Vision, Mission, and Strategy

Hillbilly Politics

Daily Archives: April 28, 2007

Dr. Sanity has some interesting news on the polls front.  Polls that clearly show what liars Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, et al. are:


Cliff May at The Corner has some recent poll results that are extremely interesting:

  • According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February. (3/23-25, 2007).
  • A Bloomberg poll reveals 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).
  • A recent Public Opinion Strategies (POS) poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%); (3/25-27, 2007).
  • POS found also that a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).
  • A separate POS poll finds 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people.” And 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (35%); (2/5-7, 2007).
  • A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll show 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (3/27-28, 2007).
  • According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007). That same poll found a plurality of adults (45%) believe a terrorist attack against the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable”
  • Should a date for withdrawal be set, 70% of American believe it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats. (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).
  • An LA Times/Bloomberg polls reveals that 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (4/5-9, 2007).

Read all of it here:

Now we return to our regularly scheduled program, :).

On another blog: there is a discussion going on about how the Democrats in Congress refused to listen to Petraeus.

One of the posts ended with this:

… I want to hear a definitive “we can’t afford this anymore” timeframe. 20-40 or 40+ what’s to long? We cannot afford to have an open ended war here. We are screaming about the cost of illegal aliens but we will keeps spending our childrens childrens money on Iraq? Makes little sense to me.

To which I replied:

rob I was with you until your last statements:
“We are screaming about the cost of illegal aliens but we will keeps spending our childrens childrens money on Iraq? Makes little sense to me.”

We spend more on illegals than we do on the war and they kill more U.S. people per day than die in the war.

As for the rest, I don’t think we’ll be over there 20-40 years. However, there are some things, nonmilitary, that need to happen.

When you look at the Iraqi people, you hear they want freedom and democracy, but they don’t really know what they are because they’ve never experienced them. They have had no examples to show them what it really means or how to achieve it. And there are others who don’t want them to have that freedom out of fear… fear that freedom and democracy might become a concept that their own peoples may desire, which is a threat to their totalitarian regimes and dreams of Global Domination.

So, there is fighting… a lot of it… cowardly fighting from the shadows and by trickery.

Our soldiers are their best examples of what it means to live in a democratic society and have choices other than those dictated by the powerful. We can’t very well send in civilians when there are shadowy cowards willing to use children as human shields to kill others off, now can we?

When General Petraeus talks about how the war cannot be won militarily, these are some of the things he is talking about.

And yes, it will be a long hard slog because in some ways it has the flavor of a revolution much like our own that won our independence. However, Iraq doesn’t come from a place of knowing what those concepts mean in reality so it’s going to take longer for them to achieve.

I’ve said, many times, in various places, that the Democratic Party of today is not the Democractic Party of old. The party was hijacked by the extreme left and the socialists in America. They don’t want freedom and democracy in Iraq anymore than the totalitarians who are fighting against them. Freedom and democracy don’t fit in with their One World Government. To them, freedom and democracy in Iraq is a step backwards… many steps backwards.

It’s funny, just a couple of days ago I heard the term hijacked used on a news station and have read it used in other blogs. I’ve been using it for months now. Does that mean people are actually reading what I write?

This is how I see the Democratic Party of today, funded by socialist/communist backers pulling the strings from the shadows. While they mouth platitudes and thoughts of equality, women’s rights, and other laudable sentiments, their actions say just the opposite of what they speak. Now, growing up I learned, and through experience I know actions speak louder than words. Why can’t everyone else know that, too? How do we bring them to a place of understanding that?

On another blog, I talked about this concept from another perspective and talked about how the liberal crowd are like the ball in the pinball machine in the hands of a master player, forever being bounced off one object or another never settling to any one thing until the master ends the game.

This blog highlights that concept nicely:

…  As I told my friend, I don’t think all liberals are bad people, but I can’t say as much about their stand on the issues.

For instance, the liberal position is to nullify the Second Amendment, making it impossible for honest citizens to own guns.

Liberals have made a religion out of the junk science revolving around Global Warming, and made a god out of Al Gore, a man who just happens to own an alternative energy company.

Liberals believe in encouraging America’s enemies by announcing timetables for withdrawal from war zones.  They also believe in extending Geneva Convention protections to terrorists and Constitutional rights to illegal aliens.

