Incredible: 

According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.

The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid.

And why was the Obama Administration so upset?

In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to “Chaos-istan”.

When asked whether he would support it, he said: “The short answer is: No.”

He went on to say: “Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support….”

Gen McChrystal delivered a report on Afghanistan requested by the president on Aug 31, but Mr Obama held only his second “principals meeting” on the issue last week.

He will hold at least one more this week, but a decision on how far to follow Gen McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more US troops will not be made for several weeks.

And the Administration’s perception of why McChrystal would make such comments:

An adviser to the administration said: “People aren’t sure whether McChrystal is being naïve or an upstart. To my mind he doesn’t seem ready for this Washington hard-ball and is just speaking his mind too plainly.”

Yes, please continue to tell the military how to operate, since Washington obviously understands the situation far better than anyone actually working in Afghanistan; just like Iraq, right?

July 20, 2007:  

 ”Here’s what we know. The surge has not worked.”

September 4, 2008 :  

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated” … “It’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

Speaker Pelosi has finally taken the initiative in warning the American people of the corporate backed, hate-filled mobs that are responsible for forcing the legislative process to come to a screeching halt.

She’s right- just look at these astroturf domestic terrorists- I’m fairly certain that elderly lady with the American flag purse is actually concealing

As Our Great Leaderthe Speaker alluded to, perhaps Americans that “aren’t as balanced” should be held responsible for their “rhetoric.”  I too am afraid Madame Speaker; I too am afraid.

For Those Who Have Served and Sacrificed:

THANK YOU!

As a law-abiding gun owner I find it extremely frustrating that I am no longer able to purchase ammunition for my handgun.  It’s not like I’m looking for some armor-piercing, high velocity round; in fact I would settle for just about anything at this point, but no luck.  No, there is no ban or law that has made the sale of ammunition illegal, just an enormous amount of fear that it will happen soon.  This terror has in turn elevated demand to all time highs, and supply has struggled to keep up- I can’t find a single round of ammunition within 50 miles.

While it is frustrating to be afraid to actually shoot my handgun, out of fear that I won’t be able to find ammunition, it is extremely gratifying to see that in the middle of a recession there are still many Americans who continue to exercise their Constitutional right to own and bear arms.   I just hope that all of this renewed Constitutional vigor will continue until November of 2010.  Perhaps if Republicans regain control of the House and Senate, Walmart will be able to keep ammunition on their shelves.

In 2001, in a letter to Mexican officials in the Puebla region, sixteen Democratic Congressmen urged the officials not to adopt card-check legislation, saying “…we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.” Names appearing on that letter included Rep. George Miller (D-CA), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Rep. William Coyne (D-PA).

They were right then. They are dead wrong now.

Since that letter was penned a mere seven-and-a-half years ago, fourteen of its signers have flip flopped on the issue, and have signed on as co-sponsors of the deceptively-titled “Employee Free Choice Act” (also known as “card check”), a bill that would effectively overturn secret-ballot union elections in the United States. What should we say then? Have these 14 Congressmen had a recent conversion? Have they seen the light? Perhaps they had a change of heart. Perhaps.

Perhaps they sacrificed truth for power.

The truth is that these fourteen Democrats are trying to sacrifice the protection of the American worker and are giving in to the demands of big labor, which contributed more than $60 million to Democrats in the 2008 election cycle alone. By claiming that the Employee Free Choice Act will “…level the playing field for workers and employers and foster economic growth for America’s middle class,” these fourteen Congressional Democrats have abandoned their principled stance of 2001 and now advocate public ballots in union elections.

So which is it? Is the secret ballot “absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated,” or has it become an outmoded, outdated, irrelevant practice in the seven-and-a-half years since this letter was written? Of course not! Would you like to go to the voting booth with labor bosses standing over your shoulder, ensuring that you make the “right” choice? Should free people be intimidated into joining a labor union that “they might not otherwise choose?” The answer is obvious. The secret ballot has been a central tenet of civil governance since well before the inception of our own magnificent republic. To do away with it now would be tantamount to legislative malpractice.

In 2001, sixteen Congressional Democrats took a principled stand against card check. Only eight years later, the fourteen who remain in Congress (two of the signers retired before the 109th Congress) have changed their tune. Every one of these Congressmen was chosen by a secret ballot. If it’s good enough for them, it ought to be good enough for the hard-working men and women of this country.

