tips@bluegrassredstate.com
By: admin
The necessity of the Senate appropriately dealing with the border issue is only half about the border. It is obviously necessary to close it. People who say we can deal with the border and the 12 million might be right, in the sense that we can. However, we should not do it yet.
Forcing the Senate to pass a bill which deals with border enforcement is about the people forcing the Senate to do something. The House gets a lot of credit for holding strong and forcing Congress to take a conservative approach to the immigration/border issue. The border bill is about people forcing Congress to do something, disciplining the Senate, and most importantly, the Senate taking an opportunity to show that they hear us and to show that they are willing to take a conservative approach.
It may very well be possible for us to deal with every facet of the immigration/border problem in one piece of legislation. Senate Republicans, however, need to show that they hear us. I think for too long, Congressional-types have tried to show everybody how incredibly intelligent they are by passing huge, “comprehensive,” all-encompassing pieces of legislation full of wisdom rivaled only by God and all they have done is make asses out of themselves by taking twenty-five years to pass the bill and then once it’s passed, watching as it fails.
Baby steps are the way to go on this issue. It is good for Senate and House Republicans and the nation as a whole. Solving one problem at a time, starting with the most important and obvious problems, will eventually solve the whole issue.
Bush is definitely wrong about this. However, make no mistake, as I told you a long time ago, he is wrong on purpose. He is aware that Congress could not agree on comprehensive legislation. He is purposely giving Republican Congressmen an opportunity to “distance themselves” from him by being more conservative than him. This gives Republican candidates a chance to capitalize on the President’s low approval, even while riding his coattails on the strength of his anti-terror record.
Beautiful strategy, but only if Republican candidates take the opportunity.
By: admin
Bush’s approval rating is back up to 42%. That’s obviously still pretty low, but it is good news. If Bush will dominate the media and ease people’s fears about continuing to fight the War on Terror, while allowing every Republican running to capitalize on the opportunity he is giving them to be more conservative than him on immigration and spending - thus, giving the base a reason to vote - we will be okay.
Bush has to dominate on the ideas behind the war and economic successes. Candidates have to dominate on immigration and spending.
By: admin
“Hate-filled ignorance” is how I would characterize Yarmuth’s television ad. Liberals all think they are so smart, but when they speak they always reveal how uninformed they are. Wisdom is so much more important than knowledge, especially when it comes to government jobs.
September 12, 2006 |
1 Comment 
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
By: admin
I sent Miller this note:
Congratulations! You may have just won a wider share of the
Latino market with your sponsorship of illegal immigration, but you lost a
whole lot of others in exchange. You haven’t gained anything, AND you look
like idiots.
Thanks for contacting us.
They sent this one to me:
Miller Brewing Company has never supported illegal immigration and we have
always supported the full enforcement of current U.S. laws. Miller did not
sponsor the Labor Day immigration march held in Chicago. Going forward,
Miller will closely review all requests for support from community and
charitable organizations to ensure that we are not indirectly funding or
associating our name with advocacy efforts on the immigration issue. We plan
to stick to the business of brewing, marketing and selling great beer.
We appreciate your interest.
Whatever.
By: admin
Dennis Mulligan. Muggs.
I never met you, but I think I know you.
How could I?
Tell me.
Put me at ease like you did so many.
Some lives were taken, and some were given.
I have seen the place where you gave yours.
I have seen the place where your Mugsy smile
calmed the storm for so many.
No one could have done it better than you.
You knew what you were supposed to do.
I think you knew all along.
Remember? “That’s right, pops.” Commissioner.
Because of how you lived you can never be forgotten.
I didn’t know you until you gave your life for others.
But now, I can’t get you out of my head.
Now, everyone who knows you laughs and serves with you.
You were a fireman turned soldier.
And you fought the good fight.
You can look back and be proud of what you did.
We’re all proud of you.
Thank you, Dennis. It’s nice to know you.
By: admin
The Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment. It protects the KKK, this nation’s wonderful strippers (who, by the way, we need to get to unionize so we can drive the strip joints out of business), artists who place crucifixes in jars of urine, novelists who make things up about real people, and journalists who make things up about real people. The First Amendment to the Constitution is the legal justification used by dimwits and legal scholars alike for myriad ridiculous, yet legal, actions and statements. The ACLU prides itself on being the staunchest defender of civil liberties, one of which is the freedom of speech.
Democrats like to pretend that Republicans want to supress this freedom. They like to talk about Republicans conducting “censorship.” Bookish librarian-type Democrats talk about the possibility of widespread book-burnings that Republicans would conduct in order to supress the “knowledge” found within the books’ pages. Democrats also imagine themselves as the only segment of the population that cares about education. The more educated one is, they seem to think, the more enlightened and therefore liberal you must be. They are the intelligent ones, and their ideas simply haven’t caught on yet. They are always “ahead of their time,” yet their time never seems to come.
So, what about ABC’s freedom of speech? Well, it is normally okay, as long as they are Bush-bashing, making up news, telling the country old news, regurgitating Democrat talking points, and just generally being lame. When ABC decided to show a movie about 9/11, though, on 9/11, and based on the 9/11 Commission Report - the Democrats don’t have so much respect for the good old First Amendment anymore.
Congressional Democrats threatened to pull ABC’s broadcast license if they show the film. Clinton’s lawyers demanded they pull the film from the broadcast schedule this Monday. Why? Because the movie makes them look bad. Why? Because it tells the truth.
