Image Hosted by ImageShack.usImage Hosted by         Right Thinking

                                                                           Conservative Thought and Commentary

HEADLINES:      September 6 - Huge Step Taken by Europe’s Bank to Abate a Crisis       September 6 - U.S. policy on China sees little progress       September 6 - State Department drops Maoists from terrorist watch list       September 6 - Venezuela Holds U.S. Vessel And Crew On Suspicion Of Arms Trafficking       September 5 - DNC Overrules Delegates, Rams God and Jerusalem Back into Platform       September 5 - Powerful quake hits Costa Rica      

Monday, June 30, 2008


Has retired general Wesley Clark, a liberal democrat considered as a possible running mate for Barack Obama, lost all sense? Interviewed Sunday by Bob Schieffer on CBS's Face the Nation, Clark said that John McCain was not qualified to be President. According to Clark, McCain "hasn't held executive responsibility, and he "hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall."

When Schieffer pointed out that "Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down," Clark responded by saying, "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be President."

Clark follow that with this gem:
But Barack is not, he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements. He's running on his other strengths. He's running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment.
Are you kidding me? I respect General Clark's military service. I respect his rank as a general. However, these comments are ludicrous!

John McCain, a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, who commanded a U.S. Navy fighter squadron, who was shot down and held as a prisoner of war for five years, who was a U.S. Congressman for four years, who has been a U.S. Senator for 22 years, who is the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, is not qualified to be commander in chief because he "hasn't held executive responsibility"; however, Barack Obama, who served eight years in the Illinois state Senate and three years in the U.S. Senate, and whose executive responsibility consists of being a "community organizer" in Chicago, is qualified?

Get real General Clark! Obama is qualified because of his strengths of character, communication skills, and judgment? That's all it takes to be qualified to be President of the United States?

There are literally millions of Americans with great strength of character. If that's the qualification to be President, then my grandmother would have made a great President.

Communication skill? Adolph Hitler had communication skills second to none!

And what is this about Obama's "strengths of his judgment"? Do people with good judgment develop associations with people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Rev. Michael Pfleger? How about with people like Tony Rezko or William Ayers? What about with people like Rashid Khalidi? Is this the kind of good judgment you're talking about General?

A Barack Obama supporter questioning John McCain's qualifications to be President of the United States based on his military experience? They must be desperate!

Saturday, June 28, 2008

New Recommended Blog

I just wanted to call attention to a new blog in my list of recommended blogs. It's a pro-life blog called Check it out!

Monday, June 23, 2008

Bad Tomatoes - An Impeachable Offense

Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

For several years, liberals - including politicians, bloggers, and mainstream media - have been giving us numerous reasons for impeaching President Bush. Here are just a few of the "impeachable offenses" that I have actually heard or read of:

Warrantless wiretapping, Guantanamo bay, Abu Ghraib, secret prisons, lying about WMDs in Iraq, no-bid contracts in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, militarily targeting civilians and journalists, militarily targeting hospitals and ambulances, using illegal weapons, obstructing honest elections, exposing the identity of a covert CIA operative, failing to assist New Orleans residents after Hurricane Katrina, ignoring urgent warnings of an Al Qaeda attack prior 9-11, the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, and increasing air pollution causing global warming.

Last week, CNN’s Lou Dobbs gave us yet another reason to impeach the President: salmonella-tainted tomatoes. I'm not kidding. On “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” Dobbs had this to say:

For them to leave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in this state, its
leadership in this sorry condition and to have no capacity apparently or will to
protect the American consumer – that is alone to me sufficient reason to impeach
a president who has made this agency possible and has ripped its guts out in its
ability to protect the American consumer.

. . . As for this administration, were a responsible president at the helm of
this country, I would wonder why he is not taking action, but then again, this
is of course his FDA and his legacy.

Dobbs is really on to something here. Let's impeach the President for the bad tomatoes. While we're at it, why don't we go ahead and impeach him for the Virginia Tech shooting, the Chinese earthquake, and the 17 Massachusetts teens who recently became pregnant after entering into a "pregnancy pact" with one another.

Let's not stop there; let's also impeach him for the 1871 Chicago Fire, the “dust bowl” drought of the 1930s, the 1972 murders at the Munich Olympics, the 1986 explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, the 1993 Waco Siege, and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

Come on, Lou Dobbs. Don't stop at bad tomatoes. I'm sure that, with a little work, you can think of many more reasons to impeach President Bush.

Sunday, June 08, 2008

Two Years Later

Today is June 8, 2008. Let's turn back time to April 24, 2006 and read the following from Nancy Pelosi's website:
With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline...

Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.
This statement was made during the Democrats' 2006 bid to take control of Congress. In November of that year, Democrats were successful in that bid.

Now, let's fast-forward back to the current date. Americans woke up today, less than two years after Democrats took control of Congress, to the following headline: "Gas Hits National Average of $4 for the First Time"

How thankful we should all be for Nancy Pelosi, her Democrat cronies, and their "commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices"!

The Conservative Sites Webring by lazarst
[ Join Now | Ring Hub | Random | << Prev | Next >> ]