for decades during the Cold War, I guarantee you, we do not want to go back to that era.

The communists murdered an estimated 100,000,000 (that's one-hundred million) people from 1917 to the end of the Soviet Union, and state sponsored deaths continue in China and the remaining communist countries to this day.

Believe me, we don't want to turn back the clock.

Contributed by Ron Winter on August 12, 2008 at 07:44 AM in Current Affairs, John McCain, Ron Winter, Russia | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Monday, 28 July 2008
 

Was Obama's Prayer Christian, Jewish, Muslim
-- or Non-Denominational?
Contributed by Ron Winter

In the movie The 13th Warrior, Antonio Banderas plays an Arabian poet, Ahmad ibn Fadlan ibn al-Abbas ibn Rashid ibn Hamad, who is exiled to the land of the Norsemen for coveting the wife of a powerful member of the Caliphate.

The character's Muslim religion comes into play throughout as Banderas is dragged along on an improbable and dangerous quest with the Viking king to a land beset by an unspeakable evil.

In the end, only a few of the original 13 warriors are left alive, albeit victorious, and as he sails back to his home on a Viking ship Banderas' last line is a prayer to Allah asking that he might become "a useful servant of God."

Fast forward on your home entertainment system to the made-by-the-media-epic "Barack's Totally Cool International Adventure" until you get to the part where the Ruler of the Known Universe Designate pays a visit to the Wailing Wall or Western Wall whichever you prefer to call it. There he takes part in a time honored tradition of leaving a written prayer in the cracks between the stones.

The prayer which I gleaned from no less than two dozen Internet sources states: "Lord, Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will."

Is that an incredible coincidence or what? "Lord, Make me an instrument of your will" from Sen. Obama, compared to making Ahmad "a useful servant of God."

There is much passion and controversy over this incident because usually the papers on which such prayers are written are collected by a rabbi and burned in a sacred ritual.

But this was not a "usual" visit and Sen. Obama's prayer was "collected" by an unauthorized person, then passed on to a willing newspaper that promptly printed it. Pundits worldwide have spent the last two days denouncing the acts of collecting and printing the prayer, but then most of the denouncers also dissect it.

Personally I believe the theft of the prayer was no more than an attempt to see if Barack was going to say something kind about terrorists, or give a hint on his real feelings about Israel considering his contradictory statements on both issues. I don't think we can blame some Israelis for their concern about the true feelings of a man who could conceivably hold their lives in his hands.

Since the prayer has been in the public domain for a couple of days now I would like to take a deeper look inside it. That may be tough to do however, because I found it to be incredibly shallow and self-centered.

There is not one word in this prayer about giving him the strength and wisdom to do what is right for his supporters, his party, his country, or his (prematurely?)assumed status as leader of the free world. Nothing like that, just Obama and his family.

I don't take issue with thinking about his family, but if he wants to lead everyone else in the world, don't you think he could have given us at least a clause, if not a complete sentence?

Which makes me wonder if it is really a prayer based on the Christian religion? The Judeo-Christian religious tradition, from which Islam evolved, is not supposed to be about the individual, it is supposed to be about leading a good life by following God's word.

There are as many variations as to what constitutes God's word as there are denominations, but generally the basic thrust is the same. But I don't see that in this prayer, since concern for one's family could easily be interpreted as a selfish concern for oneself.

The next sentence is once again, all about Obama. (Somebody should use that line to compose a song.) "Forgive me my sins. Help me guard against pride and despair."

Once again, nothing about the affect he is having on others, how he might lead them down the right path. Nope, just 'forgive me, Big Guy, and let me enjoy life without getting to smarmy about it.'

The we move on to asking for help in "Doing what is right and just." OK, nice touch, but right and just for whom? Doing what is just and right as the assumed leader of the free world carries much larger implications and responsibilities than just watching out for your own rear end.

Then we get to the last line - 'make me an instrument of your will.' Did Barack lift that from The 13th Warrior and rewrite it a bit, or is this just a happy coincidence?

Many blog posts about his prayer have questioned whether Obama's speech writers penned it for him, and some even question whether Obama's campaign engineered the theft and publication. I don't believe they did in either case.

We have been told for about a year now that Obama has simply the best campaign staff and organization that has ever existed in the history of democracy. Thus, if an Obama campaign communicator had written the prayer it would have been much, much better. It would have had much grander references to world peace, togetherness, strength and wisdom to lead, and similar platitudes.

