Welcome to Pundit Heads.

All Photos used on this site, without labels, are property of FNC and/or AP. Other photos will be linked properly.

Update January 3rd, 2004

I was nominated for the Asia Blog award, although I do not think I will win with such stiff competition, a nomination was nice. Look here.

December 20th, 2003

I have entered Asia Blog Awards. If you would like to support me, please scroll down this page and vote. I appreciate the support.

December 17th, 2003

Submitted my website to Google.com
Here is the Search Page
Much love to Google.

December 11th, 2003

I recently moved from blogger.com because I didn't like there server. It wasn't customizable enough, but I feel I will like it better at blogdrive.com. All those articles are moved from www.r0ckw3ll.blogspot.com.

--If you want to plug my site on yours, here is my mini-banner. If you do I'll plug your site on mine as well. Thanks for the support.--



   

<< September 2017 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02
03 04 05 06 07 08 09
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Blogs Linking Here:
Elysium
Locke, or Demosthenes?
Poli Blogger
Americas Blog for Bush
Aphrodite Me

Favorite Links:
Matt Drudge
National Review












Democratic Canidates
Which one of the nine Democratic Canidates would you like to see win the primary?

View current results



Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:

blogdrive

Jan 17, 2004
Conservative and Republican differances?

President Bush has not ordered a single veto in office which is causing much disamay among conseravitive groups. "The Republican Congress is spending at twice the rate as under Bill Clinton, and President Bush has yet to issue a single veto," Paul M. Weyrich, national chairman of Coalitions for America.



137 billion dollars of the deficit can be attributed to lack of using the veto ability. The veto ability gives the president the power to cancel project proposals that the president feels wastes money. "The Constitution gives the president the power to veto legislation, and if Congress won't act in a fiscally responsible way, the president has to step in — but he hasn't done that." said Paul Beckner, president of Citizens for a Sound Economy.

Leaders of six national conseravtive orgranizations are angered by the irresponsibile spending. It is a stand I take with them as well. This is the one vulerability Bush has going into this election. When he is called fiscally irresponsible the arguement actually has grounds. The last president who didn't use a veto ability was in 1820.

Conseravtive groups warn that they may not even vote in the coming election if the omnibus bill passes and the president fails to veto it. It will be the third year of increased spending, which includes a 25 percent increase in two years.

I do understand the conservative arguement about over-spending. However one of there arguements speaking about the $400 billion dollar perscription drug benefit I am for and still support. It is a change that America's seinors needed and have deserved before. However some spending needs to be cut because of the increased deficit. The administration needs to look at ways to cut corners in spending to curb the growth. Furthermore these tactics need to start right away.


Posted at 01:57 am by rockwell
Make a comment

Jan 16, 2004
Political Short Talks

Political Short Talks

Braun Drops out of race


Carol Mosley Braun


Carol Mosley Braun dropped out of the primary race today because . She has extended her support to Howard Dean, in the feeling that he has the best chance of winning the primary nation wide. Although a tight race exists in Iowa with only one to two point differences. Gephardt, Kerry and, Dean exist as the top three in the state, according to current polls. Dean has lost significant points over the last month and he probably wishes the primaries were a month ago. Others have gained from his loss of gap of points showing a significant substance to the last onslaught on him.

Moon to Mars


President Bush annoncing Space propsal


President Bush outlined the new space program expected to establish a base on the moon and put people on mars. He stated that we will have a base on the moon by 2005 and we will have people on mars by 2030. Democrats complain about that this has an affect on the deficit. Bush outlined that most of the budget will come from reallocating 11 billion dollars from the 87 billion dollar a year budget that Nasa receives. The rest of the budget will come from a 1 billion dollar increase over a 5-year period. The last time we found ourselves in space the youth benefited by an increase in science and math studies. The intrigue the space program puts on the American mind is fuel for society.

Definant Deficit

Republicans complain about deficit concerns and Bush faces mutiny from his own party, some suggest. 90 house republicans plan to meet on Jan 22-23 to study ways to stop excessive government spending. Many of the concerns stem from Bushes lack of ability to use his veto ability, which has attributed to 137 billion dollar extra on to our deficit. The increase on spending has gone up 16% to 2.2 trillion in 2003. These concerns must be addressed and they start with him first using his veto ability. He also could address them by starting a campaign to end government waste. I have always dreamed of having a panel that investigates money used in programs that are not necessary. However this is a dream I probably won’t see sadly.

Posted at 01:39 am by rockwell
Comments (1)

Jan 14, 2004
Gay Marriage Amendment

Conservatives question if, when and how to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.  They aren't certain if the amendment will pass through congress during this legislative session.  Polls show the majority of Americans are against same-sex marriage.

Social conservatives question its ability to get the two-thirds support in the House and Senate to pass it this year.  Conservative groups however say that you shouldn't underestimate there lobbying ability on Capitol Hill.  They also say that voters take there beliefs with them to the ballot box.

"On the one hand, the far right has issued a threat saying that they want this to be the big issue in the upcoming election" but if "the Republicans were really united and ready for this to be the major '04 issue, it would be clear by now." said Cheryl Jacques, executive director of the pro-gay Human Rights Coalition.  I say the exact oppisite however, I believe that this issue will reappear when the election narrows to one democratic canidate. 

Bush spoke in december in support of a proposed amendment to the Constitution directly saying marriage and union is only between one man and one woman.  Most Republicans would like to see if the Defense of Marriage Act stands in court, before pursuing an amendment.  The Defense of Marriage act was signed into law in 1996 by the Clinton Administration.  The act states:

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possesion, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., has gained the support of 100 bipartisan co-sponsors to the amendent.  It makes it clear that we will have some bi-partisan support which clears the air for such and act to pass.  "Most members [of Senate] do not want same-sex marriage imposed by the courts," said an unnamed Senate aide.

Passing this amendment will be the only way to stop same-sex marriages from being pursued through the courts.  There pursuit isn't readily happening through state legislatures because of a flakey but unified stand against it.

Some conservatives are afraid of amending the constitution all together.  "I don't believe that the framers saw the constitutional process as being the check and balance over a run-away court system," said Richard Lessener, exeuctive directer of the American Conservative Union.

Democratic leadership says that this amendment would have tread among conservative leaning democrats.  They however, like many, don't like opening up the constitutional process, and don't think it will pass this session.

I believe there is a great importance to this amendment being passed because of the ability of states to allow or not allow gay marriage.  Although DOWA laws stop there marriages from being protected in all states.  I believe that same-sex marriage is wrong and immoral because there is no scientific proof that people are born gay.  Therefore stating that we need an amendmant because of the radical court systems and there extreme beliefs about societys issues.

Posted at 04:40 am by rockwell
Make a comment

Jan 12, 2004
Former Treasury Secretary attacks Bush

In December 2002 Paul O'niell was fired from the Bush economic team, part of a shake-up to make the team more efficent.  Unfortuantely he is now acting like the 'disgruntled employee' in this case.  He had taken a number of documents with him that held information about the Bush Administration. 

Bush was like a "blind man in a room full of deaf people," he said during a CBS interview to promote his new book.  The book is being coauthored by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.  That book is going to be titled 'The price of Loyalty.'

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Niell


He stated that ousting Saddam was of high priority when they had there first national security meeting in January 2001.  "From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," and that "For me, the notion of preemption, that the US has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

Well just to make a few statements on his arguements regime change in Iraq has been U.S. policy since 1998 which was enacted by the Clinton Administration.  Also the pre-emptive strike policy was put into place for terrorist protection.  Basically saying if we have intelligence on something specific we will be able to act before the attack happens. Seeing as regime change was a policy of the U.S. the pre-emptive policy does not apply to the war in Iraq.

His comments are very surprising but it seems that he just did not agree with Bush policys on issues and was angry.  He was fired because of his great differences between the rest of the administration on a wide variety of issues.

The White House reacted by saying "The president exhausted all possible means to resolve the situation in Iraq peacefully,"  and that "Saddam Hussein has been a dangerous man for a long time." said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.  The White House says that it seems to be O'Niell trying to justify personal views and opinions. 

Like I said in the beginning he seems like a disgruntled employee thats all.  He has the right to his opinion and I respect that however he should not use classified documents in attacks.  His view points only add fodder to the mounting democratic campaign in 2004.  I will wait and see how the investigation into the classified documents plays out and comment later.






Posted at 09:53 pm by rockwell
Make a comment

Jan 10, 2004
Bushies new Immigration plan

First of all some of the players directly involved with the new immigration plan are:

Secretary of State, Colin Powell
Attorney General, John Ashcroft
Secretary of Commerce, Don Evans
Secretary of the Deparment of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge
El Embajador of Mexico, Tony Garza
Senator Larry Craig (R)
Congressman Chris Cannon (R)
Congressman Jeff Flake (R)

Now some of the things included with the plan are:

-Foreign workers could obtain a special visa to take jobs Americans leave unfilled

-Temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants

-Temporary status would last 3 years

-Temporary legal status would be renewable for an unspecified period

-U.S. Citizenship would not be immediately given nor permanent residency

With all that stated now lets talk about some of the complications of this legislation getting passed. There hasn't been a draft legislation created for it yet. Many Republicans and Democrats are opposed to the legislation. The conservative republicans state that the bill gives amnesty toward illegals. The liberal democrats say that it doesn't do enough to help the immigrants.

"I would anticipate some very interesting hearings on the issue and some important preliminary action, but no action on the House and Senate floors until 2005" said Randel Johnson, a vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Seeing at immigration bills are complex legislation and politcally sensitive it will take some time and debate to see it pass. It will also require some political capital on Bushies part to make the bill truly move through the House and the Senate. "It's something we're going to try to do, but it's going to be tough," said an aide to GOP leaders in the Senate.

"Democrats are not going to want to give Bush a victory in an election year, and there is some significant opposition from conservative Republicans," a seinor House Republican leadership aid also said. "This makes it very difficult to do in an election year." Estimates indicate as many as 50 House Republicans could vote againt the proposal, the Washington Post reports.

I personally feel that it does give amnesty to the illegal immigrants in this country. However atleast he decided to do something about the problem. In his defense though, no one has proposed a better plan since the Reagan administration. I give him the benefit of the doubt considering that he decided to anwser the problem. Unfortunately those opposed may give this bill a rocky road to success. We will have to wait till next year to actually find out it's future.




Posted at 12:52 am by rockwell
Make a comment

Jan 8, 2004
The Carniegie Report says no WMD in Iraq

The Carniegie report was done by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  The group took information from declassified U.S. Intelligence documents about Iraq.  The intelligence came from U.N. Weapons Inspectors and the International Atomic Energy Agency.  The IAEA is the nuclear watchdog from the U.N.

                            President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
                                                         Jessica T. Matthews

The report states that Iraq ended its weapons programs in the 1990s and had no immediate threat to the United States before the 2003 war began.  The asserations of the report accuse that there was pressure from the top echelons altered the truth.  It is also indirectly stated that political pressure caused them to cite a reason for this war.  It appears to make more acquisitions then facts on the weapons.

Collin Powell commented to CNN about the report stating "Where the debate is, is why haven't we found huge stockpiles and why haven't we found large caches of these weapons?  Let's let the Iraqi Survey Group complete its work."

Secretary of State Colin Powell


The report states that there was a "dramatic shift between prior intelligence assessments and the October 2002 National Intelligence Esitmate (NIE), together with the creation of an independant entity at the Pentagon and other stpes to suggest that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views sometime in 2002."

However it does not state the the NIE is mostly public document which does not cite details of information for security purposes.  Therefore basing your case from public information is a unofficial interpratation of 'public' material.  That goes to show that no classified material was accounted for, therefore information that is cited in the report and makes its accountability very small.  It seems to be more of an opinion from 'public' information.

The asserations that the report makes about upper echelons putting pressure on the intelligence community have no factual backing.  This makes the report inept to fully describe the weapons program and accuse upper echelons pressure tactics. 

To read the report please go here.  Although the group that created the report is a 'non-partisan' group they seem to make certain assumptions which make me feel they are not.  However there assumptions about pressure tactics from bosses make me feel this way, not the whole report.  That is clearly opinion with no fact.  I do believe they are non-partisan but there anti-war stance makes them partisan against confrontation.  I also believe they attack this administration indirectly because of its pre-emptive strike policy.  Fortunately, those of us intelligent enough to read the report will take something from it as well as leave something behind.

Post your opinions--

Posted at 10:08 pm by rockwell
Make a comment

Jan 7, 2004
Unseating Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle

The GOP is taking its chances at using former Rep. John Thune to take on Senate Miniority Leader Tom Daschle.  This is a key election spot because Tom Daschle is a power spot for democrats in the senate, as well as someone highly critical of the president.  Basically what I'm saying is, most democrats in senate follow his lead, and he holds the trenches well. 

           

                      Former Rep. John Thune (R)            Senate Miniority Leader Tom Daschle (D)

However, John Thune is "the Republicans' best and maybe only chance of beating Daschle in 2004.  He was the challenger the White House wanted from the beginning and they finally got him," stated Nathan Gonzales, political editor of the Rothenburg Political Report.

Thune declined to take the house seat once held by Rep. Bill Janklow.  Janklow was found guilty of second degree manslaughter, from a traffic accident.  Thune thinks he could make a bigger difference in the sentate.  I highly agree that he could because of the power block of Tom Daschle, as well as stopping them from holding enough for a filibuster.

Thunes record is very good with winning 70 percent of the vote in his last two House races, as well has having funraiser capacity.

The GOP feels its time to rid the Senate of the 'obstructionist'.  Daschle has been in since 1995 and shows a capacity to win, however in 2002 he only won by a mere 524 votes.  Although he is widely popular in a highly republican state.  Many on the GOP would be delighted to seem him go, which would be a relief.

Well for me, the fear however is of Daschles wide-spread popularity in South Dakota.  Historically in 1972 and 1984 Republican presidents took land-slide re-election bids.  However there was no major impact on House and Senate.  Therefore House and Senate are two very separate things, so we should not take for granted anything in this election.  If we do we will lose ground and fail, that is not what I'd like to see.

Posted at 04:12 am by rockwell
Make a comment

Jan 6, 2004
Iran... Mullahs... Aid Workers turned away?

Iranian Mullahs decided to turn away international aid workers.  Only a portion of those aid workers were allowd to stay.  Iranians however reacted in great amounts of anger towards the mullahs for turnning them away.  One of such nations that were turned away was Israel. 



"What nerve these mullahs have to turn away aid offered by the Israelis...those poor people over there constantly dealing with suicide bombers, who are probably financed by the clerics of the Islamic republic of Iran, and yet they are kind enough to offer us their aid and these audacious zealots over here threaten to attack them!" - Iranian Cab Driver

European aid workers were treated with respect however they still have some problems.  The arrivial of a U.S. colonel and his aides team on a military transport plane proved very diffrently.  Many Iranians gathered and yelled in arabic "American, you're welcome" and hugged them as if they were the great saviors of the world.  When Americans departed people begged for them to stay, from random howls from the crowd.

The mullahs recived a report from the Iranian National Seismological Center.  They stated that repopulation of the area would be disastrous.  The mullahs responded by saying the 12th Imam would shield the residents of the city from harm.  Now a note on the 12th Imam, it is an invisible Iranian lore.



The reactions from the Mullahs indicate that they do not want a growing sentiment of there people toward the west.  However the people have seen that the west will help and discent is growing.  Although this sounds bad, I believe U.S. negoitiation teams should use this event to have talks about dismantling terror in the nation.  Also they should use this to allow for special forces teams to be inserted for spying purposes.  Many from the left would disagree with this but they fund terrorism and they may hold information that will help defeat terror and save lives.  There increased support of terror must be stopped.

Posted at 12:32 pm by rockwell
Make a comment

Jan 4, 2004
The Democrats say Bush lied but...

The democrats popular belief is that Bush lied about Iraq have weapons of mass destruction.  The funny thing about it is the amount of Democrats who felt he did have them.  Words twist when things aren't found instantly.  It shows the failure of the democratic party in it's broadest form and sets a horrible tone for democrats.  Here are the quotes:

"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 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 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 Sens. 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 invigorated 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, December 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 mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the 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 mas 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

--Courtesy of ACLUSUX--

Posted at 08:25 am by rockwell
Make a comment

Jan 3, 2004
Bushies Campaign Strategy

Democrats are entrenched against eachother trying to play king of the hill with Dean.  They are much of the election 2004 talk.  They attack eachother on a day to day basis, which is very good for Bush 2004.  They are pulling all the dirt out pre-election therefore the Bush team will not have it's hands tied to win this campaign.

Bush always tells those that donate to his campaign "The political season will come in its own time".  He has already be donated a hefty $120 million for his re-election.  His campaign team however is not even in full swing.  There are more then six fundraisers scheduled over the next month or so. 

There is little concern from his campaign staff about the rise in Democratic reheortic.  On a personal note I do not think the Bush team will be into full swing until they know who there fighting, there still gathering there guns. 



Some say this is a Rose Garden strategy in a modified from.  Talking about when President Ford used it in 1976 receiving free publicity.  Jimmy Carter complained of this but used the same tactics four years later.  However they both lost there elections, which doesn't speak much for this strategy.  Personally I believe that this is not the case.  I believe the national debate have a big affect on political poles these days.  Publicity does very little anymore since 'everything' is so publicised.  Also considering the times were in people don't look for the canidate cander.  There looking for someone strong, someone who won't back down.

"Americans don't really like politics, so the longer a president can put that off, the longer he can look like he's governing instead of politicking, and the better off he'll be" - Reed said.  The president and his aides are very quiet about the opening day of political attacks, they paitently await most intelligent time to attack.

Personally I like this strategy because although the democrats have gotten the spotlight they have been covered in political mud to long.  Most people I know stopped paying attention, even democrats.  They complain that it's to dramtic and they would like everyone to calm down a bit.  People aggress more then they resist, which is a bad thing for democrats.  If I was the canidate I would only respond to attacks and tell people, that I don't have to attack people.  I would let the public know my record, good and bad and what I'm about.  I would ride the honest politician horse and have my hat high.

Bush-Cheney 2004

Posted at 06:06 am by rockwell
Comments (2)

Next Page