franklinnow.com
search all things local
Rummage MapseHarmony
weather

33°

Partly Cloudy | 12MPH

NEWSROOM * CIRCULATION * ADVERTISING

Saturday

March 2010

20

Blog Home |  Email Author  |        Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join

This Just In...

Kevin Fischer is an award-winning veteran broadcaster who has been seen and heard on Milwaukee TV and radio stations for nearly three decades.
Kevin, who is a legislative aide to state Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin), can be seen offering his views on the news on the public affairs program, “InterCHANGE,” on Milwaukee Public Television Channel 10, and heard filling in on Newstalk 1130 WISN. He lives with his wife, Jennifer, and their baby daughter, Kyla Audrey, in Franklin.

What is the key function of the federal government?

By Kevin Fischer
Sunday, Jun 15 2008, 07:55 PM

Is it:

1) To provide health insurance for everyone in the country, including jailed felons and illegal immigrants.

2) To provide cash payments from cradle to death for any number of reasons including inability to see the blackboard in the 4th grade and simply because my mother, her mother, and her mother’s mother also received welfare checks.

3) To attempt to solve every problem known to mankind rather than allow human beings to work hard to pull themselves up by the proverbial bootstraps and gain economic independence.

If you are a liberal, you answered, all of the above.

If you have a modicum of common sense and knowledge of government, you would have answered, “to secure our borders.”

If that was your answer, congratulations.

Is George Bush the greatest President ever?

Probably not.

You know why?

He had a tendency to spend too much.

But for the past couple of years, I’ve mentioned on television and radio what a successful and noteworthy President George Bush has been.

Why?

How many terrorist attacks have been made on our country, on George Bush’s watch, since 9-11, almost seven years ago?

Everyone, including the Bush haters on the left know the answer.

ZERO!


Now, liberals who read my blog, and there are a ton because of two reasons:

1)  The incense and sandals crowd has no life, so to inject a bit of excitement, they read conservative blogs (like mine) and listen to conservative talk radio so they can rush to their keyboards and write intelligent garbage like, “Fischer bad. McIlheran evil. Sykes and Belling, the worst (How do they think that stuff up so fast?).

2) Liberal blogs are like watching paint dry. Boring as hell.  Sheer bumper sticker emotion and no facts.


Conservatives are interesting people with senses of humor, whether you like them or not.

I have a kajillion liberal friends and associates (who, by the way, don’t want me to step in front of a train and don’t hate me) who admit readily they love to read conservative blogs and listen to conservsative talk radio to, of course, hear what the other side is saying, but also because it’s GOOD STUFF! THEY ARE INTERESTED! THEY ARE ENTERTAINED!
 Could that be why liberal talk radio in America has gone over like a fart (sorry, Mom) in church?

Let’s get back to the issue at hand.

(By the way, most liberals reading this blog stopped reading at the 3rd paragraph and have already reached some hateful conclusion).

Ann Coulter writes about what I’ve been saying for years on radio and TV. George Bush has been amazing because after 9-11, he protected this country……..PERIOD!

Coulter in her most recent column writes:


The man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."

Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.

But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.”


Now, if America wants to turn this record of safety over to a guy who’s never been to Iraq and subscribes to the un-American policy of cutting and running promoted by “hide under the bed” Russ Feingold, then I would suggest America brace for another terrorist attack God knows where: Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, New York?

Liberals, thank George Bush your office or house with your computer that spits out such hateful venom hasn’t been blown to kingdom come.

Liberals, if you got this far down in the blog (I doubt it) here’s Coulter’s entire column if you care to pick up any pointers on how a truly captivating writer does it.

Comments

Zach W.   

Yeah, it's just a shame George W. Bush couldn't protect us before 9-11.  As for your comment that liberal blogs are boring, I could argue yours isn't much better, since most of your "substance" consists of copying and pasting stuff you've gotten from other sources and repeating the same tired talking points we've all heard time and time Then again, I suppose we can't expect much better from someone

June 15, 2008 8:25 PM

Kevin Fischer   

Ooopps.

Did you mess up on your comment, Zippy?

Did my blog get you so upset that you lost sight of proper sentence structure?

Matches the quality of your blog, Zippa-dee-doo-dah.

And you think asking I've never met a spell-check I liked Kowalski to blog with you will improve the quality of your junk?

Notice how ultra-liberal, hateful left artist extraordinaire Zippy doesn't respond to facts, but goes on the personal attack against me.

Makes you wonder, given how often Zippy comments here, what a lonely, dreadful life he'd live, if not for me, the man he loves to hate.

Ahh, the compassionate left.

By the way, Zippy, if my blog is so bad, why do you read and comment so often?

We know why, don't we Zippy?

