Blogs For Victory

I am pleased to announce the launch of Blogs For Victory.

Four years ago I launched Blogs For Bush with the purpose of uniting Bush supporters online during the 2004 presidential campaign. Blogs For Bush organized a community of pro-Bush bloggers, and encouraging grassroots activity on behalf of President Bush’s reelection, and became one of the most popular blogs of the 2004 campaign season.

The launch of Blogs For Victory marks a new era. With Bush’s second term coming to an end, it was time to look to the future, and the battles ahead of us: winning the White House in 2008, victory in the war on terror, control of Congress, judicial nominations, etc. etc. Blogs For Victory will help cover all these battles.

So, welcome again to our new home in the blogosphere. More exciting things will come. And don’t forget to join our blogroll.

Well, as Matt has announced over at Blogs for Bush, we have now officially launched the new blog. What I wanted to do here is express myself on this new world of our blogging.

I’ll never forget the more than four years I Blogged for Bush. I’d like to take this moment to once again thank Matt for inviting me to blog all those years ago – it has been my entry into the world of political commentary (other than just boring my friends and family with it), and no matter how long I live or how far I go, I’ll always retain a soft spot in my heart for those rather seat-of-the-pants days of 2003 and 2004 where Matt and I just jumped into the battle and had at it.

Blogging for President Bush over these past few years has been a pleasure and a challenge – pleasure in supporting policies strongly agreed with, challenging in answering the unending, and almost entirely unfair, attacks upon President Bush and his policies. There are fair attacks which can be made on President Bush – and, indeed, Matt and I have made them from time to time when we’ve disagreed with this or that action of the President; but we’ve very rarely seen well thought out and reasonable dissent from President Bush’s policies. In short, what Matt and I (as well as the rest of the people who have written for the blog) have experienced in the opposition has most been a tale of regurgitated lies coupled with some rather fantastic expressions of hatred. For those opponents who have given us a good argument, we wish to express our heartfelt thanks and we hope you continue with your vigorous opposition here on the new blog.

Because, of course, it is a time for a change. Actually, we had thought of changing sooner, but it has been fun keeping up Blogs for Bush…the more unreasonable and out of touch the anti-Bush sentiment, the more strongly we felt our duty to continue to support the President in a very public and steadfast manner. But the Bush Administration does draw to its close – come what may, a little less than a year from now we choose his successor, and just a little more than a year from now we’ll swear in the next President of the United States.

With this change comes a whole new set of battles – as Matt has noted in his entry above. There is still much to do in America and we have a lot of battles yet to be won – we must win the war, we must keep the current crop of Democrats out of the White House and out of power as much as possible. We have the ongoing battles over life issues, judicial appointments, taxation and public morality, and they must all be won. Matt and I intend to continue those fights.

We hope you enjoy the new blog, and will join us in this fight for the best America we can make.

…to pay for Social Security.

Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday he will push for higher Social Security taxes if elected, viewing it as the best option for improving the retirement program’s finances.

Obama and several other Democratic presidential candidates previously have signaled support for lifting the cap on the amount of income that is taxed to provide monthly Social Security checks.

But during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Obama said taxing more of a person’s income was the option he would push for if elected president. He objected to benefit cuts or a higher retirement age.

“I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected,” the Illinois senator said.

“That is the option that I will be pushing forward.” Currently, only the first $97,500 of a person’s annual income is taxed. That cap is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year.

A bold move for Obama, considering that when Bush was pushing for Social Security reform back in 2005, Democrats largely opposed doing anything to ensure Social Security’s solvency. When Rep. Wexler (D-FL) made his own proposal, which included tax increases, Democrats distanced themselves from him, and Nancy Pelosi reportedly “chewed him out over the phone,” for making his proposal.

We know Democrats, if given the chance, will raise taxes. Two years ago, they were reluctant to be honest about their tax-raising tendencies, yet today, Obama who is pursuing the presidency, seems comfortable pledging to raise our taxes.

In response to reports that her aides were planting questions at her public appearances, Hillary Clinton is claiming “it was news to [her].”

At a media event in Waterloo, Iowa, Clinton responded to a reporter’s question about two separate incidents, one that occurred this week at a biodiesel plant in Newton, and the other in April on a farm outside Fort Madison, both in Iowa.

“Well it was news to me” Clinton said. “And neither I nor my campaign approve of that. And it will certainly not be tolerated.

“The reporter went on to ask if she knew of other incidents beyond those reported.Clinton responded saying, “You know everything I know.” 

I’m not buying it.

Looks like Democrats are trying to make waterboarding an issue in the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General. Democrats want him to condemn waterboarding as torture.But, waterboarding is not torture, and I have no idea why Democrats want terrorists to be coddled, not interrogated. A friend of mine who served in the U.S. Navy gave me some firsthand information about the experience of waterboarding.

I was waterboarded during SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) Training as a new Naval Aviator prior to reporting to my first squadron. The purpose of this training was to prepare naval aviators for what they may experience if captured during a time of war. This training was based on the experiences of Naval Aviators and others who had been prisoners during the Viet Nam War. Mr. Mukasey is correct in his assertion that stating what types of interrogation techniques we will or will not employ, allows the enemy to prepare for these interrogation during their training.

So, torture or not torture? He explained:

Waterboarding is hardly torture. It does not maim, cause permanent physical damage,or result in death. It merely simulates the sensation of drowning and having no control over your ability to end the encounter for very brief periods of time. Khalid Sheik Mohammed was subjected to this interrogation technique and was able to resist much longer than would have been expected from an individual who had not been trained to resist waterboarding. This is an indication that our enemies are being prepared for the possibility of being captured.

So, not only are Democrats insisting that we no longer use waterboarding as an interrogation technique with captured terrorists, they want Mukasey to spell out what kind of interrogation techniques we would use, which is useful information for terrorists in their training so they are prepared for such techniques in the event they are captured.Whose side are the Democrats on anyway? They don’t want us monitoring terrorist phone calls, they don’t want to properly interrogate them, but they do want to inform terrorists of how we listen to them and what kind of interrogation techniques they should prepare for.

Looks like Kucinich’s political stunt didn’t exactly win the hearts of other Democrats… but now they’re stuck wit it.

House Republicans on Tuesday prevented Democratic leaders from blocking a resolution to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney. The vote to table the privileged resolution, offered by Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinch, began as a largely party-line vote to kill the measure, but Republicans developed a strategy to force Democrats to debate the resolution by supporting Kucinich. GOP leaders felt as though it was in their interest to debate the measure because it would make Democrats look bad. After more than an hour of waiting for the vote to close, the motion to table the resolution failed by a vote of 162-251 after Democratic leaders failed to convince a group of liberal caucus members to side with them. Republican lawmakers and aides credited Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) for coming up with the idea. 

So, which side is Hillary on again?

How much longer are we going to let the crimes of Democrats, particularly those of the Clinton Machine, go unpunished? As the co-authors of a book about the rampant corruption in the Democratic Party, Mark and I know very well that Democrats are rarely held accountable when they break the law.

In response to recent stories from the Los Angeles Times and the New York Post, we are filing an FEC Complaint (posted below) against the Hillary Clinton for President Committee. These stories revealed evidence of illegal immigrants and straw donors donating to Hillary’s campaign, donors who felt pressured to give money for fear of retribution, and a significant number of poor donors who gave $1,000 or $2,300 to Hillary’s campaign — when they obviously weren’t in the financial position to do so.

Hillary’s campaign has dismissed the story as “derogatory to Chinese-Americans,” so clearly they have zero interest in ridding themselves of illegal contributions.

With the complaint filed, Hillary’s campaign has 15 days to respond.

Here is the text of our complaint:

Continue reading →