Saturday, May 05, 2007

RNC Answers DCCC War Funding E-mail

Miss Nancy, Speaker of the House, sent me an e-mail uno de Mayo, highly critical of the President, his policies, and was full of lies and distortions. The following day, Miss Nancy's Democrat organ, DCCC, accessed "Indigo Red" - twice - to read what I had written. The third of May, the RNC (Republican National Committee) sent an e-mail. While not as vituperative as my response, Mike Duncan did cover much the same ground, and that's why the letter is reprinted here without internal comment from me. You all can hear the difference in tone and style between the Democrat and Republican positions for yourselves.

Dear [Indigo Red] ,

Last week, the Democrat-led House and Senate - despite a veto promise from the President - passed a so-called war funding bill that handcuffs our generals in Iraq, insists on a surrender date, and contains billions of dollars in pork spending unrelated to the war. What is most amazing is that it took 80 days from the date the President requested this emergency troop funding for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to finalize their flawed version of the legislation, and another 5 days for Pelosi to deliver the bill to the President.

Just hours after receiving the legislation, the President fulfilled his promise to veto the bill and sent it back to Pelosi and Reid . In an
address to the nation Tuesday night, President Bush laid out his reasons for vetoing this bill, and renewed his commitment to work with leaders of both parties to pass clean legislation which supports our troops.

Before the bill even arrived at the White House, leading Democrats had signaled their unwillingness to compromise. Click
Here to see Democrat Senator Joe Biden tell supporters that they were going to "shove" the bill "down [the President's] throat." Biden, the man once called "the Democrat's expert on foreign policy" by Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid, was proven wrong a short time later when Nancy Pelosi's attempt to force an override of the President's veto was soundly defeated in the House.

One of the things that sets us apart from the Islamic fascists is that we believe in freedom of speech and open political debate. But I truly believe that most Americans, whether they are Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, believe that we owe it to our men and women in uniform to support them in every way possible. Delaying an emergency funding bill that they desperately need while introducing more partisan legislation is not what we expect from any of our political leaders, no matter which party they belong to.

Contact your Congressman and Senator. Urge them to work with the President to pass a clean bill that funds our troops, trusts our military commanders, and helps keep the American people safe.


Robert M. "Mike" Duncan
Chairman, Republican National Committee

Perhaps it's a small thing, but Republicans writing e-mails use their full names rather than the Democrat practice of using only one. Using only a first name does not make us familiars, or friends, it doesn't show me any more concern on the letter writer's part. It does tell me that the letter writer is being condescending and rude. Both parties address me by my first name, however, the RNC asked how I was to be addressed, the Democrat party assumed an informality and familial attitude without so much as a 'How do you do?'

I get emails from 'Nancy', 'Diane', 'Barbara', and 'Hillary' as if we were old friends sitting down for tea. I have friends; I know what friends are; Senators, Speaker, you are not friends. The fact that I would not invite them into my home for any reason does not seem to occur to them at all. I find the practice to be very rude.

And Joe Biden is an idiot, a Democrat dolt who, like a rodeo clown, provides comic relief. I think the surgeons took too much of his brain a few years back.

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Bush Vetoes Bill; Nancy Sends E-mail

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker (ad nauseum) of the House of Representatives, sent this e-mail to me after President Bush vetoed (GASP! HOW DARE HE!) her bill requiring the United States of America to abandoned the people and government of Iraq to certain murder, mayhem, mischief at the hands of al-Qaida and their various franchisees in order to score points with the cheese eating surrender monkeys in the French government.

(Note: The blackened words within brackets are mine. The bolding of words is also my doing. Indigo Red.)