Doing what is just and right is something anyone, even someone of common birth, can include in a prayer. That's the kind of prayer you see a child saying at bedtime on family movies from the 50s.

No, if a campaign communicator had written that speech it would have gone something like: "Lord, Please bring peace to this troubled land, and safeguard my family, all who support me, and those I hope to lead. Help us guard against despair in this troubled time. Grant me the wisdom to follow the path toward peace and equality for all people, and make me an instrument of your will."

Professional speechwriters would have stayed away from personal sin issues since the first thing the media should have asked is, "What sin would that be, Senator?"

But still, that last line. Did Obama really think that up himself, or is he a fan of The 13th Warrior too? And if it came from The 13th Warrior is it a typical Muslim prayer request as opposed to something you might hear in a church or temple. Or, for that matter, is it pretty much a non-denominational, safe for all purposes, one-size-fits-all prayer request that you could hear just about anywhere?

There are many implications to these questions as Americans, the people who will actually vote for or against Obama, seek to find out more about the man behind the myth.

This is an important question for me especially, because if he got it from Antonio Banderas, it means that Barack Obama and I actually have something in common. I didn't think that was possible and it certainly doesn't mean I'll vote for him.

But, you never know, he might have a lot of time on his hands after November, in which case he can come over to my place, shoot some hoops, hang out and watch a few movies.

Contributed by Ron Winter on July 28, 2008 at 11:00 PM in Obamanation, Ron Winter | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Sunday, 27 July 2008
 

The Big Lie About Iraq
- We're Winning But Obama Won't Say It!
Contributed by Ron Winter

I have been writing for months now about the drop off in news from Iraq and how the media presence has diminished considerably since fewer American troops have been killed or injured, which apparently is the only criteria for "news" among many of those covering Iraq and Afghanistan.

It was gratifying to see Fox News do a segment this week on Brit Hume's Special Report confirming what I wrote a while back, that the permanent media presence in Iraq has dropped from hundreds back when the Surge was getting underway to a few dozen now. Few of those few dozen media people - aside from Fox - are doing any reporting on American victories though.

There was a flurry of activity in Afghanistan after 9 of our troops were killed in a coordinated Taliban attack, which by the way, was hugely unsuccessful with the Taliban forces being wiped out and failing to gain their objective.

Unless, once again like Vietnam, the real objective was to throw inordinate numbers of terrorist troops into a suicide mission against American forces so the media would report it as an American "setback" regardless of what really happened on the ground.

In the midst of all this non-reporting there was an eruption of coverage over Barack Obama's decision to grace our troops with his presence for a day or two. Well, maybe he didn't really grace them after all, since he ignored most, spent minimal time with those he didn't ignore - and please, don't try to con the American voters into this "Congressional fact-finding" nonsense.

When you shoot basketball in front of specially selected troops and then play the video on the news back home as if it really is NEWS, it isn't. It is just a publicity stunt. I can make three-pointers too, by the way. The hoop is outside by my driveway if you want to check it out and make a video.

How are Obama's publicity stunts in Afghanistan, which are labeled as Senate "work," any different than his aborted decision to visit wounded troops in Germany, which he claims the Pentagon prohibited him from doing because it wasn't Senate work? Basketball and breakfast with the troops in Afghanistan are "work," but visiting wounded soldiers in Germany is not?

Something doesn't smell right here. But then, something hasn't smelled right about this trip from the start. I saw a member of Congress on Fox News' America's Newsroom Friday morning, a Democrat with a long and distinguished military career, splitting hairs on Obama's activities shooting hoops in Afghanistan but not visiting the wounded in Germany claiming there was "a fine line" of difference between the two.

No disrespect intended to a fellow veteran but that simply doesn't wash, and sir, if you can take a well-intended constructive assessment of your performance on Fox, the next time a Congressional leader asks you to make an appearance that puts you in a similar position, use your best command demeanor and tell him - or her - to do it because you have more respect for the American voters than that.

And as much as I distrust polls as used by the media to tell us how to think, the one valuable piece of information the polls did give us this time is that most Americans aren't fooled by this multi-million taxpayer funded publicity stunt at all.

