Right Wing Lunatic

Oh how I love sweet sweet irony. I'm sure you've all seen the public spat between two yenta's Rosie O'Donnell and Elisabeth Hasselback. For those of you who don't know, here's the little tiff they had:

Wednesday's debate was the culmination of a fight that started on "The View" last week, when O'Donnell said, "655,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Who are the terrorists?"

Conservative critics said O'Donnell was calling U.S. troops terrorists. Wednesday, Hasselbeck said O'Donnell should clarify her statement.

"I asked you if you believed what the Republican pundits were saying," O'Donnell said to Hasselbeck.

"Did I say yes?" Hasselbeck replied.

"You said nothing and that's cowardly," O'Donnell shot back.

Well if you want to talk about cowardly Rosie, perhaps leaving the show early is a good example.

When you have an argument with someone, you don't walk away if you're losing the argument. You stay like an man and stand your ground. Giving up is the easy, cowardly way out. Your statement of "who's the terrorists" shows your true feelings. Don't bullshit people and tell them you "do everything you can to support the troops financially and emotionally" when you know that's a lie.

I'm not even saying you should support the troops. If you don't, that's your right as an American. I'm just condemning you for lying about it and being an ungrateful cunt that financially succeeds under the umbrella of freedom that they provide.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

NOW WE'RE GETTING DOWN TO BUSINESS! This is the kind of thing I expect from the worlds greatest superpower. The US is actively sabotaging nuclear parts that get purchased and installed in Iranian nuclear plants. Those parts are defective and they tend to have catastrophic failures such as one that took out 50 centrifuges a little bit ago.

Now, couple that with scientists defecting or turning up missing, you have a real way of getting the Iranians to come around without actually inflaming public opinion against you. Of course, if you do all of the above and sanction the hell out of the Iranians, you have a recipe for them to blink and stop their nuclear program cold.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

If you don't pass a test, you don't get to participate in the graduation. Simple as that. But if your parents are going to protest, make sure that they have basic English skills and don't hold up a sign that says: "Let are kids walk". It kinda takes the wind out of the sails of your argument.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

You'd think that after all the brouhaha going on over their nuclear program, that the North Koreans wouldn't want to endanger that deal because of the extreme poverty they are facing. But alas, you'd be wrong. North Korea test fired a short range missile today, making everyone nervous about their attention whoring. South Korea isn't too terribly worried. They've got some pretty advanced "missile shooting down goodies" from their good buddies at the US of A. :)

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Hillary voted against the military funding bill that went through yesterday. While it's certainly within her rights to vote that way, her thinking leaves a lot to be desired.

Q: "Why did you vote against the bill?"
A: "Obviously I thought very long and hard about it because I care deeply about making sure we do everything we can to protect our troops and there are some very positive elements within the supplemental that will certainly add to what will be coming down the road in the next three months. Also, I think the president has resisted every effort by -- not just the political process -- but by independent experts like the Iraq Study Group and you know, enough is enough. At some point you just have to draw a line. You know I didn't have the luxury of voting on two separate votes like the House did. But I think that it was important to make clear that I think we can do so much better in the war against terrorism and trying to force the Iraqis to come to a political resolution than what it is in this bill or what the president apparently is willing to do.

Q: "How concerned are you this vote will hurt you in a general election?"
A: "I don't see that at all. The American people have been living now with this war for five years. I want to de-authorize it. That's what Sen. Byrd and I have proposed. We are trying to end the authority for this war which is..."

Q: "Republicans will say, 'She voted to leave our troops in the field.'"
A: "Nobody believes that, nobody believes that. There's money to fund vehicles that are desperately needed -- they're not going to be ready in three months. That's just propaganda."

I believe that Hillary. I believe you're leaving the troops with their asses hanging in the breeze. The Pentagon and military commanders have said that the funding delays have already started effecting the military in bad ways. The "vehicles" she's speaking of are new armored personnel carriers that are better against IED attacks. Those "vehicles" have been ready for the longest time, they just need to be paid for.