Dear [Indigo Red],

Voice Your Outrage and Visit the Iraq Resource Center

I had hoped that President Bush would accept my offer to work together on a New Direction in Iraq and sign crucial legislation holding the Iraqi government accountable.
[Since when was this piece of legislation intended to hold the Iraqi government accountable?! It was intended to hold President Bush responsible for not funding the troops in harm's way while the Democrats could say they provided the money in the bill the President vetoed, The only intentions were to embarrass and hamstring the President, and kill more American service members. Since the 2006 election, when Miss Nancy promised to outright end the War in Iraq, but didn't, every death has been on her head. She promised and reneged on that promise.] Instead, the President chose to continue to isolate himself from Congress, the international community, and the American people by vetoing the Democratic plan for change in Iraq.

The President isn't listening to the American people's call to end this disastrous war. What further proof do they need than the timing of his veto? The President vetoed our bill that would end this war and bring our troops home the week of the fourth anniversary of his infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech that declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq. Four years after that misguided speech, the President keeps making the same mistakes in Iraq.
[A bald-faced lie, if I ever heard one! The President is not responsible for when legislative bills are delivered to his office for action - the Legislature is responsible for deliveries! The Democrat leadership in both the House and the Senate held the bill over from last week when they voted on it with the express and expressed intention of delivering the bill to the Presidents desk on this specific day intentionally to embarrass the President. HOUSE SPEAKER PELOSI, YOU ARE A LIAR!]

Our bill achieved exactly what the American people elected us to do in November 2006. [Another bald-faced lie! The American people (read - liberal Democrats) voted to END the war, not set a "date-certain" for withdrawal or even suggest a date to cut-and-run. The Liberal Democrat vote was to END THE WAR NOW! ] It would have fully funded troops on the ground, started to bring them home responsibly, held President Bush accountable
[Hold on here, didn't you just say Miss Nancy, that this legislation was to "hold the Iraqi government accountable"? So which is it - hold Iraq or President Bush accountable?], and ensured our veterans get the treatment they deserve back home.

Congress has responded to the will of the American people. President Bush has not. The President is clinging to his failed stay-the-course strategy in Iraq, while brave servicemen and women risk their lives for his mistakes.
[Congress has not responded at all to the will of the American people. (And stop saying "the American people" - who the hell else would we be talking about? It's such a stupid phrase!) President Bush has said he would prosecute this war to the end, as the electorate voted him to do and that is what he has continued to do. As the situation in situ has changed, the strategy has changed, but the goal has remained the same - a full function, independent Iraqi government capable of defending itself. ALL of the brave men and women risking their lives have volunteered to defend ME and your right to be a dumb-ass, Miss Nancy. Furthermore, you haven't earned the right to call them BRAVE as you support neither the mission nor the troops, so keep your slimy condescending words to yourself. AND, it's not a failed strategy. We haven't lost despite what Harry "The War is Lost" Reid would have us believe.]

House and Senate Democrats offered a plan for change in Iraq that gave the President every penny he requested for soldiers on the ground and more. But it also gave him something he's tried to avoid: accountability. [The President is already accountable as Commander-in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America; he doesn't need your permission or approval. Your "offer" (read demand) was for the President to lie down before you and beg forgiveness for keeping your sorry butt alive for sure as shootin' the Islamic extremists would come for you in the first go 'round. And right now, there would be a lot of Patriots pointing the way.]

President Bush may have the bully pulpit - but we have you. Close to 60,000 of you signed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)'s petition to the President telling him not to veto our plan. The American people are with us and the fight for a New Direction in Iraq is not over - we hope you will continue to stand with us. [CLOSE to 60,000 people, huh. Not even 60,000. Oh well, that's a lot of people anyway. Until the total population is factored in. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to 05/02/07 at 01:00 GMT (EST+5) is 301,742,264. Your close to 60,000 signers is a paltry sum not even 1% of the total. What a joke! Either the other 99.9% couldn't care less about signing your petition or they simply don't agree with you. Either way, you are still a fumble-bum bunch of losers.]

We are counting on you -- and millions of Democrats across the country who are united and energized as never before -- to help build an unstoppable Democratic Majority and put a Democrat in the White House in 2008. [You are counting on me, Indigo Red! What a bunch of fools, I haven't been a Democrat for 8 years and despite repeated notices from me, you haven't gotten it through your thick skulls. You can't even get that right and supposed to assume you'll get the war right?Apparently, the Democrat party believes, like Muslims, once a Democrat, always a Democrat. Well, not this one. I saw the light, I've been to the mountaintop, I got me a brain, I thunk a thought and got the facts. You lose.]

Thank you for your continued dedication. [Thank you. I assume, Miss Nancy, you are referring to my continued dedication to the cause of individual rights and liberties; low taxation, gun ownership, freedom of and from religion,; secured borders, illegal foreigners are not welcome, but immigrants are welcome; enforcement of laws, punishing the criminal not the victim and holding the criminal responsible not society; teaching the ethics and morality of AMERICAN citizenship, America's special place in the world; though homosexuality may be natural it is still not normal, marriage is one man/one woman; and the total destruction of the Democrat party. But, I could be wrong.]


Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House of Representatives

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.

Monday, April 30, 2007

John Stossel on Gun Control

Gun Control Isn't Crime Control

Stricter Gun Control Laws Wouldn't Have Prevented Va. Tech Tragedy
April 26, 2007—

This past Tuesday the governor of Virginia announced he would close the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to buy the guns he used to kill 32 people -- and himself -- on the Virginia Tech campus. OK, it's a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable. But be careful about how far the calls for gun control go, because the idea that gun control laws lower gun crime is a myth.

After the 1997 shooting of 16 kids in Dunblane, England, the United Kingdom passed one of the strictest gun-control laws in the world, banning its citizens from owning almost all types of handguns. Britain seemed to get safer by the minute, as 162,000 newly-illegal firearms were forked over to British officials by law-abiding citizens.

But this didn't decrease the amount of gun-related crime in the U.K. In fact, gun-related crime has nearly doubled in the U.K. since the ban was enacted.

Might stricter gun laws result in more gun crime? It seems counterintuitive but makes sense if we consider one simple fact: Criminals don't obey the law. Strict gun laws, like the ban in Britain, probably only affect the actions of people who wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.

England's ban didn't magically cause all British handguns to disappear. Officials estimate that more than 250,000 illegal weapons are still in circulation in the country. Without the fear of retaliation from victims who might be packing heat, criminals in possession of these weapons now have a much easier job, and the incidence of gun-related crime has risen. As the saying goes, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

It's true that if gun control laws had been stricter in Virginia, Seung-Hui Cho would have had a more difficult time getting ahold of the weapons he used to gun down innocent students and teachers. But it's foolish to assume that stricter gun laws will prevent maniacs like Cho from committing heinous crimes. A deranged criminal will find a way to get his hands on a gun. Or a bomb.

The sad truth is that if gun laws had been less strict in Virginia, there is a possibility that the tragedy at Virginia Tech could have claimed fewer lives.

In January 2006, a bill was proposed in the Virginia State Assembly that would have forced Virginia Tech to change its current policy and allow students and faculty members to legally carry weapons on campus. Teenage college students carrying guns makes me nervous, but shouldn't adults be able to decide if they want to arm themselves -- just in case? When the bill was defeated, a Virginia Tech spokesman cheered the action, saying, "This will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

However, one gun rights advocate lamented the bill's failure with chilling accuracy: "You never know when evil will pop up."

Back in 2002, evil arrived at Virginia's Appalachian School of Law. A disgruntled student opened fire on the school's campus, killing three and wounding more. The law school also prohibited guns on campus, but fortunately two students happened to have firearms in their cars. When the pair heard gunshots, they retrieved their weapons and trained them on the killer, helping restrain him until authorities arrived.

There's no way to know whether Seung-Hui Cho's murderous rampage could have been stopped in a similar way, but what's certain is that strict gun control laws do not always have the effect that legislators intend. More guns (in the right hands) can stop crime, and fewer guns (in the wrong hands) can make for more crime. Gun control isn't crime control.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

The life of Indigo Red is full of adventure. Tune in next time for the Further Adventures of Indigo Red.