What I believe is the most telling event of the entire trip is Obama's refusal to declare the Surge successful. He wants our troops to vote for him but can't bring himself to admit that he was wrong.

What an opportunity Obama and his handlers missed there. If he had merely fessed up and said "I was wrong, you guys were right, and I never should have doubted you. I will never make that mistake again" he at least would have garnered some sympathy among undecideds and maybe picked up a few votes.

But what Obama showed is that he is in denial. I don't care if you supported or didn't support the War in Iraq at the outset, the fact is, tens of thousands of terrorists and their top leaders were lured there to fight the jihad against America, and now they are dead.

The fact is, as I have written many times before, Abu Al Zarqawi was in Iraq with Saddam Hussein's support and blessing, before the invasion, rebuilding the terrorist network that was destroyed in Afghanistan. Iraq was the intended launching pad for new attacks on the US and Europe, Saddam was up to his teeth in it, and now they all are dead.

Iraq may not be a perfect model of anything, but it is on its way to being a stable democracy with considerable support for the US, rather than an unstable hotbed of terrorism. The terrorists are fleeing back to the mountains of Pakistan trying to recreate the Taliban, and it isn't because we dropped the ball there, it is because there is no other safe haven for them in the world.

Meanwhile Barack Obama deals with this reality by claiming we don't know what would have happened if we had followed his plan and scurried away instead? Yes we do! Iraq and the entire Middle East would be aflame, new attacks would be launched against us by the tens of thousands of undead terrorists, and we would once again have zero respect on the world stage.

That is the true nature of humanity, not the media version where you can talk to rabid dogs and convince them of the error of their ways like some kind of surreal Disney movie.

Oh, there was some news in Afghanistan, but you probably didn't see in the states. Consider this report from Reuters which I didn't see in my local papers or on my Internet provider's regularly updated news reports:

A senior Taliban commander in southern Afghanistan surrendered to Pakistani authorities and British forces killed another leader, dealing a "shattering blow" to the militant group's leadership, the British army said on Tuesday. (July 22, 2008.)

Mullah Rahim, the top commander for southern Helmand province, gave himself up after British forces had killed two other Taliban leaders in little over three weeks.

Hours after his surrender, another senior Taliban commander, Abdul Rasaq, also known as "Mullah Sheikh," was killed in a British missile strike 15 km (9 miles) north of the town of Musa Qala in Helmand on Monday morning, the British army said in a statement. Three other insurgents also died.

Rasaq headed Taliban actions around Musa Qala and was active in the insurgency for a number of years, it said.

"The Taliban's senior leadership structure has suffered a shattering blow," British army spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Robin Matthews said in the statement.

So there you have it. Straight from the front via an incredibly roundabout route. But at least you know it. Could someone pass this on to Barack Obama? Maybe he can reroute the end of his summer vacation tour back to Afghanistan and give an "attaboy" to the men and women there who really are putting in an effort on behalf of freedom and democracy.

Contributed by Ron Winter on July 27, 2008 at 05:51 PM in Iraq, Obamanation, Politics, Ron Winter | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Monday, 21 July 2008
 

A REAL Means to Use the Strategic Petroleum Reserves
Contributed by Ron Winter

Democrats have been clamoring for President Bush to open the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and divert 10 percent of its total to the world gasoline market, which they say will bring down gasoline prices at the pump.

But Joseph Visconti, GOP candidate for Connecticut's First Congressional District, who is facing John Larson, one of Nancy Pelosi's most loyal lieutenants, has a far better idea, and far better reasons than a momentary bump in the political polls. (I guess the Dems are OK with a 9 percent approval rating but they don't want to sink any lower.)

Visconti, who unlike Larson and most of his cohorts, actually runs a business and knows the impact of energy prices on productivity first hand, has been studying the issue and proposed utilizing some of the country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to provide Americans with emergency heating fuel this winter.

Visconti's proposal differs significantly from calls by his Democratic opponent to open up the Strategic Reserve to the marketplace to increase gasoline supplies in an effort to reduce gas prices. The Democrats' suggestion, Visconti said, would "simply provide more profits for the international oil cartel by placing the oil on the open market."

"The Strategic Reserve contains American oil, already bought and paid for by the American taxpayer," Visconti said. "It was created to provide petroleum for our military in the event of a national emergency, and temporary relief from economic and natural disasters."