Don't bullshit the American public Hillary, we know how to spot a liar. If you want to vote against the war because it's your belief, that's fine. But the moveon.org people have warned you about the political consequences for voting for the funding. That tells me that you are pandering to your constituents instead of funding needed supplies and equipment for the men and women in the field.

Hillary is merely maneuvering herself to get the added votes she needs for the Democratic nomination. She has a very serious threat in Barack Obama in that he's relatively new, appears "approachable" and likable, and she...well....isn't. Hillary is leading the polls in various areas, but she needs to crush her main rival if she hopes to succeed in getting the Democratic nomination. Bowing to special interest groups like moveon.org is the same thing that her and other liberals accuse Republicans of doing. But it's different for them because....well there is no reason.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

If you are with your mistress on the beach and you see a TV helicopter in the air above you, don't wave and draw attention to yourself. Your wife might find out about it. Important safety tip.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Moqtada Al-Sadr decided to show his face today with an interesting message to his followers: Stop fighting Iraqi's.

"Pay attention: This is an important point," he said. "As far as I know, the occupation is behind this, creating an excuse for it to stay in our beloved Iraq. So don't give it a reason, please."

Calling the message a fatwa -- a religious legal ruling -- al-Sadr said that "any fighting between the brothers is not allowed and [is] forbidden as long as they follow the good and reject the wrong. I advise the dear brothers in the Mehdi Army to resort to peaceful choices if they are attacked by the weak souls."

That's a very big step though. His militia has been responsible for thousands of deaths and he himself was wanted for the murder of a rival cleric a few years back. However, if he's sincere, which is a very big IF, and he militia actually listens to him, you can expect violence levels to drop drastically.

What I think it is is al-Sadr went to Iran and him and the Iranians came up with a simple plan: Stop the violence and the Americans will leave. Which is pretty much why we're still there. The Iraqi government and security forces aren't at 100% and violence levels are high in certain places. If those levels drop to 0%, and the Iraqi's can handle security for themselves, it's job done. What is interesting though, is that I'm willing to bet that Al-Sadr and the Iranians will use the opportunity when we leave to have great influence in Iraq without alienating ordinary Iraqi citizens with random acts of terrorism. It's a pretty simple, effective plan if you ask me.

But I still want those who committed these crimes against Iraqi citizens and our troops to be captured or killed. If al-Sadr's militia want to trade in their guns for political positions, I have no problem with that, as long as they didn't commit any crimes during their time in the militia. But only time will tell. What is most interesting is that the timing of al-Sadr's announcement is close to the time that the military funding budget was being finalized.

Perhaps al-Sadr came up with a plan to ask for non violence because he saw Democrats will wavering and calculated that if violence dropped to nothing, then Democrats would ask for troops to leave, and he would "declare" victory. It's certainly within the realm of possibility. I guess we'll see in the coming months.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

It's now onto the President's desk where he has said he will sign it. It will mark the first minimum wage hike in a very long time, but only funds the war until September. That's when the real fight begins. If no progress is made by that point, Democrats will be emboldened to ask for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

However, this time is now crucial. If we show significant progress in Iraq, Democrats will be pushed into a corner where they must admit that Republican's ideas worked and that more time should be given to the Iraqi government to get their security forces on their feet.

Then we can begin to get nasty with Iran. If Iran doesn't shape up soon, you can bet that a military option becomes more and more of a good idea. However, I'm willing to bet that Iranian leaders are simply waiting for the next Presidential election before they do anything about their nuclear program because they hope for a weakling to take office. If Democrats would grow a backbone and make speeches that show Iran that they won't take their nuclear plans lying down either, it would help bring the situation to a close much quicker.

But who knows? I might be wrong and Iran could be considering backing down as we speak. But alas, I've been proven right many times before, I don't see this time being any different.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Seeing this just irritates me to the bone. If you're a guy who gets drunk at a bar, then goes speeding down the road, talking on the phone, not wearing a seat belt, and crash into someone killing yourself, that's just nature. That's nature taking out the dumber people in the gene pool.

