Raging intellect
If you ever needed an example of disconnect between liberals and the war on terror, just check out
this article from today's San Francisco Chronicle. In a profound epiphany, the Chronic reports that surrendering in Iraq won't be enough to stop jihad.
| But experts on terrorism warn that extricating the United States from the increasingly unpopular war will not be enough to stop jihadists. |
I swear I didn't doctor that sentence.
If I am reading this correctly, the point of Anna Badkhen story is that we have to leave Iraq and stop fighting back because it's making terrorists mad. We should ignore their global jihad and let them declare war on western civilizations...because our involvement is only helping them recruit. What nut job comes up with this mess?
And Bill Clinton wonders why he's asked a tough question about not doing enough to stop terrorism. But it's the people of his own party who continue to use this retreat mentality as a way to peace. Not to mention we have countless stories like this that suggest our bravado in fighting terrorism has only emboldened jihadists.
Well duh! Did you think they would jump with glee and say "now that you've joined the fight we can all dance in the street?"
You don't get peace by retreat. You get dead Americans and a general public wondering what in the hell we were doing by not fighting these lunatics.
Don't forget, you can buy Real Republican merchandise right here
Karzai gets it. Why don't Democrats?
As we sit here and listen to all the posturing on the
NIE about what it says and doesn't say, I wanted to remind everyone of an important message that got lost in the fold. President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, while speaking with President Bush yesterday at the White House, defended allied actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Naturally something like this got lost in the hype of bashing Bush and his policy, but it shouldn't go unnoticed. Karzai, when asked of the report suggesting Iraq was a 'Cause Celebre' to Jihadists, reminded a young female reporter of the carnage terror has brought on the world long before Iraq. It was one of those moments of rare leadership you wished some from the left would understand.
PRESIDENT KARZAI: "Ma'am, before I go to remarks by my brother, President Musharraf, terrorism was hurting us way before Iraq or September 11th. The President mentioned some examples of it. These extremist forces were killing people in Afghanistan and around for years, closing schools, burning mosques, killing children, uprooting vineyards, with vine trees, grapes hanging on them, forcing populations to poverty and misery.
They came to America on September 11th, but they were attacking you before September 11th in other parts of the world. We are a witness in Afghanistan to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York. Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high? Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again? That's why we need more action around the world, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to get them defeated -- extremism, their allies, terrorists and the like." |
I'm also including a
transcript from the press conference and
video.
As
Red State says... "I will let his remarks stand for themselves. Perhaps the Democrats can learn something." Doubtful!
Cit-going, going GONE...
Well it seems as though the fallout from Mr. Hugo "el Diablo" Chavez continues. Though as
Michelle Malkin points out...it might not be that big of a deal.
7-Eleven dropping Venezuela-backed CitgoDALLAS -- 7-Eleven Inc. is dropping Venezuela-backed Citgo as its gasoline supplier after more than 20 years as part of a previously announced plan by the convenience store operator to launch its own brand of fuel.
7-Eleven officials said Wednesday that the company's decision was partly motivated by politics. |
It also says this is something they've been looking into for over a year now. But regardless of what motivated the convenient store giant to pull their Citgo plug, I'm happy. I hope others will follow suit and rid our nation from depending on this virus-of-a-leaders oil.
Debbie Schlussel slurps to the move as well.
One thing I'd like to point out is we have to tread lightly on how we treat Citgo, Venezuela's state-run oil company. Sure, I'd love to call for a complete boycott. But as many point out, that would actually hurt the thousands of local retailers who sell Citgo fuel. That's bad. We should however try to encourage other companies and local retailers to end contracts with Citgo. That would cut the toes off Citgo at the distribution level without hurting the retail level.
Barbara Boxer attacks Fox News anchor
The Muslim world has
Sudden Jihad Syndrome (SJS). The liberal world has
Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS). And we can now add
FOX News Derangement Syndrome (FNDS) to the mix.
Emboldened by Bill Clinton's misplaced weekend tirade against FOX reporter Chris Wallace, Sen. Barbara Boxer attacked FOX News anchor Jane Skinner today on FOX News Live.
Thanks to
Drudge, the transcript goes like this...
SEN. BOXER KNOCKS FOXNEWS IN INTERVIEW: SEN. BOXER [D-CA]: I hear that you agree with the president. I am not surprised.
FOX ANCHOR: We are just trying to bring both sides.
SEN. BOXER: Yeah, you are fair and balanced, thank you very much.