"Americans freezing in their homes this winter would certainly be a disaster, brought on by economic conditions that are directly traceable to inaction by Congress. But that is our oil and it should be made available to the states, so it could go directly to Americans who would use it to heat their homes."

Visconti cautioned, however, that using the strategic reserves would be a viable solution only when coupled with a decision by Congress to lift its restrictions on drilling offshore, for shale oil in the Rocky Mountains, and in a barren and desolate tract of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve.

"We need to drill our way out of this for the near future as we combine clean and safe drilling with clean and safe nuclear, and a concerted effort to replace fossil fuels with alternative energy sources.”

Visconti said that releasing the oil directly to the states for emergency heating oil supplies would "keep American oil in America where it would directly benefit Americans.

"This is the emergency we planned for when American taxpayers bought that oil," Visconti said. "Why should it go on the market, where international speculators can manipulate the price for their profits?"

Contributed by Ron Winter on July 21, 2008 at 12:37 AM in Dem Dumbness, Ron Winter | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Saturday, 19 July 2008
 

Please join me in welcoming our newest Dog
Contributed by Bill Faith

Welcome Ron!

In addition to posting here Ron will continue to post on his own blog, Winter's Soldier Story, and on the Eagles Up Talon site.

Contributed by Bill Faith on July 19, 2008 at 04:26 PM in Ron Winter, Site Notes | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Congressman John Larson, #1 Cause of High Gas Prices; Poster Child for Government Dysfunction
Contributed by Ron Winter

Connecticut's First District Congressman John Larson, a 10-year veteran of failed Congressional policies, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's personal valet, appeared on national media Monday afternoon demanding that President Bush tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserves for additional oil supplies.

This he said, while claiming to be the only man in America who knew the long-term answer to our energy needs, would create an immediate drop in gas prices for the consumer.

He was, as usual, parroting Pelosi who has been making the same claim for some time now, and as usual these two "geniuses" couldn't mount a double digit IQ if they stood on each other's shoulders.

For those who may have been Larson's students when he was teaching revisionist history before becoming a politician and thus wouldn't know this, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created in the mid-1970s in response to the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, which I see as the first shot in the War on Terror.

The oil exporting countries of the Middle East, sensing spinelessness in the US Congress after it voted to sell South Vietnam down the river, suddenly shut down oil exports to the US. As a result there were domestic shortages, our gas prices spiked, rationing went into effect, lines were everywhere, people were duking it out at the corner gas stations, and something had to be done.

"Something" turned out to be a series of hollowed out salt caverns on the Texas and Louisiana Gulf coasts, which are intended to hold up to 1 billion barrels of petroleum. The thinking at that time was that if all other sources of petroleum were suddenly shut off, we would have a 90-day supply to keep our military functioning and keep vital industries operating.

Since shutting down all of our oil producing capabilities would obviously be an act of war, the thinking was that our military could wipe up any potential enemy within the 90 days and still have time left over to get the pipeline flowing again.

For decades the actual amount of petroleum stored in the reserve caverns has ebbed and flowed, so to speak, depending on world conditions and the beliefs of the administration in power. But after September 11, 2001 President Bush ordered a renewed emphasis on keeping the reserves topped off or as close to full as possible.

There is, however, a fly in the ointment. The capacity and longevity of the reserves were calculated back in the 70s when both our domestic consumption and our percentage of imported petroleum were far less than they are now.

Today the United States consumes approximately 21 millions barrels of oil per day, and if all of that suddenly had to come from a topped off Strategic Reserve we would have only a 50-day supply - do the math Congressman.

This comes, must I remind you, only a few days after the leaders of Iran, one of the biggest oil exporters in the world, fired off a bunch of missiles to show everyone that they still are crazy after all these decades, and threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which a huge percentage - up to 40 percent by some estimates - of the world's oil flows every day.

Earlier this month Iranian officials stated that Israel is pressuring America to attack Iran. "If they commit such a stupidity, Tel Aviv and U.S. shipping in the Persian Gulf will be Iran's first targets and they will be burned," an Iranian official said in news reports.

Some analysts estimate that Iran could control the Strait for a month before our troops hand them their rear ends on a silver platter. I think it is far less time, but that's just me.

