Nom de plume: Rivrdog

It must be an election year...

There's flip-flopping in progress...el Presidente, who was for "traditional marriage" yesterday, isn't for it today.

Look, if you want to declare your love for another person ot even another member of another species, fine. If you want to share your fortune with that person/whatever, fine.

"Marriage" is specifically defined as a union of two humans, of opposite sex, of other appropriate pre-requisites, as approved by the State, and that's where the rub is, that "approved by the State" part. Since the Forefathers could never have forseen the mainstreaming of homosexuality as a cultural norm, we have to forgive them for being so obtuse about what marriage is and isn't.

It's time to update the law to the cultural norm, though. Here's the Rivrdog solution:

Congress needs to send out an Amendment to the US Constitution that wipes the word and meaning of "marriage" off of all law books, substitutes the word and meaning for "union" in it's place, and leaves the definition of unions between peoples up to Congress. This removes religion from the question entirely. 

In the Forefather's day, religion had a place in the moral lives of every American citizen, and the religious definition of marriage was perfectly acceptable. Since Federal courts have given their imprimatur to "civil unions", there is no more place in our culture for a religious definition of them to be the law of the land.

You see, Campers, we have this little clause prohibiting "establishment" of religion into law. There is no better definition of "establishment" than accepting the religious definition of Marriage instead of our constitutional Court definition.

Establishment of religion has it's place, and that place is in our hearts and minds, not our books of Law.

Where are you on this one, Madam Speaker?

Rep. William Jefferson, (D) LA, better known as the guy with the 90 Large in his freezer, also known as a confidant of William Jefferson Clinton, the "first black President", was re-elected to Congress in a runoff election this past week. The story is here.

Jefferson is still being investigated. You will recall the furor that developed when the FBI raided his office on the Hill. Screams of outrage were heard from corrupted Congresscritters on both sides of the aisle, but of course, more strongly from Pelosi's side.

Now, Madam Pelosi has sworn to clean up the Congress, known for the sleaze in it's just-closed 110th version.

Just how do you suppose that clean-up on Aisle Jefferson will proceed?

You aren't holding your breath that this chump will be denied any committee seats are you? You aren't holding your breath that the  Representative will be told he can't wet his beak with any more Katrina dollars, are you?

Good, you might live to see Monday.

USA Today hammers the Peloser

USA Today, not exactly a conservative rag, takes it right to Nancy Pelosi in this editorial, accusing her of cozying up to posterboys for Congressional corruption, such as Jack Murtha and Alcee Hastings, the first an unindicted ABSCAM co-conspirator and the second an Impeached Federal Judge who ran for and won election to Congress in a black district in FL which wants to "take it to the Man".

Pelosi lost her fight to install Murtha as Majority Leader, and we get Steny Hoyer instead, but she still wants to install the crooked Hastings as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, where he would have access to EVERYTHING secret that the intell agencies do. Foreign agents are probably lining up with suitcases full of cash outside of Alcee's office as I write.

Pelosi is a chump. I sincerely hope that she suffers a double rebuff here, and the Democratic Party puts someone else in the Intell Committee slot.

The Democrats won a mandate for change in Congress, there's no doubt about that.

This isn't the change the voters were looking for. If the Peloser pulls this off, she has just spit in the eye of every new Democrat Rep that got elected on the promise of ethical reform which they gave to their constitutient/voters.

And we STILL haven't heard an "Iraq Plan" yet.

Pelosi, I don't know about your "First 100 hours" program, but so far you have royally screwed up your first 100 minutes of fame.

An empty bucket...

...still slakes no thirst.

For all you "change in Iraq" single issue voters, poll after poll has come out in the last week telling you that you threw away your votes if you were looking for a (D)onk Party Iraq solution.

You are supposed to be the generation that lives and dies by these polls. If that's what you wanted, how come you voted for the water-carrier with the empty bucket?

Boneheads.

Unpleasant reading

....but it will give you a good idea of what the (D)onks are facing: a huge split in their ranks between the liberals and the "new centrists", or whatever they are calling themselves today.

Read it.

The bad news for we conservatives comes if they resolve this split in favor of the liberals. Odds favor that, because the liberals have the seniority, and as you know, seniority is EVERYTHING in a liberal-run organization. Merit seldom enters the picture.

OTOH, the (D)libs can't make ANY program work without the centrists, they only have a 25-vote majority in the House and a one-vote majority in the Senate, three if you consider both (I)ndependents. About forty of their number are centrists in the House, 4-6 in the Senate. David Hardy has this rundown of how actual gun-control votes might fall, however.

So, the picture depends on the conservatives maintaining, or should I say REDISCOVERING, bloc identity, and making some overtures, both covert and overt, to the new centrist (D)ems. Then, and only then, can the socialist spender-taxer-gun grabbers be held at bay.

H/T to David Hardy for the reference to the LA Slimes article.

And the Scapegoat is...

...Donald Rumsfeld!

Who da thunk it?

Yeah, right.

Who is next? Cheney?

Ummm.....

Day late and a dollar short, Mr. President. Now get that Veto pen out and show it to everyone who will look at it. That's the only thing you can do at THIS point, let Mme. Pelosi know that when she sends you Socialist crap, you will consign it forthwith to the dung-heap.

Reading material for Poll-waiting

That would be the Carnival of Cordite, of course, edition #79! Take your wireless PDA so you can read it in comfort while waiting in line to vote.

You don't HAVE a wireless PDA?

Get with the 21st Century, people.

Read it while waiting for your limo to come and take you to the polls.

Excuse me, that was for early (multiple?) voting last week in Denver, and was aimed at the po' folk, who may need help voting (and reading). Disregard.

Just get out and vote!

It's your DUTY, damnit!

The GOP boots it

The John F***ing Kerry foot-swallowing act brings it into focus: how could the braintrust of the RNC have let the the libtard wing of the (D)emocrat party get away with hiding, and especially hiding their agenda?

I have a bad feeling about the imminent election. Come January, I think we're going to have Speaker Pelosi, with a razor-thin majority, try to ram a large dose of socialism down our throats.

Hopefully, the Senate, which should wind up with a razor-thin GOP majority, will rebuff her efforts, and GWB, with veto pen in hand, will be there to clean up any socialist cripples that manage to sneak through, INCLUDING EACH AND EVERY GUN CONTROL ISSUE PELOSI FIELDS, AND SHE WILL FIELD A SLEW OF THEM!

Watch this page next week for your instructions on how to stay ahead of the gun-grabbers, who, but this time next week, will likely feel VERY empowered to do their mischief.

All the warnings aside, the GOP has done a TERRIBLE job of countering the say-nothing call of the (D)onks for "change in Iraq".

What change?

WHAT CHANGE?

In my political book, if you, as a politician, call for change, the next words out of your piehole ought to be the plan for change. The (D)onks don't HAVE a plan for change. Sure, a few pacifist lefty members of Congress do: get the hell out, we don't need no War On Terror, but other than that idiotic "plan", there is nothing.

Let it never be said that I'm unwilling to provide guidance to the Loyal Opposition, so, without further ado, here's a plan for you, putative Speaker Pelosi:

1. The US takes a VERY FIRM position, immediately, on the Shiite PM, Nouri al-Maliki, who is rapidly turning the new "democracy" into a Islamic (Shiite) fiefdom of Iran. We REQUIRE him, on pain of immediately taking INDEPENDENT military action against Tater, to sever all ties with Moqtada al-Sadr, who is nothing more than a puppet of Iran, nor has he and his Maadi Army ever been anything else.

2. The US immediately puts pressure on al-Maliki to draw plans for a partition of Iraq into Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite sub-nations. Sorry Mr. Bush, they all just CAN'T get along over there, and we have to realize it. We insist on military basing rights in each of the three sub-nations. Permanent basing rights. We are going to need them, soon.

3. After the Pentagon establishes what the permanent-party basing forces should be, we post a timetable to withdraw troops, according to strength and logistics guidelines, not John Mutha's Murtha's. We follow that timetable, but train VERY hard, IN THE REGION, for combat with Iran, which will probably occur before the Presidential Election of '08.

OK, Madam Putative Speaker, there's your Iraq plan. No charge for the consult.

Now, I STILL need to know why the RNC has let the DNC get away with just about winning this Congressional Election with their hollow call for "change".

What change? Say the change you want! That's all the GOP had to ask, that's all they had to do, then the majority of voters would have seen the GOP as willing to look at reasonable alternatives, and the GOP would have been retained in power, as is normal during a time of war.

Instead, Pelosi et al have been allowed to stay silent on Iraq change, as well as their basic plans (to take the country Socialist).

That was a major RNC mistake.

A game-changing mistake.

If Pelosi gains any traction at all, there will likely be a coat-tail effect in '08, and once the (D)onks get it all back, they will push a rapid agenda that will remove the last vestiges of individual rights from our society. If you want a preview of that, look at England now (or any of the European nations, for that matter).

Historians will look back to the election campaign of '06, and note that the GOP just laid down and let the (D)onks get away with running a campaign with no stated agenda behind it.

It is all but writ.

That's not an apology

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended". That's the full text of Kerry's "apology", which, by the way, was not spoken on the radio, on TV, in front of those who he offended, but rather he snuck it onto his website while the East Coast was out at lunch.

So sorry, that's not an apology.

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply..." demeans and makes irrelevant ALL the rest of the apologizing words that followed that phrase. This opening statement means, "I'm sorry that you did not understand my words, but it's your fault that you didn't". Such words do not open a sincere apology, and being only a little more critical, I say that they don't open any sort of apology at all. What this statement becomes is simply another counter-attack. "I'm so sorry you were so stupid as to imply my words were an insult..."

When apologizing for an insult, perceived or actual, you don't start out by saying that it's not an insult to you, it was "misinterpreted" into an insult, then accuse those who heard your statement of being at fault for misinterpreting it. If you were really the master of verbal nuance that you claim to be, John Kerry, you would know that, but you're not the master of anything except your own false sense of self-importance.

You're still an asshole, John Kerry, just as you were back in the Seventies. You haven't changed, and that's why you can't be President.

The troops get it...

Well, the election is but 6 days away. The liberal wing was supposed to maintain a low profile, and give a high profile to the new, young-gun conservative (D)emocrats. They almost got away with it.

Until John F***ng Kerry opened his mouth and shoved his foot all the way down until it came out of his cowardly ass. So now Kerry has run off and hidden, after defiantly saying he wouldn't apologize to the troops that he insulted and then lied about.

Oh, you didn't HEAR the lie? Probably because you were so stunned by the depravity of his insult to the military.

The lie was that the troops are the dumber section of our society. That may have been true when Kerry answered the call, since students with adequate grades got a deferment, and everyone else was drafted, but it's not true now, and Kerry knows it.

The soldiers and grunts of today are FAR more educated than the average of their age group on the civilian side. The actual reverse of what Kerry spouted off about is true. Were he to appear in the next 6 days, which is unlikely, he would be greeted warmly with "liar, liar, pants on fire" everywhere he went.

Anyway, the point of this post is to show that the troops have responded to the fuckwad from MA:

OUTFUCKINGSTANDING, PEOPLE!

My last word on this is, it's a good thing Kerry wasn't elected. After he had violated the Constitution 6 ways to Sunday trying to take the nation into the Socialist camp, trying to try these people for war crimes, etc, these are the troops who would have come for his treasonous ass.