FOX ANCHOR: Indeed we are... |
AllahPundit posted the video at HotAirWhen I watched the interview and heard that comment I knew it would get some press from the blogs. Just like Iraq has become the
'Cause Celebre' to Jihadists, attacking FOX News is the 'Cause Celebre' to Democratic leadership. I say "democratic leadership" because leftward thinking bloggers have been attacking FOX for years now. Leftward thinking leadership has tended to remain respectable and accommodating...until now.
What really gets me is how angry certain Democrats have become when asked a tough question. I was telling someone yesterday how the media can drill virtually every Bush administration official on everything from Iraq to the NSA to a non-covert CIA agent and they call it "freedom of the press" and "keeping our government in check." But as soon as someone from the press asks a legitimate question of current or past Democratic leadership, they are accused of a "conservative hit job."
The problem is people like Clinton rarely have to answer tough questions from a liberal-friendly MSM. They get Katie Couric talking about how smart and intelligent they are and never face real opposition. Why do you think Clinton looked so uncomfortable? Why do you think he threatened to fire his staff? Because he's lived in this dream world where reckless disregard for national security and curvy interns was A-okay. Especially since all blame can be placed on George Bush.
Don't be surprised if you see more and more contumelious treatment of FOX News reporters and anchors in the near future. Rather than answering the tough questions, it's just easier to attack the journalist. What Democrats like Clinton and Boxer should be doing is embracing FOX News...because they are the one news agency that truly is upholding the first amendment.
Check out this great post by
Rightwinged. Great minds think alike!
Clinton's day of rage
Watching this guy turn red on TV is worth the money we pay for DirectTV!
Here's the story from
Fox News. Here's the WaPo story,
Clinton's finger-wagging moment, from Howard Kurtz.
The scary part is, he seemed more uncomfortable
answering questions from Chris Wallace about his record on terrorism than he did while in office answering questions about Monica.
Byron York
sums it up perfectly...
| But the bottom line is that Bill Clinton, the commander-in-chief, could not find the will to order the military into action against al Qaeda, and Bill Clinton, the head of the executive branch, could not find the will to order the CIA and FBI to act. No matter what the former president says on Fox, or anywhere else, that is his legacy in the war on terror. |
And while we may sit here and joke about Clinton's magic teletubby color-changing moment...we shouldn't be at all surprised by his reaction. This is the same way many elected Democrats respond when questioned about their 'on again, off again' support for the war on terror.
Most Democrats voted in favor of the invasion of Afghanistan. But after the Taliban was removed from power they declared we should "get out and let the UN help rebuild that nation." And they proudly claim "we support the troops."
Most Democrats voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq. But as soon as an American soldier died and votes were on the line, they changed their minds. But rather than coming out and saying they supported the efforts until our guys started dying, they claim they were "mislead." But they'll never fully explain that argument because one can quickly point out they had access to the same intelligence Bush used to make a case for war. The only misleading came from Democrats who blindly voted on Iraq without reading the Intel reports. If you don't do your homework before a vote, don't blame someone else and say you didn't know. All this time they claim "but we still support the troops."
And then we see them go through a cut-and-run moment when all the movers and shakers of the Democratic party are calling for a complete troop withdraw. Kerry, Murtha, etc. all stated we should get out of Iraq by the end of the year. And they make these claims because they say, "we are supporting our troops."
Abu Grab occurs. The Haditha scandal surfaces. And suddenly Murtha and Co. claim our troops are evil rapists and murders. Forget the roadside bombs and IED's they are dodging. They should be tried for killing and/or humiliating the enemy. But the left still claims "we support the troops."
And then the Democrats come forward with the concept that "we should have stayed in Afghanistan instead of getting side tracked with Iraq." Or as the quote from Nancy Pelosi says..."we took our eye off the ball." But they still support the troops.
And finally you have Democrats such as John Kerry now coming forward with the suggestion that we need even more troops in Iraq. Wait til you hear that campaign commercial..."I voted to pull out our troops from Iraq after I voted in-favor of sending them there, but before I voted to send even more."
Confused yet? Yeah, but they still support the troops. The Democratic leadership just doesn't know what to do with them, where to send them or how many to send. Clinton emphatically claims he went after Bin Laden...but later claims in the New York Times he couldn't. Then he blames a reporter asking him a tough question on a right-wing conspiracy and says Republicans attacked him for going after Bin Laden.
But
Ace of Spades has a nice post to prove otherwise...
