Subscribe: Texas Conservative
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
american  bush  council  courtesy cox  cox forkum  iraq  john kerry  john  kerry  life  read thing  security council  troops  uncle john 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Texas Conservative

Texas Conservative

Views on current events from a Texas conservative

Updated: 2012-03-25T16:18:36.785-05:00


Time Saving Tip for the Times ...


Jon Henke presents a time saving tip for the New York Times ...

Publish the editorials on the corrections page !

"Unarmed Insurgent ?" ...


Thomas Sowell takes on the media idiots ...
During the recent election campaign, it has been a liberal mantra that they "support the troops" while opposing the war in Iraq. Just what does supporting the troops mean -- other than just a throwaway line to escape the political consequences of a long history of being anti-military?

It certainly does not mean making the slightest effort to understand the pressures and dangers of combat, so as to avoid the obscenity of sitting in peace and comfort while second-guessing at leisure some life-and-death decisions that had to be made in a split second by men 10,000 miles away.

The latest example is the now widely-publicized incident in which an American Marine in Iraq shot and killed a wounded terrorist in Fallujah. Chris Matthews on Hardball spoke of "what may be the illegal killing of a wounded, unarmed insurgent" -- the politically correct media term for a terrorist -- and asked: "Is there ever a justification for shooting an unarmed enemy?"

The unreality of this question is breath-taking, both logically and historically. How do you know that someone is unarmed, when finding out can cost you your life? A hand grenade is easily concealed and can kill you just as dead as if you were shot by a machine gun or hit by a nuclear missile.

....Why any such terrorists should be captured alive in the first place is a real question. Maybe they have information that could be useful. But every terrorist our troops try to capture alive increases the risk of death for American combat troops.

Their information better be damned important for that.

It is more than enough to ask a man to put his life on the line for his country, without needlessly increasing those risks by trying to be nobler than thou or playing to the international gallery. The very fact that this Marine in Fallujah has been taken out of combat and is under investigation can only have an inhibiting effect on other troops.

The inhibitions under which American troops have already had to fight have needlessly jeopardized their safety while we tiptoe around the delicate sensibilities of the media, European critics and "the Arab street."

The Times of London refers to a Marine "killing an unarmed man in cold blood." If that was his purpose he could have opened fire when he entered the room, instead of waiting until he saw an Iraqi terrorist faking being dead -- for what purpose the Marine had no way of knowing.
It seems astonishing that the media highbrows seem to place more value on the life of a terrorist, bent on killing as many "infidels" as possible, over that of an American soldier.

Read the whole thing.

Watch Your Six ... Film at Eleven


Watch as the mainstream media circus begins over the shooting of a terrorist in Fallujah by a US marine.


(Courtesy of Cox and Forkum)

Post Election Blogging Burnout ...


Well it's been two weeks to the day since the election, and I have almost recovered from my post election blogging burnout.

Sorry for the dearth of posts ... I just could not find anything I wanted to say for a while.

In the meantime, my wife and I took a relaxing trip to the west coast to visit relatives, and to attend my neice's two year birthday party.

The weather was very agreeable for Santa Cruz this time of year, and the trip was refreshing.

For your viewing pleasure, I present ... sea otters just off of the beach at Capitola !


Expect light blogging for a while, as I get my wind back, and as always, thanks for stopping by !

Awaiting the Decision on Pins and Needles ...



(Courtesy of Cox and Forkum)

The Decision ...



Choose wisely America ...

(Image courtesy of Cox and Forkum)

50 Reasons ...


Over at the American Digest, a Democrat voting Republican for the first time posts a photo-essay listing 50 reason to vote for Bush.

Go check out this very moving piece ...

Caught in the Act ...


I received by e-mail a photo of the elusive "undecided" voter.

This voter was actually photographed in the act of voting !


The "Paper of Record" ...



(Courtesy of Neal Boortz)

Kerry, Not Bush, Would Reinstate the Draft ...