But because the guy involved was professional baseball player Josh Hancock, his father is not only suing the bar (which he may have a case for), he's suing the tow truck driver and the driver of the stalled vehicle for which the tow truck driver came out to pick up.

This is one of the most disgusting things I've seen in a very long time. I hope those involved counter sue this guy into oblivion. The only reason why he's suing is because his meal ticket has died and he has no recourse. He had a son who was making decent cash who probably was helping his father out financially here and there, and now that he did something stupid that got him killed, the father has the AUDACITY to sue someone who's only crime was his car stalled?

Dean Hancock said in a statement that the "facts and circumstances" of Josh's death "have caused great pain to all of Josh's family." As administrator of his son's estate, Dean Hancock said he has an obligation to represent the family on all issues, "including any legal actions necessary against those who contributed to the untimely and unnecessary death."

He's right, Josh's death was "untimely and unnecessary", however Josh didn't have to get drunk, talk on his cell phone, speed, and not wear a seat belt. How about the "great pain" that's being caused to the tow truck driver, the stalled vehicle driver, and the bar owner? Now after having to deal with the thought that they were all involved in some way, shape or form in a fatal accident, they now have to defend themselves from a pompous prick who's only looking for money?

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Is anyone really that surprised? Lebanon is fighting Islamic extremists and they could use some supplies, so who are we to argue? :) If someone came to you and said "hey, I'm fighting with your enemy, I could really use a few bucks", you'd send it to him in an instance wouldn't you? You don't have to do a thing but give them something that you have tons of.

Hell, I'd be willing to send a few guys over to Lebanon to help out with tactics and intelligence gathering. And who can't love a guy who says this: Lebanon's Defense Minister Elias Murr said the Fatah al-Islam militant group "has two choices: either surrender or face decisive military action."

You have two choices; surrender or die. Pretty black and white if you ask me. I can respect someone who is willing to go to the mat. Good luck fellas. If you need anything else, you feel free to ask.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Take a good hard look at the kind of threats we face. Here's a link to a torture manual that was found in a insurgent safehouse. If you think we torture in Guantanamo Bay, these images will have you in a fetal position after the first page. Obviously, they are graphic, so man up and take a whiff.

Now, tell me that this isn't a "war on terror" when our enemies are kidnapping ordinary people and peeling the skin from their bones. Are you still sure you want us to be out of Iraq? Are you still sure that Iraqi's wouldn't be bitter against us if we left them to animals like this? The people freed during these raids likely have had their lives saved because of the actions of our soldiers over there.

As a human being you can't let a known threat out against an unarmed populace. These people are experiencing freedoms and liberties for the first time in over 30 years, and to give them a taste of that then leave them to the wolves is not only wrong, but cruel. We as Americans don't do that. We fight for those who can't fight for themselves. We protect innocent people. We sacrifice for people who may not even appreciate it because it's the right thing to do.

Why do you think we're finding mass graves in Iraq? Insurgents can't be reasoned with and they won't stop until they are captured or killed. So ask yourselves if you want our troops out of Iraq, do you want it to go back to the hellish place it used to be, or would you rather they build up a prosperous nation and become a close ally like Germany and Japan did?

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

It's time for Iran to be hauled in front of the UN again. Tougher sanctions are very likely, but let's cut the bullshit. We need to sanction their oil supply. Sure, it will drive already high prices further up, but Iran's economy is 80% oil revenues. They will crack in VERY short order under the crushing weight of debt with no real revenues. Then, when they do crack, we won't have the nuclear option hanging over the oil market, thus, sending oil prices to the floor.

Or we could just let the Israeli's have their way with them and watch the fireworks from the Gulf. Russia and China can no longer afford to say "well they aren't trying for weapons", because we all know it's bullshit. However, I do like the idea that the IAEA chief has. Create a neutral nuclear fuel depot that all nations have access to, that way you don't have these kinds of potential problems. That would take the wind out of the sails of the Iranian government right now if we had such a thing. However, we already offered to enrich their fuel for them and they refused. We offered to have it enriched at a neutral third party nation, and they refused.

So with that suspicious behavior, the black market documents found pointing towards a nuclear weapon, who can reasonably say that they aren't trying for a weapon?