Congressional leaders were briefed about the planned raid Wednesday night and Thursday morning. For the most part, Republican leaders praised Clinton's decision and urged more aggressive action against terrorism.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich expressed firm support, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, said, "Our response appears to be appropriate and just." |
I'm honestly getting a headache on all the flip-flopping positions from the Democratic leadership. I should take a break because tomorrow we should expect something new. In the meantime, reporters should just stick to the questions about cigars and blue dresses with Clinton; he's much nicer when answering those.
Photoshop image by
David Lunde
9/11 video that will leave you shaking
I'm a big fan of urban photography and architecture, so I like to frequent a little web site called
Skyscraperpage.com. It's generally an amateur photographer's message board where members post threads of their cities and local buildings. But the board has also provided a forum for the shocking imagery from the World Trade Center attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. And many of these local photographers are posting images never seen before.
Obviously the 5th anniversary of the attacks created another buzz of threads dedicated to remembering that horrible day. But it was a posting to a video link that left my hands clammy, my eyes welling and my whole body shaking. The video really isn't anything new that you haven't already seen before on the news. But it was shot by a local family from their apartment on the 32nd floor of their building, less than 500 yards from the WTC. It's this up-close angle and their raw emotions of watching a national icon collapse in front of their eyes that hits our deepest emotions.
Watch the 30 minute videoIf this video doesn't do anything else but remind you of what we are at war with, than I think it should be watched by everyone. The patriotism following the 9/11 attacks was unparalleled here in the U.S. And so were the emotions we felt that day as we watched Islamic radicals kill thousands of innocent people. We shouldn't need another attack to bring back that level of resolve and love for our country. 9/11 - never forget!
More ACLU deception
So I'm hanging out in a coffee shop in the Piedmont district of Oakland this evening and I just read the quote of the day. Come to think of it, this is the quote of the week. From
Stop the ACLU - "Tribunal/Interrogation Bill is a good deal, why? The ACLU has just condemned it."
How come the moment a law comes down on terrorists the ACLU is the first group to stand in protest? Who are these people? Did al-Qaeda infiltrate their leadership? Here's their
press release many of us saw coming...
New Military Commissions Compromise Gives License to Abuse Prisoners, ACLU Says Dangerous Proposal Must Be Rejected
WASHINGTON - Following announcements that an agreement has been reached between the White House and Senators John Warner (R-VA), John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on military commissions, the American Civil Liberties Union today said the compromise agreement does not protect due process, fails to meet international treaty obligations and urged lawmakers to reject the deal.
The following may be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:
"This is a compromise of America's commitment to the rule of law. The proposal would make the core protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions irrelevant and unenforceable. It deliberately provides a 'get out of jail free card' to the administration's top torture officials, and backdates that card nine years. These are tactics expected of repressive regimes, not the American government.
"Also under the proposal, the president would have the authority to declare what is - and what is not - a grave breach of the War Crimes Act, making the president his own judge and jury. This provision would give him unilateral authority to declare certain torture and abuse legal and sound. In a telling move, during a call with reporters today, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley would not even answer a question about whether water boarding would be permitted under the agreement.
"The agreement would also violate time-honored American due process standards by permitting the use of evidence coerced through cruel and abusive treatment. We urge lawmakers to stand firm in their commitment to American values and reject this charade of a compromise." |
Clearly the ACLU doesn't get it. Al-Qaeda and other terror organizations have not signed international treaties. They do not apply the Geneva Conventions when they're hacking off heads, nor will they ever. And as it currently stands, they are not protected under CA3 as detainees.
It's what I've been saying all along...we cannot apply the same POW logic to the War on Terror as we would if we were fighting someone like France. To start, the Geneva Conventions will never be applied to a prisoner of a terror group. Its false hope to assume if we act humanely to a terror suspect it will result in some change of psyche with the Jihadist movement. You can buy these cats’ roses and put them up in the W and they'll still have the deep running desire to kill you.
Second, the ACLU has followed the liberal media lead in calling these interrogations "torture." Notice the sentence that states "a 'get out of jail free card' to the administrations' top torture officials." Torture officials? Could the ACLU please name those officials? It's far easier for the ACLU to win their argument when they fabricate titles like "torture officials." I'm wondering if these torture officials wear leather chaps and frequent S&M clubs on the weekends. God only knows in the mind of the ACLU.
And finally, the ACLU would never admit that these "torture" techniques are far more humane than what has been offered to American POW's in every single foreign war since our independence. Calling such interrogation "torture" is yet another ploy to win an argument that can't be won on facts alone.
