Then:

Now:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0721053bush1.html" title="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0721053bush1.html" target="_blank"http://www.thesmokinggun.com/...

"Caruso, who taught first and third graders at Birch Lane, also claims that when the principal spotted the Bush portrait late last year--it was hanging among photos of other U.S. presidents--she "became outraged and insisted that the picture be removed."

Do not, I repeat, do not mess with public schools.  It is their sole job to pass along liberal "values" to the masses.  Why do you think so many liberals are against school vouchers?  Giving parents a choice in where their kids attend school would take away the public school's ability to pass along this liberal garbage to generation after generation of young kiddos. 

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm" title="http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm" target="_blank"http://www.washtimes.com/nati...

When are democrats going to learn that just because they say they are pro-military doesn't mean that we are all going to buy into that.  I remember singing in church a song that went something like this:

"Actions speak louder than words, actions speak louder than words"

Until democrats not only stop degrading our military but also start actually acting in the soldier's best interests, they will always be known as soft on national security and anti-American Soldier. 

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm" title="http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm" target="_blank"http://www.drudgereport.com/f...

The democrats are pretty upset that the media is covering the Supreme Court nomination process more than they are covering the supposed problems with Karl Rove. 

I have a couple of problems with this line of thinking:

1.  A Supreme Court Nominee is something that isn't named very often.  This is a big deal and will be extremely important for years and years to come.  Karl Rove hinting at who might be a CIA spy is small in comparison. 

2.  Democrats are upset about this supposed breach in regards to Ms. Plame.  Joe Wilson was being caught in numerous lies regarding his own CIA status and the jobs he had.  He lied about how he got those jobs and he lied about not being affiliated with a certain political party.  Karl Rove, no matter what Democrats want to continue saying, broke no law.  The law states that it is illegal to "out" a covert opperative in the CIA.  Ms. Plame was never classified as covert.  What Rove did may have been wrong, but it was far from illegal. 

Why are they upset with this, while they blew off what Sandy Berger did.  Sandy Berger stole classified documents regarding the Clinton Administration's terror search, shreaded them and tried to cover it up.  Where was the outrage on the Democrats side on this? 

Politics, don'tcha love it?

I haven't blogged in quite some time.  Life has a way of catching up to you and in turn, if you are lucky, making you extremely busy with things that really matter.  So, no complaints here...

Since I've last blogged, I've gotten a great new job, seen my newborn baby have her first birthday and find out that we have another one on the way!  We have bought a home as well so I've had a few excuses for my absense. 

I hope everyone has been doing well!

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHil l/News/Frontpage/020305/r epublicans.html" title="http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHil l/News/Frontpage/020305/r epublicans.html" target="_blank"http://www.hillnews.com/thehi...

Hissing huh?  Wow, that is all I can say, wow.  I think I remember stuff like that happening back in the 7th grade.  We had a substitute teacher who made us write a paper about the French Revolution.  A few in the class hissed and started whining.  It was pretty funny then. 

Of course, I was 12.

http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=757" title="http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/column.php?id=757" target="_blank"http://www.ariannaonline.com/...

What a hack...

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=200501291903000258 6895&" title="http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=200501291903000258 6895&" target="_blank"http://channels.netscape.com/...;dt=20050129190300&w= RTR&coview=

As I talked about in a recent blog, there are way too many contradictory stories about Global Warming lately for me to take it very seriously.  I'm completely open to at least entertaining the idea that there might be something to this, but I haven't seen the proof yet. 

This story says that by 2026 we could be in trouble.  In the article I shared with you a few days back, it said that in 10 years we could be in big trouble and in the same article it said that in 20 years we would be in trouble if we didn't start doing something. 

Will someone please clue me in here?  Those of you who are insistant in thinking that we are killing the Ozone layer, please show me proof.  It seems difficult to find substantial proof on this considering the fact that there are so many contradictory things out there.

Today we've seen a country, once ruled by the heavy hand of a murderous dictator, vote in a Democratic style election.  This is history.  Even those who don't like or agree with President Bush and his policy, can't deny the fact that this is a historic and monumental event.  Anytime I see people showing the resolve to overcome great odds to improve their lives, I get goosebumps all over. 

One thing I do wish is this:  I wish that the media and those on the other side of the isle would step back and look at this situation from a different perspective.  Instead of looking at the 40+ people who died in the elections, why not look at the fact that more of a percentage of Iraqis voted in their election than did American's in our recent election.  Instead of looking at bombings, why not look at new schools that are being built.  Instead of saying that the Iraqis have a long way to go, which is obvious, why not congratulate them and say a prayer of thanks that the elections went as smoothly as they did. 

This has been a monumental day.  One day, when my children are older, I will be able to say that I remember when the Iraqi people were finally free enough to vote in a real election.  How can that be a bad thing?  Sure there will be other steps they have to face.  Sure there will be hard times ahead.  For the moment, be happy that they are able to do something that most said was impossible.  Be happy that these people were able to do something that so many in this country, America, take for granted. 

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/stor y.jsp?story=603975" title="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/stor y.jsp?story=603975" target="_blank"http://news.independent.co.uk...

"The countdown to climate-change catastrophe is spelt out by a task force of senior politicians, business leaders and academics from around the world - and it is remarkably brief. In as little as 10 years, or even less, their report indicates, the point of no return with global warming may have been reached."

"The report urges all the G8 countries to agree to generate a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and to double their research spending on low-carbon energy technologies by 2010. It also calls on the G8 to form a climate group with leading developing nations such as India and China, which have big and growing CO2 emissions."

"What this underscores is that it's what we invest in now and in the next 20 years that will deliver a stable climate, not what we do in the middle of the century or later," said Tom Burke, a former government adviser on green issues who now advises business."

Ok, will some of you smart liberal environmentalist crazies please explain this to me?  First, as you can see in the quote I have, they state that in as little as 10 years we may pass the point of no return with global warming.  Then, in the same article, it states that the report urges all G8 countries to agree to generate a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources by the year....2025.  What??  Then it states that "this underscores that what we invest in now and in the next 20 years will help deliver a stable climate. 

Ok, please explain this to me.  Are we or are we not headed for catastrophe in the next ten years if we don't do something?  If we are, why would the report urge these countries to put these policies into place by the years 2025?  I mean, if it is that dire, why wouldn't they urge them to do this right now?  Huh?  By this reports standards and own admissions, we might not be around by 2025. 

Look, there are always things that we could do better when it comes to the environment.  No one will deny that.  Is it as dire as many want you to believe?  Well, I'm not sure how you could come to the conclusion that it is as dire.  These sort of "doomsday" reports have been coming out for decades now and each has stated that the next 20 years or so would be devistating if something isn't done.  I think it is very interesting that those responsible for this study would contradict themselves so clearly. 

If I'm wrong and they aren't being contradictory, please let me know.  If you can prove to me then great, but I just don't see it in this article.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3hrc.htm" title="http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3hrc.htm" target="_blank"http://www.drudgereport.com/f...

Ok, so I can take this one of two ways:

1.  Hilary, trying to be a master politician as her husband is, is trying to whipe the label of "liberal" she has earned.  If she does this, the Republicans won't be able to call her this in the next election. 

2.  Hilary, understanding that you can't win with liberal values, is changing her mind on the values that America stands for and wants in their leaders. 

Although I would love to believe that she is starting to see the light, I have a hard time not believe this is just the politically easy thing for her to do.  Just last week she had a big speech in which she talked most of the time about God (something no liberal would have ever done before Bush made it ok to talk about) and now she is coming out and trying to be softer in her approach to abortion rights. 

Anyway you look at it, the influence of the Conservative right is sweeping across our country.  When you have big party liberals like Mrs. Clinton softening their tone on issues like God in public life and on abortion, there is no denying that President Bush's lead here is having an influence. 

My question is this:  Who exactly is she trying to win over?  Democrats are facing a Catch 22 right now.  They understand, after the last election, that moral values and thoughts of God are more front and center than ever before and those who decide not to take the lead on these issues lose.  This is the reason they are talking more about this.  So, possibly they get a few votes from the center.  Maybe shore up the middle of the road Democrats who believe in God.  What is she going to do about the wacky left wingers of her party though?  Actually, since that is the Democratic base, what is she going to do when her base completely freaks out over this.  Remember, the far left can't stand anyone talking about God in public, believe that it is every woman's right to have an abortion and don't want public officials stating that they believe in and trust in God in their everyday lives. 

Democrats are in a position right now that is extremely interesting and I can't wait to see what happens. 

http://www.nysun.com/article/8027" title="http://www.nysun.com/article/8027" target="_blank"http://www.nysun.com/article/...

Well, I sure do like the fact that more and more Conservatives are getting into filmmaking.  This guy isn't Michael Moore though.  Michael more is a movie maker, and honestly a very good one.  There is a difference though between documentary makers and movie makers.  Movies are fiction or "loosely based on reality" and a documentary tells a story based solely on facts and allows the audience to make up their own minds.  Nothing Michael Moore does gives the audience a chance to make up their own mind.

No, this guy isn't the Conservative answer to Michael Moore.  He is telling the truth...something that Michael Moore knows little about.

Kerry "I was this close to being a winner....this close!"

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103 531-1062r.htm" title="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050119-103 531-1062r.htm" target="_blank"http://washingtontimes.com/na...

Ha!  I find it humorous that the same people who are denouncing the cost today, justified it then. 

You liberals provide endless entertainment.  Of course, I love you guys :)

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050119/D87N D8680.html" title="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050119/D87N D8680.html" target="_blank"http://apnews.myway.com/artic...

Well, here they go again.  I spent most of last year trying to block Republican nominations and now they are going to start it all over again.

It's time for Conservatives to stop this now.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/1 6/roemer.dnc/index.html" title="http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/1 6/roemer.dnc/index.html" target="_blank"http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPO...

"I will spend the next month leading a vigorous effort to ensure that when the DNC elects its new leader, it selects someone who stands forthrightly for a woman's right to choose," Michelman said

"I will also urge DNC members to make an unequivocal statement that choice is both a fundamental value of the Democratic Party and an essential component of our winning message."

"Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman Phil Johnston said Tuesday in a written statement, "It would be extremely foolish if the DNC were to be led by a chair who agrees with the Bush administration's position on abortion."

They just don't get it.  They don't understand that this is not an issue that they can win with anymore.  This hasn't been a winning issue for them for some time but the Democrats are failing to realize it.  The majority of Americans don't believe that abortion is a good thing.  As long as they continue pushing this as a litmus test for their candidates, they will lose.

I also think that his statement regarding the fact that the Republicans have a big tent is very revealing...how much do you want to bet that Democratic party leaders cringed when they heard that comment.  There is no way in hades that this guy gets the nomination.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/1 4/inauguration.prayer.ap/index.html" title="http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/1 4/inauguration.prayer.ap/index.html" target="_blank"http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPO...

If you don't believe in God, that's fine because it's your choice.  I, personally, believe in God and believe he is the only real link to true happiness.  That is my right and it shouldn't be taken away.  If I want to have a Christian minister speak at my graduation/wedding/funera l/public appearance/etc.. I should have the right to.  If you are muslim and you decide you want a muslim minister to speak at your public or private function, you should have that right.  If I don't like it, I can just decide not to attend or I can pray to my God/not listen/sing to myself/etc.. 

This is America and the last time I saw, we have the freedom of religion and not the freedom from religion.  If you don't want to believe in a "higher power" that is fine too in this country.  In this country, you aren't forced to attend mass or church services.  If a public function includes a prayer you can leave the room any time you want without being forcefully made to stay. 

I think my big question is this:  If President Bush decided to have a Muslim give a prayer, would there be an outcry from those who are upset right now?  If Bush were Muslim, would he be called the "Crazy Religious fanatic" that he is called now?  On many levels, the hatred for Bush and the so called "seperation of church and state" that so many people throw out there is really about the seperation of people and citizens from Christianity. 

This kind of thing should scare everyone, whether you are Christian, Muslim, or not.

I find it funny that the Democrats have been clamoring and clamoring for Bush to come out and "admit" that there were no WMDs in Iraq afterall.  All you heard was that "if he would only come out and admit it, we could move on, blah blah blah."  What happens?  He comes out and says that they are calling off the search because they couldn't find any WMDs.  What a mistake.  Why is it a mistake?  Because giving liberals what they want never works.

Liberals have pounced on this, some even calling for his impeachment.  What a load.  You people are in need of mental care.  EVERYONE thought there were WMDs.  Republicans, Democrats, Europe, the U.N., EVERYONE. 

Here are a few quotes for those of you who don't believe it:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

EVERYONE thought there were WMDs.  So, why you ask, does Bush get blamed for it?  Because we are talking about politics.  Will they themselves come out and say that they thought the exact same thing after looking at the same intelligence?  No, of course not.  Blame Bush for being the person to make the final decision.  He is the President.  If you are going to cast stones here though, throw a few at your oversized heads too.  You liberals deserve just as much "blame".

Of course, it was still worth it because everyone also has and continues to believe that Saddam was waiting for the UN sanctions to be lifted so he could start redevelopement of his programs. 

So there were no WMDs found.  Sucks doesn't it?  Imagine what would have happened if Bush hadn't gone to war, a bomb blew up in one of our major cities and pieces of the bomb found in some young child were linked back to Saddam.  Hmmm...would Democrats blame themselves or would they blame Bush.  They would blame Bush.  Why?  Because what is good for the U.S. is bad for Democrats and vice versa.

So, take that and stick if were you liberals like it.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0513-01.htm" title="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0513-01.htm" target="_blank"http://www.commondreams.org/h...

"But clearer, sunnier days could mean bad news for global warming. Instead of cloudiness slowing rising temperatures, sunshine would be expected to accelerate the warming."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.guardian.co.uk/lif...,13026,1108853,00.html

"The finding went against all scientific thinking. By the mid-80s there was undeniable evidence that our planet was getting hotter, so the idea of reduced solar radiation - the Earth's only external source of heat - just didn't fit. And a massive 10% shift in only 30 years? Ohmura himself had a hard time accepting it. "I was shocked. The difference was so big that I just could not believe it," he says. Neither could anyone else. When Ohmura eventually published his discovery in 1989 the science world was distinctly unimpressed. "It was ignored," he says."

 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001 923726_globaldimming09.html" title="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001 923726_globaldimming09.html" target="_blank"http://seattletimes.nwsource....

"Researchers say global dimming, also known as solar dimming, partly offsets the global warming that most scientists agree is produced by "greenhouse gases" such as auto exhaust and emissions from coal-burning power plants"

I know, I know, you out there who believe that global warming is a dead solid fact will say this is nonsense.  Even after looking at proof and hearing scientists talk about it you will say it's bogus but what if?  I know it's difficult to grasp this, but what if the very scientists you have trusted all of your life have been wrong about this?  It wouldn't be the first time.  Science is a platform that is constantly changing it's mind on things. 

So, what if the global warming thing isn't happening?  Ok, let's take it down a notch.  Let's not even say that.  Let's just say that this is a new angle in the whole discussion.  Let's just say that this is a possibility.  What do you say about that? 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" title="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,144082,00.html

It really makes me wonder if liberals and Democrats actually know what bi-partisanship really means.  All you hear on a constant basis coming from the libs is that Bush doesn't want bi-partisanship, Bush and Republicans don't work with Democrats, Bush and the Conservatives only want their way, blah blah blah...

Democrats have touted Bush as the largest divider in history when in fact they are the dividers.  The Democratic definition of bi-partisanship:

"The act of stonewalling, yelling, kicking, screaming, accusing, lying, misleading, and obstructing long enough to get exactly what you want....as long as you are a Democrat.  If you are a Conservative or Republican, it means you must give equally, if not more than, to Democrats."

Democrats say that they want bi-partisanship, but they have done nothing over the last 10 or 15 years to prove they are actually serious about it.  Once again, they live in a political playground and they still think that they own the equipment.  Democrats and Libs, you no longer are in power and there is a reason....just read the article and you will know why.

http://cbsnewyork.com/topstories/topstories _story_011113542.html" title="http://cbsnewyork.com/topstories/topstories _story_011113542.html" target="_blank"http://cbsnewyork.com/topstor...

In making a decision on who I see as the best candidate for the DNC Chairmanship, as a Conservative, I need to look for a person with a few very important characteristics:

1.  The candidate must be "charming and fun". 

2.  The candidate must be pro abortion.

3.  The candidate must be anti war at any cost.

4.  The candidate must believe that Bill Clinton was one of the best Presidents of this or any generation.

5.  The candidate must have lost before in some sort of national election.

6.  Most of all, the candidate must be a huge champion for the liberal cause.  He must never back down from this. 

I personally believe that Howard Dean fits all of these qualities and more.  He is a charming, good looking and seemingly nice man.  He is staunchly pro abortion.  He was anti war when John Kerry was pro Iraq war.  He has openly commended Clinton as the finest President in our lifetime.  He certainly melted down in the Presidential primaries.  Most importantly, he is the biggest champion for liberal "values" in the Democratic party. 

If nothing else, we just want to see Mr. Dean run for some sort of office.  No one is as entertaining and no one can capture a crowds attention like the screaming Dean. 

Howard Dean for DNC Chair. 

(As an aside, this should be pretty obvious, I pick Dean because any time liberal values are pitted against Conservative values, the Conservatives win.  There is a reason that Dean wasn't the Democratic Presidential Nominee.  He was too liberal and he openly stated as much.  Liberal is a bad word, as it should be, to the Democratic party.  He may stand for everything that they do, but he is something that they just can't afford.  He is honest about it.  So, Conservatives, band with me in helping to promote Howard Dean for this position.)

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/050117/w hispers/17whisplead.htm" title="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/050117/w hispers/17whisplead.htm" target="_blank"http://www.usnews.com/usnews/...

Ugh, I hope not.  Everyone continues to say how "great" the 2008 elections are going to be.  Honestly, for Conservatives, there aren't many choices.  If Colin Powell, Jeb Bush and Rudi are the top choices for the Republican party, they very well may win the White House again, but they aren't exactly the beacons for Conservatism.  Liberals could only be so lucky to have a Republican in office who is for a stance that less than 45% of the population believes in.....the idea of being "Pro abortion".

It's a scary trend in the Republican Party when people are labeled "Conservative" when they are really nothing close to being that...

Happy 2005 to everyone!  When I started this blog, one of the things I wanted to accomplish was to help show the blogging world just what we would be getting if J. Kerry were to be elected.  I think we did that, along with the rest of the blogging world, and that is why we have GW Bush for another 4 years!  So, congrats to everyone who helped make that possible!

Now, we need to get down to business.  In this next term, GW Bush will only be considered a success if he actually pushes conservative legislation and ideals.  This is not something that a President would normally do in their 2nd term as they normally are starting to think about their "legacy".  Fortunately for us, the man has already started with the conservative legislation and ideals with his suggestions and determination to change social security.  Do not underestimate the importance of something like this actually happening.  This is important to EVERYONE and EVERYONE should be clamoring for this.  Only those who are misinformed and/or don't care about their own financial security should be content with SS's current status. 

I look forward to seeing what is in store for the coming year and the next four years with our current President.  Fortunately, for our country and society, Conservatism won out and liberalism lost.  This has continued the trend towards a more Conservative society, which is best for everyone in the long run.  We, as Conservatives, must now reach out to those on the fence without giving up on our core values.  We must break through the lies and stigmas that liberals have given to us so successfully.  We must continue to live our lives with purpose and meaning regardless of what liberals say about us and if we do, our Conservative movement will continue to grow in numbers and strength.

Liberals, I know you aren't happy I'm back, but you will have to deal with it. 

Please go to http://deshanews.proboards39.com/index.cgi" title="http://deshanews.proboards39.com/index.cgi" target="_blank"http://deshanews.proboards39.... my brand new message boards, register and start posting!

------------------------- -------

Well, I can't believe that game last night.  For those of you who didn't see the game, it started out like a blow out.  UT was playing Oklahoma State here in Austin.  OK State jumped out to a 35-7 lead.  The University of Texas then ran off 49 unanswered points to win 56-35!  It was the largest comeback in school history.  This was also extremely important for BCS standings.  A loss would have surely left us out of a BCS bowl.

It was a great game.  Even this morning I can barely believe it!

http://deshanews.proboards39.com/index.cgi" title="http://deshanews.proboards39.com/index.cgi" target="_blank"http://deshanews.proboards39....

I thought by saying that I might get your attention.  Introducing my new and improved message boards.  They are brand new so go, register and post!  You are invited whether your are Conservative, liberal, middle of the road, or not into politics at all.  There is something for everyone. 

We have political boards, sports boards, and just regular general boards.  Come on and register!