Absolutely nobody's babies are safe when Lefties get involved. In California, fer sure. In San Francisco, of course. This is what Lefties believe; the state always knows better than the parents.
Peregrine falcons construct their nests in precarious places on purpose. They generally choose a wind-swept cliff face. I once visited a friend of mine in Colorado who had volunteered to feed peregrine falcon chicks being raised on a cliff face in order to help re-populate a then precarious low population of peregrines in the area. The cliff was no less dangerous or windy than a bridge, and the babies did fine. Mark, correct me if I'm wrong, but all the babies hatched and all of them fledged and flew off by themselves. That the folks in San Francisco believe they can raise peregrine falcon babies better than the parents (who, by the way, have been successful in raising their young for years) is fully in compliance with Lefty doctrine. Lefties believe they are better humans than the average human, and they also believe they are better peregrine falcons than the aaverage peregrine falcon.
There's no limit to the ego of the average Leftie, and neither man nor beast is safe from their stupidity.
The Democrats, at least as far as the Presidential candidates and their strategist go, are sure that the Iraq war can be won, and that it will be obvious to most American's that it can be won by election time, 2008. That's why they are so desperate to legislate a defeat for US forces, and a victory for al Queda. The war was a huge asset to the Democrats in 2006. I don't think there is a single person on the planet that doesn't acknowledge that the Democratic Party takeover of the House and Senate was engineered on the back of the "anti-war" movement. I'm pretty sure that MoveOn.org and the Krazy Kos Kids will back me on that. Hell, AW would probably back that statement. The American public, fed a constant diet of half-truths and outright lies by the media and the Democrats, voted to change course. As is their right. So why are the Democrats desperate to get rid of this cash cow and red herring? Because the war only works as a Democrat Party asset when it's not going well. If the Democratic Party candidates believed what they say, that the war is lost, it can never be won, then they would be far more willing to keep it going in order to use it as a campaign platform. Does anyone honestly believe that Hillary wouldn't be willing to sacrifice a few thousand more soldiers and a couple hundred billion of your tax dollars in order to have a failed Iraq War in 2008 to throw in the face of any Republican candidate? And to hold up to the American public as the (likely only) reason to vote for her? Of course she would. And it's not just Hillary, I can say the same of every single Democratic Party candidate. Most all of them loathe the military, and would be perfectly happy to keep is dying in large numbers if it meant that they could gain a percentage point or two on election day. That fact cannot have completely escaped the minds of the political advisors to the Democrats. It cannot have escaped their minds that if the war is showing clear signs of success, that each and every "defeatocrat" will look like the traitor that they are, and the public will vote accordingly. So which seems more likely. That the Democrats in Congress, desperate to get their man in the White House, are willing to end a war that (if it is going as badly as they tell their constituents it is) they know would guarantee a Democratic victory in 2008? Or that the Democrats in Congress, knowing perfectly well that the war is likely to show progress by 2008, are now willing to legislate a defeat for US forces and a victory for al Queda?
People have asked, "Why legislate a deadline?". They are not legislating a deadline, they are legislating a defeat. The deadline, months before the election, which means troops would have to start their retreat at least a year before the election, is meant to ensure that the image of the Iraq war is that of retreat and defeat. The Democrats cannot afford even the slightest indication of an Iraq War going well. In the end, the Democrats are more worried about a Republican victory in 2008 than they are an al Queda victory in 2008.
The wind farm off his beach is one step closer to getting built. I'm sure he's not worried about having his view ruined, he's most likely upset that the likelihood rises that as he's cruising around drunk in his boat, he might hit one of the towers in the water.
Traveling up to our land this morning where we are going to build a cabin, I saw a gray wolf. I was a bit surprised, as there aren't supposed to be any wolves this far south in Colorado. Or anywhere in Colorado for that matter. At first I thought it might be a coyote, which are thick as the thieves they are, in the Wet Mountains where we have our little slice of heaven. But I can tell a coyote from a wolf, and this was a wolf. I asked around in the town of Westcliffe if there had been any other wolf sitings. I found out that there is a wolf breeder, or researcher, the folks in town were divided on that, that has on occasion, "lost" a wolf into the wild. Some of the people believe he lets them loose when they are too old to be of use (which would make him a breeder, I think). Not sure why he wouldn't just euthanize them, it would seem to be more humane than just letting them go into the wild where they will likely die of starvation. Anyway, he must have let another one get "lost", because I saw a wolf standing in a patch of aspen trees, in a big snowfield, checking out the mule deer in the draw below. When I stopped to take a picture, he took off into the trees. I'm actually kinda fond of the idea that there might be wolves where we build our cabin. There's all sorts of cool things that happen when a whole pack end up taking residence.
These are the yea votes for the Senate Bill HR 1591, referred to as "The Emergency Surrender and Pork Supplement Bill". It should come as no surprise that with a couple of exceptions, it's a straight MoveOn.org Party vote.
This AP article about the impending fight between President Bush and Congress over the funding bill has a strange twist to history. Talking about the last time a President and Congress fought over a budget, the reporter says:
The looming showdown was reminiscent of the GOP-led fight with President Clinton over the 1996 budget, which caused a partial government shutdown that
lasted 27 days. Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., the House speaker at the time,
eventually relented but claimed victory because the bill represented a
substantial savings over the previous year's spending.
That's the first time I have ever heard anyone say that the budget fight of 1996 was a victory for Congress. Newt may have claimed victory, but it was widely acknowledged by everyone that Clinton was the victor in that fight. I'm guessing that it's a bit of the ol' let's rewrite history and hope the public is stupid enough to buy it.