United States Constitution
Declaration of Independence
American Spectator
CNS News
Conservative Voice
Daley Times-Post
Defense Dept
Drudge Report
Fox News
Intelligence Summit
Iron Pony Express
Kook Alert
Mich News
National Review
New Media Journal
Patriot Post
Real Clear Politics
Renew America
Stars & Stripes
Ugly Puppy
Washington Times
World Net Daily
Immigration Counter
Captain's Quarters
Free Republic
Lit Green Footballs
Michelle Malkin
Power Line



Davie Crockett
(It's not yours to give)

Communist Goals for America
(It's happening now)

Nuclear Attack
(Be Prepared)

Story behind the
Star Spangled Banner

(6 Min. Audio)

Nothing To Offer, Nothing Left To Say PRINTER FRIENDLY
Posted: 05/04/08

Nothing To Offer, Nothing Left To Say
JR Dieckmann

For the past 3 days I have been trying to come up with a topic to write about this week, but I keep coming up with the same answer - nothing. Which incidentally is pretty much the same answer Mrs. Clinton comes up with to most every question she’s asked in an interview.

For example, when she was asked today by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos how she would deal with the threat of Iran’s nuclear weapons, she said that we would have to sit down and come to an agreement with them, but then she said “we don’t even know who is running Iran.” Speak for yourself, Mrs. Clinton. And what could you possibly offer Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program? I can think of only one thing. If they agree to end their nuclear ambitions, we will agree not to turn their country into a glass parking lot. I don’t think that’s exactly what Mrs. Clinton has in mind, if anything.

Then a black woman in the studio audience asked her what she would do for black people if elected. Well first of all, the question is ridiculous and self-centered. The president’s job is to serve all of the American people equally without regard for race. But Clinton went off on a rant about people living in poverty all over the world, and again never even attempted to answer the question. I think she made some reference to her husband’s administration.

When Bill O’Reiley asked her if she knew where the al Qaeda leadership command was based, she stumbled for words at first, then came up with Pakistan. So far so good. But then Bill asked her “where in Pakistan?” and her answer was “all over the place.” She frankly didn’t know where the al Qaeda command and control was until O’Reiley told her it was in Bajaur, an area in the Punjar province. I don’t expect many Americans to know this, but for Pete’s sake - this woman is running for president of the United States. She should know that.

Just like her Democrat opponent, Barack Obama, when asked about the high cost of gas, she has no real answer other than the usual guesses about solutions dealing with taxes. Of course the answer, obvious to anyone other than liberals, is increased domestic drilling and refining, something that never occurs to Democrats.

When asked about Iraq, Clinton seems to think that most of the trouble is being caused by the American troops, so her answer is to get the Americans out of Iraq and that will solve the problem. This is frightening.

I have been getting the impression that Mrs. Clinton really knows very little about the world we live in and the enemy we are facing. She has been so busy fighting her war on the healthcare system that she has totally ignored the war on terror - the real threat to our country, other than liberalism.

But that isn’t what I intended to write about this week. Everyone else is doing that and I’m pretty fed up with the whole negative process of political campaigning. My guess is that you are too. I think there are other things to talk about that need attention, but are being ignored. Anyway, who among us would even consider voting for Obama or Clinton? Now, if only I could come up with some reasons to vote for John McCain, other than to keep the other two out of the White House. That too seems to be a lost cause, but just that one reason alone should be enough to drive everyone to the polls on election day.

I heard that President Bush requested $20 million to give to Poland for their military, so I thought I’d write about the European Defense Shield and our part in it. My first thought was - we don’t have an extra $20 million laying around to give away to Poland. The only way to do that is to take it from the money Congress intends to spend on special interest pork this year. But we don’t have money for that either. Not that it matters to Congress; they just borrow it from Communist China and charge it to our children and grandchildren.

In researching this issue I discovered that Poland had requested the handout of our taxpayers’ money in exchange for placing anti-missile defense installations in their country to defend against missile attacks from Iran and Syria. It just strikes me as a little odd that we should have to pay Poland for the privilege of defending them from attacks. Shouldn’t they be paying us for the service?

Vladimir Putin is not too enthused about the idea of having western missiles so close to his Russian border, even if they are only defensive ground-to-air missiles. He has threatened to target Poland with his nuclear missiles if the installations are built. He threatens the same with Georgia where other anti-missile defenses are planned. Putin doesn’t accept that these missile installations are intended to protect Europe from Islamic missile attacks. Rather, he sees them as a threat to his country, or does he?

Putin may be looking beyond the present state of the world. Russia has not only been returning to its former communist roots under Putin, but also has been increasingly allying itself with radical Islamic countries and factions - like Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. If a major war breaks out, it makes perfect sense that Putin would not want Europe protected by an anti-missile defense system, and he is willing to put his nuclear missiles where his mouth is.

But I didn’t want to write about that either since I just didn’t know much about it. So then I thought I would write something about the current airline crisis. Every week we are seeing more airlines going out of business or merging with other airlines. The prime reason is the cost of fuel, which is driving the airlines into bankruptcy.

In just the past month, Aloha, American Trans Air, Skibus, Skyway and Frontier airlines have all gone into bankruptcy or out of business. Continental may be looking for a new partner after talks with United failed to produce any partnership results. Without real progress in domestic oil production, our airlines are going to look like our phone companies with only two or three serving the whole country.

Since Congress continues to block any progress in domestic oil production, the airlines have found one way to reduce their fuel costs slightly. They are flying slower. Yep, lifting the pilot’s foot off the throttle a little to save gas. By flying slower, this adds a few minutes to the flight time but the airlines say it is saving them millions of dollars in fuel costs.

But this is only helping a little, not solving the problem. Airline experts say that if the cost of aviation fuel is not brought down soon, only the rich will be able to afford to fly, before long. Those holiday trips to visit relatives for the average working American will be gone. And you can just forget about driving instead of flying, you won’t be able to afford that either.

Perhaps the only affordable transportation will be by train, which is what commodity producers are using more and more these days to avoid the higher costs of trucking, due to excessive fuel prices. Meanwhile, long distance truckers are losing their trucks and their jobs while their ability to compete with rail shipping declines. Aviation fuel costs must be effecting the air shipping business too. Have you noticed how UPS has been running ads pushing “UPS Ground shipping?” My guess is they are using trains, not trucks.

Because of Democrat policies on energy, the airline industry is collapsing and will take with it the aircraft manufacturing industry and the tourist industry. The long distance trucking industry is collapsing and taking with it the truck manufacturing industry. Many more Americans will lose their jobs as the trickle down effect takes hold and the American economy goes into the tank.

What is the Democrats’ answer to all this? Biofuels. Yes, by using our food for fuel, we can then place the same burdens on the food industry and bring on a global food crisis to accompany their global warming crisis. The real crisis in America today is the liberal, Marxist, Democrat Party which will be well positioned to offer us all government support when everything falls apart and no one can earn a living any longer.

To do that, they will have to take what money is left from the rich to redistribute to the poor until that money runs out and the rich no longer have a financial sake in the country. By that time Russia will have returned to total communism and we will be just like them. We can all then get together in love and peace, hug, and sing Kumbaya together while waiting for government to serve us our next meal. At last, paradise right here on Earth will have come.

But I don’t want to write about that either, so I guess I just don’t have anything to offer this week. I might as well just run for president like the others do, who have nothing to offer our country.

The Patriot Post