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Yesterday, I spoke of John Edwards' putting down the "war on terror" bit and how he doesn't take terrorism seriously. But the golden jewel is a video I found on Youtube where Bill O'Reilly asked John Edwards whether Democrats were going to be united in the fight against terrorism. John goes onto explain that he will be "united with the President throughout the fight on terrorism". Bill even asks about Iraq and other places and Edwards says that he supports the President.

THAT'S why I come down on Democrats for their lack of backbone. THAT'S why I throw their own words back in their faces. It's the level of backstabbing hypocracy that I don't like.

Even according to the IAEA, Iran is heading towards a nuclear weapon within 3-8 years. So what can we expect from Edwards as a President? Surely he'll just cave if those on the left if they scream and hold their breath long enough. He's already shown that he'll go whatever way the wind blows. So it's pretty obvious we can't trust him or Democrats to take these kinds of threats seriously.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

You know, there's nothing more satisfying then catching someone directly in either a lie or trying to revise history. Especially when they are caught with their own words. For example: It's now fashionable to say that Bush manipulated intelligence towards a war with Iraq, and being who he is, Al Gore jumps on this bandwagon.

This is the worst strategic mistake in the whole history of United States of America.

But then Al's own words trip him up.

Though back in 2000, when Gore was running for the presidency, he argued that "as long as Saddam stays in power, there can be no comprehensive peace for the people of Israel or the Middle East. We have made clear it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone."

So which is is Al? Would you have NOT gone in and taken care of Iraq? Of course not, you're a sissy Democrat who talks tough when it's needed, but you don't have the backbone to do anything about it. After all, you have a track record of inaction against known threats. You were Vice President when Clinton was in office and yet you both allowed the Al-Qaeda threat to fester until it blew up in our faces on September 11th. Hell, your own boss, Bill Clinton, allowed a known threat, Osama Bin Laden, escape ON PURPOSE because of a financial deal with the UAE.


There was no doubt Saddam was still trying to amass weapons of mass destruction. But in the most recent book he seems to argue the opposite in criticizing President Bush saying he offered "forged evidence that Hussein was seeking to develop atomic bombs." It is not clear which evidence Gore is referring to, because the Clinton administration certainly believed the same thing when it launched bombing raids on Iraq in 1998.


So if "there's no doubt", then how is it that your boss, Bill Clinton, thought the same thing? If "there's no doubt", how did Bush "manipulate" intelligence towards war? Either Bush DIDN'T manipulate intelligence, or you lied back when you said these words. So which is it? Is Bush telling the truth or are you lying? Either way it's a very difficult pill for Democrats to swallow. Man up Al, either admit you are wrong now or you were wrong then. Chances are you're just bitter you lost in an extremely close race, you jump on any bandwagon that gives you a sliver of popularity, and let's face it, you're a terrible leader who would rather sacrifice American lives then do something about threats.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

So if you get a "Life Without Parole" sentence in California, why is it that you still get a parole hearing? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of "without parole"? If that's the case, isn't that just wasting time and taxpayer dollars?

Charles Manson is up for parole again. Of course, no one expects him to actually GET paroled, but if there's literally no chance, let's not waste time and money shall we? California is in some serious debt and they could use the cost savings wherever they can get them. Leave murderers in jail without parole hearings like we were all told at sentencing.

Regardless of if Charles Manson got "life" or "life without parole", I don't think there really should be a difference. You get "life", you stay in jail until the day you die. If you do a crime where the criminal could theoretically get out at some point, give them 30 years or whatever time deemed appropriate by a judge.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Now, I want to be clear here. The Constitution specifically bans "cruel and unusual punishment". So we should always adhere to that. However, the Constitution DOESN'T prohibit a death sentence for rape of a child. Louisiana's State Supreme Court upheld that sentence for that crime today.