Their hypocrisy is stunning.

So let’s call our legislators, especially its co-sponsors here in Iowa: Congressmen Leonard Boswell, Bruce Braley, Dave Loebsack and Senator Tom Harkin, and tell them to let us keep our free, un-intimidated choice.

This post was also published on Steve Deace’s WHO Radio Blog on March 12, 2009.

 We must prevent the 10% of all Iowans who are union members from dictating their unreasonable terms to the rest of us.

Let’s just think logically about the prevailing wage bill, Big Union’s first attempt at price-fixing:  If they had succeeded in forcing all employers to pay the prevailing union wage, those employers would have only done what rational employers do…which is to  increase the cost of their bid to reflect the additional cost to them in “prevailing wages”.  What follows is simple:  the 90% of all Iowans who do not receive prevailing wage would’ve been forced to pay for the higher prices of state projects in higher taxes as a result of the higher bids.  In effect, a 10% minority had dictated their wage to the rest of us who don’t even receive it!

Their second attempt will be a “doctor choice” worker’s compensation bill.  Let’s expose the Big Union agenda in Iowa…and protect the rest of the hard-working Iowans who would be negatively affected.

The Bold Color Conservatives were joined on the radio today by another like minded individual, potential Republican Gubernatorial candidate, Bob Vander Plaats.  And while the likable liberal host, Bradshaw, disagreed with his Conservative vision, Mr. Vander Plaats put forward a convincing argument on why government spending and bureaucratic growth do not produce wealth, but only grow federal power and burden responsible citizens.

According to Mr. Vander Plaats, states should be hesitant to openly accept federal funds from President Obama’s ”Stimulus” Package because of the strings attached to the dollars.  As Mr. Vander Plaats pointed out, while additional cash may delay layoffs and temporarily suspend contraction, it will not create lasting employment and will instead create additional financial obligations that the states will be forced to pay indefinitely in the future.  A job created with temporary federal dollars will eventually require the state to maintain and provide funding for the position in the future, forcing state governments to either raise taxes or cut funding elsewhere.  That’s why many governors around the country are turning down some of these funds, including Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat from Tennessee.

In addition to economic issues, Mr. Vander Plaats pointed out the need for responsible spending on education.  He explained how much of the funding allocated to education through state and federal taxes never reaches the students and is instead spent on the large bureaucracy that runs the school systems.  As a former high school principal, Mr. Vander Plaats understands that Iowa needs a well-run educational system that is focused on students and their progress, rather than on bureaucracies and unions.

The Bold Color Conservatives would like to thank Mr. Vander Plaats for joining them on the air and look forward to seeing and hearing more from him in the future.

Thanks again to Bradshaw from 98.3 WOW FM, for the opportunity to come onto the show and discuss the issues.  It’s his show, we just love trying to prove him wrong.

We will once again be guests on “Bradshaw In The Afternoon” today on 98.3 WOW FM.

Hear us discuss the impending assault weapons ban, imploding stimulus package, bloated budget, and the otherwise general malaise the liberals have left the great state of Iowa and this country in.

Listen live here from 1-4 pm CST.

We last appeared on the air Friday February 6, 2009.

We will once again be guests on “Bradshaw In The Afternoon” tomorrow on 98.3 WOW FM.

Hear us discuss the impending assault weapons ban, imploding stimulus package, bloated budget, and the otherwise general malaise the liberals have left the great state of Iowa and this country in.

Listen live here from 1-4 pm CST.

In one master stroke, Rush Limbaugh has drawn President Obama into a trap by offering him a one-on-one debate between our President and talk radio’s best.  

If Obama refuses, he comes off looking weak.

If he ignores Rush, he still looks weak because we now know that the White House has developed an official policy of attacking Mr. Limbaugh.

If he accepts….well, he’ll lose.  Even the HuffingtonPost knows this…they have encouraged President Obama to counteroffer with a “private meeting” at the White House.

From World on The Web, transcript of Rush’s offer to the President:

You tell me how wrong I am and you can convince the rest of the Americans that don’t agree with you how wrong we all are.  You’re a smart guy, Mr. President.  You don’t need these hacks to front for you.  You’ve debated the best! You’ve debated Hillary Clinton.  You’ve debated John Edwards.  You’ve debated Joe Biden. You’ve debated Dennis Kucinich. You’ve debated the best out there.  You are one of the most gifted public speakers of our age.  I would think, Mr. President, you would jump at this opportunity…. If you can win at this, then come here and beat me at my own game, and get rid of me once and for all, and show all the people of America that I am wrong….

