Todd Hill's Blog

Sacrifice

ToddHill — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:48:46 EST

Read/Look at Keith Olbermann's commentary tonight....

Amazing!

TMH

Here’s a Deal, Rummy…

ToddHill — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:43:29 EDT

I'll back off when you resign, but until that happens expect for me to continue and hammer away at your pitiful "stay the course" disaster in Iraq.

Everyone in the world told you and your neocon council that this war would be difficult, that it would not be easy, and that it would be costly in both American blood and money, but those closest to you were fired for asserting such obvious realities. Others had their patriotism questioned.

Hit the road jack, and don't let the door hit you where the good lord split you.

41's Moral Obligation

ToddHill — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:46:26 EDT

I think George Herbert Walker Bush, the nations 41st Chief Executive, has a moral obligation to publicly renounce George Walker Bush's, the nations 43rd Chief Executive, "Stay the Course" Iraq War policy.

Is North Korea Bluffing?

ToddHill — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:10:41 EDT

The world is on edge wondering if North Korea will truly have the audacity to test yet another nuclear weapon in order to solidify its presumed status on the world stage as a nuclear power. I have to admit that I really just don't know if they will, and the unknown is rather unnerving, but based on recent events and certain realities it is a safe bet that they will.

Can’t Trust China

ToddHill — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:23:29 EDT

Once again Beijing shows its true colors today declaring that the current U.S. crop of sanctions being debated around the United Nations against North Korea is too harsh and "punishment should not be the purpose." We in Texas call that bullshit. If the goal is to derail North Korea from pursuit of weapons of mass destruction it would appear we've failed in that objective already, so since they decided to disobey the bellowing of the International community to not test its nuclear weapons then punishment is absolutely justified, and it should be harsh.

When will we learn the Chinese can't be trusted? The communist country has always been at the hip of North Korea, dating all the way back to the Korean War. The 6-nation talks they have led, designed to stop Kim Jong Il from going nuclear, have been nothing more then expensive vacations with absolutely zero progress to report. Time and again the Chinese pretend to cooperate only to stab us in the back in the very end.

I could smell this coming a mile away, the very minute reports of the North Korean nuclear test came out the pretext was always that they warned China 20 minutes ahead of time. Why? It's not because they were neighbors, it's likely because they are in cooperation with the effort. It should be quite clear through China's international foreign policy that it is aligning itself with nations that are, and at one time, were traditional enemies of the United States. Recent military pacts with Russia and oil treaties with Venezuela are perfect examples of that.

China is positioning itself to be the only superpower of the world and is quickly boxing the United States into a corner, and because of our weak standing internationally now our leverage is dissolving. The only country with any leverage with North Korea is China, and because Russia is China's new lap dog, you will not see the sanctions you should see slapped on North Korea materialize anytime soon due to the fact both hold veto power on the United Nations Security Council. This issue will likely have to be resolved outside of United Nations either through direct talks, one on one, or military action.

McCain Slings Mud at the Clinton’s

ToddHill — Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:35:58 EDT

In what appears to be the first shot of the upcoming '08 gallup race, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) blamed former President Clinton for the current standoff with North Korea. Once again we have the Party on the Right opening Chapter 2 of the election year playbook to "When All Else Fails Blame Clinton."

Hastert Needs a Mirror

ToddHill — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:23:52 EDT

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) disclosed today that he would "fire staffers" if any were involved in the cover up of the Mark Foley e-mail scandal.

In typical Republican fashion the buck stops everywhere but at the desk of the man it should rest upon.

Last week Denny noted to the media that the "buck stops here," but when it comes to relinquishing the powerful speakership of the House for his obvious cover up of this scandal he would rather lop off the heads of his staffers then heeding the calls by constituents and concerned Americans alike to hold himself responsible.

The one person at this time who should be fired for this cover up is Dennis Hastert, and blaming his staff for the situation he now finds himself in is just despicable. Someone hand the Speaker a mirror because he need look no farther then himself to apply blame for protecting a pedophile in his Party.

And the 1st Female President of the United States is….

ToddHill — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 13:02:50 EDT

Nancy Pelosi

Foley Sets Equal Rights for LGBT Americans Back Years

ToddHill — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:41:00 EDT

As disgusting as former Congressman Mark Foley's actions were, and no matter how many people voice outrage at his actions, one fact is quite clear: Foley has set equal rights and opportunities way back for gay Americans.