A reader of No Left Turns writes that Kerry would be much more likely to need to reinstate the draft than would Bush ...
Hasn’t anyone considered that Kerry would need a draft a lot more than Bush? Bush is very popular among current military personnel (he stands to get 75% to 80% of the military vote), and the various branches are currently meeting recruitment goals. In contrast, Kerry is reviled by about 95% of those who served directly with him because he pissed all over them with false accusations of atrocities merely to promote his own political ambitions. Who the hell would volunteer to serve under such a commander in chief?
In fact, this is very much in line with what I learned today from talking with a student who has friends in the armed forces. It is no secret that the men and women of the military find Kerry despicable, and apparently there are many who say that if he is elected they will not reenlist. Assuming he would be unable to make up for these losses with French and German soldiers, it is at least as reasonable to suppose that Kerry would reinstate the draft as it is to suggest that the president might.

Curious Specimen ...



(Courtesy of Cox and Forkum)

Still Undecided ...


Victor Davis Hanson reminds us of the historical perspective on the current electoral race ...
Had Lincoln lost the 1864 vote, a victorious General McClellan would have settled for an American continent divided, with slavery intact. Without Woodrow Wilson's reelection in 1916 — opposed by the isolationists — Western Europe would have lost millions only to be trampled by Prussian militarism. Franklin Roosevelt's interventionism saved liberal democracy. And without the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan and his unpopular agenda for remaking the military, the Soviet Union might still be subsidizing global murder.

This election marks a similar crossroads in our history. We are presented with two radically different candidates with profound disagreements about how to conduct a historic worldwide war. We should remember that all our victorious past presidents were, at the moments of their crises, deeply unpopular precisely because they chose the difficult, long-term sacrifice for victory over the expedient and convenient pleas for accommodation (if not outright capitulation). We are faced with just such an option today: a choice between a president whose call for patience and sacrifice promises victory, and a pessimist stirring the people with the assurances that we should not have fought, and now cannot win, the present war in Iraq.
(Emphasis added)

Are you still undecided ... ??

(Hat Tip to Bunker Mulligan)

Dear "Uncle John" ...


Jay Tea, over at the Wizbang blog, posts a letter to his old family friend, "Uncle John" ...
John Kerry is actually an old family friend of mine. In fact, growing up, I knew him as my beloved "Uncle John."

I have a scrapbook I keep of my Uncle John. It has many treasured memories.

One of the oldest items I have is a Christmas card from Uncle John. It's from 1969, when I was barely two years old. I even saved the envelope it came in - I was fascinated by the Cambodian stamp and postmark on it, even at that age.

A few pages later in the book is a postcard from the early 70's. It features the Eiffel Tower on it, and it is signed by "Cmdr. John F. Kerry USNR)." He also sent me the autographs of several North Vietnamese officials Uncle John was good enough to collect for me.
Don't drink any fluids while you read the whole thing!

Woman of the People ?


Ally Eskin, over at Who Moved My Truth, takes Teresa Heinz-Kerry to task over her latest moronic comments ...
Last time I checked, women can say anything they damn well please in the United States of America. I know that isn't the case everywhere in the world, but here in our country, you can say what you want and be heard. Just look at the internet and blogosphere, public TV, radio talk shows, etc.
Go read the whole thing!

The Face of the "New" Democrat Party ...


On a recent edition of Scarborough Country, John O'Neill of the Swift Boat Vets and POWs faced off against partisan Democrat hack Lawrence O'Donnell.

The result was a screamfest, with O'Donnell repeatedly screaming out that O'Neill was a "liar", at the top of his lungs.

The full transcript is here if you can stand it.

This is the "new" face of the Democrat party ... if you can't refute the facts, just scream as loud as you can ...

Michelle Malkin comments ...
It doesn't do justice at all to the screamfest that took place, but you'll get the idea if you imagine O'Donnell chopping at the air with a rhetorical hatchet a la Jack Nicholson in The Shining ...

Bob Hayes: Why I am Pro-Life ...


Bob Hayes, over at the Let's Try Freedom blog, posts a touching photo-essay, "Why I am Pro-Life".

Nothing more needs to be said, except ... go check it out.

Florida in the Bag for Bush ?


Jay Cost, over at The Horserace Blog, has performed another outstanding analysis, and is predicting a Bush win in Florida.