But as Stop the ACLU and other bloggers said, it was expected the ACLU would condemn the agreement and that's not a bad thing.
Debate gets tortured by press
When I came into the office this morning, a co-worker asked me about Bush's efforts to continue the practice of torture on detainees. I stopped in my tracks at what I had just heard. Here was an MOS (man on the street) who doesn't read about these stories in-depth, but watches the local news daily. It wasn't his fault for reciting the rhetoric he hears on a nightly basis. But what struck me was how such a misconception could stick. Since when did interrogation become a form of torture?
To answer his original question, I support our President and the CIA's methods of interrogating enemy combatants. It has saved many lives before and after the 9/11 tragedy and without it we can expect another attack would be imminent.
But how did this argument come to this? How did the concept of interrogation get swept into the Geneva Conventions firestorm? And how did al-Qaeda terrorists suddenly gain the respect and dignity offered by a treaty to diplomatic sovereign states?
To The Real Republican it's quite simple. Terrorists being held by the CIA are just that...terrorists. They are not a sovereign nation. They are not guided by a diplomatic state. They're rogue elements of a radical killing machine that would just as well cut off your head than negotiate. What respect and dignity does that deserve?
It’s the same argument I had when
SCOTUS ruled in favor of terrorists back in June. Their ruling basically said al-Qaeda and other terror organizations will get the same respect given to diplomatic nation-states. In other words, al-Qaeda, while hacking off your head and blowing up your children, are no different politically and diplomatically than...say...Sweden. To me this is a crime in and of itself and a failure to recognize evil for what it is.
Now, with respect to all budding terrorists out there, the U.S. naturally employs a reasonable level of humanity with all detainees. Unlike the jihadists’ practice of beheadings, the U.S. offers detainees a life far better than many find in their own nation of origin. Not to mention the food and medicine provided to these jihadists on your dime. And generally speaking, the U.S. treats terror detainees far more humane than most other nations.
So how did this coercive interrogation - a method that stopped the latest terror attempts to blow up airlines over the Atlantic - become torture? Simple...the media ran with the sexier story. If nut job McCain came forward and said he didn't like our practice of yelling at terror suspects to loudly, the media would yawn. But by calling the methods of interrogation torture, the media jumped at the sex appeal of the mean Americans torturing those poor terrorists. Calling it torture goes a lot farther than what it really is...interrogating.
The National Review does a real nice editorial on the subject...
| A bloc of Republican senators, led by John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham, is determined to disable the intelligence-collecting capabilities of the United States while it is at war with a deadly foe against whom intelligence is the best weapon.
The trio wants to derail the Bush administration’s effort to preserve coercive interrogation methods. These methods — almost all of them falling well short of torture — have been proven to yield intelligence that saves American lives. In their absence, 9/11 would already have been reprised; if they are eliminated now, the likelihood of its recurrence will increase significantly.
|
The fact is we aren't talking about law-abiding citizens of peace here. We're talking about terrorists who will blow you up regardless of your interrogation methods. And if we're more concerned with how al-Qaeda perceives America based on our detainee treatment...we've already lost this war.
Please, please don't offend the terrorists
Jay over at
Stop The ACLU posted a very interesting story last night about the Ohio Supreme Court ruling in favor of would-be-terrorists. Here's the skinny...
| Today, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that attorneys seeking to represent indigent clients are no longer required to sign documents swearing that they are not terrorists and have no involvement with terrorist groups. The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio had challenged the provision, which is part of the Ohio Patriot Act, calling the requirement unnecessary red tape that will do nothing to prevent terrorism. |
In other words, the ACLU doesn't believe we have a right to define terrorists or terror supporters seeking legal council. Are you a member of Al Qaeda? No worries...that's not important when you stand trial for possession of those guided missiles. Here's more...
| "We are pleased the court recognized that attorneys should not be forced to sign these ineffective and offensive pledges," said ACLU of Ohio Executive Director Christine Link. "The Ohio Patriot Act is an assault on the fundamental liberties of all Ohioans. Hopefully, this decision is a stepping stone to reining in this overreaching and flawed law." |
Why does the ACLU seem so concerned with the rights of would-be-terrorists but ignores our right of personal safety and a peaceful life?
And why does the ACLU and the left seem so concerned with offending terrorists?