I'm all for a death sentence for child rape, but let's take this a bit slower shall we? It's a very slippery slope when you start executing people for crimes other then ones that result in the death of others. We need to define what crimes could and should be eligible for a death sentence. Good examples are:

Treason

Espionage

Forcible Rape of a child

and others. These crimes effect society as a whole and should be put at the top of the list of death penalty cases if we're going to execute for crimes other than murder.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Man, did I call it or what?!?! The girl that is the center of all the attention of World Bank Chief Paul Wolfowitz has left him.

Sources say Riza, a brilliant feminist with a promising diplomatic career, was upset by all the publicity and the implication that she was getting ahead with the help of a powerful man. "She was furious about the embarrassment," said one source.

I call shenanigans on this one. She would have gladly taken the job had it gone over smoothly, but once everything hit the fan, she is trying to play the victim so she can have a shred of integrity at her next job interview. Had she stayed with him, she would look like she knew everything that was going on and approved of it. Because it was deemed unethical, no one would touch her with a ten foot pole because no one wants that kind of liability at their company.

I'm having a good string of "predict the future" luck lately. I AM THE ALMIGHTY OZ! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! :)

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Story is 1/2 way down the page, but the motion to reprimand John Murtha for his comments recently to a Republican representative was defeated and it was voted primarily along party lines. I guess the LA Times were right:

"It doesn't help the Democrats' image that this dispute over Murtha's comments originated in an earmark, a special-interest provision widely seen as part of the 'culture of corruption' decried by Democrats in the last election."

It also doesn't help that Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats campaigned on cleaning up the "culture of corruption" and they were going to run the most open and honest Congress in history. They've proven that they are only interested in keeping power rather than doing what's right.

God, I swear I just keep seeing example after example of Democrats blatant hypocracy and it shows in their poll numbers. It's almost getting to the point where I should just have a running tally on the various things that they've said they would do but do the opposite. At least with Republicans, when they screw up, they are booted out of Congress. I'm still waiting to hear something about William Jefferson getting booted from Congress for his bribery scandal.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Some issues, I'd gladly be wrong about, for example, I'd love for the Iranians to be truly for just nuclear power and be willing to verify it and make it impossible to make weapons. But, on some issues, I know deep in my heart I'm right about and yet, sadly, I'm proven right yet again.

Democrats don't take terrorism seriously. I've said it before. But now, a major Presidential candidate is questioning the entire war on terrorism. He thinks it's a "catch phrase" for the Bush administration to clamp down on civil liberties. John Edwards said this:

"The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe," Edwards said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City. "It's a bumper sticker, not a plan."


Edwards said that Bush's plan to call it a war has "backfired" and caused a rise in terrorist activities, because the term conveys the message to them that the United States is "engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam."

Perhaps if we call it a "cute and fuzzy bunny hoping that terrorism might go away", then things would get better Mr. Edwards? Perhaps if we were just nice to everyone and supported our allies when they asked for help, the world would be sunshine and rainbows? Oh wait, we did that for our friends the Saudi's and Osama used that as an excuse to attack us. Get your head out of your ass Edwards, we're in it to win it, and if you don't understand the threats we face every single day, then you aren't worthy of leading this nation.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Finally someone who calls the Iranian bullshit!

"Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq and it's a very dangerous course for them to be following. They are already committing daily acts of war against US and British forces," a senior US official in Baghdad warned. "They [Iran] are behind a lot of high-profile attacks meant to undermine US will and British will, such as the rocket attacks on Basra palace and the Green Zone [in Baghdad]. The attacks are directed by the Revolutionary Guard who are connected right to the top [of the Iranian government]."

They are committing DAILY ACTS OF WAR against our troops. If Democrats would grow a spine, and truly "support the troops" they would want Iranian asses nailed to a wall over this. They would want Iran yanked in front of the UN with crippling sanctions and UN authorization for force. But they don't. You know why? They appease their pussy constituents who don't want to fight against those who want us and our soldiers dead. They don't want to fight back against those who want to crush the fledgling Iraqi government.

If we started bombing Iranian places that support the insurgency, you can bet that Iran would be up in arms at the UN asking for us to knock it off. So why are we taking one to the chin? Our grandparents didn't take one to the chin like this when Germany and Japan needed an ass kicking in WWII, so what the hell's the problem now? We carpet bombed the shit out of them until there was rubble. Then we bombed the rubble.

