|
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Chris Charles: Bush
Tried, Liberals Cried
Part II: I Voted For The War, Before I Voted Against It
The Iraq War is the main reason why George W Bush is hated by liberals more than
Richard Nixon, Osama Bin Laden, and Satin combined. In their minds, the left imagines that Bush and the vast right wing conspiracy
hatched an evil plan to start a war and steal Iraqi oil so that Bush’s oil company friends could make an easy buck.
No war for oil? Where is all that oil? If we went to war for oil, why was gas five-dollars a gallon not too long
ago? We should have taken Iraqi oil in exchange for our blood spilt and treasure spent liberating Iraq. Liberals love to revise
history, so for those interested in what really happened, pay attention.
In August 1990, Iraq invades the tiny Gulf nation of Kuwait.
The UN imposed sanctions, which did nothing; finally 34 nations lead by the US expelled Iraq from Kuwait by force.
To
avoid losing power Saddam Hussein Surrendered to the Coalition in 1991. He agreed to 12 UN resolutions that limited the Iraqi
military and prohibited them from possessing WMD’s.
Throughout the 1990’s Saddam defied the resolutions
agreed to in the Gulf War cease fire. Occasionally, Bill Clinton would fire cruise missiles into Iraq when he needed a distraction
(allegedly). Despite this, Iraq continued to disobey UN sanctions. They continued to develop both banned
conventional weapons, as well as weapons of mass destruction.
To be fair, President Clinton was somewhat tough with Iraq
during the 1990’s, but on September 11th, 2001 everything changed, no longer could we afford to sanction
and occasionally target Iraq with cruise missiles. We could no longer risk allowing a rogue radical Islamic
nation to develop WMD’s, WMD’s that could find their way into the hands of murderous Muslim terrorists.
Because
no WMD’s were found after the Liberation of Iraq, liberals think this means that Iraq never had and never wanted to
have WMD’s. They forget, Iraq had developed WMD’s in the past and nearly everyone in the world
believed Iraq possessed them in 2003.
"How
close is the peril of Iraqi WMD? Today, or at most within a few months, Iraq could launch missile attacks with chemical or
biological weapons against its neighbors (albeit attacks that would be ragged, inaccurate, and limited in size). Within four
or five years it could have the capability to threaten most of the Middle East and parts of Europe with missiles armed with
nuclear weapons containing fissile material produced indigenously—and to threaten U.S. territory with such weapons delivered
by nonconventional means, such as commercial shipping containers. If it managed to get its hands on sufficient quantities
of already produced fissile material, these threats could arrive much sooner."
Who said that? Not George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, or Halliburton.
It was none other than Clinton Administration official Robert Einhorn in 2002. (1)
George W Bush was not the only one
with the opinion that Iraq possessed WMD’s and that they posed a clear and present danger to other countries. The CIA
along with intelligence agencies from Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China, and Israel all agreed that Saddam possessed
WMD’s. Even UN inspector Hans Blix believed Iraq had huge stockpiles of weapons hidden. Shortly before the invasion,
UN inspectors found a stockpile of chemical warheads in a bunker 100 miles southwest of Baghdad. It was the opinion of Hans
Blix that, because the bunker was relatively new, that stockpile might be the tip of a much larger iceberg. (2)
Due to the mountain of evidence the
US Senate, in 2002, authorized the use of military force to disarm Iraq and enforce the Gulf War cease fire treaty. Senators
voting to go to war with Iraq included John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and Diane Feinstein. Only 23
Senators voted against the resolution, mostly a who’s who of the radical left that would have opposed entering WWII
after Pearl Harbor.
Finally, after 12 years of Iraq ignoring UN threats and sanctions,
after all diplomatic efforts had been exhausted, the US lead a coalition of 40 nations to disarm Iraq and depose tyrannical
dictator Saddam Hussein. No WMD’s were found after the invasion of Iraq. Does that
mean Iraq never had WMD? If that was the case, why would Saddam not consent to UN inspections? The fact is Saddam did have
weapons before the invasion, the questions is what happened to the weapons? Either he destroyed them prior
to the 2003 invasion or shipped them to friendly neighbors like Syria or Iran. Either way the invasion was more than justified
given all of the evidence.
