Commercial : High Gas Prices

version 1: Voiceover ... over 10 years ago, the Democrat president vetoed legislation that would have allowed AMERICAN companies to replace dependence on foreign oil with AMERICAN resources ... allowing us to supply our own needs at prices we could have some control over. Exploring American resources also would have created additional wealth for American companies hiring American employees in America, instead of forcing us to send billions of dollars to hostile governments in the Middle East. Recently the liberals succeeded in once again preventing us from developing resources at home ... and Americans are paying the price.

Nobody is happy with high gas prices, and the Democrats are only too happy to try to blame Mr. Bush for the problem. But the truth is that Democrats have consistently prevented us from gaining energy independence by shutting down any attempts to find oil here.



version 2 : ANWR ... a 20Million Acre expanse of wilderness at the north end of Alaska, may contain more oil then all the reserves of Saudi Arabia, enough to completely free America from dependence on the radicals keeping foreign oil prices extreme. Yet the Democrats and some liberal Republicans are preventing us from gaining the independence from foreign oil and the corresponding security it provides. We have known that there is oil up there for decades, and we are reasonably sure there is a lot, but we will only find out how much if we can defeat the liberal fanatics who continue to prevent America from developing its own resources.

American companies creating American jobs and American wealth, with the potential to give us oil independence from the radicals in the Middle East and South America ... and it is all being blocked by liberal Democrats who want you to blame it on Mr. Bush.

When you are pumping $3, $4 or $5 a gallon gas in the future, it is a perfectly normal response to get upset with government officials that are partially to blame for the problem ... but just make sure you are blaming the right politicians.

(Ex-) Military setting political policy?

The US was a remarkable experiment in democracy way back when ... and one of the prime reasons for that was the fact that the military was subservient in power to the civilian authority. This has essentially sustained the federation ... that the powers in the military have *always* been not only subservient, but almost religiously so ... military men will *always* answer criticisms from morons (generally Democraps) with the phrase "I will defend to the death their right to say so ...".

Civilian leadership of the military has sometimes proven to be highly problematic, with disasterous consequences borne by the military. When the civilian leadership, for geo-political reasons, tinker with the mechanisms of war, it generally leads to disaster. Witness Vietnam, Iran and Somalia ... where the (idiot liberals) leadership forced the military to fight with their hands tied. In the modern era, the leadership has had the wisdom to leave the fighting to the fighting men, witness the dramatic victories in Iraq (2x) and Afghanistan. Funny how the disasters took place under the Democraps, while the overwhelming victories were under Republicans ... but I digress!

Now, however, for purely political reasons, the Democraps have rallied behind a handful of military leaders who are hammering the Administration on Iraq. Nevermind the obvious hypocrisy of the lefties suddenly supporting the military (OK, not really, since these are retired leaders), nor the fact that it is a laughable number of ex-generals (what, less than .1% of the retired leadership, if we only count generals). Do we really want to get into a situation where we start getting a Kabal of ex-military commenting on political grounds?

Do not get me wrong ... "I will defend to the death their right to do so ..." ... nobody is arguing whether or not they have the inherent right to comment. Actually, I might be wrong about that, since there is a military code that leaders are held to (albeit I am not real sure of the nuance, particularly once one leaves the military).

The key here is that a line has been crossed ... these criticisms are on a geopolitical scale, not simple critique of war operations. These are also not "generic" type comments, such as questioning the efficacy of certain applications of military power (i.e. "police" actions, special ops, drug interdiction, etc), but a straight up criticism of a political decision. Finally, this is a "hit-n-run" type operation ... these "ex-generals" have not made the transition from military to political life (ala Richard Clark, who nobody takes seriously any longer), but are simply taking pot-shots from their armchairs. They are using an inherent authority (the "title" of ex-general), with its inherent immunity from criticism ("how *dare* you question true patriots"?) with no accountability whatsoever.

The bottom line is that people should realize that a line has been crossed, and that we might want to think through the ramifications of that fact before boldly moving forward.

Bulls-eye!

In an interview with Rush Limbaugh today (had to stay home with the kids for Resurrection Sunday break) ... Defense Secretary Rumsfeld indicated that the folks in the media are no longer interested in "embeds".

And a few months ago in my Katrina comments, I hit the nail on the head. The reporters DO NOT WANT TO KNOW what is really going on, because then they can tell the story that they want to tell and then murmur, preferably in an indiscernable tone or with Clintonesque weasel words, that what they are reporting as fact is really the story they are being TOLD and not actual, verifiable facts. The freedom of not knowing the truth frees up the report for wild speculation ... fitting into whatever template the reporter wants to fit it into ... and it is always anti-Bush.

We already know that many of the reporters never leave the cocktail bar at the hotel, instead paying Iraqi contacts to get them the stories. It is also common knowledge that the Iraqis know that they make more money if the story is particularly bad news for the US. It also explains the wide gulf between what the soldiers are encountering on a day to day basis and what the reporters are reporting.

The fact that the reporters are no longer willing to ride along with the troops speaks volumes about what they are up to. It is very similar to the reporting on Katrina and the Superdome fiasco ... where reporters were literally telling us incredibly ugly stories about the goings on inside ... that all turned out to be total B.S. My point at that time was that these cockroaches were telling stories about what was BEING REPORTED as going on inside the Dome, when all that they had to do was open the door and walk in and see for themselves. Bottom line is that they did not want to (or perhaps knew but pretended not to) know what was *really* going on inside because they were able to make up whatever garbage they wanted to.

Conclusion

If one of your pals comments on Iraq and how bad things are ... you ask them how the hell they could possibly know? The news media now refuses to ride along with the military because they do not want the truth to get in the way of the story that they would like to report. You then followup with the fact that the military guys coming back are telling us that the reports are totally bogus, and they are in fact re-enlisting to go back at an unprecedented rate ... sure sounds like the hell-hole of hopelessness that the news media is painting for us.

Scrambled Arguments

Edit comments ... yeah, yeah ... few typos, sorry. Added something to the wall list as well.

I have argued in the past that a) Democraps are now so devoid of any direction except mindless pursuit of power (which they now define as the destruction of GW Bush) that they argue every side of every issue and b) that you let a Democrap talk long enough and he will spin himself into the ground. We had a classic example of this in an excerpt I heard from Sen. Turban (Durbin) of Ill-i-noise this weekend.

Immigration reform ... the big pile of B.S. the Senate (Republicans and Dems alike) have been trying to get us to swallow ... is ripe with examples of what I am talking about. Turbin gets into this little schpiel about how he met with a bunch of "immigrant trespasser"* children who were highly educated (one guy apparently working on a Master's in neurobiology) and decrying the fact that the House plan will "tag" them as criminals. Let's ignore for the moment that this is total B.S. ... as I have heard the law described ... but The Turbin was saying this kid is our future.

Huh??? Were not these same freaks telling us that the immigrants are only taking jobs that US citizens don't want (again, ignoring what a complete crock of feces this argument is as well ... unless you want to argue that there are no more electricians, plumbers, carpenters, landscapers, etc. etc. etc.; and now neurobiologists ... left in the US)????

Did Mr. Turbin want to impanel a group of graduates in neurobiology from all the various universities throughout the US and find out if there are any US citizens or even legitimate aliens that are eligible for jobs in the field of neurobiology? And are they happy about the fact that this guy is going to take their job by coming in for a helluva lot less salary than what US citizens and resident aliens were willing to accept (after all, this kid probably won't have the massive loans to pay back like the "winners of life's lottery" kids because he got all the grants and breaks that they couldn't).

And let's dig a little deeper ... if this kid is a trespasser (implication that the parents are) ... where the hell did they get the money to send this kid not only to college, but grad school???? Mr. Turbin ... I thought these people were just supplying us with work that we don't want to do for substandard wages, but I guess they are putting away an astronomical amount of wealth for their kids (or are they just glomming off the system, and sucking away resources from others), eh? And if this kid is in grad school, I'm going to guess that he is probably on some type of scholarship or something ... and I guarantee you the competition for those positions is extremely stiff ... did you want to interview the poor schmuck that lost out on his chance for this scholarship?

So, you lying dirtball ... are you going to try to argue that we are not spending enough on education next week?

*Note: you will notice the term "immigrant trespasser" being used by me because frankly I don't like any of the terms being bandied about by either side. "Illegal" generally implies a crime being committed by a criminal ... somebody that is knowingly and offensively trying to hurt somebody ... and I just do not think that a schlep looking for a job under these circumstances is a criminal (stop them from coming ... damned right! Catch 'em and send them back ... absolutely!). The term "undocumented" is just stupid ... they are no more undocumented than anybody else.


********************************

The "open borders" people have been successful in undermining the entire trespass debate by combining a dozen different issues into the same pot ... making it (successful efforts to stop the inflow) almost impossible to achieve. This debate is ONLY complicated if you actually allow the multiple issues to be combined.

Think about it ... let's build a monstrous wall all the way up and down the border.
1) If you want open borders or not, the wall doesn't change anything ... just throw the doors open or close them up ... but at least you will actually have a choice.
2) With a wall ... other measures which were undertaken in the past may actually work ... and we may not need any more laws (whether you do anything about the existing aliens or not).
3) You build the most solid / defensible barriers in the most dangerous places ... this is the most humanitarian solution since you are not going to risk your life if you think there is 0 chance you will succeed.
4) (new since original post) A wall (at least an effective wall) is indisputable ... even if the dirtball pols ... like the ones in both parties today ... decide not to enforce immigration laws, the wall still stops or slows down the people trying to cross.


The bottom line when making your arguments is to never let the opposition get away with the assertion that this must all be some kind of massive and comprehensive solution ... this is totally counter-intuitive. This is only a diversionary tactic to try to get you to swallow something you don't want (amnesty and entitlements) for something you do want (stop the flow).

Challenge EVERY assertion ...
"you can't deport them all" ... how the hell do you know, we never stopped them from coming in
"they only take the jobs others" ... did you ask the so-called "others"?
"they are not felons" ... really? tell that to Mexico (which treats THEIR illegals as felons)