But we're too sissified to do anything about it. We're too worried about world opinion. Iran is thinking they can pull this shit and get away with it, and until we retaliate, they are right. So, the next bomb that goes off that can be tied to Iran, we bomb a bomb making factory. The next sniper rifle that gets found on an insurgent that came from Iran, Iran loses a radar station. Pretty soon they start seeing real consequences for their actions. Until now, they've done it pretty much without resistance. It's time for that to stop, otherwise we'll keep sending men to soldier's homes to explain why their loved ones aren't coming home alive. That's unacceptable.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

25% of young Muslims in America say that suicide attacks are justifiable in some instances. But let's take a bit of a harder look at this.

That means that they think, in theory, that it's ok to blow themselves up for their religion. Does that mean that they'll do it? Unlikely, but it does mean that we should take this report seriously. You'll find all sorts of people who believe something but don't have the guts to do something about it. First off, where are young Muslims in America going to get explosives? Sure, they could stockpile black powder or some other minor explosives such as that, but let's see where things can go wrong.

This is America. Land of the free. That means EVERYONE, including them. Many terrorist attacks didn't happen simply because of the nature of America. They simply took a look around and said to themselves "this place isn't as bad as they said it was". Let's not bullshit, we've got some of the finest women on the planet too. You're telling me that some kid with a girlfriend is gonna go for the bomb rather than the pussy? Very unlikely.

Secondly, when you're young, you have all sorts of stupid things go through your head, mine included. So how much of this is actual "I believe this and I'm going to do it"? I'd say less than a fraction of a percent. That's not to say that we shouldn't take this poll seriously and see what we can do to prevent such things, but let's not "knee jerk" this.

"The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance"

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

The UK has enough evidence to try a Russian for the poisoning of a former KGB agent, but what does Russia say? Tough shit. It appears to be against Russian law to extradite the guy. Now of course, they say the guy COULD be tried in Russia under Russian law, but let's cut the bullshit here, who here things that could happen?

Didn't think so. There's been too many suspicious deaths in recent months with regards to the Russian government, so don't be surprised if in 10-20 years you hear some former KGB guy on the Discovery Channel talking about this case admitting that they were behind it. There's just too much oddity with this case for them not to be involved. They poisoned the guy with a rare, radioactive element. Kinda points the finger doesn't it? Why not just walk up and shoot the guy in the face and take his wallet to make it look like a robbery gone bad?

But no, Russia wants to be theatrical. Well let them. I'm sure that sooner or later, our friend Lugovoi will come to a sudden, violent end to his life.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Democrats have put forth a bill that strips away the time line for Iraq to meet certain goals otherwise they don't get aid for various things. However, they have said that they will try to put in time lines for other bills during the summer. What they've done is twofold.

First, they are appearing to be compromising on their issue while getting the minimum wage hiked. However, what they are really doing is dividing up their demands across multiple bills. So instead of saying "we want this, this, and this", they are saying "we want this" and it appears that's only a minor thing. So Republicans agree to it. Then, later down the road, they say "we want this other thing too", that will also, separately appear to be a minor thing. Republicans will foolishly say ok to it. Then they will say "we want this one last thing" and it will also appear to be minor and some Republicans will say ok to that too.

Then, when the summer months come along, more progress will happen in Iraq and Democrats will say "see, Iraqi's don't need us here anymore, let's call for a time line". Some people might foolishly believe them and say ok. However, we MUST make sure that NO TIME LINE EVER gets into any bill. If they accomplish these things, they will be able to go to their constituents and say "see, we accomplished all the things we said we would. It took a bit longer then we expected, but we did it". Thus, their approval ratings will go up because idiots can't see the big picture.

Don't believe me? Bookmark this article and check back in around August/September and see how close I am to the truth. Damn, I need to get into the "Political Psychic" game. I seem to be pretty good at it. :)

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Wow, what a pain in the ass day today has been. LAMP servers having issues, DNS issues, all sorts of craziness. And that's just my work stuff. But everything seems to have settled, so I'll get back to posting. Sorry again for the delay.