The mistake Bush made was in conducting the war too much
like a police action after the initial ‘shock and awe’. Liberal rules of engagement and low troop levels hamstrung
the US and coalition forces. Once General Petraeus and President Bush implemented the surge, the situation in Iraq was quickly
brought under control.
People now opposed to the war say that Iraq had nothing to
do with 9-11 and we should be focused on Al-Qaeda. We were not attacked by a country on 9-11; we were attacked by radical
Islam. Just who do anti war liberals think we were fighting in Iraq? The Iraqi boy scouts? The Muslim terrorists we are fighting
over there are the same Muslim terrorists that would be plotting another 9-11 if they were not so busy fighting our military
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What should we have done? That is the question for all of
the people opposed to the war in Iraq. Rewind back to 2003, less than two years after 9-11, mountains of evidence, 12 years
of UN resolutions, what would the right thing to do be? George W Bush tried to do the right thing and liberals hate him for
it. Instead, liberals should just be thankful that George W Bush did something to fight radical Islam and make the world a
safer place.
8:29 pm pdt
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Chris Charles: Bush Tried, Liberals
Cried
Part
1: George W Bush: A Very Liberal Conservative
Nowadays, there is little tolerance
from the left for those who disagree with the President of the United States on matters of politics or policy. Liberals have
had a great reverence and respect for the commander in chief since all the way back in late 2008, before that it was perfectly
acceptable to not only oppose the President but call him a war criminal, a Nazi, Hitler, a fascist, a liar, a drunk, an addict,
an idiot, the devil, a cheater, a traitor, and a deserter among other things, many of which involve expletives.
Why did liberals, that hold
the office of the President in such high regard, attack President Bush so viciously, so mercilessly? President Bush was a
Republican, but he was not a hard core conservative. Bush was abandoned by many conservatives that felt he was too liberal,
especially in his second term. To his credit, the former President was very conservative on issues of national security, gay
marriage, and stem cell research. He was somewhat conservative on issues of taxes, energy, and the judiciary. In many other
areas Bush was fairly liberal, not the kind of Leninist liberalism most Democrats subscribe to, but definitely left of center.
Here are a few examples.
Immigration- Bush pushed for amnesty for illegals, and a guest worker program. Not even President
Obama has gone this far, yet.
African Aid- In 2003, he committed $15 billion to fight
AIDS in Africa. Don’t liberals support AIDS funding?
Bailouts- Bush started the
bank and Wall Street bailouts near the end of his second term. Conservatives want smaller government, not a massive government
takeover of industry.
Spending- President Bush presided over record setting deficits. The deficit doubled under
Bush, that doesn’t sound very conservative.
Clean Energy- In 2008 Bush committed $2 billion for clean
energy research to combat global warming. Right out of the Al Gore playbook, nothing says ‘right winger’ more
than pumping billions into the global warming racket.
Dubai Ports- Would have allowed
an Arabic company from Dubai to control US ports. You’d think a President that is big on national security would not
let an Islamic company control US ports in the middle of a war with radical Islam.
Why all the hate toward the 43rd President of the United States from the left?
He was a relatively moderate president. Calling President Bush a radical conservative is like calling
The Beatles a hard rock band. There can be only two reasons why liberals hate George W Bush as much as they do.
Number 1: They think he’s a red necked hick from the
Texas, whose loose grasp on the English language means he is stupid.
This argument does not hold much water because his predecessor was a southern hick as well, only with a propensity
for womanizing subordinates and anyone else for that matter! And liberals loved him! As to the second point, Bush graduated
from Yale and Harvard, he can’t be that stupid.
Number 2: He Invaded Iraq.