I knew the very minute this scandal broke that our political opponents on the Right, including the Moral soldiers of the Christian extremists, would be pointing to this scenario as the very reason homosexuals should be condemned in our society, and how gays can't be trusted to be around children because they will prey on them like a spider prey's on a trapped fly. According to Texas Women's University around 95% of all child molesters are heterosexual, not homosexual. The claims by some that the majority of child predators are homosexuals are simply, and unequivocally not true. I challenge my fellow members of the LGBT community to stand up and denounce such unfounded comparisons in order to salvage efforts towards equality and opportunity.

Tell the NRCCC to Return Foley’s Contributions

ToddHill — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:30:29 EDT

Speaker Dennis Hassert (R-IL) is "disgusted" with former Congressman Mark Foley, but that "disgust" didn't translate into action when Hassert was informed of Foley's predatory tendencies months earlier. He apparently isn't "disgusted" enough either to pressure the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee to return the money Foley donated to its war chest even though Senator George "Macaca" Allen (R-VA), and other candidates in tight races across the country, have done so. Why won't the NRCCC return the money you ask? Because they apparently believe in taking money from pedophiles to help spread their "family and moral value" message across the United States, especially in tight races with their political opponents. Of course, we are talking about the same committee who under Tom Delay's stewardship robbed Indian tribes of gambling money and filtered that across the United States, despite being morally "opposed" to gambling.

How greedy must you be? Better yet, how desperate must you be? Do you really fear losing control of the United States Congress so much that you can't part with this money?

I think George Allen could probably make a case for keeping his contributions from Foley if he really wanted to, but even he donated the money to charity, and I applaud him for that. I think it is high time the NRCCC live up to their stale, and obviously false slogan, of being the Party that represents "Family and Moral values," and donate Foley's contributions to charitable organizations that counsel children abused by sexual predators.

It is, after all, the moral thing to do and I certainly wouldn't want to be known as the candidate who received money from a pedophile just to be elected.. I just made my phone call, mailed my demand, and also sent it by e-mail a few minutes ago. Have you done the same?

National Republican Congressional Committee
320 First Street, S.E
Washington, D.C. 20003

NRCC Main Number - (202) 479-7000
News Media Inquiries - (202) 479-7070
Campaign Assistance - (202) 479-7050
Information on Contributing - (202) 479-7030

website@nrcc.org

Do We Have the ‘Political Will?’

ToddHill — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:20:15 EDT

Last night I had the opportunity to hear Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth presentation in person at the Nokia Theatre in Grand Prairie, Texas. Although I've seen the movie, I couldn't wait to actually view the presentation in real time. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that the former vice president changed the presentation up a bit from the movies version, adding additional slides as recent as September 30th, the date of his presentation. Just continues to demonstrate how on top of this issue he really is.

Gotta Love Those Moral Values

ToddHill — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:18:55 EDT

So what does "weathering a hurricane," and "sending a pic," have to do with disgraced Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL)? They were all attempts to entice a young congressional page inappropriately, which led to a receipt of resignation by Speaker of the House Dennis Hassert today.

Members of Foley's Party champion themselves as upholding the values of the majority of Americans but time and again that veil is exposed and the truth revealed. It's all good to talk about family values, but in practice, conservatives rarely follow what they preach. There's been no real secret about Mark Foley, he's been questioned for years in regards to his sexuality, and was an ardent supporter of equal rights for LGBT Americans, which hardly tows the Republican Party line. Instead he deceptively, and in creepy fashion, exposed himself as essentially a predator for under aged teens. That concerns me on many fronts.

No Better Than Terrorists

ToddHill — Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:19:35 EDT

With this supposed "compromise" on the detainee legislation coming more to light it is obvious we've now reached a new low in American morality and values. We've essentially stooped ourselves to the level of the enemies we are supposedly out to destroy. American democracy as we know it, and the values that govern it, are whisked away in election year politics. I'm truly ashamed.

I don't know this America anymore; this 21st century version of what was once a morally sound nation that never compromised its values in the face of real aggression. We've morphed into a self-destructive society led by our politicians. We whittle away our rights, our traditions, our values with each passing day and every "compromise" that comes down the pipeline. We empower the president to circumvent laws, and if our lawmakers don't do it, he will anyway. Justice is no longer a boundary to hold scoundrels accountable as scoundrels have now infected the last boundary that cuffed them to the rule of law. With each passing day this country dies a slow and painful death, leaving are forefathers and foremothers to weep with intense and emotional vigor. This isn't the America we all learned about through history, or through our elders of previous generations. This isn't the America that my parents' generation learned about on the knees of their grandfathers, or at a diner with ma and pa over a cup of coffee and biscuits with gravy. We are no longer a reflection of everything sacrificed previously by elder generations; we are instead a reflection of everything that power, greed, and blind allegiance tenaciously destroy in democratic societies.