Travis

Today I have several things to take care of, so my posts will be later then my usual time. Sorry for the delay. :)

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

There's rumors going around that Democrats are pushing a military spending budget that does NOT have a timeline in it, however it did add an increase for minimum wage. If the rumors are true, it would mean that the Democrats have seriously undercut themselves just to avoid the perception that they are not supporting the troops. While we all know that Democrats don't really support the military, the perception is worse because it would show even their own rank and file members that they are hypocrites.

What's worse is that when election time comes around, they are likely to lose votes because they promised to end the war, even going so far as to cut funding for it, yet they did the exact opposite. This further cements the stereotype that they will do what keeps them in power rather than doing what's right.

The budget that includes a minimum wage hike also includes tax breaks for those who hire minimum wage workers. This will help offset the amount of price increases that you and I will face for our everyday items. However, individual businesses might decide to take the tax breaks and still charge more for goods and services.

Still, I'd rather Shay (a soldier I know in Afghanistan) get better gear and weapons than me having to pay $30 bucks for a pizza. It's a tradeoff that I know will help me sleep better at night.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

John Murtha's little attempt at bullying a fellow House member is coming back to bite him in the ass big time. Now, Nancy Pelosi is coming out to defend him. What's really funny is that A) John Murtha isn't disputing anything that was allegedly said. and B) Nancy isn't disputing it either.

So what that means is that everything that this Republican representative alleges is true. You can argue one way or another, but the first thing Mr. Murtha should have said was "this isn't true" if it wasn't. But he didn't because he has witnesses against him that would contradict him. What that also means is, is that he broke House rules and threatened another Representative with removing any and all earmarks "now and forever".

Pelosi even went a step further and tried to deflect the heat off of Murtha and tried to blame Republicans. "I wasn't there" for the confrontation, Pelosi said. "I do know that the Republicans caused quite a stir that was unjustified on the floor of the House, and I'm sure things were said on both sides."

"I wasn't there" is a decent statement, showing that she's not an expert on the situation, but then she goes on to say "Republicans caused quite a stir that was unjustified....I'm sure things were said on both sides."

Now she's just making shit up. Republicans may have indeed "caused a stir", but she doesn't say that it was Representative Rogers who caused the "stir". Secondly, in one breath she admits she wasn't there, but in the one right after, she makes an accusation even though "I wasn't there".

So which is it Nancy? Were you there and heard and saw what happened, or were you not there and are making shit up to deflect a punishment for your favorite lapdog?

You claimed in your campaign and the campaigns of other Democrats during the '06 election that you were going to run the most open and honest Congress in history, but now you're showing that you're not willing to rap the knuckles of those within your party that have broken the rules. That means you're a liar and you're no better then those you've accused of partisanship and lying to the American people. You meant none of those words about Honesty, Integrity, Fiscal Responsibility, and others. I have included links on each word to their Websters dictionary definitions since it is quite obvious you need help knowing what those words mean.

If you need additional help with understanding basic concepts such as doing what's right for the American public, please feel free to contact me and I will gladly take the time to teach you.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

The House has now gotten it's ass in gear over F-14 aircraft parts being sold on the market, which is where Iran is snapping them up in a hurry. I wrote about this in January, but they are now getting on the ball about it. I just can't believe that it even needs to be said or done. Military parts that are no longer needed should be melted down and recycled or destroyed. It's that simple.

If an ally needs these parts, fine, sell them the parts. But can any of you name a legitimate reason why a military aircraft's parts need to be going on sale anywhere? I could understand if say a billionaire bought one that was demilitarized, but sales should be restricted to him and the part that is being sold to them should have a "core" returned upon the sale just like an auto part.