DING! DING! DING! Winner, winner, winner! At last we’ve figured it out, liberals hate George W Bush because he started a war with Iraq.
Bush lied, kids died. War for oil and all that, but was President Bush so wrong to invade Iraq, given all the facts?
Tune in next week for the answers, same bat
time, same bat channel.
5:57 pm pdt
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Chris Charles: DC Gets an ‘F’
It’s that time of year again, back to school time! It’s the time of year
when we sent the youth of our nation, the future of our civilization, to failing institutions of lower learning. To be fair,
not all public schools are failing, some are quite good; unfortunately, many are quite bad. Most failing schools are located
in big metropolitan or urban areas, when big metropolitan bureaucracies mismanage everything. Despite armies of government
workers compensated handsomely with good salaries, benefits, and pensions, government run schools continue to fail miserably.
You might think that public schools
underperform because mean old conservatives cut their funding to lower taxes. This is simply not the case. Public schools
are funded better than ever, public schools outspend private schools nearly 2 to 1. (1) In 2004-05 the District of Columbia spent over $15,000 per student!
DC could send every kid in public school to the University of Maryland for half the price. Maryland’s tuition is $8,000
per year, that $7,000 less for a University! (2) Public schools in Utah spend only $5,200 per student per year. Where is all the money going? (3)
Judging from the test scores in
Washington, it’s not going to education. Student’s proficiency in each of the three major education groups’(
math, reading and science) are below 50% in DC. (4) That was an improvement from previous years; so what do DC public
school kids and parents get for $15,000 a year? A really good daycare service?
Unfortunately, DC public schools don’t do that well either. During the 2007-2008 school
year, there were 912 incidents of violent crime at DC schools, including one homicide. Compared with DC private schools where
there were only 28 incidents during the same period. Gun shots were reported 49 times at public schools, there were 1338 incidents
of property crime, and 446 reports of theft. (5) Your kids would be safer in prison! You would think for 15 grand
they could invest in some rent-a-cop’s or surveillance cameras. Heck, for $15,000 a head they could hire the entire
7th Calvary to patrol the schools with M-16’s and artillery.
To review, DC tax payers spend $8.25 billion annually on public schools and for their
billions they get schools that not only fail to educate kids in core subjects, but also fail to protect kids from violence
and crime. Why not just let the children of DC roam the streets during the day? It would be safer.
So what is it that DC public school kids do all day, besides
assaulting people, stealing from one another, shooting firearms, or partaking in general mayhem? Unlike those backward, academics
obsessed private schools, DC schools ensure their students are well versed in all things sexual. By 5th grade student
know all about STD’s and how to prevent them. (6)By 6th grade students are taught about ‘sexuality’
and reproduction (including contraceptives). In 7th and 8th grade the same kids that do not understand
core subjects are taught about sexual orientation, including the proper terminology. Finally, by 9th
grade students are taught about contraceptive practices and the availability of abortions. (7)
At least they’re covering the basics, but colleges usually require at least some knowledge of standard
academics as a prerequisite. Here’s an idea, try blending subjects that schools do well with, with subjects schools
don’t do so well with. For example, sex education and math. Teachers could prepare lesson plans that deal with both
subjects simultaneously.
Math
XXX
1. If
you have sex 4 days a week, two times each, for 8 weeks, how many condoms do you need?
2.
If you have 34 sexual partners, and 2 have a
sexually transmitted disease, what percentage of your partners carries an STD?
3. Jane is traveling 36 miles at 45mph to the Planned Parenthood clinic for
an abortion, Suzie is traveling 51 miles at 65mph to the clinic, if they leave at the same time, who will arrive first?
Some students in
DC have the option to attend private school under a federal pilot program for school vouchers, or at least they did.
In March, Congressional Democrats moved to eliminate the program, thus returning kids to their failing public schools. This
insanity is compounded by the fact that 44% of Senators and 36% of Representatives in Congress either send or have sent
a child to private school. Apparently, what’s good for the goose is not so good for the gander.
11:35 pm pdt
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Chris Charles: Never Forget, Always Remember
The events of the 11th of September
2001 was an enormous shock for most Americans. The horror of that day made most of us realize that we are in a fight
to the death with Muslim radicals. That choice was made very clear that day; it is either us or them. The evil that is islamo-terrorism
will never quit, will never surrender, will never show mercy, will never cease until every last ‘infidel’ (that’s
you and me) is dead.
As September 11th 2009 approaches the memories burned into our consciousness fade slightly. As the years pass,
lessons learned that day are forgot, our resolve is weakened. We can never forget what happened to our
country on 9-11, we must always remember. We must pass the story on to future generations because it teaches us many important
lessons.
A
few of the lessons learned on September 11, 2001
· We were attacked without warning and
without provocation by a cowardly enemy that kills innocent men, women, and children in horrific fashion.
·
That enemy
hates us for our very way of life; no amount of diplomacy will stop them from their global jihad.
·
3,000 Americans
were murdered, some were disintegrated, some were burned alive, some were forced to jump to their death from a 110 story building,
some were stabbed to death by Muslim hijackers, and some were crushed to death by collapsing buildings.
·
3,000 American
families lost a member. 3000 husbands, wives, moms, dads, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers, grandparents, cousins, uncles,
aunts, partners, teachers, classmates, co-workers, and friends lost.
·
The Muslim
terrorists took advantage of our faulty immigration system to gain access to our country.
·
Radical
Muslims danced in the streets of the Middle East after hearing that America was attacked.
·
Islamo-fascists
chanted ‘Allah Akbar’ as they slammed fully fueled passenger jets into the sides of the WTC in New York and the
Pentagon in Washington DC.
· Since 2001, the American military has taken the fight
to the terrorists, engaging them overseas, thus preventing future attacks on our homeland.
·
The attacks
unified our country; liberals and conservatives saw eye to eye, for a brief moment.
·
Thousands
enlisted in the US military because they felt a sense of duty, and they have help keep us all safe the past 8 years.
·
While people
were running out of the doomed twin towers, hundreds of hero firefighters ran into the inferno to rescue as many people as
possible, knowing they would never make it out.
· Passengers on United flight 93 prevented
their 757 from being flown into the White House or the Capitol building; the heroes forced the aircraft down in a field in
Pennsylvania saving an untold number of lives while losing their own in the process.
It is natural to want to forget a traumatic event; these memories
hurt us, haunt us, and sadden us, and they should. These memories are what can prevent another 9-11; that bitter taste in
our mouths will remind us that Islamic extremists cannot be reasoned with they do not feel pity, they must be exterminated
like the vermin they are.
The events of September 11th, 2001 is an example of the worst mankind has to offer to be sure, however, it is
also an example of the best. Hundreds of firefighters in New York gave their lives trying to save others. Average citizens
on United 93 gave their lives as well to prevent more innocent people from dying. These brave American heroes gave the ultimate
sacrifice to save their fellow Americans from death, for that we are eternally grateful.
Never ever forget what happened that day, those who do
not know their history are condemned to repeat it. Always remember men and women that lost their lives that day, and the heroes
gave theirs to save others. Never forget who we are fighting, vicious, blood thirty mad men who will kill us all, or die trying.
I prefer the later.
Never forget, always remember.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Chris Charles: Health Care
Tort Reform
A man was on holiday in Hawaii, he
ran into an old friend that happened to be a lawyer. The man asked, “Why are you here?” The lawyer replied,”
I invested in some lousy real estate and the whole place burned to the ground and I’m here with the insurance settlement”.
The lawyer then asked the man what he was doing there. The man answered, “I too invested in some lousy real estate but
I lost everything in a flood and I’m here with the insurance settlement”. “Really?” Said the lawyer,
“How’d you start the flood?”
Supporters of socialized medicine in the United States have cleverly used the term ‘health care reform’ to describe
creating a massive new entitlement program. In politics, semantics can go a long way to garner public support.
People overwhelming reject a government takeover of the health care industry but ‘reform’ sounds like such
a good thing.
Since
liberals want to reform health care, how about starting with tort reform in the medical industry? Doctors and hospitals have
to pay massive insurance premiums to protect themselves from malpractice lawsuits. In most malpractice cases there is no limit
to the judgment which a plaintiff can receive, which in turn forces insurers to charge higher and higher premiums. The costs
are in turn passed on to patients. Obviously, we need to protect patients from medical negligence and incompetence, but we
also need to protect patients (and the rest of us) from sky rocketing medical insurance premiums.
A man calls his attorneys office and is told that
his lawyer had died.
The
next day he calls back, and again is told his lawyer had died.
The next day he calls again, and the receptionist tells the man for the third
time he is dead.
“Why
do you keep calling? I’ve told you repeatedly that your attorney is dead!” she said.
He replies, “I know, I just love hearing it”.
Tort reform does not
mean that patents cannot receive compensation for damages caused by malpractice; it only limits the monetary amount they can
receive. Instead of juries awarding arbitrary judgments were emotion can cloud reasonable monetary amounts; tort reform would
create guidelines by which juries would rule.
Because incidents of medical malpractice are relatively rare, greedy lawyers had to invent new and creative ways to win
huge judgments from juries. No one was better at this than former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards. Edwards
made a fortune suing doctors for causing cerebral palsy, even going so far as to ‘channel’ the spirit of a child
that was born with cerebral palsy in the court room. For families affected by cerebral palsy, it is natural to be angry and
feel the need to blame someone. However, according to leading physicians in the field, cases of medical practitioners causing
CP are exceedingly rare.1 Despite this, Edwards sued 63
Doctors for CP related malpractice and won judgments totaling $152 million.2 Don’t think Edwards is
motivated to do this by an overwhelming need to help grief stricken families affected by CP, for Edwards it is about the money.
Edwards’ palatial Chapel Hill estate includes an indoor pool, indoor basketball court, and private soccer field. Wow!
Talk about two Americas, one for millionaire trial lawyers and one for the rest of us.
What do you call a retired lawyer?
A politician.
Of course trial lawyers are opposed to tort reform, but
who cares? Nobody likes lawyers, right? Wrong. Democrats apparently love lawyers; many of them are former trail lawyers themselves.
According to DNC head Howard Dean, health care reform would not include tort reform because Dems are unwilling to go against
trail lawyer groups. It goes without saying that trial lawyers are major democratic donors. The American Association for Justice,
formerly the American Trial Lawyers Association, gave $2.8 million to Democrats in 2008. To contrast, the AAJ gave the GOP
just $140 thousand in the same year, if you are keeping score that’s 95% Dems, 5% GOP.
In addition to the high cost of medical malpractice insurance,
doctors, many times perform unnecessary tests and procedures to lessen their exposure to possible lawsuit.
Patent: Doc I gotta sore throat.
Doctor: OK I’m scheduling
some blood work and a chest x-ray.
Patent:
I said a sore throat; nothing is wrong with my chest!
Doctor: Never can be too careful with these things, better schedule a CT scan too.
Not only does this practice raise
patents costs, it also waists valuable medical resources that could have been used for a more legitimate purpose.
Tort reform would reduce the cost of
medical insurance, thereby making it more accessible to more Americans. It would reduce the cost of medical insurance for
people that currently have it. It would allow doctors to practice better more efficient medicine. It would not allow trail
lawyers to get rich on the backs of victims of medical accidents or error, and that is why Democrats will never agree to it.
Liberals want more Americans
to have health insurance, right? They want to reduce costs and improve care. It’s true they do want all of these things;
just not as much as they want to keep trial lawyers happy.
What’s the difference between a lawyer and a terrorist?
You can negotiate with a terrorist.
6:23 pm pdt
|
