In My Right Mind

"Don't Tread On Me"

2010-07-04T18:03:00.001-07:00

234 years ago, a group of English colonists gathered together to come up with a bold message to their King. They had tried and tried to receive justice as English citizens. They had reached out to the King with messages pleading time and time again to be treated fairly and for him to respect their rights as English citizens. This time the message they sent to King George III was different. It was an announcement that they were no longer his subjects. They declared their independence from England and its King.

Most of the men who bravely put their signature to The Declaration Of Independence forfeited their property and wealth. Some became bankrupt as a result of their participation in this declaration of defiance. The amount of sheer bravery it must have taken to take on - what would at the surface looked like a foolish, suicidal goal of independence - is beyond what most of us today even have the fortitude to even attempt.
Benjamin Franklin was reported to have declared: “We must all be prepared to hang together or we shall surely all hang separately.”

Of course, history shows that they were able to muster an army of like minded colonists who successfully defeated an army many times their size. And today, we celebrate our independence and freedom as a separate nation that this group of brave men initiated for us through their declaration of independence from tyranny.

But, it’s not just their declaration of independence from tyranny that is to be taken away from The Declaration Of Independence, penned by Thomas Jefferson back in 1776. These Founders of our great nation declared something revolutionary that would inform the government that they would form. They had the audacity to declare that people’s rights and personal liberty come not from any King or government, but from Nature’s God.

In this day and age where ideologies like socialism have become popular, where a lot of people look to the Federal Government for answers to every problem, it is important to recognize that this is a completely antithetical attitude and belief than that of those that gave us our Democratic Republic. They only saw government as a necessary evil. To them, the government’s only role was to secure the God-given personal liberty and rights that its citizens were born with.

To them, anytime the people started believing that they derived their rights and sustenance from government that tyranny was right around the corner. In fact, it is very un-American to adhere to the socialist/progressive/liberal agenda of the left in this country today. Too much was sacrificed from 1776 on for our personal liberty to throw it all away on these alien ideas about how Americans should be governed. From Thomas Paine, who helped start the desire for independence rolling with his popular pamphlet, “Common Sense”: “That government is best which governs least”.

When Will It Matter?

2010-06-24T19:27:00.000-07:00

I received this via e-mail today. I have no idea of who the actual author is, but this is spot on. Initially, I wanted to give Obama a chance. But, it is clear now that his "Hope and Change" agenda is really anti-America. As Glenn Beck says, do your own homework on this. If it's true, and I believe it is, this should raise your blood pressure a notch or two:

Fundamental Transformation of America

When Obama wrote a book and said he was mentored as a youth by Frank, (Frank Marshall Davis) an avowed Communist, people said it didn't matter.

When it was discovered that his grandparents, were strong socialists, sent Obama's mother to a socialist school, introduced Frank Marshall Davis to young Obama,
People said it didn't matter. When people found out that he was enrolled as a Muslim child in school and his father and step father were both Muslims,
people said it didn't matter.

When he wrote in another book he authored "I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." People said it didn't matter.

When he admittedly, in his book,said he chose Marxist friends and professors in college, people said it didn't matter.

When he traveled to Pakistan, after college on an unknown national passport,
people said it didn't matter.

When he sought the endorsement of the Marxist party in 1996 as he ran for the Illinois Senate, people said it doesn't matter.

When he sat in a Chicago church for twenty years and listened to a preacher spew hatred for America and preach black liberation theology, people said it didn't matter.

When independent Washington organization, that tracks senate voting records, gave him the distinctive title as the "most liberal senator", people said it didn't matter.

When the Palestinians in Gaza, set up a fund raising telethon to raise money for his election campaign, people said it didn't matter.

When his voting record supported gun control, people said it didn't matter.

When he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, people said it didn't matter.

When he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan and Mummar Kadaffi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.

When it was pointed out that he was a total, newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn't matter.

When he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn't matter.

When his voting record in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn't matter.

When he refused to wear a flag, lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry,
people said it didn't matter.

When people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn't matter.

When he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn't matter.

When he surrounded himself in the White house with advisors who were pro gun control, pro abortion, pro homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition people said it didn't matter.

When he aired his views on abortion, homosexuality and a host of other issues,
people said it didn't matter.

When he said he favors sex education in Kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn't matter.

When his background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn't matter.

When the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn't matter.

When he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco, a man of questionable character, who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home, people said it didn't matter.

When it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn't matter.

When he started appointing Czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist/Communist, people said it didn't matter.

When he stood before the nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this nation" into something else, people said it didn't matter.

When it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn't matter.

When he appointed cabinet members and several advisors who were tax cheats and socialist, people said it didn't matter.

When he appointed a Science Czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Cass Sunstein as regulatory Czar and he believes in "Explicit Consent", harvesting human organs with out family consent, and to allow animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual, and organizer of a group called gay, lesbian, straight, Education network, as safe school czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Mark Lloyd as diversity czar and he believed in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth and admires Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.

When Valerie Jarrett was selected as Obama's senior White House advisor and she is an avowed Socialist, people said it didn't matter.

When Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration,
people said it didn't matter.

When he appointed Carol Browner as global warming czar, and she is a well known socialist working on Cap And Trade as the nations largest tax, people said it doesn't matter.

When he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as Green Energy Czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn't matter.

When Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for Health And Human Services Secretary could not be confirmed, because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn't matter.

When as president of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, people said it didn't matter.

When he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn't matter.

When his actions concerning the Middle-East seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time friend, people said it doesn't matter.

When he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States, people said it doesn't matter.

When he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, People said it doesn't matter.

When he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops the Field Commanders said we had to have to win, people said it didn't matter.

When he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off,
people said it didn't matter.

When he took a huge spending bill under the guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions and individuals that got him elected, people said it didn't matter.

When he took over insurance companies, car companies, banks, etc. people said it didn't matter.

When he took away student loans from the banks and put it through the government,
people said it didn't matter.

When he designed plans to take over the health care system and put it under government control, people said it didn't matter.

When he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in the United States through Cap and Trade, people said it didn't matter.

When he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist State, people finally woke up........ but it was too late.

Any one of these things, in and of themselves does not really matter. But, when you add them up one by one you get a phenomenal score that points to the fact that our President, Obama, is determined to make America over into a Marxist/Socialist Society. All of the items in the preceding paragraphs have been put into place. All can be documented very easily.

Before you disavow this, do an Internet search. The last paragraph alone is not yet cast in stone. You and I will write that paragraph. Will it read as above or will it be a more happy ending for most of America? Personally, I like happy endings.

If you are an Obama Supporter, please do not be angry with me because I think your president is a socialist. There are too many facts supporting this. If you seek the truth you will be richer for it. Don't just belittle the opposition. Search for the truth. I did. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalist, Libertarians and what have you, we all need to pull together. We all must pull together or watch the demise of a society that we all love and cherish. If you are a religious person, pray for our nation.

Never before in the history of America have we been confronted with problems so huge that the very existence of our country is in jeopardy. Don't rely on most television news and what you read in the newspapers for the truth. Search the Internet. Yes, there is a lot of bad information, lies and distortions there too but you are smart enough to spot the fallacies.

Newspapers are a dying breed. They are currently seeking a bailout from the government. Do you really think they are about to print the truth? Obama praises all the television news networks except Fox, who he has waged war against. There must be a reason. He does not call them down on any specifics, just a general battle against them. If they lie, he should call them out on it but he doesn't.

Please, find the truth, it will set you free. Our biggest enemy is not China, Russia, or Iran. No, our biggest enemy is a contingent of politicians in Washington DC.

Is Obama Really Listening?

2010-01-29T19:24:00.000-08:00

President Obama stated during his State Of The Union Address a few nights ago that he was willing to sit down with the Republicans and listen to what they have to say about national healthcare solutions. Today, he made a start at making good toward his offer, sort of.

I was watching during lunch time a conference President Obama had today with some Republicans in Baltimore. Beneath his calm, pleasant sounding demeanor was a continued display of his arrogance. Obama may want the nation to believe he’s ready to listen to the other side, but his reaction to the Republicans who questioned him today demonstrated that he really has no real intention of taking their solutions or concerns seriously. He just made his offer to fool those who see him as something new and fresh in DC politics.

He was questioned by a Republican about what they should say to their constituents in response to his administration’s repeated accusations that the Republicans didn’t have any solutions to offer. Instead of actually stepping up and either defending that outrageous claim or admitting it was not true, he just tapped danced around the question without ever really answering it. Instead, he wanted to apply the need for an “independent” professional look at the Republican’s solutions.

As for the Republican plan for Tort Reform, Obama claimed that an “independent expert” had concluded that the overall effect of unnecessary law suits on the fees that doctors have to charge to compensate for their malpractice insurance costs was minimal at best. He produced some miniscule percentage of its effect and claimed that in the long term it wouldn’t really help to lower healthcare costs.

Really? If lawsuits have such a small impact then why have we being hearing differently from doctors for years? Doctors have complained for years that the high price of malpractice insurance necessary to defend them against greedy frivolous lawsuits has almost made it not worth the effort, and forces them to charge much more for their services than they would prefer. The idea that there isn’t a problem with frivolous law suits in this country, especially in the medical field, and that it isn’t resulting in the rise of the cost of medical services is ludicrous at best and down right falsehood at worst.

So, this is the best Obama can do to refute tort reform, a nefarious statistic from an unknown expert? Sorry I am not buying it.

Next, Obama tried to take on the Republican solution for interstate insurance purchase being possible. What was his problem? The unproven claim that insurance companies would find a way to “cherry pick” and only offer insurance to the healthy leaving the unhealthy without insurance. To the contrary, if insurance is expanded to a wider free market of competition there would plenty of opportunities to find affordable insurance from those companies that are looking for clients, particularly clients that other insurance companies allegedly wouldn’t want.

Before I get to the most arrogant and telling example that demonstrated today that Obama’s offer was bogus and that he really has no intention to listen to the other side, there was a common factor that all of his non-answers to the Republican’s question to him mentioned earlier. For Obama, in order for the Republican’s solutions to be consider they must be submitted separately to “independent experts” to approve of. Of course, there has never been such a litmus test for Obama and the Democrats’ healthcare plans.

He lectured the Republicans on the need for their solutions to be not just those of politics but rather well thought out, practical doable solutions. Yet, for his side and his plans, it is different. It is ok for the Democrats to meet behind closed doors and create their own non-vetted solutions and then turn around and claim they haven’t heard anything from the Republicans for alternative solutions to consider. Do you see the hypocrisy of this stance? It was yet another example of Obama doing his best to obfuscate it by a barrage of pompous lecturing to the Republicans about what real solutions should look like.

Finally, there was his threat to the Republicans that if they insist on accusing his and his party’s solution as an attempt for the Federal Government to expand and own even more, the health care market, this time (even though that is exactly what he is after), then they would have no clout with him no matter what they came up with.

Is Obama really listening and reaching out to the Republicans in a bi-partisan way? No. He just uses nice sounding promises to fool those in our citizenry who are incapable of seeing through his insincere flattering words. Obama is a great orator no doubt. But if the listener pays attention to the difference between his words and his actions, especially after a year of evidentiary proof, it becomes clear that he talks out of both sides of his mouth.

Obama has change in mind for America alright. It is the change that progressives/socialists/Marxists want. He’s not listening America. He doesn’t care. He has his agenda and vision for America and he is going to do his damned best to inflict it upon us amidst a flurry of pleasant sounding oration.

Obama's "Hope & Change" One Year Later

2010-01-20T17:29:00.000-08:00

I was amazed during the 2008 Presidential Campaign at the vast number of gullible people who were mesmerized by Obama's speeches about "Hope" and "Change We Can Believe In". Here was a guy speaking a bunch of pleasant sounding platitudes, without any real definition of what he meant. It was just empty, pretty sounding words. Now, one year later, he has shown us what he meant.

Change we can believe in? Hope? A new era in politics in Washington? Transparency? Hardly.

One of the first things that Obama and his progressive/leftist democrat congressmen did was to expand the bail out process. It started with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac being to "big to fail". Admittedly, it started under President George W. Bush's watch. I am not a sycophant of Bush and this was yet another example of his not really holding true conservative values.

I held my nose and voted for McCain. He could have done a lot toward his victory had he refused to suspend his campaign and return to Washington to help Bush bail them out. He should have taken a stand against this atrocity. In capitalism, no one is "too big to fail". For every business that folds, there are others that spring up to provide even better services.

But, Obama took it beyond that. He moved on to banks and managed to own them through his bail outs. Government controlling the banking industry, step one toward Fascism. Not Fascism yet, but a step in that direction. Government has no place in the private sector, much less trying to control it. The idea that the federal government sets the salaries and bonuses, if any, of bank CEOs is anathema.

Next came his administration’s focus on owning the auto industry. Only Ford, declined, Step 2. Now the government is controlling the banking industry and the auto industry. Before someone starts with the whole, "aren't you exaggerating" shtick, let's not forget tax cheat Geitner's warning that the government is watching all financial institutions that might be teetering toward failure. Yep. The slippery slope has begun and the federal government is chomping at the bit to own even more of the private sector.

Then there was the first stimulus package that Obama swore would be devoid of pork. It looks like he lied. It was replete with wasteful pork, not to mention sinking our nation into further debt. He is even talking about a second stimulus package, as if he hasn't already sunk our nation into a huge deficit. Even China, who is certainly not our friend, was warning him about irresponsible debt! Debt that we owe them nonetheless.

Lastly, on Obama's disastrous economical plans, is his "Universal Healthcare" scam. Let's see, the federal government controls banks and financial institutions, the auto industry and now he wants to dominate the medical industry? Step three towards Fascism. The idea of the federal government overseeing the medical industry is both frightening and ludicrous. It can't even manage Social Security, which is broke, nor Medicare, which is, you guessed it, broke. Who in their right mind would want government bureaucrats determining their worth for medical treatment?

Obama and the leftist/progressives' universal healthcare plans would sink this country into a over 3 trillion dollar debt. Someone, I don't know who, coined this as "Generational Theft". And that's precisely what it is. How can any American support the idea of pushing our debt on to our children, their children, and their children's children? Thomas Jefferson argued with George Washington about going into debt to support the war as being nothing more than a sin since it would pass the debt on to future generations to pay for. And Jefferson was, and is right!

How about Obama on foreign relations? He has made it his modus operandi to apologize to Europe and the world for America's "crimes". Isn't the President supposed to support his country and its people and not denigrate it? Then there were the embarrassing bows. It's hard to not be ashamed of this Neville Chamberlin like progressive as my President.

Then there was Obama's bone headed idea to close Guantanamo Bay and bring the terrorists there into our country for trials here within our shores, as if they were all American citizens that had constitutional rights! This is a very stupid and dangerous idea. But, it looks like Obama thinks that by appeasing the terrorists they will somehow appreciate his cowardly gestures and have a change of heart.