Am I the asshole here? Am I the only one doing the thinking? Military parts are for the military.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

US officials claimed today that the incoming UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, would not pull troops from Iraq. While I like hearing that news, I want to hear it from Mr. Brown himself. Pulling troops right now would be a major mistake and cause significant disruptions to Iraqi security forces and other rebuilding efforts. But, let's let Mr. Brown get settled into his new office before we slam him with questions.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

Jimmy Carter decided to take a jab at President Bush and his policies a little bit ago. That's fine. That's what Freedom of Speech is all about. However, I do have a problem with is "apology". First off, man up Jimmy. If you say something and mean it, say it and stand by it. Don't offer some half assed apology that's meant to appease people who get pissed at your comments. Let's take a look at what was said:

“I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.”

Pretty direct if you ask me. But then let's look at his half assed "apology"

"They were maybe careless or misinterpreted." He said he “certainly was not talking personally about any president.”

“I think they were, yes, because they were interpreted as comparing this whole administration to all other administrations."

Jimmy, let's cut the bullshit here shall we? You were personally talking about Bush and you used the words "this administration has been the worst in history", yet you think they were "interpreted" to be comparing administrations to all others? You used those EXACT words.

But then again, if you want to compare administrations, let's do that shall we? You gave away the Panama canal which robbed American merchants of millions in saved dollars. You appeased the Iranians during the US embassy situation, and when you authorized a raid, it went disastrously. Inflation was through the roof. The prime rate was at 21.5%, the highest for ANY President ever. Shall I go on?

There's a reason you were slaughtered in the 1980 election Jimmy. There's a reason the Iranians released the hostages the DAY that Ronald Reagan took office. They knew Reagan wasn't messing around and would do more then your lame duck policies ever would. That's not to say that President Bush is perfect. He's not by any stretch of the imagination, but if you're going to criticize, at least have some credibility behind your words.

Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com

While the summer months are always more expensive in terms of cost per gallon, gasoline has now hit a record high, even when adjusted for inflation. Now, we all know the basics on how to stretch more mileage out of a gallon of gas such as drive slower, make multiple errands into one trip, avoid stop and go, etc., but I'm the kind of guy to give you tough love, so here it is.

First up, trade in that clunker for a hybrid. I've owned one (Honda Insight) and while I did have one minor problem with it, it was an excellent car. The problem I had with it was when it got above 90 degrees and I would kick on the A/C, in stop and go traffic, pretty soon the battery would run down to zero and I would have to turn off the A/C, let the battery recharge, then kick the A/C back on. This was probably more because the Insight's gas engine was a paltry 60 some HP. Stop and go traffic for this meant 10+ miles of stop and go, not just a minor slow down here and there.

Shop around for gas, to a degree. Don't drive across town to save 5 cents a gallon, when you'll burn all that savings off getting to the gas station. If it's a mile or two, go for it, but when you get 10+ miles out of your way, you're not saving jack.

Stop driving as much. This one is the one that most people scoff at. We're America. We drive everywhere. However, if you drive all over the place for no real reason, you don't have a right to bitch about the price of gas.

Get a motorcycle. Some people wouldn't think of this one. Get a motorcycle. They get great gas mileage, even the crotch rockets. Most get anywhere from 40+mpg on up. Plus, you get to use the car pool lane in most states, so you get to get home quicker. Just make sure you get a quality helmet and some thick leathers. You want your skin to remain intact don't you? Remember, there are two kinds of motorcycle riders, those who've fell, and those you are going to fall. A nice, full faced helmet and a set of thick leathers (leather jacket, pants, and boots) will save you tons of time and pain when you do eventually go down.

Look at alternative fuel vehicles. A lot of people are talking about hydrogen or electric vehicles. Those are nice and they definitely have a niche, but I don't know what it is about the allure of the compressed air car that does it for me. It's ugly as sin, but it's priced very cheaply (starting at around $7,500 rumored), and completely does away with foreign oil. You actually clean the air if you're driving one of these around because of the various filters on the car. When/if they ever come to the US, I will definitely give this one a serious look.

Ride a bike. If you live in a densely populated area, a bicycle might be something you could look into. It's great exercise and you can get around traffic and other obstacles quite easily.

The reason why gas companies are charging more right now is simple demand. We are demanding more gas and they are charging what the market will bear. Get the demand down and they will be forced to reduce the price.

Travis
travis@rightwingluanatic.com