Glad I can fill a void in your dismal existence. What a God-awful life it must be to sit, poised at the computer, desperately waiting for Kevin Fischer's next blog, only that you can send your next reply of, "Oh yeah, well your mother wears Army boots."

Liberals prove my point every feeble time they hit the send button.

They can't respond intelligently to facts. They go on the offensive by utilizing the same tactics they claim they deplore.

Now, Zippy, drippy,skippy, serendipity, here's the deal.

You're chomping at the bit to respond.

You can, if you can respond to the issue of the function of the federal government, and President Bush's success at keeping our country safe from terrorists since 9-11.

If you can, go for it.

If you can't, and you know you can't, it won't get published here.

Simple as that.

And have a nice night.

June 15, 2008 9:04 PM

J. Strupp   

He did write, "it's just a shame George W. Bush couldn't protect us before 9-11".  

I'm not sure but Zippy might be eluding to the fact that the biggest terrorist attack on American soil occured while George W. Bush was President.  

Just a thought:  If you want to make the argument that President Bush was a great President because we haven't been attacked since 9-11, shouldn't you also point out our obvious intelligence failures leading up to the terrorist attacks of 9-11 (since they too occured during Bush's first term)?

June 15, 2008 9:50 PM

J. Strupp   

P.S. Isn't it kind of uncomfortable for you to label ultra liberals as "hateful" and then site an article written by Ann Coulter in the same blog?  

Sorry I mean "captivating writer" Ann Coulter ;)  

June 15, 2008 9:56 PM

Kevin Fischer   

Another Bush-hater siting...J.Strupp.

What did Bill Clinton do, when he had ample opportunity in 8 years in office, to curtail terrorism and terrorist attacks?

Josh, check your history prior to when Bush took office. Clinton was a terrorist's best friend.

As for Ann Coulter:The liberals wish they could be 1/1000th as interesting as Coulter.

And yes, Josh, I speak from personal experience, the ultra-left, including Mr. Zippy, is extremely hateful, not only by their own actions, but by the company they keep.

June 15, 2008 10:03 PM

Kevin Fischer   

For my readers, Mr. Zippy has just left two comments that have nothing to do with the original intent of this blog.

Therefore, they will not be published.

Also, Cindy Kilkenny has also left hateful comment that won't appear.

I have been the target of some vile, incredibly disgusting comments in the past.

But Cindy Kilkenny, whom I've never met, spoken to, or even written or said a word about, has decided to send a hateful, disgusting comment about me and my unborn child.

I will not allow it to be published here.

This proves what I've been saying for a long time.

The hateful left, and those that choose to go to bed with them, and that would be the disgustingly jealous Cindy Kilkenny who has decided to go on the offensive against me ever since her inflated ego couldn't accept the fact that my blogs on the NOW site were more popular than hers, have sunk to the lowest levels imaginable.

This blog is about the safety of our nation since 9-11. Lefty bloggers and Cindy Kilkenny, who has a lengthy history of baggage to be ashamed of, resort to the most cruel, in Kilkenny's part, of responses, by attacking my wife and the child she bears.

When does this hatred stop?

Kilkenny first attacked me, claiming to defend Greg Kowalski.

She used Kowalski to prop up her new blog.

She has no decency, and has even attempted to comment on my blog with a false name.

Has she no shame?

How low can an individual go?

How can she have so much hate for someone she's never met or spoken to?

No wonder the hateful left bloggers love and embrace her. She's just like them.

From this point on, Cindy, as well as the false name she's been using to comment here, and Mr. Zippy are no longer allowed to comment here.

Cindy, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You got your ass handed to you by the current mayor of Brookfield. One can understand, I guess why you constantly harp about him.

But to go after me and my wife and our unborn child?

You're scum.


For those who could care less about this side issue, I apologize. Please feel free to comment on the original issue I raised.

June 15, 2008 10:56 PM

J. Strupp   

My question had nothing to do with Bill Clinton or his failure to curtail terrorism in this country.  Actually, my comment didn't really have anything to do with being a Bush-hater either (not this time at least).  All I wanted to know is the answer to the question below, which was directly related to your blog entry:

If you make the argument that President Bush was a great President because we haven't been attacked since 9-11, shouldn't you also point out our obvious intelligence failures leading up to the terrorist attacks of 9-11?  Both occured during his watch I believe.

June 16, 2008 11:27 PM

michelek   

I love the liberals who blame 9-11 on George Bush.  Give me a break.  Do you think that such a huge attack was being planned within the 8 years leading up to his taking office?  He had been in office less than a year before the attack took place.  I doubt they sat around one weekend dreamed up the attack and then went through with it the following week!   God Bless George Bush.  He took our country through one of the lowest points in our history and we rose up stronger than ever.  

Kevin, your dignity in the face of constant adversity and downright hatred is an inspiration.  Keep up the great work.  You have a ton of loyal fans that love your blog and depend on it for true insight.  It is too bad that other bloggers can't rely on talent to keep their blog going and they have to try and appeal to the lowest common denominator out there.

June 17, 2008 1:07 PM

J. Strupp   

Sorry but I have to pick apart Coulter's unintelligent nonsense.  I enjoyed this thoughful passage:

"In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.”

So does Coulter actually believe that there's a finite pool of Islamic terrorists out there that we can kill to end the War on Terror?  Does she even consider taking into account the number of new Islamic terrorists that have been created during this whole debacle in Iraq?  Is it possible that she actually believes we aren't creating new terrorists due to our actions in Iraq and that we can actually kill all of them?  It doesn't surprise me that there are people that actually believe this stuff, but what scares me is that one of these people actually gets air time on the radio, book deals and even cited on blog entries.      

June 17, 2008 1:36 PM

J. Strupp   

Michelek.  You avoided my question too.  

No where in this topic have I blamed Bush for the attacks of 9-11.  My question is simple:

If Kevin makes the argument that President Bush was a great President because we haven't been attacked since 9-11, shouldn't he also point out our obvious intelligence failures leading up to the terrorist attacks of 9-11?  Shouldn't we take into account the Bush administration's entire body of work regarding this issue rather than simply cherry picking certain details?  

My question is straight forward and very much on-topic.

June 17, 2008 3:15 PM

michelek   

In my opinion the obvious failures took place during the Clinton administration when we had a chance to get Bin Laden and didn't.  My point is that this was in the planning for years and Clinton didn't catch onto it for whatever reason so why would we assume that in the few short months Bush was President he would have had any more information about what was happening?   Clearly we were caught looking the other way when this attack took place, but Bush and his administration did what they had to do immediately to keep us safe and they have been doing just that.

June 17, 2008 4:39 PM

Kevin Fischer   

WHOA Josh!

Relax!

Some of us can't blog, comment, respond as quickly as you'd like.

But I see MicheleK has already mentioned what I was going to say.

Do you honestly believe that the intelligenceshortcomings suddenly evolved when Clinton LEFT office and Bush TOOK office?

That's pretty naive.

And years and years of border safety since 9-11 isn't some inconsequential detail, Josh.

MicheleK, you're wasting your time with Josh. He gets like Pavlov's dog if anyone says even the slightest nice thing about GWB. Maybe he'd prefer that Saddam Hussein still be in business. Or maybe he'd rather have Al Gore running our foreign affairs. It's one of those deals where your hate for an individual clouds reality.

Speaking of hate...

MicheleK, thank you for your kind words. The attack bloggers, I'm sure, feel mighty proud of themselves hiding behind a keyboard, an alias, and a house in the suburbs. My guess is they'd fold up like a card table face to face. They will continue to harass, not only me, but others, and that's sad. How utterly pathetic to be so nasty and hateful and to bring my family into it. But I'm still here and I'm still standing.

June 17, 2008 5:15 PM

Kevin Fischer   

Mr. Zippy, your reading glasses must be broken.

You can't comment here anymore.

I made the mistake of letting you return some time ago because I thought you had some decency.

Wrong.

Besides, your comment wasn't very original.

June 17, 2008 7:16 PM

J. Strupp   

American intelligence of a pending attack against U.S. targets by Al Qaeda operatives before 9-11 was more than apparent to both Presidents regardless of time in office.  Had 9-11 occured years later in time, there's no doubt that President Bush would have ignored this intelligence for as long as Clinton did.  My argument is that the "Bush: savior of the nation" people ignore the simple fact that Bush was as responsible for disregarding valuable data on possible terrorist attacks on American interests as much as Clinton was.  Yet this fact never gets tallied into the argument you make in your blog (that Bush protected the nation during his Presidency because no attacks occured since 9-11).  Not holding the Bush Administration partially responsible for the years leading up to 9-11 is simply cherry-picking facts to support your favorable opinion of a President that has cost this country a great deal.  

By the way, you wrote, "years and years of border safety since 9-11 isn't some inconsequential detail, Josh."

Aren't you the same guy that blogs about our lack of border security?  

June 17, 2008 11:45 PM

J. Strupp   

By the way Kevin, I have never used "hate" speech regarding our President.  My opinions have always pertained to his performance (or lack thereof).  My "judgment" is based on actually picking up a book or two once in awhile and reading non-politically motivated garbage like Ann Coulter (or Al Franken for that matter).  If that's "cloudy judgement" then fine.    

June 18, 2008 12:04 AM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.

Posts

Your browser must support javascript to use the posts pager. Please enable javascript or return to the home page to page through posts.
Newer Older

Tags

Search the Blogs