Cheers and Jeers–Giffords and Grijalva Update


In my last post regarding Gabrielle Giffords, freshman Congressman from Arizona’s 8th District here, I asked a very pointed question regarding her stance on the MoveOn.org smear ad of General David Petraeus.

My computer has been down for a few days. I was just able to view the roll call.

I am pleased to see Congressman Giffords voted IN FAVOR of condemning MoveOn.org. Cheers to Congressman Giffords for her stance–it will certainly be remembered come election time.


However, the far leftist traitor also addressed in that post, Raul Grijalva, Arizona’s 7th District Congressman, voted AGAINST condemning MoveOn.org.

What can you expect from a traitor who doesn’t keep in contact with his WHITE constituency, only communicates with his Spanish speakers (running his entire campaign in Spanish and ONLY in the Mexican areas of town regardless of his district borders and constituency), whether legal or illegal, encourages the illegals and refuses to go to a memorial of an illegal soldier who gave his life for the country he loved (he didn’t fit Grijalva’s agenda as a downtrodden, leech off the system criminal)? A Pancho Villa wanna-be–and that’s NOT a compliment–(just look at his mustache) who is as comfortable with La Raza and its agenda as he is with the snakes in Washington, slithering through the halls with the likes of Pelosi and ReidCo, while trying to stay in the background to keep his fat ass in a cushy government position?

It seems our freshman Congressman, Gabrielle Giffords, has more integrity in her little finger than Grijalva does in his whole bloated, fat, greasy body.

Congressman Giffords, you answered a very important question of mine and you did it with class. Thank you for your denouncement of MoveOn.org and their smear campaign against General David Petraeus.

Cheers and Jeers–Giffords and Grijalva Update


In my last post regarding Gabrielle Giffords, freshman Congressman from Arizona’s 8th District here, I asked a very pointed question regarding her stance on the MoveOn.org smear ad of General David Petraeus.

My computer has been down for a few days. I was just able to view the roll call.

I am pleased to see Congressman Giffords voted IN FAVOR of condemning MoveOn.org. Cheers to Congressman Giffords for her stance–it will certainly be remembered come election time.


However, the far leftist traitor also addressed in that post, Raul Grijalva, Arizona’s 7th District Congressman, voted AGAINST condemning MoveOn.org.

What can you expect from a traitor who doesn’t keep in contact with his WHITE constituency, only communicates with his Spanish speakers (running his entire campaign in Spanish and ONLY in the Mexican areas of town regardless of his district borders and constituency), whether legal or illegal, encourages the illegals and refuses to go to a memorial of an illegal soldier who gave his life for the country he loved (he didn’t fit Grijalva’s agenda as a downtrodden, leech off the system criminal)? A Pancho Villa wanna-be–and that’s NOT a compliment–(just look at his mustache) who is as comfortable with La Raza and its agenda as he is with the snakes in Washington, slithering through the halls with the likes of Pelosi and ReidCo, while trying to stay in the background to keep his fat ass in a cushy government position?

It seems our freshman Congressman, Gabrielle Giffords, has more integrity in her little finger than Grijalva does in his whole bloated, fat, greasy body.

Congressman Giffords, you answered a very important question of mine and you did it with class. Thank you for your denouncement of MoveOn.org and their smear campaign against General David Petraeus.

MoveOn is THE Gift That Keeps Giving…To The GOP


Cross posted from Wake up America

Especially to presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.

Quick recap for anybody that hasn’t seen the dust up MoveOn caused with an ad attacking General Petraeus, an ad that some Democrats have mildly spoken out against but the majority of Democratic politicians have silently stood by, some hoping that by ignoring the whole issue it would go away, and some, like Hillary Clinton, going as far to pander to MoveOn by reiterating their slanderous accusations.

Republicans immediately stood up and spoke out and John Boehner even proposed a resolution to condemn the baseless accusations which the Democratic politicians blocked from coming to a vote, further pandering to MoveOn.

Caught up? Good.

Enter Rudy Giuliani.

As I said, I have not decided who I will personally endorse yet, but Rudy Giuliani definitely stood up to be counted and went on the offensive against MoveOn and Hillary Clinton and defended General Petraeus against their unfounded attack against the General, a man that was voted unanimously, 81-0, into the position of of commanding our troops in Iraq, with a full page ad of his own in the New York Times.

Take a look at the role call on that vote, Hillary Clinton was one of those that voted unanimously for General Petraeus.

(Click image to enlarge)
He then followed that up with a video on his website that pounded the point home.

“Just when our troops need all our support to finish the job, Hillary Clinton is turning her back on them,” the ad’s narrator intones. “General Petraeus and the brave men and women now serving under him deserve an apology. And our nation deserves better.”

His online donations instantly started coming in and support for him rose immediately.

Despite attempts from the left side of the blogosphere, and the Democratic politicians to make this issue go away, it is still being reported on, blogged on and talked about in a variety of mediums and will no doubt haunt the Democratic presidential candidates well into the 2008, for no other reason than they did not step up to the plate and denounce MoveOn for going to far and crossing a line.

As we showed yesterday, active military and veterans alike as well as their families and supporters are understandably upset and angered over MoveOn’s attack ad as well as the Democrats that did not condemn them for it, especially Hillary Clinton.

One such Iraq veteran publicly took Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer to the woodshed. In that same piece we showed you the American Legion, which is the largest organization of veterans that exists today and has since 1919 also stepping up and speaking out against MoveOn.

One retired Air Force Colonel is looking for legal help to sue MoveOn for libel on behalf of General Petraeus.