Lets not forget Obama's war on "man made diasters". Consider Afghanistan. Obama drug his feet for months before making a decision there despite having the reports from the military commanders there and their recommendations that victory would only be possible if he instituted a surge. Meanwhile more died there. Hmm. Obama hesitated and more were decimated.

Obama's latest spin is his refusal to see the Massachusetts vote last night in favor of Brown as a referendum against his party. Yet, now he is talking about the need to not cram his Universal Healthcare down our throats and wait until at least Scott Brown is seated. Yeah right! He was all for rushing it through until last night. This just exposes him in yet another lie.

And let’s not forget his pledge for transparency. Really? How were all those closed door meetings regarding the Universal Healthcare by the democrats, shutting out the republicans. transparent? They weren’t. And to add insult to injury, the democrats had the nerve to proclaim that the republicans didn’t have anything to bring to the table, no solutions. How could the republicans bring a solution to a room that was locked to them, denying their participation? Yeah, so much for a different tone in Washington, so much for a new era in politics that would change from the past partisan politics.

It is now past the point of irritation for us to continually hear Obama blame all of his failings on the Bush Administration. One or two times early on, could be overlooked, but now it’s his mantra to cover his ineptness at every turn.

We are now starting to see a lot of buyer's remorse when it comes to Obama. Let's hope that later this year the voters toss all the politicians out of DC, both republican and democrat. We need statesmen in Congress who are there to represent their constituents and not push their own personal agenda.

Let's hope that in 2012 we toss Obama out and send him back to Chicago. Maybe he can spend the rest of his days preaching his "everything is Bush's fault" claptrap to his sycophant progressive fans in ACORN and the other corrupt politicians in Chicago.

I didn't vote for him, so I don't have buyer's remorse. Nor am I surprised. It is time for change that we can believe in alright. It’s time for Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the liberal, moderate republicans as well, to be shown the door. It’s time to take back America before the progressive/leftists succeed in running it off a cliff and destroy the best experiment in political governance that has ever existed in human history.

Something To Think About

2009-12-22T08:54:00.000-08:00

I recently received an e-mail from my dad that raises some concerns about Obama and our country. Here it is in its entirety:

A friend of mine (a small business owner who’s been struggling to stay afloat since the new congress and administration came into office, 2007 and 2009) sent me this email. As I pondered over the meaning of this email I've come to a few conclusions that seem to make a lot of sense to me. Maybe you'll agree or perhaps you'll disagree but, although we don't hear much from the media about this scenario of mine, it brings up possibilities to be considered.

Think about Obama's success and what he overcame to beat out a very strong political machine called the Clinton's. Everyone, in the early part of the primary stage, gave the nomination to Hillary, hands down. They all thought she’d win very easily. Obama was just a “flash in the pan”. However, Obama put together a political “money raising machine" unlike anything this country has ever seen. Obama was able (last I heard) to successfully raise nearly a billion dollars with which to outspend not only Hillary but the Republican contender, John McCain, both put together. As far as I can tell Obama still had hundreds of millions of dollars left over after he won the presidency.

Now has any one of us ever heard where the money actually came from? We heard about his successful usage of the internet and were led to believe that the young voters (including very excited blacks) supported him like no other candidate has ever enjoyed. I, for one, don’t buy all of that. In general, most young voters don’t seem to have very much money to give, especially for political donations and most blacks don’t usually donate large sums of money to any thing that would seem to be useful. (Please notice that I said “Most”)

Obama waged a very effective campaign as a “rock star” promising anything that would appeal to his new base. He spent money like no one else has ever done. But, where did the mountain of money really come from?

Here are my thoughts:

Back when Bill Clinton first ran for president something I hadn’t noticed before began to happen that greatly involved the Chinese. Their government was donating large sums of money to Clinton’s campaign, something I had never noticed before; foreign countries attempting to directly shape the outcome of our elections. I had been voting in these national elections since 1961 but this particular election was the first time I had ever known of any thing like this happening. Do you remember the trouble Al Gore got in over raising money from the Chinese having something to do with his attending services at a Buddhist Temple? How about renting out rooms at the Whitehouse (e.g. Lincoln’s bedroom) to the Chinese during Clinton’s second campaign?

If you think back to the time of the first Clinton run for the Whitehouse, in general, China was really struggling to make it. Their economy was in the toilet and at the time I thought it strange that they could afford to “help us” get our president elected. Think about China now! Which country is LOANING the USA the most money? Why it’s the same country who decided to “invest” in our national elections! It appears that China made a very, very handsome investment doesn’t it?

Now, which foreign country do you think was donating to Hillary’s campaign? Why China of course!

How in the world did Obama manage to out do her in his fund raising? Which foreign country did he use? Well you might say: I don’t know of any foreign country that donated to his campaign. Well then, WHERE’D HE GET THE MONEY????

My friends, not from a foreign country at all but from a world-wide religion (Muslim)!

And since it apparently came in via the internet I’m not too sure there’s any way for us to track it, at least as far as who the money was from.

Now, if my theory is true, what in the world are we going to do? Obama has already achieved gaining control of our banking system, automobile industry, healthcare, and on and on. Folks it’s time to take account of our situation and decide on what action we must take if we want to preserve this country for our children and grandchildren.

Phil

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Larry,

President Obama hosted a jobs summit at the White House recently, inviting corporate CEOs and union chiefs to participate in a forum on accelerating job creation, but one major business group was left of the guest list.

The National Federation of Independent Business was not invited to share our ideas at the event featuring 133 guests.

As noted by the Washington Times' Kara Rowland, the list of summit attendees "lacks a diversity of opinion." Labor unions and liberal economists, who supported Obama's election and the stimulus bill, are among the honored guests. At a time when unemployment is at 10 percent and the president expects it to rise, it's troubling that some of our top job creators have been shunned.

Less than 12 months from now, voters across America will go to the polls and determine the future direction of our country. The 2010 vote, more than any election in recent history, will determine the future of our families, our businesses and our freedoms ... even our way of life.

Those now in control of the government in Washington, D.C. are great at promising "change" and making utopian promises to win votes. But according to a September survey by the NFIB Research Foundation, there is little optimism on Main Street that the recession will soon be over.

They found that: "More firms plan more inventory reductions than plan to invest, and more owners plan to trim their workforce than plan to increase employment."

Why isn't our nation's small business engine roaring to life? One reason the Foundation noted is that "Legislative activities in Washington undoubtedly dampen the outlook with talk about healthcare mandates, cap and trade, card check, and new taxes on all sorts of goods and services."

Simply put, fear of what's to come is seriously dragging down our economy. And why shouldn't it?

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, Barbara Boxer and so many misguided, wrongheaded leaders in control in Washington have put their radical social agenda ahead of any common-sense effort to cut taxes, cut the deficit, and cut regulations--all barriers to economic recovery and job growth.

Washington simply does not understand that small business owners don't need more government programs. What they need is lower taxes and fewer intrusions by government. It's America's small business owners that create real, lasting jobs ... not politicians voting to spend and print more taxpayers' money.

That is why the NFIB SAFE Trust needs you front and center in the 2010 election battles. The labor unions, trial lawyers and other radical special interests will invest heavily to strengthen their power next November. We need to block their efforts whenever and wherever we can.

Your generous support is essential if we're going to build the well-financed political operation that will bring us victory in November.

We must raise the largest campaign war chest in NFIB history. Please help the NFIB SAFE Trust meet our fundraising goals by making a generous contribution of $35, $50 or perhaps even $100 today. Click here to contribute.

You and I believe in the economic miracle that is American small business. It is at the heart of America's future and freedom. Please let me hear from you today.

Sincerely,

Dan Danner
NFIB President and CEO

9/11 8 Years Later.

2009-09-11T19:30:00.000-07:00

Today, I remember 9/11/01. This was another day that should "live in infamy".

Unfortunately, there are those amongst our midst who don't want us to remember, because these people don't want us to be proud about being Americans. But, I refuse to honor their wish for this country.

It is my true belief that we must never forget that day. Ever!

I think that all of us will never will forget where we that day, or how we felt.

We were for that moment, one nation. No left, no right. No Republican. No Democrat. No Independant. No Libertarian. No Classical Liberal. Just Americans!

It is really sad that 8 years later we are a nation divided. Are the enemies of us winning?

I Have Decided To Be A Liberal

2009-07-31T15:35:00.000-07:00

That's right. You heard me correctly. I am no longer a conservative, I am from this day forward, a liberal. Liberalism is the political ideology that best describes my political views. I thought for a long time that Conservatism was the camp that I best fit in but, I have recently discovered that "liberal" is a better political ideological label for me.

For those who know me, or those who have read my blog, you might be scratching your head right now wondering what could have caused me to change from right wing conservativism to liberalism. Obviously, I some explaining to do.

Perhaps it would be better to start by stating that I am a "Classical Liberal". That wasn't what people who hold to this political view were called originally but, it seems that the progressive/socialists from the left have been allowed to highjack the term "liberal" and use it as the moniker for their political ideaology. After all, it takes guts to admit that one is a socialist or a communist. It sounds so much more pleasant to use the term "liberal". Ok. So be it. It's not right, but it is what it is. Besides, for me, the addition of the term "classical" isn't that bad of a thing.

But some might ask, what is the "Classical Liberal" position? Simply put, it the political views of this nation's Founding Fathers: Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison etc. Suffice to say, that if the Democrat-Republican Party ever resurfaced, I would be a registered member in a heart beat!

Like Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the Founding Fathers, I believe:

1. That the peoples' right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights given by Nature's God and not by any government.

Progressive leftists sacrifice the individual's rights to the collective and try to subvert these rights under the power of the government to assign. This is nothing more than tyranny dressed up to falsely look like compassion and concern for "every one". Hillary Clinton's famous line: "It takes a village..." is an example of this nonsense.

2. Government is a necessary evil. The best government is the one that governs least. The Federal Government should be small in scope and power, restricted to only those roles spelled out for it by The Constitution.

The modern American Federal Government is unconstitutional in its size and scope.

3. I believe in The States' rights.

Beginning with The Civil War, The Constitution's original recognition of The States' rights has been slowly but surely been usurped. We have Abraham Lincoln to thank for that with his new definition of The Republic.

4. I believe in the individual's responsibility for their own welfare.

With the exception of those citizens who are truely disabled, all are responsible for their lot in life. It is not right to take money from the hard labor of other citizen's and redistribute to those unwilling to work and sacrifice hard enough to raise themselves up economically. Also, it would be wise to pay heed to President Gerald Ford's admonishment that: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take away everything you have."

5. The belief that the nation's money should be backed by a tangible treasure like gold.

This does two things: First, it makes money have a real tangible worth rather than a nefarious, Stock Market's ever changing value. Second, it would limit the government's ability to waste it and run into such great, irresponsible debt. Oh, and while we are on the topic of national debt, I agree with Thomas Jefferson that it is a sin for one generation to pass it's debt onto the following generation. Which, is what we are now guilty of thanks to George W. Bush's original TARP and Barack Obama's continuation of it and beyond.

6. Belief in free market captialism.

America would never have become the technological innovator that it is without comptetion on the open market. Captialism takes negative traits such as greed, and tempers it with competition in the market place, effectively necessatating innovative genius.

7. Belief in free trade with other nations but no entanglement in foreign alliances or wars unless there is no other way to protect our nation's direct safety and sovereignty.

Just a simple look at Western Europe's jealousy and hatred for this nation demonstrates that our brave men and womens' actions in WWI and WWII in rescuing them from tyranny, by their blood and sacrifice of life has not been appreciated. I'm not trying to degrade what these American heroes did, but what have we gained by it?

8. This Constitutional Republic hinges on the participation of it's citizens in religion and morality.

If the people continue down the irreligious, moral relative, corrupt, debacherous immoral path that is has been sliding down for quite some time, this nation will collapse into ruin. History provides examples of this, most notably the Fall of The Roman Empire. But it is not the place of the Federal Government to dictate religion or morality. That would be a deceptive back door into tyranny. As a lover of liberty, I am unwilling to pursure or support any paths that might lead eventually back to tyranny.

Obviously, this post isn't meant to capture all of what entails the "Classical Liberal" position. You can learn more on the Internet and local library about this political idealogy.

It is my strong belief that our nation has lost its way. Our Founding Fathers gave us the best form of government man has ever known to preserve our liberty. But, we have failed them. Look at both of the controlling political parties: The Republican and Democrat parties. In many respects, they are both really just the same. They both lobby and work towards a more bloated Federal Government. They just have different agendas for this ever growing giant Federal Government.

I am through wasting my vote on the Republican Party. I am re-registering as an Independant. I will from now on, cast my vote for the candidates at the Federal, State and Local level of government who sound more like Thomas Jefferson than, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, George HW Bush, George W. Bush, and John McCain.

Where Have All The Statesmen Gone?

2009-06-02T18:54:00.000-07:00

Apart from reading "The 5,000 Year Leap" and reading Mark Levin's new book, "Liberty & Tyranny", I have been reading on Wikipedia about our Presidents and other Founders. (Wikipedia is admittedly not necessarily a perfect research tool, but a start, nonetheless) We desparately need a John Adams or a Thomas Jefferson today. We don't have statesmen in this country anymore, all we have are just greedy, power-hungry politicians.

Is there really any real difference between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party with respect to huge government and respect for the Constitution?

I say, no. I personally, am about to abandon the Republican Party and register Independant.

I am convinced that as a Conservative/"Classical Liberal" that unless we return to our roots and the values and principles that our Founding Fathers expoused, we are headed toward doom and tyranny.

We aren't at a state of tyranny yet, but Obama and the progressive Democrat Party, with the help of the Republicans, are pushing us in that general direction.

I say "with the help of the Republicans" because what have they ever done to reverse the size of the Federal Government back to it's Constitutional limits? Moderate Republicans and Liberal Republicans are really no different than Democrats anyway.

Both parties want bloated Federal Government. Just for different aims. I say enough! The Constitution clearly set the limits for the size and scope of the Federal Government's power. Our Federal Government, thanks to both parties, is now unconstitutional in both it's size and scope.

If we don't get States Rights established again,(starting with the Civil War, this country plummeted down the slippery slope of the loss of States Rights and the encroachment of an ever growing, bloated Federal Government), and reduce the Federal Government back down to its proper size - the great experiment in the American Democratic-Republican form of government that our brilliant Founding Fathers gave us is over, and we will crumble under the weight of either socialism or communism, both tyrannies that have been proven by history to NOT work.

Happy Memorial Day

2009-05-25T17:15:00.000-07:00

I hope that we Americans have spent, at least some time today, reflecting on the huge sacrifices that have bee made from 1776 to the present- to ensure that we can have and enjoy the freedoms that we have as Americans. How do you show your appreciation for the ultimate sacrifice that a fallen son or daughter has made to guarantee your freedom to his or her lost mother? Father? Brother? Sister?

The Founding Fathers were right: Freedom isn't free. It is paid for in blood and honor and sometimes the ultimate sacrifice: the giving of one's life for his or her country and it's citizens.

Thank God for the countless men and women in our country's history that loved freedom enough that they were willing to lay their lives down for it.

Far left loons like: Move On.org, ACLU, Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan owe their freedom to spew their anti-American screeds to those men and women in our past and present who died to give them their freedom of speech along with the rest of their freedoms.

I recognize my debt to these military heroes in our past and today for my freedoms and the awesome priviledge to be able to call myself an American.

God bless America's fallen heroes of freedom. Without them, the amazingly brilliant Democratic Republic that our Founding Fathers gave to us would have evaporated before it even got started or wouldn't have lasted as long as it has.

Armed Forces Day

2009-05-16T20:50:00.000-07:00

To all of the women and men of our Armed Forces, whether they are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, or elsewhere, or back home providing back support; My hat is off to you and you have my deepest respect! Without your selfless dedication to duty to our great nation, we would not be free.

Liberty is everything! To say "thank you" is nowhere near enough. My prayers are with you all and your families. Thanks for all you do day in and day out. You aren't forgotten despite the American Media's silence.

Tea Party Wisdom

2009-05-02T21:09:00.000-07:00

Tonight, I watched a re-run of Friday's Glen Beck show on the Fox News Network. Apart from the value of hearing from "real Americans", and apart from the media and politicians, I am pleased to share the following two tidbits.

There was a person on the show that is scheduled to be on Glen Beck's program on Monday night, (whose name escapes me, I apologize), who made the following statement:
This is the first time in my life that I have witnessed people like those in this audience who really understand the Founding Fathers' case. If, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were in the audience tonight, they would immediately recognize the people that were worth fighting for in the Revolutionary War. If they were also, allowed to witness our modern day media, they would instantly recognize in them, the very people they were fighting against. [this is a paraphrase of course.]

Later in the same program, Judge Neopalitano, quoted Thomas Jefferson, (another great moment which goes along the lines:) When the people are in fear of the government, that's tyranny. When the government is in fear of the people, that's liberty.

I find these two examples invigorating!

President Obama's First 100 Days

2009-04-30T19:03:00.000-07:00

The whole, "First 100 Days" is a media creation. For me, it makes no sense. How can you possibly hold a newly elected President accountable for fixing every thing wrong within the country in only 100 days? Come on, there is the whole transition issue, and many more concerns.

However, be that as it may, Obama is an example of a President who has come out swinging for "change that we can believe in".

Except it is not at all "change that we can believe in", nor is it change that is good for this nation. Below, are some "changes" that Barrak Obama has instituted for this nation that aren't anything "that we can believe in", as Americans. At least not for Americans who believe in the Founding Fathers' vision for America.

In no particular order, here are the "changes" that Obama has in mind for America:

Administration choices:

Tim Geithner - Secretary of Treasury.

A "tax cheat" who is not only not qualified to run the IRS, but is hell bent on ensuring government intervention in, not only those private corporations that have accepted "bail out" money, but any, and all businesses who "might be on the verge of failure". A clear move to socialism, or better yet fascism! Goodbye, to the sucesses of capitalism and the free market and hello to the era of failed socialist/fascist economy.

Eric Holder - Attorney General.

A racist black man who is accusing white americans of not intermixing with the black populace on weekends. Who, by the way, segregate themselves naturally. What? Because black americans don't want to hang out with white people on weekends, it's somehow the white americans fault? Paleeeze!

Janet Napolitano - Secretary of Home Land Security.

This appointee has decided that Veterans, and any one who wants limited government, is conservative in their political views, and anyone who agrees with The Founding Fathers, is a terrorist threat to this nation. I am flabbergased by her thinking, and a tad bit worried. Are we heading toward a Fascist State?

Rahm Emanuel - Chief Of Staff.

Apart from his tendancy to mail dead fish wrapped in newspaper to his political opponents, he thinks that "there is no crisis that should be allowed to go to waste" because, it can be exploited to take advantage of to further his political aims.
That says all we need to no about this snake.

Foreign Policy:

Obama's "Apologize For America Tour" in Europe:

As President of The United States of America, Obama decided to call us "arrogant" and never once, defended our nation's noble role throughout the world particularly, Europe, in ensuring that those people were free and enjoyed human rights protection. I mean, come on! We all know that had America not intervened in WWII those very European nations that he was cowardly apologizing to would have been either lamp shades or speaking German. Where was his head?

Was Obama rewarded for his anti-American screed? No. In Great Britain, he was insulted from even their most liberal press, by them asking the question as to why a bore like Obama was still in their country".

Obama's representation of America in the "Americas Summit":

As if his performance in Europe wasn't bad enough, here he was embracing Raul Castro in Cuba, erroding America's policy with that pathetic communist country by suggesting that we relax certain foreign policies with them.

He didn't just stop there, he sat through Daniel Ortega's hate filled diatribe against America without registering, not even once, any defense of America's stance against him and his murderous philosophy.

Obama then moves on to Venezuela and allows that murderous thug, Chavez, to run shod all over him with a "photo opportunity" just to hand him an anti-American book, which Obama accepts without comment. Later we see Obama shaking Chavez's hand and yucking it up with him. This is traiterous and disgusting on Obama's part.

Iran:

Lastly, we see Obama cozying up to Iran's crazed, Holocaust denying, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As if this loser is really going to be able to be "sweet talked to".
What is Obama thinking? What is the left thinking? Does he and his like minded leftists really think they can talk our way out of the potential nuclear threat that a loose cannon like Ahmadinejad poses?

National Security:

Obama, in his infinte wisdom, has decided that the Guantamo Bay prison facility, where we are housing the terrorist captives that pose a very real threat to our security, needs to be shut down. Oh really? What does he propose we do with the vermin that is housed there? Bring them to the U.S. for trials conducted under laws that are meant for legal U.S. citizens? Locate them in prisons here in the U.S.? Set them free in America because they might be mistreated in their own countries? Only a wrong headed liberal could come up with such a disaterous plan.

Obama has decided that there is some sort of urgent need to reveal classified documents to the public, hence the whole world, hence our enemies, providing the details about our interrogation techniques. This is by far, the most dangerous of his foolish moves.

Now al Queida, and other terrorists organizations out there who hate us have all they need to know about what to expect from the U.S. if they are captured. Actually, now that they know what we were doing, and won't do any more. Talk about a recruiting tool for terrorists! Obama has just aided our enemies greatly. Now, they are laughing at us, and are most certainly emboldened more than they were before, under Bush's administration. Now, thanks to Obama, we look more like "the paper tiger" that Osama bin Laden thought we were prior to 9/11.

Of course, Obama is not even handed in all of this. The classifed documents that demonstrate the benefits we recieve from extended interrogation processes like, water boarding, will remain removed from the public view. I think any thinking American can readily recognize the scam in all of this.

Obama has decided, all on his own, that water boarding is somehow "torture" and is above the dignity of our country. Valuable intelligence gained from this practice, (which by the way, never once threatens the participants life at all, but only makes them think it does), and has definatley deliverd valuable intelligence which has kept us safe under Bush's watch will now be sacrificed for Obama's tendancy to want to appear nice to our enemies.

Of course, Obama arrogantly believes that we can achieve the same effect using "other methods", (of which methods he doesn't specify). But, of course, we are all just suppose to go along with this fantasy of his, regardless of the details. Of which there aren't any.

Fear Tactics:

I'm not saying for sure that Obama approved of this, but there is that whole "photo op" with the jet flying really low in New York City with two Air Force fighter jets flying towards it in apparent chase for the "photo op".

WTF? You have genuinely frighened New Yorkers, panicking for their lives, all for a photo op?

What about the thousands of tax payer dollars wasted in fuel for this bone-headed moment. Does Obama really think that the common tax payer is going to tolerate this obscene waste of tax payer money when they themselves are told to tighten their belts and make sacrifices?

What a tool Obama is.

He did mention in his "mock press confrence" last night before the nation his metaphor of the government being like a, what was it? Oh yeah, maybe a cruise liner ship. That is just perfect. Because it brings to mind the arrogantly designed, Titanic. If Obama's ultra-liberal vision for America and the Democrat Party dupes that go along with it are allowed to proceed, America is about to hit the mother of all icebergs, and sink.

I'm not saying that it is going to happen - only that it just MIGHT happen.

God help this once great nation!

Judge Perez Hilton, The Gay Bigamist

2009-04-22T19:16:00.000-07:00

It can now be demonstrated finally, that the gay movement in this country is nothing more than the "Kings of Intolerence".

Openly gay Judge of the Miss America pageant, Perez Hilton, decided to ask Miss California the question of whether or not she supported "Gay Marriage" during the Miss America pageant, as if, that was a valid question in the first place. Exactly where does homosexuality fit in to the Miss America contest?

When Miss California, (Carrie Prejean), responded with complete honesty that she didn't support that personaly, he then went on to work with full force to ensure that she didn't win.

Gay bigot, Perez Hilton, even went beyond that. He went on to You Tube, and posted a video calling her a "bitch".

So, I would have to ask, where is his justification to do that? An honest answer to his question should have been rewarded as being such. Also, who does he think he is imposing his homosexual viewpoint into the Miss America contest?

Why was this hate-filled homosexual tool allowed to be a judge in the first place?

He has only served to make an ass of himself, and his cause in public.

Wait...maybe that is a good thing.

Perez Hilton, limp wristed moron, exposes his bigotry before the world, thereby, cancelling out his own viewpoint...

I like that.

Justice has been served - ironically.

Another "Brilliant" Choice By Barrack Obama

2009-04-17T19:07:00.000-07:00

Barrack Obama's choice for The Department Of Homeland Defense, Janet Napolitano, is yet another clue as to either his incompetance, or his wish to destroy America as it is. I mean, his most obvious screw up choice was Treasury Secretary, Tim Geitner: who is a well known tax cheat. Yet Obama sticks by him? Go figure.

This new appointee, apart from trying to avoid such terms as "terrorists" with such innoucous terms as "man caused disasters", has gone on now, (in a documement that was intercepted from her department), to also imply that Veterans are also somehow, a threat to us in the form of "terrorism" internally - a term that she obviously had previously dissapproved of, yet its return, speaks volumes about her and her adminstration!

What's even worse, is that the report finds that people like me, who blog, and are for limited government are somehow, "Right Wing Extremist Terrorists", that are a threat to our country.

Really?

All I can say to that, is to say that I am extremely proud of being in the company of such brillant men as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

Will my blog last much longer? Only time will tell.

I am certain of one thing: I shall not recant! (In the spirit of Martin Luther).

Tea Party Fallout

2009-04-17T18:32:00.000-07:00

On this past April, 15th, there were "Tea Party" protests all over our great country. The response from the left was nothing short of disengenous and out right lies. At the Atlanta Tea Party protest, CNN reporter, Susan Roesgan demonstrated on camera live, just what a leftist tool she really is.

She confronted a man who was holding his child in his arms and proceeded to ask him why he was there. What ensued was basically, her constantly interrupting him, not allowing him to express himself - with her eventually withdrawing with her camera man and making such statements of obvious lies as: "This is an anti-government demonstration that is not fit for kids, not "family friendly" in her words. This is, of course, a paraphrase of her libelous statements. But you get the point.

Once again, the left, and it's "Left-Wing Media", have exposed themselves for the actual hypocrites that they really are.

The very idea that the Tea Pary Protests were anti-government is ludicrous. The protests were comprised of average people of this country expressing their 1rst Ammendment rights to express their dissatisfaction with a government that is not operating along the lines of: "A government of the people, by the people", as the Constitution guarantees.

The very idea that the government can usurp our taxes to spend on bail outs, or whatever it wants to, without our actual say, is anathema!

Then, there is the accusation that Tea Parties weren't family viewing.

Oh, really?

I beg to differ.

These demonstrations from common Americans are, if nothing else, "family viewing" worthy. What better time to teach our children about the fundamentals of what America really is? What better time to honor our Founding Fathers, than to show them that we are a government "of the people and by the people" and that the peoples' voice really matters?!

Left Wing Media outfits like, CNN and MSNBC, to name a few, are guilty of hypocrisy in very aggregious ways. For example WHERE was the: "this is not family viewing" statement from them during the gay marches in San Francisco, which they all willingly covered, to include gays dressed up like clowns and invading, and disrupting Christian churches?

Where was the: "It's not appropriate family coverage" during the Code Pink, Anti-Bush protests? Where was this, all of a sudden, invented: "it's not family coverage", during the Cindy Sheehan media coverage? It wasn't there!

It wasn't there because the left in this country are hypocrites that want to fool you into believing that they are all about "tolerance" and what is "fair". Obviously, their "tolerance" ends whenever it involves the common American citizen.

This is obviously, a case where the Left in this country have a huge amount of egg on their faces.

The Tea Party Protests were, in the end, actually very American and very appropriate!

My wish is that this is just the beginning! Some on the left try to downplay it all with numbers, but keep in mind, these Tea Party protests were held on a a week day. The alleged small numbers don't account for others who agree with these protesters, but couldn't turn out on a week day due to work requirements.

Something tells me that, in the end, we are all going to learn that a vast amount of Americans don't want Obama's idea of "Change and Hope" They can smell the stench of socialism/communism from a mile away. And they are fighting mad!

We'll see.

Tomorrow, April 15th: America's Second Tea Party Protest

2009-04-14T18:58:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, April 15, 2009 - some 236 years after the first Tea Party protest held in America back in Boston, Massachusetts, on December 16 1773 - American citizens in various cities across our great nation are once again going to express their outrage over taxation that isn't fair.

Of course, in the original protest, loads of tea was actually tossed into the harbor, never reaching its destination Great Britain. No tea will be ruined tomorrow. These Tea Party protestors are just symbolically protesting a government that is unfairly taxing the citizens of its country.

Some are quick to point out that the original Boston Tea Party protest was about "taxation without representation" and that that, is simply not the case today in our Democratic Republican form of government.

I beg to differ.

The era of great statesmen in our government is long since over. Today, our Congress and other government officals are filled instead, with greedy politicians who only really care about one thing: power. Most politicians today only care about staying elected. They only pretend to listen to their constituents when election time comes near. This goes for politicians of both parties, Democrat and Republican.

If you still think you have representation in government, just try writing to your Senator or House Representative. You will quickly learn two things. First, you will receive a "form letter" that is nothing more than a canned response that is not coming from your representative in government, but rather from a paid staff member who acts as a buffer between you and your Congressman, who can't be bothered by your concerns. Second, the form letter will be full of meaningless thanks for your "concerns", but will never once address your concerns in any way. You can even try and write to your Congressman again, only to get the same meaningless form letter.

So, you see, "representation" is definatley no longer anything you have with respect to today's modern American government.

So, here we are once again. American citizens are outraged at being taxed without any appropriate representation. Our children and their children are going to drown in taxes to pay for the government's trillions of dollars, raised on their backs through taxation to pay for its irresponsible bail out or irresonsible and greedy corporations and for its ludicrous "economic stimulus" solution to "help save our economy".

AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, and others should never have been bailed out from their greedy, irresponsible business actions. They should have been allowed to fail, go bankrupt, along with the greedy unions associated with them, (with respect to the car companies involved in this unfair bail out).

My hope is that the turnout tomorrow will far exceed the apathetic Americans watching this, like the actor Dennis Leary, who think that it will be only a small showing and we have to "pay our taxes".

The Tea Party protests tomorrow are America at its best. Citizens exercising their
1rst Ammendment rights to address their greivances toward a government that has become corrupt and unjust.

God bless those brave and patriotic Americans who turn out tomorrow to protest against a government that is threatening to plunge this great nation into economic ruin and dependancy on socialism - something that our Founding Fathers, along with all of the many brave and heroic Americans who gave their lives for our liberty - would find detestable. And rightfully so.

And all of this on the IRS's deadline to pay your taxes. The irony shouldn't be lost on anyone.

Kudos To President Obama

2009-04-13T19:51:00.000-07:00

I am about to post something that might surprise like-minded readers as well as those who opposed to my viewpoint. I actually have a bit of praise to extend to President Obama.

President Obama did two great good things during this past Somali pirate incident against an American merchant ship.

First off, he kept his composure, and his mouth shut throughout all of Captain Phillips' hostage ordeal with the Somali pirates who had him captured on a life boat in the ocean in that area for the duration of 5 days. If he had been stupid enough to start speaking publicly with bravado, he might have gotten Captain Phillips killed.

Secondly, his authorization for the Navy Seals to use deadly force to resolve this situation cemented the Amercian position, that not only do we not negotiate with terrorists but, that if you mess with one of our own, you do so at peril to your own life.

Some, like Sean Hannity have criticized President Obama for taking credit for something that he was legally bound to do anyway, but, I say cut him some slack this time! Is Sean Hannity right? Maybe. But, the better point is that Obama did ultimately do the right thing with both his silence and restraint and his permission for the death of those subhuman, criminal pirates.

As Conservatives, we have a great opportunity to show that we are not the losers that the left were during George W. Bush's term, who even if he had single handely cured cancer would have still been calling him all kinds of names from, "Hitler" to "idiot", "monkey", and "War Criminal" for example.

I expect conservatives to act at a level much higher than the hate-filled, idiotic members of the "intellectual" (a stretch), "compassionate" (yet another stretch) left.

Obama's "Apologize For America Tour 2009"

2009-04-13T19:23:00.000-07:00

Recently Obama toured throughout Europe and parts of the Middle East in an attempt to present to them "a new America". One common theme in all of his speeches in the different countries was an apology for America's past reputation and behavior. As the leader of our country, is he suppose to be advocating America's interests or is he suppose to be apologizing for our interests? Does he really have America's best interest in mind?

I would agree, as would any sane person who has been paying attention to American history, that sometimes America has acted...well wrong, or even maybe, arrogant. But is his tour of the world really the place to state that? Or are there better venues for such a confession. The better question might be, hasn't the vast amount of sacrifice we have made for the welfare of these nations overshadowed our moments of arrogance?

Apparently Obama isn't even the least bit interested in asking that question. Instead, he thinks that by undergoing some sort of twisted "confession" before the world it will somehow, atone America's past misdeeds in the eyes of the rest of the world who, quite frankly hate us anyway and are blinded by jealousy.

As it turns out, he was dead wrong. In Great Britain, his groveling was met with howls of derision from the British press from all backgrounds of view. One particularly leftist newspaper carried an editorial column that basically called him nothing but a huge bore, and wondered why he hadn't left the country yet.

Obama's bow to the King of Saudi Arabia hasn't been lost on his many critics from the right. Since when does the President, of a country whose very existence was founded on contempt for monarchy, bow before another King?

Of course, the White House instantly began fabricating excuses for why he did such a thing, (which does nothing more than reinforce the fact that he did, in fact, bow.)

Now, I personally don't care whether his bow was protocol for cultural respect or not. It does however, send an unintended message of weakness to our Islamic-Fascist terrorist enemies. It tends to reinforce Osama Bin Laden's claim in the late 1990's that we are really nothing more than "paper tigers", thus emboldening them in their cause.

Obama's idiotic notion that talks can calm the whole situation down, is at best, naive, at worse, treasonous. I personally go with the former, but, nonetheless, I am not confident that he is really capable of preserving the liberty and safety of our union.

He, along with the far left peacenicks in this country, doesn't seem to grasp the fact that we are engaged with an enemy whose main goal is the toppling of Western Civilization and replacing it with the bonds of slavery to their 1500 AD, backwards, repressive religious-legal view. Their murderos goals don't stop with the entire genocide of Israel.

I hope that Obama will wake up soon. If not, God forbid that we have to all endure the damage of an 8 year term under this extremely misguided, liberal oaf of a President.

Hey, but at least, we have America's first black President. ; )

Shamrock? Day?

2009-03-17T19:50:00.000-07:00

There is apparently a new politically correct movment in this "mealy mouthed" country to abolish St. Patrick's Day and rename it to the more, less "offensive",
"Shamrock Day".

This is ridiculous! I get the fact that some atheists are offended by the use of the phrase "St. Patrick" as, he is a Christian Saint. But, I don't support in any way their "offense".

First off, if they were secure in their atheism, this wouldn't be a problem. Secondly, who are they to lecture Irish-Americans on what they can and can't celebrate?!

Where does it end?

This politically correct speech has got to end. And now!

Where is it stated in the Constitution of our government that you have the right to "not be offended"? For crying out loud!

The whole purpose of the 1rst Ammendment is to first, secure our right to freedom of speech, and secondly, to ensure that we are all free to pursue the religion we prefer and for the government to not interfere in our religious choices. There is no provision in our Constitution for "freedom from religion", just "freedom of religion".

Apparently, Disney, that once bastion of kid safe movies, has decided that it is important to change "St. Patrick's Day" to "Shamrock Day", as if we were all pagans and were worshiping a green flower. Nice, but, totally stupid.

The whole meaning behind "St. Patrick's Day" is centered around the belief that St. Patrick, an English priest, converted Ireland to Christianity. The shamrock part of the story has to do with his clever use of this plant as a way to demonstrate the meaning behind "The Trinity".

Of course, the truth of the matter is that there were already existing in Ireland, "Celtic Christians". So, in reality what St. Patrick's real influence was in converting Ireland to Catholicism.

Be that as it may, it makes no sense whatsoever to take a holiday for Ireland Catholics and try and turn it into some sort of quasi secular/pagan holiday. That is just insulting.

So much for the "tolerant" left and their nonsensical "politically correct" ideas.

I for one, reject this idiosy. And so, for me, it will always be "St. Patrick's Day". And I am NOT even a Catholic!

I am an Episcopalian, a member of the Anglican Church.

More Hypocrisy From The "Compassionate" Left

2009-03-12T19:45:00.000-07:00

I was watching the "O'Reilly Factor" tonight and came across a case where commenters on the MSNBC program's internet site were lamblasting the daughter of Sarah Palin. Apparently, she and her boyfriend have broken off their engagement and so, now, she will be left to care for their illegitimate offspring by herself. Of course, she probably won't be left alone in this, as her parents will more than likely provide assistance.

A sampling of the comments left on MSNBC's site regarding this situation from liberal posters was presented on Bill O'Reilly's show. They were all disgusting.
One of the comments was trying to link the consequences of this, highly private and personal decision, to the "GOP's Cathedral Of Morals".

Since when do liberals care about morals?

This is, after all, the group of "enlightned intellectuals" who embrace sexual freedom, homo-sexual validity and any number of immoral lifestyles as a sacred right of all Americans' "pusuit of happiness". Yet, here they are pontificating on the moral ramifications of one of Sarah Palin's daughters predicament.

Liberals can't have it both ways. Either a women's body is her own, or it is a moral matter in the public eye.

If it had been Bill and Hillary Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, in this predicament - not a word would have been spoken about it. Or, if anything was said, it would have been posts full of praises for Chelsea's ability to carry on without the biological father's cooperation.

But, let it be a daughter of a conservative, and it's all about the need for the "scarlet letter, A" being applied.

This is blatant hypocrisy on the part of some of the left.

That's right, I said "some" of the left. I don't really believe that all who subscribe to the liberal idealogy are as unhinged as the rest of the majority of their kind.

My take on this is this: All of this is really none of our business. While, due to my Christian beliefs, I do have to say that what Sarah Palin's daughter did with her boyfriend to result in pregancy is immoral, there are some silver linings in that cloud.

First off, they didn't rush to the liberal solution of murder of the child via abortion. So, the conservative values in that family are obviously, real and valid.
Second, the break off of the engagement may not be a bad thing in the long run. What good is it for them to marry as a result of a pregnancy if they really don't belong together in marriage? What kind of a life would the child have in a forced marriage of two people who really don't want to be together in the first place?

I am so sick and tired of liberal hypocrites opining on topics where they should be silent. What kind of a person rejoices in the misfortunes of another person who they don't even know in the first place? So much for being the ideology of "compassion" and "tolerance".

Chelsea Clinton serves as a good hypothetical proof as to how morally and truthfully bankrupt the liberal positon really is.

Who would want to identify with people of this ilk?

Not me.

I am confidently content with being a conservative. The unhinged left offers me nothing to admire. I think that I will stay on the conservative right. At least, we don't pull for the murder of "accidents" resulting from our sexual trysts, and accuse others single moms who don't choose murder of their children with immoral behavior for not marrying the biological father.

Rush Limbaugh & The Hypocrisy Of The Left

2009-03-05T19:37:00.000-08:00

Conservative spokeman, Rush Limbaugh gave an hour and a half speech at the CPAC Convention. In his speech, the leftist media focused on his statement that he hoped that the President, Barack Obama's socialist vision for America would fail. Needless to say that they were shocked and appalled. So appalled that we have all had to listen to their disgust every day since then from the media.

Why is this such a big deal? Of course a conservative like Rush would oppose any leftist, socialist agenda for our country. If Rush didn't oppose the leftists' vision for America then, he would be a "fake conservative". It goes without saying that, of course conservatives oppose liberal goals for our country.

I submit to all that read this blog that the real hypocrites are on the left. Throughout George W. Bush's term as president the message from the left was all about him failing. Whether it be in Iraq, the economy etc. Bush was "Hitler", he was a "Nazi" his administration was constantly characterized as a "Regime".

So, from the left's perspctive, it was ok during Bush's term as President to wish him failure but somehow now, it is wrong?

The hypocritcal left wants us now to believe that their leftist candidate, Barack Obama is suppose to be "hands off". What a joke!

As much as the left would like for us to "ignore the man behind the curtain" they are actually, now in the ackward position of being, "The Grand Hypocrites Of Oz".

The ball has now been sucessfully placed in their court.

Hopefully the apathetic, no voting block of this country have been paying attention.

It is way past the time to send the Democrats packing.

Obama's Government Bail - Out's Consequences

2009-02-22T20:37:00.000-08:00

There are a great many Americans out there who have been hoodwinked by the Liberal Democrats into blaming "Big Business" for what is happening in our economy right now. Of course, that has been the liberal's plan all along. Never mind "the man behind the curtain", the liberals and their ludicrous Community Reinvestment Act plan that forced banks to loan money to people who had neither the means nor the desire to repay their loans.

For those who have been fooled by Obama and his liberal friends, (the media), here is the real truth:

A LETTER FROM THE BOSS:

TO ALL MY VALUED EMPLOYEES,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.

However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.

First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a Back Story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However, what you don't see is the BACK STORY :

I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.

My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying.

In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, someday, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations... you never realize the Back Story and the sacrifices I've made.

Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bailout all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.

Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds.

Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time.

On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.

The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.

Here is what many of you don't understand.... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of “change” you can keep.

So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple.

If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I'll fire you and your coworkers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem any more.

Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

So, if you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about....

SIGNED,

THE BOSS

The Whiny Atheist Is Back

2008-12-30T21:53:00.000-08:00

Something tells me that atheist, Michael Newdow is not secure in his atheism. I heard today that he is entering the media spotlight once again. Boy, does this guy crave attention. As if it wasn't enough to use his own daughter against her own free will to try and topple Constitutionally protected 1rst Amendment religious expression, here he is again.

Mr. Newdow's shaky stance for atheism now has a problem with Pastor Rick Warren's scheduled prayer at Barak Obama's Inauguration.

What a complete loser Newdow is. If he wasn't such a "look at me" addict and was really secure in his atheism, we wouldn't be constantly hearing from him. But, since he is so insecure and addicted to attention, like Cindy Sheehan, here his sorry butt is again in the news.

Let's pray for him.

The Hypocritical Media: Too Little. Too Late.

2008-12-29T20:25:00.000-08:00

Who does the main stream media (MSM) think it is fooling?

In the last couple of days, the liberal MSM have been attacking, of all people, Democrat, Caroline "Kennedy". This is a bit odd sense the MSM has been all about trying to paint the Kennedy Family has our "Royal Family".

This, of course, is ludicrous since America became an independant nation from Britan because we don't accept royalty in the first place. The whole "Kennedy Camelot" thing has always repulsed me. JFK was really no different than Clinton, and a myriad of other democrat politicians, i.e. pursuing adultery every chance they get. Bill Clinton had his Monica and is still idolized by liberal democrats and JFK had his Marilyn Monroe. But what do those silly liberals know about American history anyways? They usually try and re-write it to support their views anyhow.

But, I digress. Here is where the MSM's hypocricy comes into play. One reporter the other day was going on and on, on the Fox News Channel about how she had counted the number of "you knows" found in Caroline "Kennedy's" press speech and about how unqualifed she was for the job of taking over Hillary Clinton's Senate seat, having no experience.

No experience?

I have a question that just begs to be asked. Where was this scrutiny on the part of the MSM against Obama during his campaign for President?

Every idiotic gaffe that he and his running mate Joe Biden made were summarily ignored. Barrack's gaping lack of experience was ignored while they tried to pin inexperience on Sarah Palin, who at least, had the experience of two administrative jobs as mayor, and then, governor of the state of Alaska.

Yet, now we are supposed to be impressed with the MSM's rough treatment of Caroline "Kennedy"? Yeah right!

Personally speaking, while I don't agree with her political views, I do believe she should be given a chance.

After all, given the highly questionable views and past surronding Barrak Obama's rise to the presidency, at least Caroline rises above all of that highly suspicious evidence.

Hamas & Obama

2008-12-29T19:53:00.000-08:00

Recently, Israel has started a bombing campaign in the Gaza Strip against those blood thirsty terrorists, Hamas. President Elect, Barak Obama weighed in yesterday with the comment that for Hamas to stop attacking Israel would be the same as the United States ceasing to attack al Qaeda.

What?????

Now, either this is yet another gaffe that has escaped the lips of Obama, or something much worse, a glimpse into his true allegience.

Let's start first with the possibility of this just being yet another idiotic gaffe on his part. You know, like his statment on the campaign trail that he had visited 57 states so far and had a few more to go.

Let's see, in Obama's gaffe, the U.S. (a Western Democratic Nation) is the same as Hamas (an Islamic extemist terrorist organization). While, al Qaeda (another Islamic extremist terrorist organization) is somehow equal to Israel (a Western Democratic Nation).

Does anybody see a problem with this analogy?

For those liberals who are incapable of seeing anything beyond the echo chamber of liberal sound bites that they have been indoctrinated with; here's a breakdown of what is wrong with this analogy.

The analogy would make more sense if it lined up the appropiate players. It should have the same Western Democratic Nations on each side of the analogy pitted against the same Islamic extremist terrorist organizations on the other side.

In other words, for the analogy to make sense it should have been stated thusly:

For Israel (a Western Democratic Nation) to cease attacking Hamas (an Islamic extremist terrorist organization) would be the same as the U.S. (a Western Democratic Nation) ceasing to attack al Qaeda (an Islamic extremist terrorist organization).

Was it a gaffe on Obama's part? Or, was it a true glimpse into what side he is actually on? If the latter is true then the American voter has been duped into voting into power America's own version of Britan's Neville Chamberlain.

God forbid! Many, many innocent lives were lost due to Chamberlain's foolish cowardness.

There is no doubt that al Qaeda and the rest of radical Islam has declared war on Israel, the U.S., and the rest of Western Civilization. There is also no doubt what their plans are for us.

Let's hope and pray that this is just yet another gaffe out of Obama's mouth. If it isn't we are headed for serious trouble.

I am still of the mind that we have to get behind our new President, but now I am leaning towards Ronald Reagan's phrase: "trust but verify".

Just one more thing is bothering me about Barak Obama. For the first time in American political history, the "Office of the President Elect" has been established, complete with press covered speeches. Sorry, but this smacks of incredible arrogance on Obama's part. He isn't even in power yet. Yet, he wants to bully his way into the spotlight as if he even matters yet. In the words of his own staff, "we are a nation that has one President at a time." Once again, we see Obama in a rather obvious hypocrital position. I guess it is "Chicago politics" as usual. (And yeah, I know, too many yets)

Yet...

Mrs. Harris Needs To Be Fired - ASAP!!!

2008-11-11T19:16:00.000-08:00

An elementary school teacher in the state of North Carolina has crossed the line. Mrs. Harris, a teacher of a 5th grade class in a school in North Carolina, decided to expose her "Obama Mania" to students in her class room.

Apparently, Mrs. Harris thought that it was for some reason, important to impose her political views on her 5th grade students. Unfortunately one of her students admitted to being in favor of John McCain. The girl's father is also deployed in the War Against Terror. And this made her a target for her teacher's "Obama Mania" zeal.

You can search on "You Tube" to find the video of the teacher's harassment against her students.

What really bothers me about all of this is the fact that, as soon as the teacher encountered a "McCain fan" she decided it was time to attack the poor child. Mrs. Harris began to attack the little girl and used a lie to ensure that she was successful. She told the girl that, by the way, the candidate you would vote for is really is committed to keeping the troops (your father included) there for 100 years.

What an out right lie! McCain has never said that. In fact, no one has ever said that...except for the far left anti-war propagandists. So, not only did the teacher lie, but she lied deliberately to a young innocent student of hers.

A hundred years in Iraq?! Who in their right mind would actually believe such irresponsible claptrap?!

In my opinion, Mrs. Harris should be fired. It would serve to send an important message to the teachers of our children across this nation that they weren't hired to indoctrinate our children in their personal political viewpoints, but, rather they should focus on what matters in the realm of education.

If she is not fired, it will serve to embolden more unhinged liberal teachers to push forward with their brainwashing campaign.

Barak Obama has won. He is the President-Elect and we need to give him a fair shot. But, Mrs. Harris' elation over some one of her own race being elected should remain in her own mind. It has no place in her classroom.

Shame on her and shame on the school board if they don't punish her as she so deservedly deserves!!!

Shame On Fox News & Carl Cameron

2008-11-07T19:55:00.000-08:00

The Fox News Channel has always had as it's mottos: "Fair and Balanced" and "We Report, You Decide". And I have to say for the most part, they have remained true to their slogans. However, Fox News reporter, Carl Cameron, has tainted, at least in my view, Fox News Channel's reputation as being fair and balanced.

A couple of days ago, Carl decided to report on, (what really is nothing more than gossip), negative views from within the McCain campaign regarding Sarah Palin. I am not going to expound upon what was alleged about Mrs. Palin. Thanks to Carl Cameron it is all over the news. I, for one. don't believe a word of it. I smell a rat.

If Carl Cameron had any good journalist sense, (Is there is such a thing in these days and times when the media is no longer a watchdog for the people of a democracy), he would have told his source that if he/she wanted to report on Sarah Palin they were more than welcome to appear on camera and on microphone. If the source balked, I would have walked away.

After all, if all that the source alleged against Sarah Palin is true, then there shouldn't be any problem, whatsoever, in appearing on camera before the nation and making those allegations against Sarah Palin. Right?

Of course, if they are nothing more than "cover your butt" lies because your candidate lost and you need a scapegoat, well then, of course, you need reporters like Mr. Cameron who will take you at your word and not actually require you to appear on camera and own the lie that you are telling.

Thanks alot Carl Cameron, for being "fair and balanced".

Things That Puzzle Me About The 2008 Presidential Election

2008-11-06T19:11:00.000-08:00

While the election is now over, there are a few things about it that still bothers me.

1. Pennsylvania: What were this constituency thinking? First off, they voted for Barak Obama. This is the candidate who characterized them in a speech in San Francisco, California as being a state comprised of hicks who cling to their guns and bibles and have no tolerance for anyone who thinks differently from them. What an insult. Would you vote for a candidate who insulted you and your fellow citizens?
I sure wouldn't! Then there is Obama's attack against the coal industry, declaring that his administration would definately bankrupt any one in the coal industry who tried to continue mining and developing coal. The coal industry is very important to Pennsylvania's economy and jobs. Yet, these idiots vote for him nonetheless. I am perplexed. And then there is there keeping John Murtha in office. This lout has not only made treasous, slanderous statements against our military, but, if that wasn't enough, he insulted his constituents as being racists. When he was called out on that outrageous characterization, Murtha simply substitutes the word "red necks" for "racists", which is a pejorative for: ignorant, hayseed well... racists. And yet they ensure that the man who insulted them remains in power. Go figure.

2. Ohio: Why isn't anyone challenging Obama's win in that state when we all know that ACORN was really busy there with their usual voter fraud tactics with questionable voter registration tactics, coupled with a state official who managed to get the Supreme Court's approval in her not implementing any measures to ensure that voter fraud wasn't occuring there? Hmmmm... I wonder if Obama really won that state "fair and square".

3. "8 more years of Bush": One of the successful mantras that the Obama campaign used was the maligning of the Bush Administration for running up the nation's debt into the trillions. That sounds reasonable, except.... Obama is also planning on running up our deficet into... the trillions. Can any one say "hypocrite"?!!!

4. Campaign contributions: McCain approached Obama early on in the race to agree to not accept campaign contributions from certain sources. They agreed. McCain kept his end of the bargin, Obama lied and did the complete opposite. What does this say about Obama's character? Can anyone really trust him at his word?

5. Radical, anti-America, Black Racist, home grown terrorists, Communist associations: Barack's ties to racists like Rev Wright, Louis Farrakahn, and terrorists like Bill Ayers makes me wonder why I should really want this man as the President of our country. I wonder why this makes me nervous....

6. First African-American President of the United States: As I have pointed out several times before, Barak Obama is NOT an African-American. He is half white and half black. To call him black is at worst racist, at least ignorant. Yes, of course on the outside he appears to be obviously black but he is still half white.
He does ironically serve to be a symbol of reconciliation between the whites and blacks in this country and their ridiculous history of anamosity. However, based upon the caliber of people that he has surrounded himself with in the past and the contents of his books, I don't see any wish on his part for reconciliation between the races. I hope that I am wrong on this, but I am not holding my breath.

7. "The first time that I could be proud to be an American": Michelle Obama has none of my respect whatsoever. She benefited from a top notch education in an Ivory League college, Princeton I believe, and yet she has no pride in the country who provided her with such an opportunity?! You have got to be kidding me! Very few americans have such an opportunity. Yet she doesn't even appreciate it. This ungrateful woman has nothing to say to me to gain my respect. First Lady? How about First Disgrace.

This post was an honest attempt to enumerate my concerns about our new President. Although these concerns of mine are real, I am willing to give Barak Obama a chance and hope that he will take this mandate from the people to be President with the ultimate respect and gratitude, and not over-reach and think that he has a mandate to force his Leftist, Socialistic, Radical beliefs on this great country.

Let's wait and see and not rush to any conclusions about Barak. And let's pray for him and hope that he winds up being the President this country needs in its dire hour.

The People Have Spoken

2008-11-05T19:08:00.000-08:00

Barak Obama will be the 44th President of this great nation. How did he get to this office in our great land?

Well, in no particular order:

1. The media, who is suppose to be unbiased and "the watchdogs" of our nation were unquestionably "in the tank" for Obama. By the media, I am referring to the main stream media, (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR etc.) With the exception of the Fox News Channel and conservative talk radio, the main stream media were nothing more than cheerleaders who were all the way on board the Obama political campaign. Not once did the expose any of the flaws that Obama had. Instead, they covered up any and all negative points against Obama and his relations and positions.

2. Disturbing, is the fact that Barak Obama surrounded himself with racist, America hating figures not to mention an American terrorist, (i.e. Rev Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers etc.). Yet, the main stream media never commented on this fact, nor even once, challenge the validity of his campaign mantra of "8 more years of Bush" who raised the national debt by trillions, while the hypocrite, Obama, proposes trillions more, just like Bush.

3. A vast amount of Obama followers who were mesmerized by the charisma that Barak Obama exhibited, (at least on script). These supporters of Obama were mesmerized by his "Change We Can Believe In" mantra, without even once asking themselves: "What does he mean by change? Change into what?" Nope. They just voted like lemmings running off a cliff for the promise of a "change" undefined.

4. Like it or not, race was, in fact, a factor in this Presidential Race. For some, it so important to have an "African-American" President that it was, for them, a no-brainer. While I would agree that it is well past the time for this nation to have a minority as President, whether it be a Black person, an Asian, an Hispanic, an American Indian, or even a woman, I believe that at worse, it is racist to vote for an African-American simply because he is an African-American and at least, it is ignorant. Voting for someone based upon their race doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I would love to see a black person become President, but I would never vote for that candidate solely on the idea that he is black. (I voted for an authentic African-American twice in primary elections, the first time in the Republican primary election of 2000, and again in this year's Republican primary for Alan Keyes). I vote on a matter of who that person is, what his/her character is and what they have to offer in relation to my political viewpoint. In other words, as much as this nation would benefit by having a minority for President, I think that is foolish to vote for a minority candidate simply because he or she is a minority.

5. By the way, I am really getting sick and tired of hearing pundits and others keep saying that this is the first African-American President of our country. Barak Obama is NOT an African-American. He is, in fact, half black and half white. If it wasn't for his Marxist/Socialist view points he would stand as a symbol for the real healing between the black and white disparities in our culture. He is, after all, half black and half white. I didn't vote against Obama because he is black but, because his political ideology is too far left, too much socialist, and his friends are too radical, racist, and Anti-American for me.

6. ACORN. Need I say more? Where is the proof that the votes weren't fixed in states like Ohio for Obama? Especially when the state official, (I can't remember her name or what her position was), appealed to the Supreme Court to not force her to ensure that voter fraud wasn't happening in her state.

Despite all of the above points, the American people have spoken. That being said, it is in my opinion, time to accept our newly elected President and give him a fair chance. Who knows? Maybe Barak Obama is the best choice for us at this juncture in our nation's challenges? I believe that we owe it him to give him a fair chance to prove himself worthy of the task.

As a conservative, I don't think it is in our best interest to act like the Democrats since 2000 who, have done nothing but whine and apply ad hominem attacks to America's choice. Let's see what Obama has to offer. Not with blinders on our eyes, but let's give him a fair shot at it. ODS - Obama Derangement Syndrome is not becoming of the conservative character. Let's leave such behavior to the Democrats, who clearly own such despicable behavior.

My next post will be about how I believe that Obama will more than likely, move to a centrist position for reasons that I will point out.

Reasons I Will NOT Vote For Barack Obama...

2008-10-09T19:03:00.000-07:00

...Besides the fact that I am a Conservative.

Let's face it, Barack Obama is a leftist. His "change" for America really amounts to a resurgence of "The Great Society", that failed socialist program of LBJ in the 1960's. If that was really what Barack Obama was about it would be bad enough. But, in reality Barack Obama is actually a Marxist. He has definite ideas about "change" for America that "we can believe in".

Except, what if we don't believe in Communism?

Do you think this is an outrageous statement?

Let's take a look at who Obama has surrounded himself with:

Rev. Wright - an Anti-America, racist, [in whose Church Obama attended for over 20 years, yet pretended that he noticed none of Rev. Wright's anti-America, racist, hate filled sermons in all of that time.]

Yeah right!

Bill Ayers - a homegrown American terrorist who has never repented of his murderous activities that he committed along with his wife, earlier in his life. In fact, he is not only, NOT sorry for what he did in his youth, but has stated that he didn't do enough! His "reformed" role is defined now by his goal as a teacher; to replace the respect for capitalism and free markets as a feature of our American economy with communism.

Tony Reso - a Chicago thug that, who is not only on his way to jail time, but who also managed to get Michelle and Barack a home at a lower rate of purchase. Talk about perks for who you associate with!

Louis Farraken - a black, Islamist racist.

Father Flayer - another anti-American activist.