Simply put, with all that is going on in the world, this is not a good time to be tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserves in an attempt to get a very limited political bounce. John Larson parroting ideas of this nature, ladies and gentlemen, is the prime reason that Congress has only a 9 percent approval rating!

Connecticut Congressman John Larson, right, looks on in support as Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha attempts to convince Connecticut residents he really supports the military. Photo Credit: Richard Messina, Hartford Courant

When asked why Congress doesn't just lift its ban on drilling, Larson, who has been solidly opposed to any new drilling, and chants the Democratic mantra "We can't drill our way out of this. OOOOOHHHMMMM," while meditating on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, suddenly said that now he isn't opposed to new drilling!

He just wants the oil companies to drill in places where they have government leases and already have determined that there is no oil, or very little oil, or it would be so difficult to extract that it would take forever and not be worth the investment. He even had a cute little chart showing something fuzzy that supposedly made his point but didn't come across on television - even with digital and big screen.

Then he got even cuter and tried to act sage and wise by stroking his chin and muttering something about "Oil companies making money? Hmmmmmm." Are you aware this guy makes more than $160,000 per year as a Congressman for coming up with this inane drivel?

Here's where things get really infuriating. The oil companies, as has been shown repeatedly after the Democrats started blaming them for the shortage of domestic production, make about 9 cents per gallon profit. That's it. Why? Because they have to pay for equipment, maintenance, research, development and upkeep on the oil drilling and refining infrastructure.

They pay salaries and benefits, not just for a handful of corporate CEOs but for tens of thousands of oil industry workers doing the jobs that keep America mobile.

Do you know who really gets a huge WINDFALL profit from gasoline sales? Try the US CONGRESS!! That's right! The federal government charges 18.4 cents tax on each gallon of gas sold in this country.

That is DOUBLE what the oil companies make and it is nearly all profit because Congress doesn't have to invest anything to get that money, nothing, nada - except the tax collectors who already were on site screwing us on every other thing that moves, breathes and takes up space in this country.

As of July 1, 2008, the average amount of tax, state and federal combined, imposed on a gallon of gasoline sold in the United States was 49.4 cents per gallon, up 2.4 cents from January 2008. Five hundred percent more than the oil companies make!

But wait, there's more! Larson is one of four Democratic congressmen from Connecticut, the state with the second highest level of gasoline taxes in the country. Connecticut motorists pay just under 70 CENTS PER GALLON on every gallon they pump!

And get this. The Connecticut Legislature, the one where Larson learned remedial "How to Shaft the Taxpayer" before he graduated to the US Congress, doesn't charge a flat tax per gallon, it charges a percentage based on the wholesale price of gasoline!

So every time the price of gasoline goes up, the amount of tax levied and collected increases right along with it!

John Larson. Connecticut's gift to the American taxpayer. Why would we want to keep a guy like him all to ourselves?

Americans are dealing with a slacking economy that in many cases is directly related to the unending increases in gasoline which affect the price of virtually everything else in the country. But while our state and federal legislative branches have a remedy right at hand through tax reductions, they continue to shaft us all, and blow billions of tax dollars right out the old wazoo without a care in the world.

Hey Congressman, how about you show us a graph with those little statistics drawn in?

The hypocrisy and arrogance of our elected persons is enough to put hair where you don't have it and curl it where you do.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised at anything Larson says or does. He basically is Pelosi's shadow, except for when she lends him to John Murtha or Harry Reid, and pretty much all we see out of him is his head nodding in agreement whenever she makes an utterance.

He stood alongside Pelosi nodding sagely when they went to Iraq together and she insulted the American military by saying The Surge didn't really work, and our troops didn't really defeat the terrorists ... we won because the Iranians "let us."

Now she tries to divert attention away from high gas prices that are a direct result of Congressional refusal to open up drilling, refining and nuclear construction, by calling for tapping into the Strategic Reserves at the worst possible time, and he bobs his head and repeats the party talking points.

How does it go now? Oh yes. "We don't want to drill because it will destroy the environment .... But we do want to drill ... but we want the oil companies to drill where there may not be oil instead of where they know oil really is located ... and "We can't drill our way out of this!"

John Larson. Reinforces your faith in Congress and pride in being an American doesn't he?

Contributed by Ron Winter on July 19, 2008 at 02:17 PM in Dem Dumbness, Ron Winter | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack