Friday, November 23, 2007

Denzel Washington: Patriot

I just found out about this this morning, via an e-mail sent to me. It's a few weeks old, but, surprise, surprise, the MSM barely reported it. As always with them, it's Good News is No News.

The e-mail reads as follows:

Don't know whether you heard about this, but Denzel Washington and his family visited the troops at Brook Army Medical Center, in San Antonio,Texas (BAMC) the other day. This is where soldiers who have been evacuated from Germany come to be hospitalized in the United States, especially burn victims. There are some buildings there called Fisher Houses . The Fisher House is a Hotel where soldiers' families can stay, for little or no charge, while their soldier is staying in the Hospital. BAMC has quite a few of these houses on base, but as you can imagine, they are almost filled most of the time.

While Denzel Washington was visiting BAMC, they gave him a tour of one of the Fisher Houses. He asked how
much one of them would cost to build. He took his check book out and wrote a check for the full amount right thereon the spot. The soldiers overseas were amazed to hear this story and want to get the word out to the American public, because it warmed their hearts to hear it.
The question I have is:
Why does Alec Baldwin, Madonna, Sean Penn and other Hollywood types make front page news with their anti-everything America trash and Denzel Washington's Patriotism doesn't even make page 3 in the Metro section of any newspaper except the Local newspaper in San Antonio?

Any guesses?

And then there's this:

Denzel washington Stiffed by Old Media

By John Dendahl
(Publication date unknown)

Imagine that Barbra Streisand goes to Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas to use wounded GIs and their families as props to stage another blast at President Bush. Would that make the front page of, say, The New York Times?

Or what about Denzel Washington?

Well, Washington did go to BAMC last December, but his ideas about patriotism and American soldiers are apparently uncongenial to those who write editorials masquerading as news for America’s so-called “mainstream media” - Dan Rather’s old media.

His BAMC visit made neither the front pages nor the six o’clock news on television, because it was in support of the troops and their sacrifices, not disgracing the President. Cyberspace, however, has been alive with e-mailed news and photos.

Washington, who has won two Academy Awards, is among the under-publicized many who are identified with Hollywood but don’t share the political views of Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Chevy Chase, and Whoopie Goldberg. Nor of the guy whose despicable film-making unintentionally helped George W. Bush win re-election, Michael Moore.

Heck, if one judged only from what can be seen in the old media, all actors and entertainers are in the political camp of Streisand and Baldwin, both of whom famously promised to leave the country if Bush were elected way back in 2000. Another fellow-traveler, George Soros, spent something like $25 million last year attempting to defeat Bush. He reportedly told a National Press Club audience, “I shall go into some kind of monastery” if Bush is re-elected. So far, no evidence that any of the three is about to deliver on these promises that the rest of us be delivered of them!

But I digress.

While he was in San Antonio bringing appreciation and encouragement to wounded soldiers in their hospital beds, Washington also visited BAMC’s Fisher House. This is one of 32 such facilities, donated to the U.S. government by a foundation established by Zachary and Elizabeth M. Fisher to provide free or nearly-free lodging for family members visiting hospitalized soldiers.

Clearly moved by the visit, Washington and his wife, Pauletta, then sent the foundation a contribution reported at half a million dollars. A foundation executive said it is “one of the most significant received in our history” to help build other Fisher House facilities.

In two appearances with Katie Couric nearly a year ago, Washington expressed deep concern about the welfare of young soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan - “these young kids that are coming home,” he said. “Are we embracing them? I don’t hear about them being lifted up…maybe that story’s being told, but I sure haven’t seen it that much in the news.” Amen.

[emphasis added]

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Soldiers Bonus Money

This thing about requesting U.S. soldiers to return a portion of their bonus signings because they failed to live up to their contractual obligations is sickening. Pfc. Jordan Fox was wounded in Iraq when a road-side bomb caused him to lose partial sight in his right eye and while also sustaining a back injury. When Fox signed an enlistment bonus to serve in Iraq, he recieved a bonus of $10,000. Now, because of his injury, the army wants him to give back $3,000 of it.

I can't believe this is happening to men and women who risk their lives to defend their nation. Then, when they are no longer able to serve, they are spit upon. At least that's the way I see it.
What happens if these soldiers already spent the money? Or if they used it for a family members operation or their child's education? Something really has to be done about this. Exposure is one way. Fox was on The O'Reilly Factor to plead his case. But to his credit and because of his patriotism, he still said he would go through it all over again.

Of course, when the story broke, the Pentagon was in full damage control.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that Sen. Hillary Clinton says she is going to bring forth a resolution to stop this calamity and ensure these soldiers get their money, injured or not. If she is doing this to simply do the right thing, good for her. Of course, I doubt it's because she supports the soldiers themselves, or the military at large. She's proven that time and time again. Political points anyone?

Hold On Bush Haters

Before all you frothing-at-the-mouth, people suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome get your undergarments twisted in a bunch, there is something you should know.
Former White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan didn't say, nor does he believe that the president lied, covered up or new about Valerie Plame's position at the time of her "outing".
Everyone from Wolf Blitzer and CNN, Chris Matthews of MSNBC, all the major liberal news (both television, and internet) outlets and, of course, Keith Olberloon has rabidly jumped on a supposed claim by McClelland that he lied for Bush and Cheney to villify Plame and her husband, Joe Wilson.

Well, hold your horses buckaroos, apparently, once again, the Libs are jumping the gun.
McClelland's book isn't even out yet, and everybody is claiming to know "what really happened".
It's the Duke non-rape case all over again.

Check it.
And again.

They never learn.

Monday, November 19, 2007

Reid Blames the Blameless

What a fool this Reid is. As you see from Amy Proctor's Bottom Line Up Front Harry Reid can never and will never admit to anything. And I do have to second Amy's question, how did the poll get the President's numbers right then, Mr. Senator?

ROBERTS: Senator, looking back in May, your favorability rating here in your home state of Nevada was 46%. Recently the numbers have taken a little bit of a down turn. President Bush now has a higher favorability rating by two points than you do. Can you explain that?

REID: Yes, I can very explain it very easily. The poll taken by the "Las Vegas Review Journal" newspaper is worthless. And everyone acknowledges that. Barack Obama in that poll, no one knew him. Coincidentally, I had a poll completed in September. And my favorability had gone up in the preceding six months to some 55% or John Hanson and I, nearly the same. This poll is worth nothing.

Romney Calls Disgusting

Look, first off, I'm going to say this one more time, as has every conservative and/or Republican who isn't falling for this "No Mormons in the White House" mantra. Mitt Romney may be a Mormon and his beliefs may differ from the rest of us, but he is still a Christian and a good, decent, family man. I'm not defending the guy because I support him (at least right now) but because he is just what I said, a decent guy who doesn't deserve this. Loo, I know this is politics and all's fair in love and war and all that, but this is ridiculous.

Some loser wants to call people up and for the umpteenth time try to bring Mormons down to the level of sub-human. I mean Jeez, not even Kennedy got this much flak when he was the first Roman-Catholic to run for president. Some morons are saying that it's Romney's own people doing this. OK, sure, be up in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls, then pull something like this to look desperate and foolish. Yeah, good call.

The push-polling question?
and the Romney camp response

Amanda Carpenter at Townhall has a good take on it.

This stuff has nothing to do with his record, his leadership abilities or his personal integrity. Where was all the vitriol (at least from the left) and nay-saying when Keith Ellison (the first and -so far-only Muslim in Congress) sworw his allegience on the Qu'ran?

To whom it may concern,
People, give it up and let it go.
Like Romney himself said when first questioned about this (and about a billion times since then)
"I running for president, not pastor."

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Let It Go

I'm sure by now you all know that Senator (God, it pains me to say that) Harry Reid, in all his weasely wisdom, attempted to back-door another illegal alien amnesty plan known as the "Dream Act" (Senate Bill #2205-which is not all that different from the "anchor-baby" citizenship deal. He apparently didn't get the memo that we've all been through this already.

I know John McCain was in on the original amnesty plan that was thankfully shot down in flames, but at least he admitted his mistake and said he got the message when the people spoke; clearly Reid and his band of merry outcasts have not. Much like resolution after resolution to end the war in Iraq; and by proxy terminating the war on Terror, Reid just doesn't get it. Seriously, what is with this guy?

Did you, like myself have a good laugh when he attempted to blame the Southern California fires on global warming, even after unconfirmed reports were circulating on possible arson causes? The best part was that he spoke in such absolutes about it.
Hurricane Katrina, forest fires, you name it; this guy absolutely loves to blame any and all natural disasters on the President, doesn't he? I'm not talking about the after-effects, mind you, I mean he actually wants us to believe that Bush CAUSES these things. Why does anyone take this moron seriously anymore?

To the constituates who put this guy in office in the first place, thanks a lot Nevada.

Speaking of Katrina, well specifically Louisiana, kudos to the voters of that state and in particular new governor, Bobby Jindal, who defeated the ineffectual and incompetent, Kathleen Blanco. I do believe he's the first Republican to govern that state in many decades.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

The Take of General Sanchez

Here's a bit of (more) old news. Forgive me I haven't been able to blog regularly. So as I have said, I may be off by a few days or even weeks. Yeah, so sue me.

Another General has broken silence and condemned President Bush and the war. General Ricardo Sanchez, the retired Iraqi commander until 2004 called the Bush administration’s handling of the war “incompetent” and said the result was “a nightmare with no end in sight", according to the New York Times website.
He blamed the Bush administration for a “catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan” and denounced the current addition of American forces as a “desperate” move that would not achieve long-term stability.

Now while I may adamantly disagree with the good general, even though he is obviously in a way better position to make that type of call than I am, I'm certainly not going to call him a "liar", "unpatriotic", a "traitor" and most certainly not say I need a "suspension of disbelief."

He's entitled to his opinion (which is an informed one, I'm sure, unlike most of those on the left) and was allowed-uninterrupted-to state his case.
Did you wonder why there was no one on the right calling him a liar (at least not to my knowledge) and no Gold Star Family members shouting him down?
You know why? because the right doesn't do that. No mics cut off, no one being drowned out by activists, no one jumping on stage and creating a fiasco while preaching free speech and certainly no pies in the face. And I certainly didn't see any full-page adds in the Wall Street Journal calling the general "Dirty Sanchez" now did I?

That's the bottom line when it comes to the differences between the right and the left.
I think that instead of anyone condemning Sanchez for his comments, we should focus on why no one on the right blatantly insulted this career soldier of good standing like they most certainly did on the left. Let me be clear, I'm not minimizing him or his comments, or trying to deflect attention from them, but rather simply pointing out that no one that I know of has attacked his credibility or attacked him personally.

Once again, it goes to show that to the left, free speech only applies to those who agree with them and only those who are against the war are the good and just ones on the moral high ground.

One thing you probably didn't know about-the thing that the left-wing web sites totally ignored, along with the MSM-is that General Sanchez also talked about how any and all progress was being ignored. He specifically mentioned how they are, in part, also responsible for the poor perception of the war. From the major networks, to CNBC and CNN to the major left-leaning magazines and newspapers that only report the negative aspects to political pundits and panel discussion hosts stating their opinions as undisputed facts. Well, duh! It's amazing how the left will use all his negative comments about the president and the war, but conveniently forget to mention the media's role in that perception.

It appears the left cannot win for losing.

Pelosi Prolongs the War

When Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi decided to enrage Turkey with her big mouth about the fact, yes, fact that that country committed genocide against Armenia in 1915, I have to ask what is she trying to prove? To piss off an American ally? An ally that allows the flow of supplies to American troops in Iraq? An ally that allowed their airspace to be used to fly sorties out of in the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq? I mean what's the point?

Although this is historically accurate, why now? I don't remember this being on her list of "to-do's" do you? Let's see, Get elected...check, screw up everything as much as possible...check, be in violation of the Logan Act...check and oh yeah, open up another front in the war; at the same time throw even more gas onto the fire and put as much troops in harm's way as humanly possible...check.

Once again, the Dems have come up with a partisan plan of playing politics solely based on demeaning the president and turning the heart's and minds of everyone in the Mid-East against America. Good job Blinky.

Now that Turkey has pursued Kurdish rebels into Northern Iraq, it took the State Department all it could muster for the Turkish parliament to postpone their invasion plans.

Be clear that I'm not against the act itself, just the timing. Just when things are vastly improving in Iraq, the Dems have to maliciously sabotage it. Because of this, as mentioned, another possible and most likely inevitable front has opened up in Iraq. Doesn't it kind of make you wonder where all the "Impeach Pelosi" and "Pelosi/Reid=War Criminals" activists are huh?
  • /* Profile ----------------------------------------------- */ #profile-container { margin:0 0 1.5em; border-bottom:1px dotted #444; padding-bottom:1.5em; } .profile-datablock {