I've been holding onto this article about
Sen. Feingold faulting Bush's war language since Tuesday and see some striking similarities to the ACLU. Here we have a U.S. Senator pulling pre-WWII appeasement tactics for fear of offending terrorists.
| "We must avoid using misleading and offensive terms that link Islam with those who subvert this great religion or who distort its teachings to justify terrorist activities," Feingold said Tuesday in a speech to the Arab American Institute on Capitol Hill. |
Al Qaeda releases a new tape that says "America must convert to Islam, or else" but we can't link this to Islam. WHAT???
We had a guy run over a bunch of people in his SUV out here in SF one day. He's a Muslim who recently returned from Afghanistan. He gets out of his car after his rampage and proclaims "I'm a terrorist." The media called it a random act of rage from a troubled man having a mental breakdown.
I call it terrorism.
A guy walks into a Jewish Center in Seattle while chanting death to Israel. He shoots several women, killing one. The media called it a random act of rage from a troubled man having a mental breakdown.
I call it terrorism.
Virtually every car bomb, IED and suicide bomber in Iraq is tied to individuals who believe in Jihad. I don't call it someone mad because we liberated their nation. I call it Islamic terrorism.
Running from a term or title because it might offend someone will never solve the problems of the world. Nor will appeasing a group of ruthless killers dedicated to the destruction of the west because it might make them angry. This is the same lunacy I talked about after our little
act of terror here in SF and it's the same thing when Rumsfeld talked about
terrorists presenting a new type of fascism.
A group of radical Muslims preaching Islam as they hack off heads and blow themselves up are terrorists. When they, their leadership and leaders of their nations demand global Islam and death to all others, they are Islamic fascists. This certainly doesn't apply to all Muslims, but it definitely applies to those we fight in this war on terror.
A hiatus from the political world
Greetings Real Republican friends, family and disgruntled readers. I wanted to give you a quick update on my whereabouts over the past week or so. If you read this blog daily, subscribe to it, or just visit from time to time, you'll notice I've been a bit MIA lately.
No worries on the home front! I'm still here and still plan to continue my efforts to build this blog into a national phenomena and voice for the real GOP. I just happen to be redesigning my personal web site
dougvansant.com into a more photo oriented space. And if you've ever done a complete site redesign by yourself, it's slow and painstaking. Not to mention I'm balancing that with the active world my wife and I are living right now.
And if you're wondering, yes, that was a shameless plug for my personal site. I started it as a plain old site for friends and family to check out what Kel and I were doing out here on the left coast. But I quickly found my photography taking center stage and found my page views getting dominated by some of my more professional photo galleries. So I decided to redesign, focus on the photos and start selling prints to interested buyers. What you get is a Real Republican who can barely watch the news, let alone comment on it.
But the hiatus will soon be over. I'll slowly complete the redesign and work my way back into a consistent posting routine. For now, check out
dougvansant.com and let me know what you think of the new look.
Anti-Israel counter protest today
From our friends At the back of the Hill...
Action Alert Reminder
Counter Protest Anti-Israel demonstration outside City Hall
Downtown San Francisco, Civic Center Plaza (Polk St. between Grove and McAllister)
Thursday, September 7th, 3:30-5 PM
The American Friends Service Committee(AFSC) are calling for a "Interfaith Silent Vigil" to demand that Israel "End the occupation and all violence" as a precondition for a secure Israel.
AFSC often advocates for peace, but in the Arab-Israeli conflict they stand shoulder to shoulder with those who advocate the destruction of Israel. Like other demonizers of Israel, they blame Israel for all attacks against it, claiming in true "blame the victim" fashion that all violence against Israel is solely the fault of Israel's actions in perpetrating "occupation and violence."
As always, StandWithUs/San Francisco Voice for Israel will counter the anti-Israel propaganda, misinformation, and distortions. Even if you can come for just a few minutes, please add your voice to the pro-Israel demonstration so that our enemies know that even when they try to keep us away by holding events during the workday, we will still be there!
As AFSC is promising a "silent vigil," we ask that you refrain from loud shouting or noisily confronting the other side unless their "vigil" becomes less "silent."
StandWithUs/San Francisco Voice for Israel
www.SFVoiceForIsrael.org
www.StandWithUs.com
This blog urges you to go - the times are inconvenient, yes, which unfortunately means that whoever does show up will be outnumbered by the other side. If you can be there, please do attend. Thank you. |
I know I'm posting this quite late, but if anyone reads the blog this afternoon and is near, please go show your support for Israel.
Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame exposed
If you're a regular here at the Real Republican, you've heard my
commentary on the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson issue.