Liberals argue in favor of bilingual education in spite of the fact that studies show that Latinos, so educated, rarely catch up to other foreign-born students who aren’t similarly patronized.

Liberals promote open borders, higher taxes and an end to capital punishment.

Liberals favor affirmative action while simultaneously insisting that they, unlike conservatives, are racially color-blind.  But, then, they are also the folks who see nothing wrong with U.S. members of Congress forming a Black Caucus.

Liberals believe that activist Supreme Court judges should be encouraged to ignore the original intentions of the nation’s forefathers so long as the judges are advancing a left-wing agenda.

Liberals see nothing wrong with academic tyranny so long as it’s their professors who are ruling the ivy-covered roost.

Liberals have stretched the First Amendment beyond all recognition.  What it says in regards to the so-called separation of church and state is this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  It then goes on to proclaim freedom of the press and speech, and to acknowledge the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  Only certifiably crazy people could interpret that to preclude schools from announcing Christmas vacation or a community from placing a 30-foot Christmas tree on the roof of its city hall.

Liberals believe that freedom of the press extends only to those newspapers, TV networks and radio stations, in lockstep with their beliefs.  But let Internet websites, talk radio or Fox News, offer a viable alternative, and liberals start looking for ways to shut down the opposition. Apparently, it’s only pornography they hate to see censored.

Liberals insist they’re for religious tolerance, women’s rights, democracy and intellectual freedom, but more often than not they side with the Arabs, who are for none of those things, and against Israel.

Liberals favor gay marriage, but refuse to say, if homosexuals are allowed to tie the knot, on what basis, if any, the state can deny the same right to consenting adults who just happen to be siblings, father and daughter, mother and son, or Pamela Sue Anderson and the Oakland Raiders.

Liberals want the U.N., not the U.S., to be the world’s peacekeeper.  But one only has to look at Darfur to see what a fine job the U.N. does of it.  And how is it that the same liberals who can’t bear the thought of American soldiers risking their lives in Iraq are so anxious to have them sent off to the Sudan?

Liberals are terribly concerned with respecting the rites and traditions of Muslims both here and in Guantanamo, but every holiday season happily attack the rites and traditions of American Christians.

Liberals have double standards where politicial scandals are concerned.  Whereas Republicans lop the heads off their own (Tom DeLay, Mark Foley, Dan Crane, Trent Lott, Scooter Libby), even sometimes when the charges hardly warrant it, liberals have no problem giving leadership positions to such scoundrels as Ted Kennedy, William Jefferson, Robert Byrd, John Murtha, Gerry Studds and Barney Frank; or, for that matter, paying homage to the likes of Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter.

But perhaps there’s no area in which their hypocrisy is on such blatant display as when it comes to abortions.  Aside from the fact that the Supreme Court should never have heard Roe v. Wade in the first place — abortion not being a Constitutional right — liberals are simply loopy when it comes to this issue.  Whether it’s fighting for a woman’s right to have a partial-birth abortion or abortions on demand for young teens, you can count on liberals being just plain wrong.  It’s sort of funny in a way because the same yahoos who insist that 18 and 19 year old men and women are too immature to enlist in the military seem to think 13-year-olds are up to having abortions without parental consultation. …

You decide.

Although the liberals will try to convince you it is.

Fear is a survival mechanism which activates a “flight or fight” response. Sometimes, flight isn’t possible and you are stuck with one response, fight. The Democrats on the Hill want us to run from Iraq. To effect this end, they create a fear of fear.

Fear can motivate one to do something about the situation that created the fear or can immobilize one into inaction. I believe those who fear fear are the ones who would become immobilized by it, but are ashamed of their cowardice. Now, no one wants to be thought a coward so they rationalize or excuse their shortcomings by ridiculing those of us who are motivated to confront our fears and fight back.

Pity these people but don’t let them break your own resolve. We face fear every day of our lives in one manner or another. Some threats are larger and more deadlier than others but still only part of the fears we face every day. We live with those fears and work to end them only to have them replaced by new fears. That’s humanity, folks. That’s survival. Refusing to face your fears or trying to make them go away through appeasement only gets you dead.

April 2007


Copyright © 2012 Hillbilly Politics. All Rights Reserved.