I do not live in fear even though my politicians wish for me to. I don't fear the future I question it. I don't fear my enemies, I fear my elected officials, and I question them too. I don't fear that terrorists will destroy democracy; it is our corrupt, greedy, and arrogant politicians who are destroying it for us all and embolden our enemies. There are no politicians with the thick skin and backbone necessary to combat the problems we face collectively across this country, and across this world. Never before have Americans been more hated, more scorned, more attacked, and more feared then they are today. Our parents and grandparents lived in a world where communism and fascism caused the world to shiver with fear until the values, interests, and moral will of the American people caused those fears to dissipate into the abyss of history. Now the world shivers of the very thought of American influence dictating their futures, and our values circumventing their values. The world now shivers at the thought of an American empire spreading its will across the globe.

Terrorists have succeeded in bringing America down to its level of immoralities, injustice, and barbarism. They've successfully galvanized our government to destroy democracy from within our own system of checks and balances. But come November this trend will end, the people will speak in large volumes and democracy will be preserved by the good will, morals, values, and interests of the American people. The only shivers that will be felt around the world on November 7th will be the shivers of incumbent politicians who saw fit to drag the credibility of America down to a level many thought would never occur. Our forefathers and foremothers will rest eternally at the thought of the revolution set to occur in a matter of weeks, which will preserve democracy for generations to come.

Sure He Anguishes, But Does He Anguish Enough?

ToddHill — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 16:01:34 EDT

The Washington Post printed an article about President Bush and how he deals with the deaths of soldiers, and the anguish the families spill on him during their meetings. Many of you know all too well my displeasure for the current Commander-in-Chief, but having known him as Governor of Texas and now President of the United States, I've always questioned whether or not he has real compassion for people. No one can take the decision of sending men and women into combat lightly, and I don't believe George W. Bush did. I also believe he grieves and agonizes over the deaths of soldiers resulting from his decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. He should agonize, and he should grieve, and I wonder if he is truly feeling the full impact of this grief or if it is choreographed to limit such emotional interaction.

When I interviewed Cindy Sheehan in Crawford, Texas, in August of 2005, I felt genuinely that she wanted answers to very serious questions about the death of her son Casey. At that time she became a reluctant voice for a suppressed block of Americans who would never have the opportunity to ask the President of the United States for what noble and selfless cause our men and women in uniform are dying. Many grieving families don't have an opportunity to visit with the president, and the practice of presidential attendance at military funerals was not carried on by this decision maker-in-chief. Instead of confronting Cindy directly President Bush chose to continue defending his policies through the media, as it was quite obvious he was not going to budge, even if he met with grieving military families who didn't agree with his decision. On those terms alone, that was a smart decision. It serves no purpose to debate with grieving families what is right or wrong about administration policies. But there is no honor in continuing to defend a policy that is just flat wrong, and defending them so rigorously and aggressively only serves to fuel the anguish and despair of these widowed families, and offer evidence of sheer arrogance and lack of compassion on behalf of the president. By doing so the impression is fueled that indeed he doesn't care, and that he doesn't anguish near enough for the loss of some of America's finest and bravest.

Where is the Compromise?

ToddHill — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:14:06 EDT

I'm disgusted with Senators John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham for this supposed "compromise" on the detainee legislation. Talk about caving into pressure, and I would guess also that John McCain must have been thinking of his individual political ambitions when crafting this abysmal bill.

The Geneva Convention was far from preserved in this "deal." According to the text of the bill, "the president has the authority to enforce Geneva Convention standards." Where is the compromise? Senator McCain claims the "spirit" and "integrity" of the Convention has been preserved. In what manner, Senator McCain? The president can willingly continue and violate the Conventions, without fear of reprisal, simply because he sees fit to do so. And trust me when I say this president will indeed do so. These men essentially empowered the president to continue and violate the Geneva Conventions, that's not a compromise, it is a rubber stamp to quell the chasm developing within the rank and file of our friends on the Right. The message here is that you three detractors are making our glorious Commander in Chief look weak in an important election year. Buck up and tow the line is what this legislation says to me.

Case in point, the president has already claimed the power of his office in attaching signing statements that he believes grant him the authority to disobey well over 700 laws passed since he took office in 2001. That is more then any other president prior to Bush combined, which is remarkable considering there were 42 previous Chief Executive Officers of the United States before this Violator in Chief took over the West Wing. Need I mention the fact that illegal surveillance of American citizens was taking place without consultation of the FISA court? What evidence do the esteemed senators who crafted this "deal" believe support the assumption this president will operate not only within the bounds of this legislation should it pass, but also the incredibly important Geneva Conventions that are responsible for protecting our soldiers should they be captured by our enemy? I have no faith that he will at all; therefore, our troops are still in danger. This bill isn't worth the paper it was written on, and if it passes then so too will the "spirit" and "integrity" of the Geneva Conventions.

I'm very upset that Party unity trumped the values and interests of the United States of America.

You Know Why Gas Prices are Dropping?

ToddHill — Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:04:27 EDT

Because an election is around the corner, that is why. Picture the following conversation taking place with an official from the current administration and a big oil executive.

Admin: Hey buddy, how's the black gold flowin'?

Big Oil: Flowin' like an ocean breeze man, but we're sticking with our quota

Admin: Right. Speaking of quotas, you know we've got an election coming around the corner, and polls are showing Americans are pissed about gas prices.

Big Oil: Yeah, my wife was bitchin' the other day that our Hummer with the "Support the Troops" ribbon on the back was costing us almost $90 a tank

Admin: How 'bout easing off the gas a bit, till we balance these poll numbers

Big Oil: I don't know, I've got a cruise planned for January to Jamaica, and our oldest wants the new BMW M5 for high school graduation. Oh, and I've got to install the new gold toilet in the 6th bathroom of our mansion. Money is tight, and I don't get my $25 million bonus until January you know.

Admin: I hear you man, but you know and I know that if we don't retain power a huge crack down is coming your way. It's best to keep friends in high places if you know what I mean? We need to keep confusing the electorate, make them think the economy is just "peachy.' Hell, they've already proven they'll pay up to $3.00 a gallon anyway; they can do it and live within their means.

Big Oil: Yeah, you're right. Tell you what, we'll increase production and stock a bit to bring prices down,…..you know, like we could have done after Katrina and Rita last year. This'll bring prices way down in time for the election, and then we'll slow production and deplete our stock, and get those prices back up in time to buy my wife that new summer home in Puerto Vallarta. You down for that?

Admin: That's perfect, this will make the boss happy, and the Prez too. You know Karl, he wants every advantage he can get.

Big Oil: I get ya! Hey, when am I going to get to drill holes through Alaska?

Admin: Hey, get those prices down and we are in business. One step at a time, my friend.

Big Oil: Consider it done.

Don't be fooled about the drop in gas prices. This is all part of the political plan for the Fall by our friends on the Right. They'll be up again shortly after the November election.

Be Ready by Oct. 1

ToddHill — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:42:42 EDT

Time magazine has devoted its latest edition to painting a larger picture of exactly what war with Iran would look like. Detailed in the main cover story was the mention of a "Prepare to Deploy" order given through naval communications to vessels that would be used in a potential blockade of Iran's two largest oil ports. Although the order was vague, it was quite clear that these vessels, including submarines, mine sweepers, and more, are to be ready to set sail post October 1st.

Having read this article and listening to President Bush today at the United Nations inform President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran that "consequences" would result from any further enrichment of uranium, and overall advancement of nuclear ambitions, lead me to only a very small handful of conclusions. As a nation we are bluffing diplomatically, with the intent of flexing our military muscles to add additional pressure to force Iran to conform to the demands of the world, or the United States is seriously contemplating another preemptive strike on underground nuclear facilities, and various other strategic targets across Ahmadinejad's country. I pray for the former, but feel the latter is more logical based on the history of this particular administration.

What Does Roe v. Wade Have to do With Rebuilding Iraq?

ToddHill — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:22:22 EDT

Nothing, unless of course you were seeking a lucrative rebuilding contract, or highly influential Provisional Authority position in 2003 after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime. Jim O'Beirne's office at the Pentagon was responsible for screening all applicants for various reconstruction efforts, and key appointments to authority positions in Iraq. But in order for the individual or firm to be awarded the position, or contract, they only needed to show complete loyalty to the Bush administration.

Picture the following questionnaire and ask yourself how important they are to building a democratic and free Iraq:

1. Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000?

Hmmm… what does that have to do with rebuilding vital infrastructure such as water lines and sewage drainage pipelines?

2. Do you support the way the president is fighting the war on terror?

Interesting, I'm not sure how that question helps build a school or hospital in neighborhoods where they were gutted by bombs or looted by rioters.

In Remembrance: Former Texas Governor Ann Richards

ToddHill — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 09:51:54 EDT

I remember I was 8 years old the first time I can actually recall watching a national convention for a Political Party. In 1988 I watched the Democratic National Convention and received my first dose of political inspiration. A gray-haired woman by the name of Ann Richards stepped to the podium, and in her folksy Texas twang she declared, "Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth!" The crowd erupted in loud applause and cheers. I laughed so hard I could barely control myself. She followed up that line with, "I just thought I'd come to Atlanta and let ya'll hear how a real Texan talks!" At the time she was the state treasurer of the Lone Star State, but pundits knew you hadn't seen the last of Grannie Annie, and thankfully for our great state, and our country, we hadn't.

She sought the Texas Governor's mansion in 1990, defeating big oil tycoon Clayton Williams by closing a once 20-point gap to be the first woman governor of Texas since Ma Ferguson in 1924. The so-called "experts" say it was the fact Williams campaign imploded early that propelled Ann to victory. They dismiss completely the fact that she was a relentless, smart, and incredibly savvy campaigner to which I conclude allowed her to defeat Williams in the manner she did. Richards truly transformed Texas politics, literally turning a traditional good ole' boy system of government led by rich white men, into a fairytale dream turned reality that inspired hope for women and minorities in a state that long squashed the hopes and opportunities for those without white skin or male gender status. She appointed more minorities and more women to positions of high office then any previous administration before her, and those thereafter. She actually appointed men and women to various boards and committees that truly retained the wealth of knowledge of the particular industry they were reviewing. She didn't appoint good ole' boy donors to high political positions, she actually appointed real people, with real experience, to positions they were well qualified in handling.

I cried last night, I truly cried when I heard the news of her passing…..heck, I have tears right now rolling down my cheeks. She is absolutely my sole inspiration for being involved in politics. She made me realize in 1991 exactly what I wanted to do with my life; I wanted to be the next Ann Richards, I knew it my heart as much as I ever have in my gut. I wanted to bring the changes to this large state that she championed and led. I truly wanted to lift all Texans, not just the elite amongst us, but those at the bottom of the soci-economic totem pole too by helping them realize their dreams and potential. That is exactly what she did with me, and so many others, at such a young age. I'm now 26 years old, and in 1991 I was 11; but I knew from that point on what I was going to do with my life and I never, ever, looked back. I'm proud that I stand here today as a representative of a new generation of young political activists with the ambition to run for office at some point in my life. My heart is heavy for many reasons today, but especially because the one goal I now know I will never have actualized is the opportunity to shake the hand, and hug the very woman responsible for inspiring me to be the change that I wish to see in the world. God Bless you, Ann, my heart is with you today, and my prayers are with your family.

Neocon Project Going South….FAST!

ToddHill — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 12:03:24 EDT

Washington is rumbling early this week as a result of Marine intelligence chief Colonel Pete Devlin's sobering, and by all accounts, realistic assessment of Iraq's Anbar province. This region of Iraq has seen the most intense fighting since the U.S. invasion in 2003, and unfortunately, has also seen the most neglect by the Bush administration.

The Washington Post ran the story of Devlin's report on the anniversary of September 11th, which is rather ironic considering administration officials are desperate in linking Iraq as the central front of the global war against terrorism, while consistently neglecting Afghanistan and the effort to hunt down Osama bin Laden. It is simply more evidence of a war that never should have been fought. The intelligence report, filed by one of the most respected officers in the Marine corp., requests an additional 16,000 troops to Anbar in order to attempt and restore political order. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was not in the country prior to the neocon demanded invasion, has filled the vacuum left by the violence and destabilization of government structure in this province.

More striking to me though is the fact that Colonel Devin's assessment requests additional troops, more then 15,000 to be exact, in order to attempt and restore political order and appease the violence. However, commanding generals continue to say they have all the troops they need, which brings back eerie reminders of rhetoric from Vietnam where the American public see damaging evidence of a war spiraling out of control, despite the Johnson and Nixon administrations and generals on the ground rhetorically painting a rosy picture. More to the point though, we don't have the troops to provide, which is why they won't be sent without drafting more bodies into the overall campaign. They wouldn't be sent if we had them because it would be a devastating blow to the egos of neocons, and a president who threw himself behind the ideology.