ACORN - a group that has committed itself to such activist activities as trying to bully banks into submitting to Sub Prime loans to financially unqualified recipients which has directly led to the economic disaster that we are all watching occur in our economy via the stock market today. But, this crooked group hasn't stopped there. They are also involved heavily in voter fraud. Just a few days ago in Ohio, this group was revealed to have been involved with voter fraud by injecting illegal votes into the election as being by team members of the football team the Dallas Cowboys. Hmmm...

Barack would like for us all to believe that he didn't really know Bill Ayers. He was "just a person that lived in his neighborhood". Or, that Barack was only 8 yrs old when Bill Ayers and his wife were committing their acts of terrorism. The truth is that not only did he choose to associate with Bill Ayers, but that he started his campaign in Bill Ayers' own living room!

Barack also, has a problem with distancing himself from ACORN. He has represented them as a lawyer on their staff in past in court. He also participated in offering training to ACORN in the past. Also, it should be noted that Barack has never criticized ACORN. Never!

Hmmm...

Who is Barack Obama?

Why has he surrounded himself with such terrorist, criminal, anti-American people?

These facts tend to support a second look at Barack Obama. Why should we allow him to become the Commander In Chief of our military and President of this great nation?

Speaking of "Commander In Chief"...what does he mean by his disingenuous painting of American troops in Afghanistan as "flying air raids against villages and murdering innocent women and children"? Yeah, Barack Obama would make a really great Commander in Chief.

I say we vote NO to Barack Obama. He is a Marxist tool that should never, ever, be allowed to come anywhere near the control seat of our great nation.

For those of you out there who are mesmerized by race as an issue: Barack Obama is NOT an African-American.

He is half black and half white. He is NOT an African-American!

Also, for those out there who wish to quickly point out the "color of his skin" I would present the following questions:

1. If a man is part African, part Irish, and part American Indian: how is he an African-American at the expense of the other racial factors?

To call such a man "African-American" is racist against the other racial components of who he is.

And, oh by the way, if some leftist wants to paint me as a racist for pointing this thorn in their "race baiting" side: I voted for an authentic African-American twice first, in the Republican Primary Election in 2000, and then again, in this Republican Primary Election. I voted for Alan Keyes both times!

America doesn't need Barack Obama. In fact, if we are going to survive as a nation, it would be best for us if we voted him, and his ilk, out of the political arena.

Where's Your Microphone?*

2008-10-01T19:30:00.000-07:00

[This post is an agnostic political post. The points made here apply equally to all politically minded constituents. It's not just about Conservatives or Republicans, nor Liberals or Democrats, nor Libertarains or Independants.]

The purpose of this post is to serve as a wake up call to all American citizens. Do you all really believe that you have a voice in our government today?

Actually, you don’t.

Those civic minded Americans have already learned that writing to your congressman is futile. All that you receive back is a “form letter” that pretty much thanks you for your concern and your concern for your country without ever really addressing the concerns that you have outlined in your letter.

You see, in reality you don’t have a direct line to your representative in Washington DC. What you will quickly discover is that there is an extra layer between you and your representative in Congress. This person decides what actually gets forwarded to the congressman and what gets the “form letter” treatment.

In other words, our representatives have hijacked our Constitution. They have pretty much ensured that this no longer a: "nation of the people, by the people".

Of course, the patent response to this treatment is along these lines: “well, if your congressman doesn’t perform along your expectations you can always vote him or her out of office." There is a problem with this solution.

To quote the British rock band, The Who, from the lyrics of one of their songs: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...”.

Yes, I am claiming that within the beltway, there is a plot to ensure that all that enter those sacred hallways remain in power; no matter what the cost. And of course, most Americans just deal with that. Some don’t even vote, consoling themselves with such nonsense as: “My vote doesn’t count anyway, due to the existence of the Electoral College”, or “all politicians on all sides are corrupt, so what is the point?”

Unfortunately, the joke is on these types of citizens, as the void created by the lack of their voice just benefits the power hungry politicians across the Potomac River.

The practical upshot of all of this is that those in Washington DC have usurped the Constitution. This government, according to the Constitution, is supposed to be “of the people, by the people”.

Now, we are at the point where the people actually don’t have any real voice in government. All we have is “form letters”, and just more of the same when we do vote out incumbents and vote in new blood.

My father has a new idea.

We live in the “Internet Age”. We live in the “Information Age”.

So, why don’t we utilize this?

Why don’t we demand that our representatives poll their constituents via e-mail and paper ballots, for those that aren’t on-line, as to what they think about the proposed legislation passing through Congress?

Why aren’t our representatives trying to discern what their constituents want? Isn’t this why they were elected?

Our elected representatives should be answerable to their constituency regardless of what party you come from! They definitely should not be allowed to pursue political power in Washington DC!!

“We The People” should be calling the shots with respect to our government. That is the fundamental basis behind the Constitution and our Federal Government. If we wish to retain a voice in our liberty, then we should demand a fundamental change in how Washington DC responds to us.

If we don’t react to this affront to our Constitutional rights then, we deserve the usurpation of our freedom that was bought and paid for at a great price!

Our congressmen should be bound to vote along the lines of what the majority of their constituents want. The Internet and even "snail mail" should be providing them with their "marching orders". Not only would this idea give the average American citizen the voice, the microphone, that they need but, it would also inspire the apathetic citizen to finally get involved in their civic duty. I am a firm believer that voting is much more than your right. It is your civic duty!

I believe that if the average citizen actually had a chance to make her or his voice heard, their apathy would disappear, and they would be energized to actually participate in our civic duties as citizens to actually ensure that the federal government responded to "The People", as the Constituton says it should be.

* [This is not my own ideas with respect to the idea that our representatives should open up the Internet and paper ballots to constituents to determine what the majority want. My father is the one who pointed this out to me in a converstion a couple of days ago.]

It's Patriotic To Pay Higher Taxes?

2008-09-18T19:27:00.000-07:00

What?!!!

In a news story found here, Democratic Vice President pick, Joe Biden made the following statement:

"We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people," Biden said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America." Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: "It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

In words that only the socialist democrat/left will understand: how is confiscating money from the bourgeois and re-distributing it to the proletariat any thing other than communism?

The wealthy in this country are the ones who provide the jobs for the working class to begin with. If the government taxes them too much and takes too much money from them, the less they will be able to pay out for jobs which equates to less jobs available now in the market place which, in turn, equates to even more unemployment. Result: the proletariat suffers even more!

Good job Joe!

This country's birth from revolution against the tyranny of Great Britain involved an outcry against higher taxes from Great Britain, (think the dumping of tea into a Boston harbor), and here we have the democrats employing the same tactic as Great Britain back then: raise taxes. Are modern democrats the remnants of the Torries who lived in America during the Revolutionary War who were on the side of Great Britain against those who were willing to make the ultimate financial, and mortal sacrifice to fight for freedom?

This idiotic ploy from the democrats to over tax the rich and give the proceeds to the middle class is as stupid as their notion that penalizing the oil companies with higher tarrifs to help lower gas prices. Obviously, if the government penalizes oil companies with higher taxes, then the price at the pump will be raised to compensate for the loss incurred by the government.

I would submit that you have to incredibly naive and ignorant to actually side with the democrats on these stances against the wealthy and the oil companies.

If you are sick and tired of the unemployment rate or the high prices at the gas pump then, it is in your best interest to ensure that the message sent to Washington DC is a resounding NO to the Democratic Party.

It is time to send these communist/socialist threats to our Democratic Republic packing.

Jesus Was A Community Organizer?

2008-09-15T19:28:00.000-07:00

NBC news anchor, Tom Brokow, on the show "Meet The Press" made the following sacrilegious comments during his interview with former mayor of New York City, Rudi Guilliani [from World Net Daily]:

"Senator Obama, who had an Ivy league education and could’ve gone to Wall Street, went back to Chicago, on the South Side," explained Brokaw. "As you know, his supporters have defended him for working with poor families, many of whom lost their jobs when the Gary steel mills closed. In that mocking fashion, it seemed to a lot of people that you were belittling the role of a community organizer, and it led to this button (showing a campaign-style lapel pin) – it was addressed to Senator Palin, because she also talked about it – 'Jesus Christ was a community organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor.' In retrospect, do you think you had too much sport with his role as community organizer, Mr. Mayor?"

Jesus Christ was a "community organizer"? Huh?

This is nothing more than the desperate attempts of a cocktail liberal from the main stream media to try and smear the Republican Presidential Candidate, John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin for Vice President. We are witnessing what happens when liberals are in a state of panic.

To try and tie Barak Obama, (or any other person for that matter), to Jesus Christ is absurd. It is even more outrageous to try and paint Jesus Christ as a "community organizer". It is beyond outrageous. It is sacrilegious. And it is disengenous.

The very notion that Jesus' time on earth was to advocate for "civil rights" and try and take on the Roman Government is an outright lie.

Jesus' mission was to teach those around Him who His Father, God, really was, to correct the wrong-headed teachings of the religious authorities in His day about what God expected of the Isrealites and most importantly, to die a cruel death on a cross of shame for the salvation of all mankind.

Pontius Pilate, however, was a governer. But he wasn't a Sarah Palin.

You know, the more the liberals open their mouths, the better it is in the long run. They are unwittingly demonstrating to the American Public just how incredibly out of touch they really are with main stream America.

In this latest liberal gaffe, they are showing the rest of us in America that they will stoop to any level to try and hoodwink the voters to vote for them, even if it means they have to slur Jesus Christ in the process! They may fool some prospective voters but I am not one of them.

And, it's not just Tom Brokow. No sooner had he made such idiotic statements than they became echoed in the Hollywood liberal "echo chamber".

Liberal, Susan Sarandon offered the following sound bite: "Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor."

Yeah right.

I say, keep it up liberals. You are doing us conservatives a big favor. Hopefully, at some point, the rest of America will finally wake up and see you all and your "American Dream" for what it really is: Communism/Socialism for America - the Constitution be damned! We will finally all see that your new hope for change is nothing more than the conversion of America, from it's Constitutional Democratic Republic into the failed socialist democracies of Europe, or worse, communism.

Shame on Tom Brokaw, and shame on the rest of the liberals who are echoing his disengenous, sacrilegious claptrap.

I'm not fooled by it. Are you?

9/11 - We Must Never, Ever Forget

2008-09-11T19:16:00.000-07:00

American Flags today all over the United States, DoD stations, and Embassies across the world, were flown today at half-mast in memory of the worst terrorist attack against the U.S. in its 232 year history. On September 11 2001, over 3,000 innocent people were murdered in cold blood by a handful of cowardly Islamo-Fascist terrorists. America watched the whole abomination in horror on their TV screens. No American will ever forget where they were that horrible day.

That single event changed our American way of life forever.

It is thanks to God that He blessed our nation, once again, with his providential interference in our affairs to ensure that we had a President that had what it took to defend our blessed gift of liberty by stepping up to our enemy and taking the fight to them right where they live.

Despite what one may think of George W. Bush's entire presidential record at least, he had what it took to set his entire focus on ensuring that these cowardous Islamic terrorists would pay for what they had done to us, and to ensure that they would not ever, ever, get another chance to give America a black eye. It has been 7 years since that fateful day and the cowards have been utterly unable to repeat any such attack on US turf again.

The liberals and their sympathizers among us, have done nothing but whine about our "alledged abuse of civil rights" and our involvement in an "illegal war" in Iraq yet, they are utterly unable to provide any real proof of any American's civil rights being violated. They are also unable to defend the notion that taking the fight against these terrorists to their territory and away from our homeland has been a bad idea.

There are several things about the Bush Administration that have troubled me as a conserative, but I am very grateful that Bush was the President in office to deal with al Queda and their threat to our way of life. The sneering left have tried to smear Bush as being a "cowboy". I am glad that he is. In the end, it took a "cowboy" to stand up and defend the liberty that our Fore-Fathers and the great amount of Americans who laid their lives down to defend our liberty.

America is a nation of freedom that was paid for at a high cost. Those who paid that price deserve a patriot, not a lawyer, to ensure that their sacrifice was not made in vain.

Whatever history can demonstrate that George W. Bush screwed up for our nation, it will never be able to offer any evidence that he dropped the ball when it comes to the security of our great Nation against the Islamic terrorist threat against it.

No matter who wins the 2008 Presidential Election, it is extremely important that they take up George W. Bush's mantle and continue to guarantee that al Queda, or any other Islamic terrorist group has no hope of repeating 9/11 or worse on these shores ever again.

I will never forget 9/11 for as long as I live and I will ensure that my children and future grandchildren will never forget either. These Islamic-Fascist terrorists got their one shot. They will never, ever, get another ever again. In fact, it is my sincere prayer and hope that they are hunted down and destroyed to the last slobbering, demon-possessed one of them!

History In The Making

2008-09-10T19:52:00.000-07:00

I wish to extend my father's views here on my blog because I respect him and his opinion:

"Of course I could be wrong but I say that unless the media (aka: Democrats) are able to derail Sarah Palin with some scandal or something; we have just witnessed "history in the making". It's not because she is a woman or anything else like that but, that she is a person who's time has come. I've not witnessed anything like this for many years. I've seen her in several different settings now and as I said, unless the media can stop her soon, (real soon), she will have such a head of steam that will make her unstoppable.

For instance: I saw on TV this morning that the company (in Japan) that makes her glasses are getting totally bombarded with orders for her style of eye glasses. Things like this are in my way of thinking indicative of the "sub-surface" swell that's appearing.

At this time this phenomenon is not yet well defined in that it appears to be broadbased but, I think shortly there will come a "signing on" by many, many women who will certainly cross party lines and lay claim of "ownership" to this thing. As I’ve already said: “I could be wrong” and I may be too quick to judge but I do think we’re witnessing history in the making."

Phil

"Meet Me In The Stairwell"

2008-09-10T19:19:00.000-07:00

This is yet, another piece that I have received via e-mail. I have no idea who is the author, but, I believe that this is brilliant. So, I decided to post it here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"You say you will never forget where you were when you heard the news On
September 11, 2001. Neither will I.

I was on the 110th floor in a smoke filled room with a man who called his wife to say 'Good-Bye.' I held his fingers steady as he dialed. I gave him the peace to say, 'Honey, I am not going to make it, but it is OK..I am ready to go.'

I was with his wife when he called as she fed breakfast to their children. I held her up as she tried to understand his words and as she realized he wasn't coming home that night.

I was in the stairwell of the 23rd floor when a woman cried out to Me for help. 'I have been knocking on the door of your heart for 50 years!' I said. 'Of course I will show you the way home - only believe in Me now.'

I was at the base of the building with the Priest ministering to the injured and devastated souls. I took him home to tend to his Flock in Heaven. He heard my voice and answered.

I was on all four of those planes, in every seat, with every prayer. I was with the crew as they were overtaken. I was in the very hearts of the believers there, comforting and assuring them that their faith has saved them.

I was in Texas , Virginia, California , Michigan , Afghanistan. I was standing next to you when you heard the terrible news. Did you sense Me?

I want you to know that I saw every face. I knew every name - though not all know Me. Some met Me for the first time on the 86th floor.

Some sought Me with their last breath.

Some couldn't hear Me calling to them through the smoke and flames; 'Come to Me... this way... take my hand.' Some chose, for the final time, to ignore Me.
But, I was there.

I did not place you in the Tower that day. You may not know why, but I do. However,
if you were there in that explosive moment in time, would you have reached for Me?

Sept. 11, 2001, was not the end of the journey for you. But someday your journey will end. And I will be there for you as well. Seek Me now while I may be found. Then, at any moment, you know you are 'ready to go.' I will be in the stairwell of your final moments."
- God

Please display your American Flag this Thursday - Sept 11, 2008!

"MEET ME IN THE STAIRWELL!

"Are You A Liberal, A Conservative, Or A Redneck?"

2008-09-09T19:28:00.000-07:00

I have no idea as to who the original author of this piece is but, I think that is worth posting here. I'm posting this for two reasons. First, it does a really job of exposing the actual foolishness and weakness of the liberal viewpoint. Secondly, this does a good job of exposing the foolishness of the liberal viewpoint. ; )

"Here is a little test that will help you decide.

The answer can be found by posing the following question:

You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at you.

You are carrying a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.

You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?

.................................................. ........

Liberal's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it? Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call 9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior. This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for few days and try to come to a consensus.

.....................................................................................

Conservative's Answer:

BANG!

.................................................. ..................................

Redneck's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG!
BANG ! Click..... (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Click

Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hydrashocks?!'

Son: 'Can I shoot the next one?!'

Wife: 'You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist'

....................................................................................

Which viewpoint on the scenario is yours?

A New Preamble To The Constitution

2008-07-24T19:47:00.000-07:00
I received this via e-mail. I have no idea if it is is really authored by State Representive, Mitchell Kaye from Georgia like it claims but, it is brilliant. Liberals and uninformed American citizens should take note of this message:

NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION

The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day...

We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, and delusional. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is
guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have
the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary
of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to work..don't expect everyone else to take care of you!

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but if it would turn out the same way as current public housing, we're not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people..If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you put away for the rest of your sorry life.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an America means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X:This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

(and Last but not least....)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one God. You are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all, with no fear of persecution.
The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history,
and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!

Are We Sure That English Is America's Official Language?

2008-04-19T20:12:00.000-07:00
I received this via e-mail. If this is true, we are in a lot of trouble.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Voted Against English as America’s Official Language

On June 6, 2007 33 Senators voted against English as America's official language.

On Wed. 6 June 2007 23:35:23 - Colonel Harry Riley, USA, Ret. wrote:

Senators:

Your vote against an amendment to the immigration Bill 1348 to make English America's official language is astounding. On D-Day, no less, when we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock, character and principles of America, I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens. I don't much care where you come from. What your religion is. Whether you're black, white, or some other color, male or female, Democrat, Republican or Independent, But I do care when you are a United States Senator representing Citizens of America.... and vote against English as the official language of the United States.

Your vote reflects betrayal. Political Surrender. Violates your pledge of allegiance. Dishonors historical principle. Rejects patriotism. Borders on traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States Senator. Impeachment, Recall, Or other appropriate action is warranted or worse.

Four of you voting against English as America's official language are presidential candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and Senator Obama.

Four Senators vying to lead America, but won't or don't have the courage to cast a vote in favor of 'English' as America's Official Language when 91% of American Citizens want English officially designated as our language.

This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as 'policital hacks'.....Unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualified to serve as President of the United States.

If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a backlash so stunning it will literally "rock you out of your panties"......... And preferably totally out of the United States Senate.

The entire immigration bill is a farce... Your action only confirms this really isn't about America.....it is about self-serving politics...... despicable at best. It has been said: 'Never argue with an idiot.... they'll drag you down to their level!"

The following Senators voted against making English the official language of America:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh(D-IN)
Biden(D-DE) wants to be President
Bingaman(D-NM)
Boxer(D-CA)
Cantwell(D-WA)
Clinton(D-NY)wants to be President
Dayton(D-MN)
Dodd(D- MN)wants to be President
Domenici(R-NM)coward. Protecting his senate seat
Durbin(D-IL)
Feingold(D-win)-not unusual for him
Feinstein(D-CA)
Harkin(D-IA)
Inouye(D-HI)
Jeffords(I-VT)
Kennedy(D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)tried to be president
Kohl(D-WI)
Lautenberg(D-NJ)
Leahy(D-VT)
Levin(D-MI)
Lieberman(I-CT) disappointment here.....
Menendez(D-NJ)
Mikulski(D-MD)
Murray(D-WA)
Obama(D-IL) wants to be President)
Reed(D-RI)
Reid(D-NV) Senate Majority Leader
Salazar(D-CO)
Sarbanes(D-MD)
Schumer(D-NY)
Stabenow(D-M)

"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or Hanged!!!"
- Abraham Lincoln

20 Requirements To Be A Good Democrat Today

2008-04-05T21:31:00.000-07:00
This is another posting where I have no idea who the actual author is, but is very much right on the money as to the truth it portrays about the liberal viewpoint.

__________________________________________________________________________________

THIS IS NOT SO HARD -- EVEN A CAVE MAN CAN DO IT....

1. You have to be against Capital Punishment, but support Abortion on demand.

2. You have to believe that Businesses create oppression and Governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are a bigger threat than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no Art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that Global Temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the Earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

6. You have to believe that Gender roles are artificial but being Homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that Al Gore is actually an Expert on the Global Climate and he really did invent the Internet.

8. You have to believe that Hunters don't care about Nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

9. You have to believe that Self-Esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

10. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

11. You have to believe that Taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

12. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.

13. You have to believe that Standardized Tests are racist, but Racial Quotas and set-asides are not.

14. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is actually normal and is a very nice person.

15. You have to believe that the only reason Socialism hasn't worked anywhere else is because the right people haven't been in charge.

16. You have to believe Conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

17. You have to believe that Homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

18. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States .

19. You have to believe that this Message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.

20. You have to believe that it's okay to give Federal workers the day off on Christmas Day but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."

Ready to vote???

Who Are You Calling "Colored Folks"?

2008-04-03T20:37:00.000-07:00
Heads up to all white Americans. I don't know who wrote this piece but it exposes the hypocrisy of "whites" who call "blacks" "colored folks"
________________________________________________________________

This was written by a black gentleman in Texas

And is so funny. What a great sense of humor

And creativity!!!

When I was born, I was BLACK,
When I grew up, I was BLACK ,
When I went in the sun, I stayed BLACK ,
When I got cold, I was BLACK ,
When I was scared, I was BLACK ,
When I was sick, I was BLACK ,
And when I die, I'll still be BLACK .

NOW, You "white" folks....

When you're born, you're PINK ,
When you grow-up, you're WHITE ,
When you go in the sun, you get RED ,
When you're cold, you turn BLUE ,
When you're scared, you're YELLOW ,
When you get sick, you're GREEN ,
When you bruise, you turn PURPLE ,
And when you die, you look GRAY .

So who y'all callin' "COLORED" folks?

Pork Politics As Usual

2008-04-03T20:20:00.000-07:00
A good friend of mine sent this to me via e-mail. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative this should matter to you.
________________________________________________________________________________

"There are in [Congress] many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. ... Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it." - Col. David Crockett, Representative - Tennessee

source: http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html

The top 10 senators misusing tax payer money:

1. Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi (Republican) with 245 projects costing $892 million
2. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska (Republican) with 150 projects costing $469 million
3. Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama (Republican) with 206 projects costing $465 million
4. Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana (Democrat) with 161 projects costing $459 million
5. Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia (Democrat) with 111 projects costing $386 million
6. Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii (Democrat) with 131 projects costing $386 million
7. Senator Patty Murray of Washington (Democrat) with 208 projects costing $328 million
8. Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa (Republican) with 154 projects costing $321 million
9. Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri (Republican) with 142 projects costing $310 million
10. Senator Thomas Harkin of Iowa (Republican) with 194 projects costing $303 million

There you have it folks! When politicians talk about responsible government spending, big government, small government, whatever... here's what they're really like. Only five politicians had zero earmarks:

Senator Thomas Coburn of Oklahoma (Republican)
Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina (Republican)
Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin (Democrat)
Senator John McCain of Arizona (Republican)
Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri (Democrat)

Those five names are your real fiscal conservatives, at least in the sense of not throwing your tax dollars around where they see fit. Cheers to Senator McCain, as he's the only one of the three competing to be the next President that didn't use our tax dollars on pet projects. For the other two:
Senator Hillary Clinton of New York (Democrat) with 281 projects costing $296 million
Senator Barack Obama of Illinois (Democrat) with 53 projects costing $97 million

Source: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_pigbook2008

[I apologize, but I have been unsucessful in making the source links "live links". You will have to cut and paste these links into your browser to view them.]

Genealogy

2008-03-15T19:22:00.000-07:00
A little light humor. I don't know who wrote this, but I decided to spread his/her work here on my blog.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A little girl asked her father, "How did the human race appear?" The father answered, "God made Adam and Eve and they had children and so was all mankind made."

Two days later the girl asked her mother the same question. The mother answered, "Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved."

The confused girl returned to her father and said, "Dad, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Mama said they developed from monkeys?" The father answered, "Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your Mama told you about hers."

Is Hillary Rodham Clinton A Monster?

2008-03-07T19:12:00.000-08:00
In a story found here a senior aide to Barack Oboma described Hillary Rodham Clinton as a "monster".

I have a problem with this.

A monster? Really?

As far as I am concerned, the epithet "monster" applies to people like: Adolph Hitler, Sadaam Hussien, Osama bin Laden, and Fidel Castro NOT Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Don't get me wrong here. I definately do not support Hillary's socialist/communist agenda for America. But, calling her a monster, at least IMHO is over the top!

What do you think?

Is Barrack Obama Another Al Gore?

2008-02-22T21:31:00.000-08:00
Here is an intersting article that questions the integrity of Barrack Obama's speech in a black church in Selma, Alabama. It reminds me of Al Gore's bs ala "I invented the Internet" lies.

Say What, Barack?

By Paul R. Hollrah

Tuning in to C-Span recently, I found myself listening to a speech by Senator Barrack Hussein Obama, Jr. He was standing in the pulpit of a black church in Selma, Alabama, and as I studied the body language of the dozen or so black ministers standing behind the senator, I couldn't help but be reminded of the little head-bobbing dolls that people used to place in the rear windows of their 1957 Chevrolets. If their reactions are any indication, the new "Schlickmeister" of the Democrat Party is actually a pretty accomplished public speaker.

However, as he spoke, I found my b.s. alarm going off, repeatedly. But I couldn't quite figure out why until I actually read excerpts of his speech several days later. Here's part of what he said:

"...something happened back here in Selma, Alabama. Something happened in Birmingham that sent out what Bobby Kennedy called, "ripples of hope all around the world." Something happened when a bunch of women decided they were going to walk instead of ride the bus after a long day of doing somebody else's laundry, looking after somebody else's children.

"When (black) men who had PhD's decided 'that's enough' and 'we're going to stand up for our dignity,' that sent a shout across oceans so that my grandfather began to imagine something different for his son. His son, who grew up herding goats in a small village in Africa could suddenly set his sights a little higher and believe that maybe a black man in this world had a chance.

"So the Kennedy's decided we're going to do an airlift. We're going to go to Africa and start bringing young Africans over to this country and give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country America is.

"This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great great-great-great- grandfather had owned slaves; but she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that, (in) the world as it has been, it might not be possible for us to get together and have a child. There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. Was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama."

Okay, so what's wrong with that? It all sounds good. But is it?

Obama told his audience that, because some folks had the courage to "march across a bridge" in Selma, Alabama, his mother, a white woman from Kansas, and his father, a black Muslim from Africa, took heart. It gave them the courage to get married and have a child. The problem with that characterization is that Barrack Obama, Jr., was born on August 4, 1961, while the first of three marches across that bridge in Selma didn't occur until March 7, 1965, at least five years after Obama's parents met.

Obama went on to tell his audience that the Kennedys, Jack and Bobby, decided to do an airlift. They would bring some young Africans over so that they could be educated and learn all about America. His grandfather heard that call and sent his son, Barrack Obama, Sr., to America.

The problem with that scenario is that, having been born in August 1961, the future senator was not conceived until sometime in November 1960. So if this African grandfather heard words that ''sent a shout across oceans,'' inspiring him to send his goat-herder son to America, it was not a Democrat Jack Kennedy he heard, nor his brother Bobby, it was a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Obama's speech is reminiscent of Al Gore's claim of having invented the Internet, Hillary Clinton's claim of having been named after the first man to climb Mt. Everest, even though she was born five years and seven months before Sir Edmund climbed the mountain, and John Kerry's imaginary trip to Cambodia.

As one of my black friends, Eddie Huff, has said, "We need to ask some very serious questions of the senator from Illinois. It's not enough to be black, it's not enough to be articulate, and it's not enough to be eloquent and a media darling. The only question will be how deaf an ear, or how blind an eye, will people turn in order to turn a frog into a prince."

Let's Say I Break Into Your House.

2008-02-21T19:35:00.000-08:00
I don't know who the author of this piece is, but it does a very good job of illustrating how absurd the illegal immigration defense of dispicable organizations like La Raza truly is.

Let's Say I Break Into Your House.

Recently large demonstrations have taken place
Across the country protesting the fact that Congress
Is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration.

Certain people are angry that
The US might protect its own
Borders, might make it harder
To sneak into this country and,
Once here, to stay indefinitely.
Let me see if I correctly understand
The thinking behind these protests.
Let's say I break into your house.
Let's say that when you discover
Me in your house, you insist that I leave.
But I say, 'No! I like it here.
It's better than my house. I've made all
The beds and washed the
Dishes and did the laundry
And swept the floors. I've
Done all the things you don't
Like to do. I'm hard-working
And honest
(except for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to feed me
You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family
(my husband will do all of your yard work because
He is also hard-working and honest, except for that
Breaking in part).

If you try to call the police or force me out,
I will call my friends who will picket your
House carrying signs that proclaim my
RIGHT to be there.

It's only fair, after all, because you have
A nicer house than I do, and I'm just
Trying to better myself. I'm a hard-working
And honest, person, except for well,
You know, I did break into your house
And what a deal it is for me!!!

I live in your house, contributing only a
Fraction of the cost of my keep, and
There is nothing you can do about it
Without being accused of cold,

Uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and
Bigoted behavior.

Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn
MY LANGUAGE!!! So you can
Communicate with me.

Why can't people see how ridiculous
This is?

Just Wondering

2008-02-21T19:30:00.000-08:00
My Dad sent this piece to his local newspaper's "Spout Off!" section. It raises some interesting concerns.

Now let me see – Obama is half white and half black. But somehow that makes him African-American. Tiger Woods is half Asian and half black but somehow that too makes him African-American. So tell me once again, what really is an African-American? Would a person who was ¼ white, ¼ Asian, ¼ Cherokee and ¼ African be African-American also? I’m not just kidding around, I really want to know.

Happy New Year!

2008-01-01T11:28:00.001-08:00
I hope that all who see this message on my blog will have a very happy and prosperous new year this 2008. [lifting up a glass full of champange] Here's to a better year than last year!

Merry Christmas!

2007-12-25T20:06:00.000-08:00
I wish for all of those who may stumble upon my blog, as well as those who regularily visit here, a very merry Christmas and a prosperous and happy New Year!!!

Things That Make You Go Hmmm About Evolution

2007-12-16T15:52:00.000-08:00
This is a comment my father submitted to his local paper in response to the local school board's decision to embrace the scientific theory of evolution whole heartedly:

Well let's see now about this evolution thing. If man evolved from monkeys - why do we still have monkeys? Why is there no known link between monkeys and people? What am I missing?

This is a good point. It would be interesting to see what sort of response the pro-evolutionists would have to offer in explaining this obstruction to their water tight theory. And I should stress the word theory.

Thinking

2007-11-24T19:20:00.000-08:00
I don't know who wrote this piece but I like it.

____________________________________________________________________

It started out innocently enough. I began to think at parties now and
then -- just to loosen up. Inevitably, though, one thought led to
another, and soon I was more than just a social thinker.

I began to think alone -- "to relax," I told myself -- but I knew it
wasn't true. Thinking became more and more important to me, and
finally I was thinking all the time.

That was when things began to sour at home. One evening I turned off
the TV and asked my wife about the meaning of life. She spent that night
at her mother's.

I began to think on the job. I knew that thinking and employment don't
mix, but I couldn't help myself. I began to avoid friends at
lunchtime so I could read Thoreau, Muir, Confucius and Kafka. I would
return to the office dazed and confused, asking, "What is it exactly we are doing
here?"

One day the boss called me in. He said, "Listen, I like you, and it
hurts me to say this, but your thinking has become a real problem. If you
don't stop thinking on the job, you'll have to find another job."

This gave me a lot to think about. I came home early after my
conversation with the boss. "Honey," I confessed, "I've been thinking..."
"I know you've been thinking," she said, "and I want a divorce!"

"But honey, surely it's not that serious." "It is serious," she said,
lower lip aquiver. "You think as much as college professors and
college professors don't make any money, so if you keep on thinking, we
won't have any money!"

"That's a faulty syllogism," I said impatiently. She exploded in tears
of rage and frustration, but I was in no mood to deal with the emotional
drama.

"I'm going to the library," I snarled as I stomped out the door. I
headed for the library, in the mood for some Nietzsche. I roared into the
parking lot with Rush Limbaugh on the radio and ran up to the big glass doors. They
didn't open. The library was closed.

To this day, I believe that a Higher Power was looking out for me that
night. Leaning on the unfeeling glass, whimpering for Zarathustra , a
poster caught my eye, "Friend, is heavy thinking ruining your life?"
it asked.

You probably recognize that line. It comes from the standard Thinkers
Anonymous poster. This is why I am what I am today: a recovering
thinker.

I never miss a TA meeting. At each meeting we watch a non-educational
video; last week it was "Porky's." Then we share experiences about how
we avoided thinking since the last meeting.

I still have my job, and things are a lot better at home. Life just
seemed...easier, somehow, as soon as I stopped thinking. I think the
road to recovery is nearly complete for me.

Today I took the final step... I joined the Democratic Party.

Al Gore Is Right About Global Warming...

2007-11-22T10:45:00.000-08:00
...Just not in the way he thinks it's going to happen. It will happen according to his faith's tradition, he just has his understanding of his faith's tradition all screwed up. Do you remember this quote for Al Gore during the second Presidential Debate in 2000?:

"And I'm a grandfather now. I want to be able to tell my grandson, when I'm in my later years, that I didn't turn away from the evidence that showed that we were doing some serious harm. In my faith tradition, it is written in the book of Matthew, 'Where your heart is, there's your treasure also.' And I believe that we ought to recognize the value to our children and grandchildren of taking steps that preserve the environment in a way that's good for them. [emphais mine]"

Anyone with even a Sunday School understanding of what Jesus was saying knows that it has nothing to do with "saving the environment". Over the years I've seen people try to attribute some modern day ideological attributes to Jesus that just don't fit. I can't remember who it was, but when I was in college I read an article where the author was insisting that Jesus was a feminist. That, of course, is one heck of stretch. Al Gore's twisting of Matthew 6:21 is no different. Jesus was not an environmentalist. His mission here was of far more importance than that. He didn't come here to save the earth. He came for our salvation and to straighten us out on who God is and what he really expects from us apart from man made legalistic religion. He didn't come here to start Greepeace.

Here is a piece written by my father that I think is a good response to Al Gore and his "Global Warming" theory:

I SELDOM, IF EVER, AGREE WITH ANYTHING THAT COMES FROM HOLLYWOOD!

It’s rare for me to ever find anything coming out of Hollywood that I’m in agreement with even in the slightest way. But now I am somewhat shocked to find quite a bit of agreement between myself and Hollywood’s latest concerns regarding “Global Warming”. At first I tried to blow them off because the whole thing seemed to me to be completely “out in left field” and altogether too sensational for me to get my mind around their views. What with their favorite politician Al Gore being the leading spokesman for Global Warming, pundits and the swift involvement these people have in joining in the fight to stop the spread of this apparent menace. I was not impressed and of course very skeptical. It seemed to me that they were convinced that this thing was going to destroy all life on the earth and that all the people now living on earth were in real danger - Now!

I asked myself “What if this thing they are presenting does in fact finally happen? Why, it would take at least a million years or more, so why should any reasonable man be worried about this kind of thing now?”

I considered what I was hearing from both sides of the “so-called” scientists who were apparently not finding any meaningful agreement as to if “Global Warming” really has started, whether it is in fact possible or not, and the list of points of argument goes on and on. Then it hit me square in the face. I’m a “red-necked” bible-believing Christian who has spent the last 35 years studying the bible on a daily basis and have read all the prophesies given in several books of the bible many, many times. These prophecies were given some two thousand (or more) years ago by prophets and disciples of Jesus Christ! Try reading the second book of Peter – chapter 2; and please understand the fact that Peter was in fact a fisherman by trade who obviously knew nothing at all about “splitting atoms” but describes the complete and total destruction of not only the earth but the entire universe in what appears to be a nuclear explosion of unbelievable magnitude. Read the book of Revelations especially, the first verse of chapter 21, and see what message you get from this fantastic book from the bible.

It occurs to me now that Hollywood is really just preaching their belief that a “Judgment Day” is on its way and that if we don’t change our ways we will all perish because of what we’ve done and because of the fact that we have chosen not to believe a truth nor have we repented. WHAT A CONCEPT!!!! Now I get it.

Al Gore, can you say “Global Meltdown”?

Happy Thanksgiving!

2007-11-22T10:24:00.000-08:00
Our nation has set aside this time of the year to think about what we are thankful for in our lives. Of course, we should do this every day. Remembering to count your blessings always provides a balance to put your life in perspective, because it is the problems and negative things that are usually on people's minds particularily, when they are in the thick of things.

Here are some of the things that I am thankful for (in no particular order):

* I am thankful that I was born in a country that honors liberty and provides me the opportunity to make the most out of my life and succeed.

* I am thankful for the men of women who are making the sacrifices necessary to keep us safe from the murderous Islamic Extremist thugs who want to kill every one of us at the worse, or, at least, take away our freedoms and quality of life and replace it with slavery and forced conversion to their religion.

* I am especially thankful for those in our military who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in this war and all wars past. There are no words to adequately express my gratitude for them so I offer to them my utmost respect and honor.

* I am thankful for the wonderful parents I have who made the sacrifices for me and my brother and sister and who are the reason for anything decent and respectable in me today.

* Along with my parents, I am thankful for my grandparents, relatives, and ancestors who passed down to me a good, strong Christian foundation to build my life on.

* I am thankful for my brother and sister both of whom I am very proud of.

* I am thankful for my beautiful, wonderful wife. She has been a wonderful blessing these last 15, going on 16 years. She is an example of a tremendous gift that God has given me that I don't really deserve.

* I am thankful for my three children. I can not imagine a life without them or my wife. My have brought me much joy watching them grow up.

* I am thankful for the friends that have been in my life. I've been fortunate to have good friends of top notch character and that I am proud to know.

* I am thankful for God's gift of salvation in offering up his Son, Jesus, to die in my place for my sins.

* I am thankful that Jesus, of his own free will, was willing to suffer and die for my sins so that I can have an eternal relationship with God and Him. This is another example of a wonderful gift that God has given me that I do not deserve.

What are you thankful for?

Minorities

2007-11-17T18:27:00.000-08:00
We need to show more sympathy for these people.
* They travel miles in the heat.
* They risk their lives crossing a border.
* They don't get paid enough wages.
* They do jobs that others won't do or are afraid to do.
* They live in crowded conditions among a people who speak a different language.
* They rarely see their families, and they face adversity all day every day.

I'm not talking about illegal Mexicans;
I'm talking about our troops!
Doesn't it seem strange that many Democrats and Republicans are willing to lavish all kinds of social benefits on illegal aliens [undocumented immigrants for you liberals], but don't support our troops and are now threatening to defund them?

I don't take any credit in being the author of this brilliant piece. It is circulating around the Internet anonymously.

Happy Veteran's Day

2007-11-12T06:37:00.000-08:00
I want to express my deep respect and admiration for all of the men and women who have served in our Armed Forces. Freedom isn't free and thanks to our veterans we are still a free country. To those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, you have my deepest appreciation for your bravery on the battlefield. You are not now, nor will you ever be forgotten. So, veterans from the past and those still serving I salute you with a crisp salute, standing at attention!

The Problem With Politically Correct Speech

2007-10-19T18:28:00.000-07:00
Ok. This is kind of a bit off topic. Well, not the problem with politically correct speech, but the setting where I encountered it in.

This blog is about politics from a conservative view point. I have purposely tried not to clutter it with my personal life. However, I'm going to bend my rules in order to make a point.

Our youngest daughter is 5 years old. She has been diagnosed with epilepsy (uncontrolled seizures) and, as if that wasn't enough, she has also been diagnosed with autism and ADHD.

Anyway, my wife and I attended our second Autism Chapter meeting in our area and that was where I encountered a shocking display of political correctness. The guest speaker was a lady from the Advocacy Center. She began her introduction by apologizing for the presence of the word, "disability" on the paper she had distributed as a hand out. She stated that she should have used the word, "issues".
There was a few nods of assent. I wasn't one of them. I was a bit stunned. Here's why.

Politically correct speech is nothing more than replacing one "allegedly" offensive word with another word, or phrase that, in the end means the same thing. Sort of.

Sort of? Well, let's take a look at the politically correct substitute word, issues.
Exactly what does that word mean? Well, it could mean someone who lives with consequences, (i.e. the autistic person has to deal with the consequences of the limitations, and difficulties that autism imposes on them).

But, the word issues could also refer to the autistic person's opinion and the personal/political opinion that informs that opinion.

So which is it?

Words like "disability" have meanings. If the autistic person fits that meaning then, it is appropriate to use that term with respect to their autism and its effect upon them.

But, once you replace a well defined word with something ambigious like the word "issues", communication is now obfuscated. Now, there is no real way to communicate clearly what is meant by the new, politically correct term.

This now provides a loop hole for each person who uses the politically correct term to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. On the negative side, it allows people to treat a person with autism as simply being, yet another whining victim whose complaints and feelings about what they are going through can be summarily dismissed. On the other hand, it can be used to mean...well, what the original word, disabled means.

There is another more dastardly reason for the injection of politically correct speech into our dialogue. And that is, to limit, and restrict our freedom of speech. And that is the worst damage that politically correct speech inflicts upon our culture.

It would be one thing, if the goal of the liberal driven politically correct speech was to try and stop people from using offensive words to hurt someone's feelings. I believe that most decent people would agree with that goal. But, that's not what is going on here. Liberals are intentionally using politically correct speech to take away people's freedom of speech to use English words in context and instead replace that speech with words and phrases that are ambiguous and actually allow leeway for abuse and control of the person described.

Liberals fool people into thinking that they are helpless victims who need to depend upon liberals for their very quality of life to be protected. Not only does the new liberal speak not free them from their actual condition, it instead, keeps them trapped in a new ambiguous label that leaves no room for them to interpret their condition other than through dependence upon the liberal solution for them; and that is dependence upon liberals to define their existence and provide for them.

This is a travesty that no one should be subjected to. People will always fare better when they can face their own situation for what it actually is and then begin to construct strategies for dealing with whatever impediment they are facing and overcome it or work around it on their own.

Politically correct labels only trap the person as impotent in the face of an ambiguous diagnosis depending upon the liberals who develop such disingenuous labels to prescribe for them a liberal controlled solution.

And that solution is slavery to the liberal, socialist/communist State for help.

This is totally unacceptable here in the United States. Maybe under Marxist societies it is workable, but not here in the "home of the free and the brave".

Freedom and bravery is exactly what disabled people need in order to freely define their lives of their own accord.

And that is my problem with politically correct speech.

Stark, Another Unhinged Liberal

2007-10-19T11:45:00.000-07:00
Democrat California Representative, Pete Stark has joined the ranks of his fellow liberal democrats (Dick Durbin, John Kerry, to name a few,) in disparaging our military, the war in Iraq, and President Bush.

The topic of conversation on the House Floor was about President Bush's veto of the proposed SCHIP bill. Stark's comment is so typical of liberal's attempts to address any topic. They can't resist working some anti-Bush, anti-American statement into whatever they are commenting on.

Commenters on the conservative web site: "Town Hall", refer to the intense, obsessive, hatred of President Bush on the part of liberals as, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).

Stark's unhinged statement on the House Floor the other day is probably the most intense display of BDS by a liberal to date. Here is what Stark babbled when it was his turn to speak:

“I, uh, yield myself two minutes, uh. Madame Speaker, uh, I first of all, I’m just amazed that they can’t figure out the Republicans are worried that we can’t pay uh for insuring an additional ten million children they sure don’t care about finding two hundred billion dollars to fight the illegal war in Iraq. Where are you going to get that money? Are you going to tell us lies? Like you are telling us today? