Sen. Biden’s son Heads to Iraq

(Aug 17, 2007) – Like I was sayin… sometimes you can’t help but have some common sense.

It was reported today that Sen. Biden’s son is to be deployed to Iraq.  With the Democrats being mostly of the ‘pull out now’ ilk, I couldn’t wait to read the article to see what all political points Biden had to make.

 However, I was shocked to see what Biden had to say. 

“I don’t want him going,” Biden, D-Del., said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. “But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference.”"I don’t want him going,” Biden, D-Del., said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. “But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference.”

That kind of made me take a step back, but then the story continued: 

“There’s no political point worth my son’s life,” Biden said, according to Radio Iowa. “There’s no political point worth anybodies life out there. None.”

It’s kind of refreshing to hear talk like this.  I disagree with just about everything Biden has to say, however, it was nice to hear somebody putting common sense before party politics.

Hillary to Pay Our Mortgages?

(Aug 10, 2007) -  Like I was sayin’… don’t worry, big sister will take care of it for you.

Recently, Sen Clinton (D!) N.Y., has made news with her plan to crack down on the mortgage market.

She would like to crack down on firms that engage in predatory lending practices.  That doesn’t sound like a bad idea.  Any company that violates the law should be punished.  And there are laws today to help protect people from such practices.  If she wants to increase the fines for doing so, so be it.

However, she is also proposing to spend $1 billion to bail people out who took on loans that they can’t afford.  I find it somewhat distasteful that somebody is proposing taking my tax dollars and giving it to somebody else that has made bad financial decisions.

Clinton was quoted as saying: “They (Bush and his allies) believe in letting everyone fend for him or herself. They believe in what the president calls an ownership society, which is really you’re on-your-own.”  So, in the current world, you are responsible for the choices you make in life.  However, Clinton seems to be advocating an America in which you are no longer responsible for the choices you make and the government will help you through thick and thin.  What next, don’t worry about making people get mortgages and have the government just provide housing?  What if I run up my credit cards or buy a car that I can’t afford?

It will be a sad day when Americans are so dependent on their government, they aren’t required to make choices or be responsible for their own actions.  Today, I am free to succeed or fail on my own.  I am worried that in the future, I won’t be allowed to fail OR succeed with out the government.

Bush Signs Surveillance Bill

(Aug6, 2007) – Like I was sayin… you can be against everything.

This weekend, Bush signed the Protect America Act of 2007 (S 1927), which continues the practice of listening to communications between U.S. citizens or others and suspected terrorists.

This comes as a blow to the “against anything Bush” crowd, who would prefer America to have its hands tied (at least as long as Bush is in office) in the fight against terrorism.  The headlines all proclaim ‘warrantless wire-taps’ and tell you how Bush is listening to your phone calls.

The bill itself does allow intelligence agencies to monitor the conversations of suspected terrorists that come through the U.S., however, not everyone knows what the bill allows, but are just against it.

The following are the key points of the bill as indicated in an AP article:

Expands the administration’s powers to eavesdrop, without a court order, on foreign suspects’ communications passing through the United States.  – - Note that it says foreign suspects communications PASSING through the U.S.  When somebody in Asia calls Osama in Pakistan, it doesn’t mean that the call isn’t routed through U.S. networks.  Foreign calls are often routed through the U.S.  This gives us the ability to listen in on those calls. 

Requires new wiretaps to be approved by the director of national intelligence and the attorney general, not just the attorney General.  – -  This adds new people in the oversight role.

Requires a court-issued warrant when a U.S. resident is the main target of surveillance.  – - Still against the bill?  It DOES REQUIRE A WARRANT when a U.S. resident is the target of surveillance.

Requires Congress to reconsider the law in six months. – - Being that the current bill was about to end, something needed to be done quickly.  This allows congress time to endlessly debate this in time for the next election cycle to start up…

There is always a balance that needs to be preserved when considering our liberties between our liberties and security.  However, you need to educate yourself whenever you see news headlines as we are now.  Just because somebody tells you what the bill does, it doesn’t mean that what the bill does.  Before speaking out against or for something, you need to read it for yourself.

Dem Congress Protects Hidden Earmarks

(Aug 3, 2007) – Like I was sayin… pay no attention to the people behind the curtin.

Ah, remember the good ol’ days when the Dems were swept into power on pledges such as “ending the culture of coruption”?  Well, it seems like the Dem congress is only willing to go so far.

 This week, they approved an ethics bill that cracks down on lobbying abuses, which is a good thing.  However, they removed provisions severly limiting budget earmarks.  Apparently, it is still ok to basically give public money to a law maker or their family as long as congress is doing the giving and not a lobbyist.  This article by Steve Huntly spells some of this out.

For those of you not familiar with earmarks, its basically an attachment to a bill that provides money for some program or cause.  Here is a definition of “pork” from the Citizens Against Government Waste website: A “pork” project is a line-item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures. 

Everyone is familiar with the bridge to nowhere or John Murtha’s recent money for a group that doesn’t exist.  You might also remember the recent Iraq spending bill that wasn’t going anywhere until it magically had an extra 4 billion of extra spending attached to various programs that switched a few senator’s votes.

The Dems had a chance to prohibit earmarks that beneift a lawmaker’s staff or family, but decieded to leave in the ability to do so.  To make matters worse, they switched the responsibilities of determining if an ear mark meets disclosure rules from the senate parliamentarian to party leaders.  They also only allow the text of the ear mark to be stored in a data base if it is technically feasible.  Technically Feasible?  In an age when I can blog on endlessly or watch YouTube videos all day, they are not sure if the text of an earmark can be put in a database?

It seems like the Congress is looking for ways to make up for all the lobbying money they are going to lose by replacing it with ‘OUR’ money.

Support for War Growing?

(Aug 2, 2007) – Like I said… some people prefer bad news…

Recently, the NYT conducted a poll on America’s feelings about the war in Iraq.  When the results came back, rather than publish them, they conducted another poll as the poll had results they didn’t agree with.

Here is a great article by Debra Saunders that comments on the story.

The initial poll found that the number of people who thought it was right for the U.S. to go to war had risen from 35% in May to 42% in July.  Being that the NYT didn’t agree with the results they re-polled.  Suprising to them, the results were the same at 42%.  However, they also found that those who thought it was wrong to go to war had fallen from 61%  to 51%.

This could indicate that as there has been positive news from Iraq recently in the MSM, American’s opinions are shifting slightly.  It seems that more people feel it is the right thing to do if we win.

With this in mind, I would expect to see the Dems in Congress all over the news this week and next week trying to push just how “bad” things really are in Iraq.  They view things going badly in Iraq as good for the Dems and their quest for power.

As I have noted before, some people are more interested in politics and power than victory for America.