Why is it, when a Republican sets in the oval office, we always seem to be arguing about America’s actions, and Hollywood celebrates are staging protests and making insulting un-American remarks about our country and our president, but when a Democrat resides there, we are simple doing what we must, and the President gets a pass regardless of his actions?

Where were all the peace-at-any-price liberals when Saddam invaded Iran and used chemical weapons? Where were they when he invaded Kuwait? In all the years of anti-American and anti-Bush tirades, I have not heard a single word of liberal condemnation of Saddam Hussein for not living up to his 1991 cease-fire agreement with the UN, the same UN to which liberals demand America to surrender its sovereignty.

I would also like to point out that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is not, legally speaking, a ‘new’ war with Iraq. It is in fact a continuation of Desert Storm due to the flagrant violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreement by Saddam Hussein. As you may recall the Clinton Administration launched attacks on Iraq during the 90’s on the same legal basis, and without new UN resolutions or specific congressional authorization. Bush had both, yet liberals fail to acknowledge the disparity.

The favorite slogan of the protesting "left coast celebrates" is “Bush lied and people died”. They conveniently fail to remember that Clinton said the same thing about both regime change and WMDs. I suppose the logic here is "throw up enough mud and some of it will stick". If the mud is internally contradictory, no one will mind as long as the goal (defeating or weakening Bush) is achieved.

The Left’s pacifism extends only to the exercise of US military power while its belligerent enemies – be they the expansionistic Soviets or murderous Islamists – invariably get a pass. Contradictions such as this reveal the Left’s true agenda, which is not peace as they say, but rather, America's defeat. The Left’s Secret Pact: is not "War on Terror”, but rather "War on Republicans".

I have never found a so-called Liberal principle that is universally applied. They will excuse the same action made by a fellow liberal (or by a liberal group) that they would adamantly condemn a Conservative for doing. I learned long ago to not expect any consistency in the liberal thought process.

A bipartisan bill has been introduced in the house calling for the immediate and unconditional release of British marines and sailors held captive by Iran. It has a simple purpose of condemning the actions of Iran, and demanding release of captured British soldiers.

Following is the "guts" of the bill, you can read the entire bill at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-267
******************************************************************
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) condemns the Islamic Republic of Iran for the seizure of 15 British marines and sailors and demands their unconditional release; and

(2) calls on the United Nations Security Council to condemn this seizure and explore new sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the restriction of the supply of gasoline, to prevent further Iranian hostile action, deny Iran’s ability to militarize the Persian Gulf, and enforce Iran’s nonproliferation commitments.
******************************************************************

Britain has been our greatest ally in the war on terror so it comes as no surprise that the House of Representatives came up with a "BIPARTISIAN BILL" supporting them while the United Nations remains silent.

There is one big problem however. Nancy Pelosi is not allowing the bill to come to the floor for a vote. For God's sake Nancy, this is not a declaration of war, it's merely a statement of support for our number one ally.

In a recent interview with The Chicago Tribune, Marine General Peter Pace, a decorated war hero and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the following when ask about the Military's "don't ask, don't tell policy".

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts, I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

"As an individual, I would not want [acceptance of gay behavior] to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else's wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior," Pace said.

What the General failed to realize is, in today's liberal, political correct environment, you no longer have freedom of speech. Liberal senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (among others) have been quick to chastise the General for his remarks despite the fact that both profess to be Christians. They have unilaterally proclaimed that homosexual behavior "is not immoral". They have, in their infinite knowledge, determined that God almighty, the Bible, every major world religion, the science of human biology and just plain common sense have had it wrong sense the beginning of mankind.

These self-proclaimed arbiters of sexual morality have overturned the very Biblical authority to which they claim to subscribe, and ruled that homosexual acts, which expose "gay" men to extremely high risk of Aids, are perfectly acceptable behavior. If they had their way, I suppose the General would be sent to "rehab" to be cured of his bigotry and homophobia.

I have already stated my feelings about the so-called "hate crime laws", in my blog of February 22nd entitled "Be careful who you hate". Well, the liberal "thought police" have only just begun. Congressman John Conyers (D-Michigan) recently introduced the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (HR 1592). This bill would grant sweeping and entirely subjective power and authority to the federal government to regulate the thoughts and speech of all Americans. It would essentially create a "Federal Department of Thought Police".

As I stated in my previous blog, anyone who commits a violent crime should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law regardless of a victim's lifestyle choice. And there have always been laws on the books to ensure that all victims of violent crime receive equal justice under the law. We do not need laws, which grant "unequal justice" based on sexual orientation or Race, or anything else.

HR 1592 would require officials to get into the mind of an offender, and somehow determine whether acts and/or words directed at homosexuals were somehow motivated by bias. If it's decided that they were, then the offender is to receive a much heavier sentence.

I am sick and tired of hearing Democrats say that the eight Federal Prosecutors were fired for political reasons. The Administrations response to that should be "SO WHAT". U.S. attorneys are "political appointees," and so by definition can be replaced for political reasons. They are appointed to four-year terms by the president and serve at his pleasure, meaning they can be dismissed at any time. Since the very beginnings of the Republic, presidents have always had the constitutional right to remove their political appointees, for any reason or no reason at all.

If San Diego's Carol Lam was not in step with the Administration on immigration enforcement, or New Mexico's David Iglesias was judged insufficiently aggressive on voter fraud, then it was entirely appropriate for the President to replace them with officials more in line with his views.

There would, of course, be genuine grounds for outrage if a U.S. attorney were dismissed for interfering with a specific prosecution, or to protect a friend of the President. This was the reason for the objection, in 1993, when Janet Reno fired all 93 U.S. attorneys in the early days of the Clinton Administration. But there is no such evidence involving any of these eight attorneys. Another major difference in the two cases would be that these eight were fired after a sufficient time for their performance to be evaluated, and in 1993, they were not given an opportunity to prove themselves.

As for Congress's subpoenas, it doesn't require a "rocket scientist" to understand the true motive. They are being issued largely for the disruption they create for the Bush Administration, never mind the lack of any evidence. Democrats know that they can't be enforced without a long legal fight that would extend toward the end of the Bush Presidency. The point isn't to learn what Karl Rove knows, or Congress would accept the White House offer to interview him in private.

Congressional Democrats are preoccupied with disrupting the Administration at every opportunity, and discrediting Republicans in general. Another good example of this would be all the talk about impeachment. Everyone knows full well there has been no impeachable offence. Their thinking is of course, that they will benefit from all of this in the next election. This could very well backfire on them, just as the Republicans Liberal pandering backfired on them, in the last election.

It never ceases to amaze me how long it takes for supposedly intelligent people to see the truth….
The following is from The Wall Street Journal.

Monday, March 19, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The media are finally catching up with Al Gore. Criticism of his anti-global-warming franchise and his personal environmental record has gone beyond ankle-biting bloggers. It's now coming from the New York Times and the Nashville Tennessean, his hometown paper that put his birth, as a senator's son, on its front page back in 1948, and where a young Al Gore Jr. worked for five years as a journalist.

*********************************************************************
You can read the entire story here.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110009804

P.S. Would someone please explain to me how to make a "LINK" work.