Myself and many others from the right have been quite vocal in our doubts of the credibility of Mr. Joe Wilson with his animosity towards the Bush administration. We questioned his false claims from Niger. We questioned his motives. We questioned the covert level of his CIA wife. And we certainly questioned the conspiracy theorists out there who quickly claimed Plame's identity was leaked as part of a vast right-wing/Karl Rove plan to punish the snake and his wife.
After all is said and done, the
Washington Post yesterday said everything we've been telling you. As
Michelle Malkin said in her post, this editorial "should be framed and hung in the Newseum for posterity."
Read and enjoy...
End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously. |
Open-borders brewing from the kids at Miller
The corporate pandering has moved to the illegal immigration issue. Miller Brewing Co. is sponsoring a rally of illegal immigrants in Chicago. The above photo is my contribution to the
Photoshop revolt and below is text is from
Michelle Malkin's coverage.
Ready for your blood-boiler of the morning? Via the
Chicago Tribune:
Marchers had to duck into fast-food restaurants for water when they first took to Chicago's streets in support of illegal immigrants five months ago. At the next two marches, family-owned grocery stores offered free bottled water from trucks emblazoned with their names.
This time, as demonstrators march from Chinatown to House Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-Ill.) Batavia office this weekend, they will have Miller Brewing Co., as a sponsor. The brewer has paid more than $30,000 for a planning convention, materials and newspaper ads publicizing the event.
The support of a major corporation for a controversial political cause shows how fierce the competition has become to woo the growing market of Latino consumers.
For Miller, the march offered a special chance to catch up. This spring the brewer drew the ire of pro-immigrant forces over contributions to U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who sponsored legislation that would crack down on illegal immigrants. That prompted a short-lived boycott by some Latino groups.
Now, march advertisements feature not just the organizing committee's trademark blue globe but Miller's logo and a Spanish translation of its "Live Responsibly" slogan, a company effort to build goodwill among Latinos. |
From
Michelle... Live responsibly? By supporting law-breaking? Miller is not only helping illegal alien activists thumb their noses at the law, it's also thumbing its corporate nose at you:
...Romero said he wasn't worried that some opponents of illegal immigration would be upset at the company's support of "the free movement of people, labor, goods and services."
"As long as you are stacking facts against facts, they are free to make their own decisions. We will stand by our positions," he said. |
The new Miller campaign slogan goes something like this... "We don't need no stinkin Visa's...we've got beer!" Well as
others in the blog world are saying... We don't need no stinkin Miller Beer...we obey the law!
Or in more eloquent terms, boycott Miller Brewing Co.
And
let them know what you think of their support for illegals. Or should I say, their lack of support of American laws.
Thanks to Michelle and other bloggers, here is a list of Miller products I'll no longer buy...
More of open borders Miller's beer brands:
Miller Lite
Miller Genuine Draft
Miller Genuine Draft Light
Miller High Life
Miller High Life Light
Sharp's non-alcohol brew
Red Dog
Icehouse 5.0
Icehouse 5.5
Icehouse Light
Southpaw Light
Leinenkugel's Original
Leinenkugel's Light
Leinenkugel's Red Lager
Leinenkugel's Honey Weiss
Leinenkugel's Apple Spice (seasonal)
Leinenkugel's Berry Weiss
Leinenkugel's Oktoberfest (seasonal)
Leinenkugel's Creamy Dark
Leinenkugel's Big Butt Doppelbock (seasonal)
Leinenkugel's Sunset Wheat
Henry Weinhard's Private Reserve
Henry Weinhard's Blue Boar Pale Ale
Henry Weinhard's Classic Dark
Henry Weinhard's Northwest Trail Blonde Lager
Henry Weinhard's Hefeweizen
Henry Weinhard's Summer Wheat
Hamm's
Hamm's Draft
Hamm's Special Light
Olde English 800 Malt Liquor
Olde English HG800
Olde English HG800 7.5
Magnum Malt Liquor
Mickey's Malt Liquor
Mickey's Ice
Milwaukee's Best
Milwaukee's Best Light
Milwaukee's Best Ice
Foster's Lager
Foster's Special Bitter
Peroni Nastro Azzurro
Pilsner Urquell
Sheaf Stout
Sparks
Sparks Light
Sparks Plus 7%
Sparks Plus 6%
Steel Reserve Triple Export 8.1%
Steel Reserve High Gravity
Steel Reserve High Gravity 6.0
Steel Six