See, Democrats only care about knowledge and free speech as long as it doesn’t hurt them. In fact, leading Democrats only care about themselves, period. Sacrifice is a foreign concept. It is all about “me.” Artistic license certainly applied when that movie about the Reagans was made, but why must this movie be pulled? Because it hurts them politically. Remember when John Kerry tried to prevent the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth from publishing their book? Did the First Amendment not apply to the Swift Vets? Well, yes it did. John Kerry didn’t care, though, because he was willing to engage in censorship to protect himself and his power and his overinflated ego. An argument to Democrats, or a debate, is not a quest for the truth - it is a quest to win the argument.
To leading Democrats, money, politics, and power as it relates to themselves is what matters most. For this very reason, they always act like they care about people. Leading Democrats pretend to care about working people, homeless people, minorities, et alli, yet their policies never do anything to help their constituency. The rule of thumb is: When Democrats accuse someone of something, it is because they are guilty of the accusation levied.
I love 2 Timothy 2-7 here, especially 7:
2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.
6They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over weak-willed women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth.
Democrats are always the smart ones. The Republicans are the dumb ones who get made fun of, and are always too nice to treat Democrats the way Democrats treat Republicans. When Democrats argue, or debate, it is not in a quest for the truth, but in a quest to win the argument.
So, would the ACLU defend ABC’s right to make and show a movie? Would they stand up to the Congressional Democrats if they tried to revoke ABC’s license. Probably not. Even if they would, though, you have to recognize the hypocrisy of the leading Democrats.
September 9, 2006 |
1 Comment (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
By: admin
As I told you would happen 4 days ago, yesterday Stan Chesley (previously referred to as “class-action attorneys,” and ridiculed here) made himself the first class-action attorney to file a lawsuit against Comair and Delta. The fake caring has already begun.
Chesley’s lack of shame is despicable. The crash was on Sunday morning. How long did it take Chesley to get to the victims’ families, stir up his best Clintonian crocodile tears, and then talk them in to letting him sue someone on their behalf? Well, word about the suit came out Friday. You do the math. I wonder where Chesley and Co. celebrated afterwards. It just makes me sick the way this greedy predator pounces on grieving families.
A lawsuit which yields monetary benefits for anyone after an accident such as this one does nothing. It will not bring anybody back to life, and it can potentially make life even more miserable for the victims’ families, because no amount of money can ease the pain caused by the loss of a loved one. Large sums of money often drive people into miserable lifestyles, and people (e.g. lottery winners) often regret ever taking the money. I believe that everyone should have a good life insurance policy for their spouse or family to collect at a time like this, but that is really just to replace the victim’s income over the next x years.
I’m not saying necessarily that there should be no lawsuit here, or that if Comair was negligent they should not pay something. However, I think it would be more appropriate for Comair to spend money on increased safety standards, newer airplanes, and newer technologies to make catastrophes like this more rare. Maybe they could double the victims’ existing life insurance policies and provide post-humous insurance for those victims who did not have life insurance. Perhaps the most appropriate thing would be for people to not fly on airlines after they crash, thus putting the airline out of business. That is one way to make them pay, isn’t it? Then they, “can’t do this to somebody else.” Right? It would be much more effective. All suing an airline does is pull money out of the airline’s insurance company. After the suit, it is back to business as usual. To wholly picket the airline would drive it out of business and strike fear in all the others.
Seriously, why do you think Chesley has already picked Comair/Delta? The NTSB’s investigation is not complete. How could he know who to sue? Why not the Bluegrass Airport? Was the plane crash really Comair’s fault? Maybe the pilots were just doing what they were told to do by the guy in the tower. Maybe Chesley should sue the controller for not sleeping enough and telling the pilot to go to the wrong runway. The controller doesn’t have insurance for that kind of thing, though. Not enough for Chesley, even if he does. See, Comair and Delta are the Big Business, and so they probably have a Big Insurance policy that can be cleaned out when something like this happens. So Chesley doesn’t really even have to worry about what is right and what is wrong. He just sues whoever has the most insurance.
Maybe eventually airlines won’t fear the cost of updating equipment and revamping airplanes. Maybe one day we will all be comfortable on airplanes. Maybe one day there will be multiple cockpit doors, maybe even two cockpits, and armed security people on every flight. They can’t afford these things now, though. The nation refuses to build coal to liquid fuel plants to provide airlines with cheap fuel. The nation refuses to allow competent security measures to be implemented at airports and on airplanes. And people sue each other over everything driving piles of cash into law firms, and slowing progress, all in the name of . . . some righteous mission. When was the last time you heard about a law firm being sued by someone. I don’t think that happens very often. Legal malpractice is not a big topic, is it?
If I were Comair and I were not negligent, I would fight Chesley with everything I have, prove my innocence, and then sue Chesley for everything he has. Maybe then we could get some cheaper flights.
By: admin
Right now, the Jefferson County court system is a behemoth with one nice building and a ton of outdated technology. Shelly Knopf would lead the system through a transition into the 21st century with more electronic filing of paperwork and increased accountability (read: auditing). Efficiency is needed in every bureacracy and her opponent is not going to provide it. Knopf can inject the necessary innovation into the Circuit Court Clerk’s office, if you let her. All you have to do is remember her name, Shelly Knopf, and vote for her on November 7th!
Remember when Rebecca Jackson cut wait times and frustration dramatically when she became Jefferson County Clerk? It was just a little innovation and common sense coupled, of course, with a complete knowledge of the system. Shelly Knopf can do the same thing for the Circuit Court. Just remember her name and vote for her!!