I’m calling.  I’m ready.  I’ll do everything I can to facilitate it.  You’re a very courageous man, Mr. President.  I am, after all, just The Last Man Standing.  If you take me out, if you can wipe me out in a debate and prove to the rest of America that what I say is senseless and wrong, do you realize you will own the United States of America? You will have no opposition.  You have America’s media in your back pocket. 

We will once again be guests on “Bradshaw In The Afternoon” this Friday on 98.3 WOW FM.

Listen live here from 1-4 pm CST.

The Iowa Republican

D.L. Hughley says Republicans are reminiscent of “Nazi Germany” and Steele doesn’t even correct him?  Come on.  I bet Rush wouldn’t have let that stand, eh Michael?  Steele, that’s off the hook, yo!!

Wait…wait…I get it!  D.L. is just testing the limits of the new politics of hope and post-racial bipartisanship!  Fo’ real, dogg!

We will once again be guests on “Bradshaw In The Afternoon” this Friday on 98.3 WOW FM.

If you want to hear bright young conservative minds discuss topics important to you, please feel free to suggest them in the comments section.

Listen live here from 1-4 pm CST.

Our faithful readers will notice our new (bold) design.  Thanks to our good friend Todd Schulz for help with the header.  Here’s to a brighter, bolder future.

Folks, if you haven’t been paying attention, the battle is already here.  For the first time in a long time (perhaps ever), the American left is waging an all-out assault on the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that have made this country great.

Instead of trying to raise all Americans up, they are trying to tear successful Americans down with a combination of higher taxes, income redistribution, nationalized health-care, and carbon offsets.  

We will go the way of “old Europe” if they succeed.   But you don’t have to take my word for it…I’ll let E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post speak for himself:

Politicians will say lots of things in the coming weeks, but they should be pushed relentlessly to address the bottom-line question: Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism’s bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy? Everything else is a subsidiary issue.

He’s absolutely right.  Everything else is subsidiary.  

Let the war begin.

If you’re paying my mortgage!

From Scott at PowerLine:

Today is of course the bicentennial anniversary of the birth of America’s greatest president, Abraham Lincoln. As a politician and as president, Lincoln was a profound student of the Constitution and constitutional history. Perhaps most important, Lincoln was America’s indispensable teacher of the moral ground of political freedom at the exact moment when the country was on the threshold of abandoning what he called its “ancient faith” that all men are created equal.

Unbelievable.  Julio Osegueda (a college student) wants Obama to pass a law to make McDonalds (his employer) give him better benefits.  Here’s to higher education. 

Yes, you read that correctly.  Rasmussen reports:

50% say the stimulus is more likely to make things worse.  Another 27% say the stimulus is very likely to make things worse.

That means fully 77% of all Americans think the stimulus will make things worse!  

2010 ought to be a very good year for Republicans.

In light of the shockingly sloppy vetting process that produced such troubled nominations as Richardson, Geithner, Solis, Daschle and Holder, we have one question to ask…

…is this the kind of “good governance” we were led to believe we could expect?

The folks over at DailyKos say both.  

Blogger “DemFromCT” engages in a little intellectual honesty in her post “Flu And You – Part V”, discussing whether $870 million for pandemic flu prevention is appropriate in a stimulus bill.  Responding to a statement by Senator Collins (R-ME) that indeed, pandemic flu is a concern but spending $870 million for pandemic flu is not in fact stimulus, “DemFromCT” says:

Well, that’s an interesting statement, when you think about it. Everyone in the room (and that would be mostly Senators) was properly concerned about the possibility of a pandemic. That part is crystal clear (and thank you, Senator Collins, for saying so.)

As to whether it’s appropriate to put the money in a safety net/stimulus bill, that’s the debate that’s ongoing.

Don’t miss the importance of that last statement.  ”DemFromCT” (as do most on the left) believes that it’s entirely appropriate for the stimulus bill to include millions in safety-net entitlement spending.  In fact, she goes a step further, calling the piece of legislation a joint “safety net/stimulus bill”.

Let’s take them at their own words.  This is a play on entitlement spending, not on stimulus.  

Vote no on the safety net bill.

Click here to order.