Friday, July 25, 2008

Oh Yeah...

As a slight update on the site, the countdown to the day when the title "GOP & College" becomes obsolete is almost here!

I graduate with my Bachelor's of Science in Mechanical Engineering on August 2nd at 10 AM!

Money Trail Points To Media Bias

The split between the words of comfort that large media companies give, claiming no bias, and what happens with their political donations are two completely different things.

Although the media continually claims neutrality, studies have repeatedly shown the opposite to be true, and this one adds more fuel to the fire.

A total of a little more than $315,500 of money goes to Democrats, while only a bit over $22,500 went to Republicans.

Of that statistic, 4 journalists donated directly to John McCain, 80 donated directly to Barack Obama. Among strictly Journalists, there were 235 donations by journalists to Democrats in general, and 20 who went to the Republican Party. In the media as a whole, including anchors, and such showed a similar pattern at 311 to Democrats, 30 to Republicans

Looking deeper, the majority of Republican donations went to Ron Paul, who is flaunted by many liberals, and to Rudy Giuliani, Mayor of New York City. No statistic was given about how many of the Democrat Donations were towards Hillary Clinton though.

Will Franklin has the same thoughts.

Monday, July 21, 2008

Senator McCain's Editorial Rejected By The New York Times

Here is a direct transcript of the Editorial (a direct rebuttal of Obama's editorial) that was declined publishing by the NYT.

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

H/T; Drudge

Saturday, July 19, 2008

To People Who Are Planning On Voting With Their Wallet...

I just wanted to give a reminder to everyone who is thinking about voting Democrat this election cycle because they feel that Obama will do things to give them more money.

The average Tax Freedom Day of Democrat states is 10 days later than the average Republican state. Just think about the affect on your finances losing 2 weeks of pay could do when you push that button on Election Day.
This information is for 2006, but has the data for 2008 out as well.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Just Breaking, Iranian Fauxtography Scandal

Malkin posted the story less than 30 minutes ago, but it has been building for some time now.

At least some of the images provided by the Iranian government about the missile launches this week have been shown to be FAKES. And looking at some of the images, I have my doubts that the images provided in so many papers were even from this year.

Looking at Snapped Shot, I notice something about the altered photo, and the image from 2006. They both have one legitimate rocket with a yellowish exhaust trail, surrounded by missiles with a white exhaust trail. This makes me wonder if the "Launch pictures" from this week are merely recirculated images from 2006.

Unfortunately there aren't enough ground features to determine if this is the case since the angle that pictures were taken from are so different. My suspicion is that the image from 2008 is simply a picture of the two furthest left rockets, and the yellow smoke rocket from a different angle, with the addition of a horribly faked 4th rocket, but without further in depth research, I can't be sure.

Kaminger shows reason to think otherwise, as the 2006 image did in fact show up almost unaltered again this week.

H/T: Malkin, Snapped Shot

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Psssssssssssst! IT'S FANTASY FOOTBALL TIME!!!!

HWC Football is taking on managers.

The league limit is only at 12( possibly up to14), so GET IN HERE NOW!

Those already in;
The Man
J Wookie
Hector Vex
Trench Coat Reynolds
Mr. Pigg

Past year competitors (that need to join)
bRight & Early
Jerk Store
Pat from T(v)RWC

Saddam Did Have The Ability To Produce Nuclear Materials

How do we know? Because 550 metric tons of Saddam's Yellow Cake Uranium just made it safely to Canada.

The intended use for this cake is merely speculation, but it does show that there was a very large amount of radioactive material available to use as he desired. However it is important to note that Saddam was very vocal in the 1990's about getting information and technology to be able to produce weapons grade enriched uranium. Also to be noted is that after the end of the Gulf War where Saddam signed a treaty to dismantle/render harmless all WMD's, there were 40 nuclear research facilities, including 3 Uranium enrichment sites that were completely hidden for over 7 years from the outside world.

Not only was Saddam very effective at concealing his intentions, but he was also moderately effective at concealing the physical aspects of his intentions. This, after all, is the guy whose air-force went missing for almost 5 months before discovering them buried under more than 10 feet of sand, right under the Coalition Force's nose. Who knows what could lie 100 or more feet below the Iraqi sand.

The Final Knock-Out Punch

Did anyone in the US hear this from a major news source?

American and Iraqi forces are driving Al-Qaeda in Iraq out of its last redoubt in the north of the country in the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

... American and Iraqi leaders believe that while it would be premature to write off Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni group has lost control of its last urban base in Mosul and its remnants have been largely driven into the countryside to the south.

Perhaps the military wanted to keep it hush-hush, but something tells me that it may not be the case. I think some one needs to put this report on Barack Obama's desk. Maybe then he'll realize we're not losing there, and need to stay until the job is done.

H/T Instapundit, (via Hot Air)