This is not going away and it is a noose around the neck of every Democratic politician that did not stand up and condemn MoveOn’s ad against General Petraeus, as it should be.

A piece in The Swamp points out how Clinton is trying to doubletalk her way out of condemning MoveOn, without success.

McCain, too, has repeatedly called on Clinton to renounce the anti-war group’s rhetoric.

But as Clinton received the endorsement today of Gen. Wesley Clark, the retired four star general who opposes the Iraq war, she twice refused to do so.

“I made clear my great respect for Gen. Petraeus and his service to our country,” Clinton said, referring to her remarks at the Senate Armed Services hearing last week.

Clinton said the disagreement she has with her Republican opponents and with President Bush is over how to end the war and how to address the failures of the administration and work towards a political solution.

When asked a second time if she thought the ad went too far, Clinton again said that she has repeatedly expressed her admiration for Petraeus and for the troops.

“I think that speaks for itself,” Clinton said.

Still, her refusal to explicitly say the ad was unfair has provided great fodder for candidates on the Republican side of the presidential race.

In Florence, S.C., McCain said he couldn’t understand Clinton’s position.

“I don’t know how you can say you admire Gen. Petraeus and you won’t condemn an advertisement that accuses him of betraying the United States of America,” he said. “That just is nonsense. I hope she’ll reconsider and condemn that ad. I’ve seen her in the presence of Gen. Petraeus and she respects him and admires him. I hope she’ll change her position.”

It isn’t like Hillary doesn’t have other problems dogging her already, Norman Hsu being one in a long list, and as she tries her hardest to distract everyone from this MoveOn issue and her standing with them, the rest of us, will not forget and we will not let anyone else forget her words against General Petraeus, the man she voted for to go into Iraq and command and the man she has now betrayed with her words.

MoveOn managed to refocus the American people and forced them to either agree with them, or rally behind General Petraeus, a man who has devoted his life to our country and polls that have been taken since the MoveOn ad hit the paper has shown the public trusts General Petraeus and our military by 68% and even the presidents number rose within days of that ad coming out in the NYT.

MoveOn, it seems, is the gift that keeps giving….to the GOP.

Amazing for a group that has donated, contributed and supported the Democrats for so long.

The problem that the Democratic politicians have now is that it is too late to condemn MoveOn, even if they wanted to, and despite the fact that MoveOn has damaged them and that they would prefer MoveOn to keep giving them money but quit acting out like a spoiled child and making them look bad, MoveOn will not stand down, will not stop acting out because, as they stated so bluntly, they bought and own the Democratic party.

December 2004:

In a December 9th e-mail signed by “Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team,” the Soros front group stated: “In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn’t need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it’s our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”

Yes, MoveOn.org, the gift that keeps on giving….to the GOP.

[Update] More from the Nashua Telegraph.

MoveOn is THE Gift That Keeps Giving…To The GOP


Cross posted from Wake up America

Especially to presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.

Quick recap for anybody that hasn’t seen the dust up MoveOn caused with an ad attacking General Petraeus, an ad that some Democrats have mildly spoken out against but the majority of Democratic politicians have silently stood by, some hoping that by ignoring the whole issue it would go away, and some, like Hillary Clinton, going as far to pander to MoveOn by reiterating their slanderous accusations.

Republicans immediately stood up and spoke out and John Boehner even proposed a resolution to condemn the baseless accusations which the Democratic politicians blocked from coming to a vote, further pandering to MoveOn.

Caught up? Good.

Enter Rudy Giuliani.

As I said, I have not decided who I will personally endorse yet, but Rudy Giuliani definitely stood up to be counted and went on the offensive against MoveOn and Hillary Clinton and defended General Petraeus against their unfounded attack against the General, a man that was voted unanimously, 81-0, into the position of of commanding our troops in Iraq, with a full page ad of his own in the New York Times.

Take a look at the role call on that vote, Hillary Clinton was one of those that voted unanimously for General Petraeus.

(Click image to enlarge)
He then followed that up with a video on his website that pounded the point home.

“Just when our troops need all our support to finish the job, Hillary Clinton is turning her back on them,” the ad’s narrator intones. “General Petraeus and the brave men and women now serving under him deserve an apology. And our nation deserves better.”

His online donations instantly started coming in and support for him rose immediately.

Despite attempts from the left side of the blogosphere, and the Democratic politicians to make this issue go away, it is still being reported on, blogged on and talked about in a variety of mediums and will no doubt haunt the Democratic presidential candidates well into the 2008, for no other reason than they did not step up to the plate and denounce MoveOn for going to far and crossing a line.

As we showed yesterday, active military and veterans alike as well as their families and supporters are understandably upset and angered over MoveOn’s attack ad as well as the Democrats that did not condemn them for it, especially Hillary Clinton.

One such Iraq veteran publicly took Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer to the woodshed. In that same piece we showed you the American Legion, which is the largest organization of veterans that exists today and has since 1919 also stepping up and speaking out against MoveOn.

One retired Air Force Colonel is looking for legal help to sue MoveOn for libel on behalf of General Petraeus.

This is not going away and it is a noose around the neck of every Democratic politician that did not stand up and condemn MoveOn’s ad against General Petraeus, as it should be.

A piece in The Swamp points out how Clinton is trying to doubletalk her way out of condemning MoveOn, without success.

McCain, too, has repeatedly called on Clinton to renounce the anti-war group’s rhetoric.

But as Clinton received the endorsement today of Gen. Wesley Clark, the retired four star general who opposes the Iraq war, she twice refused to do so.