If you are a political junkie, and are not reading Jay's daily analyses, then you are definitely not as "informed" as you should be !

UPDATE: The Gallup poll released tonight has Bush up with a big lead over Kerry in Florida, 51-43.

Ten Reasons ...


... that Jim Treacher is not voting for Bush.

(Hat Tip to Vodkapundit)

Storytelling ...



(Courtesy of Cox and Forkum)

Kerry Lied About Meeting With UN Security Council ...


Turns out that Kerry lied about meeting with the UN Security Council before the 2002 congressional vote to authorize the use of force.

In an article posted in tomorrow's Washington Times, Joel Mobray's investigation exposes the lies ...
U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred.

At the second presidential debate earlier this month, Mr. Kerry said he was more attuned to international concerns on Iraq than President Bush, citing his meeting with the entire Security Council.

"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said of the Iraqi dictator.

Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.
Remember that Kerry told America that his mother reminded him on her deathbed, "Integrity, integrity, integrity", when he informed her of his decision to run for president ?

This shouldn't surprise anyone but, evidently he wasn't listening, and certainly shows no evidence of exhibiting any integrity ...

Go read the whole thing !

What I am ...


George Essef, Sr. spent over $100,000 of his own money to take out an ad in the Washington Post ...
You’re a Republican???

In today’s America, ask a growing number of high school and college students; their teachers and professors; the self-anointed media elite and/or hard working men and women of all ethnicities, the question, “What is a Republican?”, and you’ll be told “… a rich, greedy, egotistical individual, motivated only by money and the desire to accumulate more and more of it, at the expense of the environment … the working poor ….and all whom they exploit…”

I am a Republican … I am none of those things… and I don’t know any Republicans who are.


WHAT I AM … is a man who feels the need to spend, $104, 655.60,(tax paid) of his own money, to purchase this advertisement, in order to set the story straight. Some may say this money would have been better spent feeding the world’s poor. At the risk of sounding self-serving, as an American and as a Republican, for the last six decades of my life, I have done exactly that… and more. Following the examples of my parents and grand parents, I have used my earnings to feed the poor, shelter the homeless, provide housing for the elderly and medical care for the sick….. and continue to do so… and I’m not alone in that work.

WHAT I AM … is someone who is paying for this announcement, at my sole expense, in hopes of opening the eyes of those led blindly by ill-informed elements of our great nation, who, through either ignorance, or malicious intent, repeatedly attack and belittle those of us who belong to a political party that holds true to the belief, “… the rights of the governed, exceed the power of the government”. For those interested, I am speaking only as a tax-paying individual who is in no way associated with The Republican National Committee, nor with any of its directors, or delegates.
Go read the whole thing !

(Hat Tip to Polipundit)

Liberal Political Discourse ...


As if you didn't already know, many (not all) liberals contribute nothing to the political discourse except hate.

A returned Iraqi war veteran, running for political office, was spit on by a liberal activist during a public debate.

Evidently this liberal grad student hasn't learned much in school ...

(Hat Tip to Smash)

Kerry Foreign Policy ...


From Charles Krauthammer ...

The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is to rebuild our alliances so the world will come to our aid, especially in Iraq. He repeats this endlessly because it is the only foreign policy idea he has to offer. The problem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just how he proposes to do this. . . .

He really does want to end America's isolation. And he has an idea how to do it. For understandable reasons, however, he will not explain how on the eve of an election.

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming majority of countries at the United Nations?

The answer is obvious: Israel.

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them on Israel.

No Democrat will say that openly. But anyone familiar with the code words of Middle East diplomacy can read between the lines.
Based on everything Kerry's said and done to date, I cannot help but agree.

On a Related Note ...


This jaw-dropper from Citizen Smash ...

Senator John Forbes Kerry and President George Walker Bush are distant cousins !.

The Kerry Doctrine ...


Would John Kerry really do all that is required to protect Americans ?

You be the judge ...
Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."
(Emphasis added)

Kerry's position has consistently been on the wrong side of every conflict that America has been involved in since Vietnam.

Do you really think he would make the necessary choices to project American power when needed ?