“I made clear my great respect for Gen. Petraeus and his service to our country,” Clinton said, referring to her remarks at the Senate Armed Services hearing last week.

Clinton said the disagreement she has with her Republican opponents and with President Bush is over how to end the war and how to address the failures of the administration and work towards a political solution.

When asked a second time if she thought the ad went too far, Clinton again said that she has repeatedly expressed her admiration for Petraeus and for the troops.

“I think that speaks for itself,” Clinton said.

Still, her refusal to explicitly say the ad was unfair has provided great fodder for candidates on the Republican side of the presidential race.

In Florence, S.C., McCain said he couldn’t understand Clinton’s position.

“I don’t know how you can say you admire Gen. Petraeus and you won’t condemn an advertisement that accuses him of betraying the United States of America,” he said. “That just is nonsense. I hope she’ll reconsider and condemn that ad. I’ve seen her in the presence of Gen. Petraeus and she respects him and admires him. I hope she’ll change her position.”

It isn’t like Hillary doesn’t have other problems dogging her already, Norman Hsu being one in a long list, and as she tries her hardest to distract everyone from this MoveOn issue and her standing with them, the rest of us, will not forget and we will not let anyone else forget her words against General Petraeus, the man she voted for to go into Iraq and command and the man she has now betrayed with her words.

MoveOn managed to refocus the American people and forced them to either agree with them, or rally behind General Petraeus, a man who has devoted his life to our country and polls that have been taken since the MoveOn ad hit the paper has shown the public trusts General Petraeus and our military by 68% and even the presidents number rose within days of that ad coming out in the NYT.

MoveOn, it seems, is the gift that keeps giving….to the GOP.

Amazing for a group that has donated, contributed and supported the Democrats for so long.

The problem that the Democratic politicians have now is that it is too late to condemn MoveOn, even if they wanted to, and despite the fact that MoveOn has damaged them and that they would prefer MoveOn to keep giving them money but quit acting out like a spoiled child and making them look bad, MoveOn will not stand down, will not stop acting out because, as they stated so bluntly, they bought and own the Democratic party.

December 2004:

In a December 9th e-mail signed by “Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team,” the Soros front group stated: “In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn’t need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it’s our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.”

Yes, MoveOn.org, the gift that keeps on giving….to the GOP.

[Update] More from the Nashua Telegraph.

Giuliani SLAMS Hillary Some More

Earlier we showed you the full page New York Times ad the Rudy Giuliani placed slamming Hillary Clinton for her comments to General Petraeus which were no better than the disgusting MoveOn.org ad.

(Click image to enlarge)

Read the whole post…

NOW, Rudy has a video up on his site, smacking her around even more!!!!

From Boston Globe:

After having placed a full-page ad in The New York Times today defending General David H. Petraeus and accusing Clinton of a “character attack,” Giuliani posted his first online ad on his campaign website with more of the same.

In the spot, he calls on Clinton to apologize for telling Petraeus during Senate hearings this week that his testimony about progress in Iraq required “the willing suspension of disbelief.” The ad also challenges Clinton to condemn “a venomous ad” placed by the antiwar group MoveOn.org that charged Petraeus with “cooking the books for the White House.”

The one-minute, 50-second ad, titled “She Changed,” opens with footage of Clinton, in 2002, as she prepared to vote to authorize the Iraq war, describing the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, as a threat to use weapons of mass destruction. It charges that she has changed her position on the war.

“Just when our troops need all our support to finish the job, Hillary Clinton is turning her back on them,” the ad’s narrator intones. “General Petraeus and the brave men and women now serving under him deserve an apology. And our nation deserves better. Senator Clinton, do the right thing. Apologize for your comments and condemn the MoveOn.org ad.”

Her pitiful response?

“It’s hardly surprising that Mayor Giuliani is running the first negative ad of the ’08 campaign, given his inability to justify his unqualified support for President Bush’s failed Iraq strategy,” Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer told the Associated Press.

The ad quotes Clinton who said, “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… He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members.”

“But now that she’s running for president, Hillary Clinton has changed her position, even joining with the radical group MoveOn.org in attacking American General Petraeus,” the ad claims. “Clinton stood silently by when MoveOn.org ran a venomous ad in The New York Times.”

Go watch the video!!!

Give Elizabeth Edwards some credit, SHE had the class to slam MoveOn.

Giuliani SLAMS Hillary Some More

Earlier we showed you the full page New York Times ad the Rudy Giuliani placed slamming Hillary Clinton for her comments to General Petraeus which were no better than the disgusting MoveOn.org ad.

(Click image to enlarge)

Read the whole post…

NOW, Rudy has a video up on his site, smacking her around even more!!!!

From Boston Globe:

After having placed a full-page ad in The New York Times today defending General David H. Petraeus and accusing Clinton of a “character attack,” Giuliani posted his first online ad on his campaign website with more of the same.

In the spot, he calls on Clinton to apologize for telling Petraeus during Senate hearings this week that his testimony about progress in Iraq required “the willing suspension of disbelief.” The ad also challenges Clinton to condemn “a venomous ad” placed by the antiwar group MoveOn.org that charged Petraeus with “cooking the books for the White House.”

The one-minute, 50-second ad, titled “She Changed,” opens with footage of Clinton, in 2002, as she prepared to vote to authorize the Iraq war, describing the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, as a threat to use weapons of mass destruction. It charges that she has changed her position on the war.

“Just when our troops need all our support to finish the job, Hillary Clinton is turning her back on them,” the ad’s narrator intones. “General Petraeus and the brave men and women now serving under him deserve an apology. And our nation deserves better. Senator Clinton, do the right thing. Apologize for your comments and condemn the MoveOn.org ad.”

Her pitiful response?

“It’s hardly surprising that Mayor Giuliani is running the first negative ad of the ’08 campaign, given his inability to justify his unqualified support for President Bush’s failed Iraq strategy,” Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer told the Associated Press.

The ad quotes Clinton who said, “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… He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members.”

“But now that she’s running for president, Hillary Clinton has changed her position, even joining with the radical group MoveOn.org in attacking American General Petraeus,” the ad claims. “Clinton stood silently by when MoveOn.org ran a venomous ad in The New York Times.”

Go watch the video!!!

Give Elizabeth Edwards some credit, SHE had the class to slam MoveOn.

Rudy Giuliani Ad in the New York Times

Cross posted from Wake up America by request from Beth.

(Click image to enlarge)

Contribute to pay for this ad here.

The NYT reports that Rudy Giuliani sought — and received — space in Friday editions of the newspaper for an advertisement in which he praises General Petraeus.

From The Prowler/American Spectator:

The New York Times in the past has rejected “advocacy” ads from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as well as from the National Right to Life Committee, despite the fact that both would have qualified for the same “special advocacy, stand by” rates that the radical, left-wing organization MoveOn.org was given for its smear ad of Gen. David Petraeus.

MoveOn, which is largely financed by billionaire George Soros, as well as other major financial donors to the Democratic National Committee, was given a $100,000 discount for the ad which called the U.S. commander of armed forces in Iraq a traitor. According to a MoveOn organizer in Washington, D.C., the organization has raised more than twice that amount since the full-page ad appeared in the Times earlier this week. “It was a great fundraising opportunity for us.” The source added that the group was looking to perhaps turn the ad into a poster that they could further fundraise off of.

The Times claimed that MoveOn was given no special treatment, but several organizations that sought to place ads in a similar manner in past years have been turned away or were told that the ads were bumped for higher paying ads.

Quoting Hillary Clinton at the top of that ad was a stroke of genius on Rudy’s part and will probably further the lead he has just taken in the latest poll over Hillary Clinton:

Rudy Giuliani Preferred President Over Hillary Clinton If Terrorists Attack America

NEW YORK — A majority of Americans say they would feel more comfortable with Rudy Giuliani in the White House than Hillary Clinton if another terrorist attack were to happen in the United States, according to a new FOX News poll.

When compared to other top Republican candidates, more voters see Giuliani as hardworking and as a strong leader, while Clinton leads the Democratic field for not only having the right experience, but also being able to bring about change — as well as doing whatever it takes to win. Views are divided on whether it’s appropriate for Oprah Winfrey to use her celebrity status to encourage support of Barack Obama.

The latest FOX News poll shows that if the United States were hit with a terrorist attack, by a 50 percent to 36 percent margin, Americans would rather have Giuliani in charge than Clinton, including 28 percent of Democrats and an overwhelming 80 percent of Republicans. Independents split in Giuliani’s favor 47 percent to Clinton’s 28 percent.

OUCH.

Freedom’s Watch, a conservative group, ran a full-page, color advertisement in The Times on Sept. 11. In a letter Thursday to its publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the president of Freedom’s Watch, Bradley A. Blakeman, said: “The New York Times representative explained to us that we could run a standby rate ad for $65,000, but we could not pick the date or placement of the ad.” Mr. Blakeman said MoveOn.org must have been able to pick the date of its advertisement, or had been given “preferential treatment” on the timing, because news organizations were discussing the advertisement before it ran.

MoveOn has effectively stabbed the Democrats in the back and the longer the Democratic leadership avoid taking a stand either for or against MoveOn, the worse this is going to get for them in the eyes of America.

WHO SHOULD AMERICA LISTEN TO?-A decorated soldier’s commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton’s commitment to defending MoveOn.org?”

Indeed.

Good for you Rudy. Well done.

Rudy Giuliani Ad in the New York Times

Cross posted from Wake up America by request from Beth.

(Click image to enlarge)

Contribute to pay for this ad here.

The NYT reports that Rudy Giuliani sought — and received — space in Friday editions of the newspaper for an advertisement in which he praises General Petraeus.

From The Prowler/American Spectator:

The New York Times in the past has rejected “advocacy” ads from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, as well as from the National Right to Life Committee, despite the fact that both would have qualified for the same “special advocacy, stand by” rates that the radical, left-wing organization MoveOn.org was given for its smear ad of Gen. David Petraeus.

MoveOn, which is largely financed by billionaire George Soros, as well as other major financial donors to the Democratic National Committee, was given a $100,000 discount for the ad which called the U.S. commander of armed forces in Iraq a traitor. According to a MoveOn organizer in Washington, D.C., the organization has raised more than twice that amount since the full-page ad appeared in the Times earlier this week. “It was a great fundraising opportunity for us.” The source added that the group was looking to perhaps turn the ad into a poster that they could further fundraise off of.

The Times claimed that MoveOn was given no special treatment, but several organizations that sought to place ads in a similar manner in past years have been turned away or were told that the ads were bumped for higher paying ads.

Quoting Hillary Clinton at the top of that ad was a stroke of genius on Rudy’s part and will probably further the lead he has just taken in the latest poll over Hillary Clinton:

Rudy Giuliani Preferred President Over Hillary Clinton If Terrorists Attack America

NEW YORK — A majority of Americans say they would feel more comfortable with Rudy Giuliani in the White House than Hillary Clinton if another terrorist attack were to happen in the United States, according to a new FOX News poll.

When compared to other top Republican candidates, more voters see Giuliani as hardworking and as a strong leader, while Clinton leads the Democratic field for not only having the right experience, but also being able to bring about change — as well as doing whatever it takes to win. Views are divided on whether it’s appropriate for Oprah Winfrey to use her celebrity status to encourage support of Barack Obama.

The latest FOX News poll shows that if the United States were hit with a terrorist attack, by a 50 percent to 36 percent margin, Americans would rather have Giuliani in charge than Clinton, including 28 percent of Democrats and an overwhelming 80 percent of Republicans. Independents split in Giuliani’s favor 47 percent to Clinton’s 28 percent.

OUCH.

Freedom’s Watch, a conservative group, ran a full-page, color advertisement in The Times on Sept. 11. In a letter Thursday to its publisher, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., the president of Freedom’s Watch, Bradley A. Blakeman, said: “The New York Times representative explained to us that we could run a standby rate ad for $65,000, but we could not pick the date or placement of the ad.” Mr. Blakeman said MoveOn.org must have been able to pick the date of its advertisement, or had been given “preferential treatment” on the timing, because news organizations were discussing the advertisement before it ran.

MoveOn has effectively stabbed the Democrats in the back and the longer the Democratic leadership avoid taking a stand either for or against MoveOn, the worse this is going to get for them in the eyes of America.

WHO SHOULD AMERICA LISTEN TO?-A decorated soldier’s commitment to defending America, or Hillary Clinton’s commitment to defending MoveOn.org?”

Indeed.

Good for you Rudy. Well done.

Gabrielle Giffords In Tucson September 15, 2007; Questions for Her and Raul Grijalva

Those of you familiar with me know I seem to have an on-going, rather wary relationship with Arizona’s 8th District Freshman Congressman, Gabrielle Giffords.

In our last go round, I published a letter she had sent me, and shredded it. I then emailed that blog entry to her office.

What I didn’t get a chance to do was follow up with that blog entry until now. Allow me to do so.

I was contacted by Miss Giffords’ chief of staff, who called me at work. I hadn’t yet arrived; however, I was told she would be calling later that morning. From what I’ve seen of Miss Giffords, she is NOT one of the normal Dems who has an extensive, expensive staff. I have got to give her kudos for that. Further, her chief of staff appears to be her only staff member. No one can accuse Miss Giffords’ of wasting taxpayer money on staffing and I will certainly give her that. I will also grant her this: her chief of staff was EXTREMELY cordial, pleasant, willing to answer questions (to a point) and certainly did not have to personally call me to discuss my concerns.

What we did disagree on, and I was very vocal about, was the lack of respect given to the office of Commander in Chief and the underlying disrespect in communications regarding the president and the war. I did get rather testy on that and stated it was NOT “Bush’s war” it is AMERICA’S war and, she was perfectly entitled not to like the president but she was out of line in showing her disrespect for the office. That, however, was about the testiest it became; the vast majority of the conversation was extremely pleasant, cordial and polite.

I was actually invited to personally call anytime I had further concerns I wished to discuss–and it appeared to be a genuine invitation.

But, wait Miss Beth–you’re being NICE to Miss Giffords! WHAT GIVES? HAVE YOU TURNED TRAITOR ON US?

NOT AT ALL. However, when one is treated nicely and with polite respect from a member of a party that appears to be on the verge of a total implosion and/or meltdown, it bears acknowledgment and appreciation to the person(s) who gave you that treatment. Just as I would be ripping her to shreds had it been otherwise, it is only right and proper to acknowledge when one has been treated with respect and politeness.

Imagine, then, my utter surprise when I found I was on Miss Giffords’ email list (of course, I track her voting record through MegaVote and other vote tracking services) updating me on her activities on Capitol Hill. Imagine my further surprise when I received an invitation to her forum this weekend on Veteran’s Affairs. You could have knocked me over with a feather!

Unfortunately (GROAN), I missed the rsvp date and won’t be going as I had anticipated. So, I will ask my questions here and send her another email with the blog link. Keep in mind I have not yet checked her voting record regarding Veteran’s Affairs. Nevermind, I just did. It apparently hasn’t made it to Congress yet so she hasn’t yet voted on it; I can be cautiously optimistic and hope she is having this forum to address Veteran’s concerns in order to better formulate her vote.

Again, I will give her the benefit of the doubt based on the fact she hasn’t yet voted and appears to want input prior to voting–I would expect that kind of responsiblity from any representative, Republican or Democrat, and I will try to think the best until I see otherwise.

One thing I must point out here is, while my and Miss Giffords’ views are often in direct opposition to each other, I must commend her on her attention to her district. It is certainly NOT unusual to see her in Tucson, OFTEN, meeting with her constituents. Certainly far more than her counterpart, Mr. Grijalva (see below) who seems to think his deigning to visit his consitutency is the equivalent of a visit by crowned royalty. Again, DON’T GET ME WRONG, MISS GIFFORDS AND I ARE IN VERY DIFFERENT MINDSETS BUT SHE DOES KEEP IN CONSTANT TOUCH WITH HER CONSTITUENTS. That’s a positive, a very definite positive.

Veteran’s Affairs are something a lot of people don’t think about; those blogging and doing our best to support the troops see horror stories of the mistreatment our Veterans receive upon their return home. It’s not enough to support the troops while they’re in battle–far too many need help upon their return home and subsequent discharge and far too many of THOSE Veterans just can’t get the help they need.

One of my guest posters asked me to ask Miss Giffords something very specific. It was this:

Ask her why she isn’t supporting legislation right now to protect our veterans monuments. Ask her why she isn’t supporting legislation to make it a crime to desecrate our flag or insult our troops in a time of war. Ask her why she isn’t supporting legislation right now that would make it a crime to spout out inflammatory, seditious and treasonable speech in public while this country is at war.

So, Miss Giffords? What is your answer to this Veteran’s questions? Are you aware of the vandalism that occurred this past weekend to the Vietnam memorial? Are you aware of the pictures we have here on our blogs showing the criminal acts being perpetrated under the umbrella of “Free Speech”?

Here’s a post from yesterday that was cross posted from another blog to mine–and many, many others. It’s called “THIS Is What Anti-War Protestors Are Folks” and shows a late teen/early 20’s male dropping his pants in an Oregon protest in March, 2007, in front of God and everybody (including children) to SHIT on OUR FLAG–a flag that had been burned earlier–along with a soldier in effigy–and he was shitting to put out the flames. This is NOT “Free Speech”. This is “Hate Crime”. How do you stand on Hate Crimes against this country, Miss Giffords?

And along that line of questioning, please tell me how you feel about the MoveOn.org’s New York Times full page ad villifying and slandering General David Petraeus. And please tell me why I haven’t heard you come out strongly and extremely vociferously against that slander. Why you haven’t distanced yourself IMMEDIATELY from that ad? Would you please clarify that for me? I would certainly have more respect for you, regardless of party differences, if you were to immediately and loudly divorce yourself from any association with MoveOn.org–not just because of the ad, but also because of MoveOn.org’s statement:

In a December 9th e-mail signed by “Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team,” the Soros front group stated: “In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn’t need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it’s our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.” (quoted from FrontPageMagazine.com article MoveOn: ‘We Bought’ the Democratic Party; December 10, 2004)

I’m sure I’m not the only constituent that would be very interested in your response to these questions.

********************

THIS Congressman is Raul Grijalva, Arizona’s Senior 7th District Congressman.

I’ve written him just as many letters as I have Miss Giffords. I’ve asked him just as many questions; in fact I’ve asked him identical questions.

I’ve received one form letter in response to my concerns. I signed up for his email notifications. It has been ignored. His email form on the contact reps page has cutesy little “tests” you have to answer correctly before you can leave him an email. Little things, like what is 2 + 2 (tonight’s little challenge was 3 x 1–and you had three tries to correctly answer).

Now, considering he used to be a member of the Tucson Unified School District (and his daughter is now a member of said district), one would think he could have come up with something a little more challenging as a “screening” agent. Or not. The question is though–why should he be afraid to hear from his constituents to begin with?

Then again, once he got the NEA firmly ensconced into the school district with their agenda at dumbing down and indoctrinating the kids into mindless, non-questioning, goose-stepping obedience to the liberal, communistic, socialistic agenda, he went on to run for Congress. His work in Tucson was accomplished.

See, Mr. Grijalva only wants to hear from you if your skin is brown and you’re mexican; legal or illegal doesn’t matter. I happen to be white with a white surname, so I don’t count. He even ran his campaign ads almost exclusively in spanish and did not campaign in the white areas of his district.

His voting record over his tenure shows him to be, in fact, one of the far left fringe. One particular issue that completely irritated me with this man was a particular young soldier Tucson lost. This was a young man who was an illegal, brought by his illegal parents across the border. However, this young man graduated high school and enlisted because of his love for this country. He fought AND DIED for this country. He was awarded his citizenship posthumously. I do not recall seeing Mr. Grijalva at this young man’s grave site. I don’t recall him being anywhere near the memorials.

I could be wrong and if I am, I will gladly apologize.

However, the message was clear–though this young man was illegal, he did the unthinkable in this far leftist’s eyes–he enlisted to DEFEND THIS COUNTRY. He GAVE HIS LIFE to his adopted country. And that is unforgiveable in Mr. Grijalva’s lexicon of the downtrodden illegal. This young man, had he not have died in a field of battle, would surely have made a success of himself. He had the drive and the ambition. He had the desire to become legal and do something FOR the country he loved rather than leech off the government his entire life. This ambition, this drive, this love of country is completely foreign to Mr. Grijalva. It doesn’t fit in with his agenda; so, this young man was postuhumously punished because he didn’t fit the party line agenda of entitlement and law breaking.

However, I’ll give Mr. Grijalva one more chance. I presented several questions to Miss Giffords above.

I ask Mr. Grijalva to answer those same questions. In a public forum. Televised on mainstream stations, not just spanish speaking ones. And to answer those questions in the language of the land, English–AND ONLY ENGLISH, THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF AMERICA, so his American constituents can easily understand his answers without being forced to learn a language not the official language of this country.

Frankly, I have more faith in Miss Giffords. Even if there is some residual Democratic spin on the answers, I feel she will make a sincere effort to answer the questions in a somewhat thoughtful, measured manner.

I don’t think Mr. Grijalva will even read this when I email it to him. After all, I’m white–I don’t count. I’d wager it’ll be ignored at best, and if by some chance it gets through his screeners (remember his cutesy little tests), it’ll be deleted at worst. But we’ll always have it here, won’t we?

Who’s with the traitors and seditionists at MoveOn.org and who isn’t? Hopefully we shall soon see.

Who is going to at least make the effort to talk to Veterans before voting and who isn’t?

Again, we have that answer.

It’s not Mr. Grijalva. He could care less about Veterans. The Veteran’s Administration complex is in his district. But, you see, they’re VETERANS. THEY LOVE THIS COUNTRY. THEY TOOK AN OATH TO LAY DOWN THEIR LIVES FOR THIS COUNTRY. Completely foreign thought, totally anathemic idea to Mr. Grijalva. The only thing America is good for in his eyes is entitlement programs for the lazy and illegal, the drug thugs and the gangs (highly concentrated and growing in his district) while refusing the children quality education (most of the failing schools in the city are also in his district–his aversion to immersing the children in the language of the land so they can thrive here). In his eyes, America certainly isn’t worth fighting and dying for. Just using.

Updates will follow.
********************
For those wondering why I have both these people as representatives, I own a house in Grijalva’s district (my daughter lives in that house) and I live in Miss Giffords’ district.

Gabrielle Giffords In Tucson September 15, 2007; Questions for Her and Raul Grijalva

Those of you familiar with me know I seem to have an on-going, rather wary relationship with Arizona’s 8th District Freshman Congressman, Gabrielle Giffords.

In our last go round, I published a letter she had sent me, and shredded it. I then emailed that blog entry to her office.

What I didn’t get a chance to do was follow up with that blog entry until now. Allow me to do so.

I was contacted by Miss Giffords’ chief of staff, who called me at work. I hadn’t yet arrived; however, I was told she would be calling later that morning. From what I’ve seen of Miss Giffords, she is NOT one of the normal Dems who has an extensive, expensive staff. I have got to give her kudos for that. Further, her chief of staff appears to be her only staff member. No one can accuse Miss Giffords’ of wasting taxpayer money on staffing and I will certainly give her that. I will also grant her this: her chief of staff was EXTREMELY cordial, pleasant, willing to answer questions (to a point) and certainly did not have to personally call me to discuss my concerns.

What we did disagree on, and I was very vocal about, was the lack of respect given to the office of Commander in Chief and the underlying disrespect in communications regarding the president and the war. I did get rather testy on that and stated it was NOT “Bush’s war” it is AMERICA’S war and, she was perfectly entitled not to like the president but she was out of line in showing her disrespect for the office. That, however, was about the testiest it became; the vast majority of the conversation was extremely pleasant, cordial and polite.

I was actually invited to personally call anytime I had further concerns I wished to discuss–and it appeared to be a genuine invitation.

But, wait Miss Beth–you’re being NICE to Miss Giffords! WHAT GIVES? HAVE YOU TURNED TRAITOR ON US?

NOT AT ALL. However, when one is treated nicely and with polite respect from a member of a party that appears to be on the verge of a total implosion and/or meltdown, it bears acknowledgment and appreciation to the person(s) who gave you that treatment. Just as I would be ripping her to shreds had it been otherwise, it is only right and proper to acknowledge when one has been treated with respect and politeness.

Imagine, then, my utter surprise when I found I was on Miss Giffords’ email list (of course, I track her voting record through MegaVote and other vote tracking services) updating me on her activities on Capitol Hill. Imagine my further surprise when I received an invitation to her forum this weekend on Veteran’s Affairs. You could have knocked me over with a feather!

Unfortunately (GROAN), I missed the rsvp date and won’t be going as I had anticipated. So, I will ask my questions here and send her another email with the blog link. Keep in mind I have not yet checked her voting record regarding Veteran’s Affairs. Nevermind, I just did. It apparently hasn’t made it to Congress yet so she hasn’t yet voted on it; I can be cautiously optimistic and hope she is having this forum to address Veteran’s concerns in order to better formulate her vote.

Again, I will give her the benefit of the doubt based on the fact she hasn’t yet voted and appears to want input prior to voting–I would expect that kind of responsiblity from any representative, Republican or Democrat, and I will try to think the best until I see otherwise.

One thing I must point out here is, while my and Miss Giffords’ views are often in direct opposition to each other, I must commend her on her attention to her district. It is certainly NOT unusual to see her in Tucson, OFTEN, meeting with her constituents. Certainly far more than her counterpart, Mr. Grijalva (see below) who seems to think his deigning to visit his consitutency is the equivalent of a visit by crowned royalty. Again, DON’T GET ME WRONG, MISS GIFFORDS AND I ARE IN VERY DIFFERENT MINDSETS BUT SHE DOES KEEP IN CONSTANT TOUCH WITH HER CONSTITUENTS. That’s a positive, a very definite positive.

Veteran’s Affairs are something a lot of people don’t think about; those blogging and doing our best to support the troops see horror stories of the mistreatment our Veterans receive upon their return home. It’s not enough to support the troops while they’re in battle–far too many need help upon their return home and subsequent discharge and far too many of THOSE Veterans just can’t get the help they need.

One of my guest posters asked me to ask Miss Giffords something very specific. It was this:

Ask her why she isn’t supporting legislation right now to protect our veterans monuments. Ask her why she isn’t supporting legislation to make it a crime to desecrate our flag or insult our troops in a time of war. Ask her why she isn’t supporting legislation right now that would make it a crime to spout out inflammatory, seditious and treasonable speech in public while this country is at war.

So, Miss Giffords? What is your answer to this Veteran’s questions? Are you aware of the vandalism that occurred this past weekend to the Vietnam memorial? Are you aware of the pictures we have here on our blogs showing the criminal acts being perpetrated under the umbrella of “Free Speech”?

Here’s a post from yesterday that was cross posted from another blog to mine–and many, many others. It’s called “THIS Is What Anti-War Protestors Are Folks” and shows a late teen/early 20’s male dropping his pants in an Oregon protest in March, 2007, in front of God and everybody (including children) to SHIT on OUR FLAG–a flag that had been burned earlier–along with a soldier in effigy–and he was shitting to put out the flames. This is NOT “Free Speech”. This is “Hate Crime”. How do you stand on Hate Crimes against this country, Miss Giffords?

And along that line of questioning, please tell me how you feel about the MoveOn.org’s New York Times full page ad villifying and slandering General David Petraeus. And please tell me why I haven’t heard you come out strongly and extremely vociferously against that slander. Why you haven’t distanced yourself IMMEDIATELY from that ad? Would you please clarify that for me? I would certainly have more respect for you, regardless of party differences, if you were to immediately and loudly divorce yourself from any association with MoveOn.org–not just because of the ad, but also because of MoveOn.org’s statement:

In a December 9th e-mail signed by “Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team,” the Soros front group stated: “In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn’t need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it’s our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we’re going to take it back.” (quoted from FrontPageMagazine.com article MoveOn: ‘We Bought’ the Democratic Party; December 10, 2004)

I’m sure I’m not the only constituent that would be very interested in your response to these questions.

********************

THIS Congressman is Raul Grijalva, Arizona’s Senior 7th District Congressman.

I’ve written him just as many letters as I have Miss Giffords. I’ve asked him just as many questions; in fact I’ve asked him identical questions.

I’ve received one form letter in response to my concerns. I signed up for his email notifications. It has been ignored. His email form on the contact reps page has cutesy little “tests” you have to answer correctly before you can leave him an email. Little things, like what is 2 + 2 (tonight’s little challenge was 3 x 1–and you had three tries to correctly answer).

Now, considering he used to be a member of the Tucson Unified School District (and his daughter is now a member of said district), one would think he could have come up with something a little more challenging as a “screening” agent. Or not. The question is though–why should he be afraid to hear from his constituents to begin with?

Then again, once he got the NEA firmly ensconced into the school district with their agenda at dumbing down and indoctrinating the kids into mindless, non-questioning, goose-stepping obedience to the liberal, communistic, socialistic agenda, he went on to run for Congress. His work in Tucson was accomplished.

See, Mr. Grijalva only wants to hear from you if your skin is brown and you’re mexican; legal or illegal doesn’t matter. I happen to be white with a white surname, so I don’t count. He even ran his campaign ads almost exclusively in spanish and did not campaign in the white areas of his district.

His voting record over his tenure shows him to be, in fact, one of the far left fringe. One particular issue that completely irritated me with this man was a particular young soldier Tucson lost. This was a young man who was an illegal, brought by his illegal parents across the border. However, this young man graduated high school and enlisted because of his love for this country. He fought AND DIED for this country. He was awarded his citizenship posthumously. I do not recall seeing Mr. Grijalva at this young man’s grave site. I don’t recall him being anywhere near the memorials.

I could be wrong and if I am, I will gladly apologize.

However, the message was clear–though this young man was illegal, he did the unthinkable in this far leftist’s eyes–he enlisted to DEFEND THIS COUNTRY. He GAVE HIS LIFE to his adopted country. And that is unforgiveable in Mr. Grijalva’s lexicon of the downtrodden illegal. This young man, had he not have died in a field of battle, would surely have made a success of himself. He had the drive and the ambition. He had the desire to become legal and do something FOR the country he loved rather than leech off the government his entire life. This ambition, this drive, this love of country is completely foreign to Mr. Grijalva. It doesn’t fit in with his agenda; so, this young man was postuhumously punished because he didn’t fit the party line agenda of entitlement and law breaking.

However, I’ll give Mr. Grijalva one more chance. I presented several questions to Miss Giffords above.

I ask Mr. Grijalva to answer those same questions. In a public forum. Televised on mainstream stations, not just spanish speaking ones. And to answer those questions in the language of the land, English–AND ONLY ENGLISH, THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF AMERICA, so his American constituents can easily understand his answers without being forced to learn a language not the official language of this country.

Frankly, I have more faith in Miss Giffords. Even if there is some residual Democratic spin on the answers, I feel she will make a sincere effort to answer the questions in a somewhat thoughtful, measured manner.

I don’t think Mr. Grijalva will even read this when I email it to him. After all, I’m white–I don’t count. I’d wager it’ll be ignored at best, and if by some chance it gets through his screeners (remember his cutesy little tests), it’ll be deleted at worst. But we’ll always have it here, won’t we?

Who’s with the traitors and seditionists at MoveOn.org and who isn’t? Hopefully we shall soon see.

Who is going to at least make the effort to talk to Veterans before voting and who isn’t?

Again, we have that answer.

It’s not Mr. Grijalva. He could care less about Veterans. The Veteran’s Administration complex is in his district. But, you see, they’re VETERANS. THEY LOVE THIS COUNTRY. THEY TOOK AN OATH TO LAY DOWN THEIR LIVES FOR THIS COUNTRY. Completely foreign thought, totally anathemic idea to Mr. Grijalva. The only thing America is good for in his eyes is entitlement programs for the lazy and illegal, the drug thugs and the gangs (highly concentrated and growing in his district) while refusing the children quality education (most of the failing schools in the city are also in his district–his aversion to immersing the children in the language of the land so they can thrive here). In his eyes, America certainly isn’t worth fighting and dying for. Just using.

Updates will follow.
********************
For those wondering why I have both these people as representatives, I own a house in Grijalva’s district (my daughter lives in that house) and I live in Miss Giffords’ district.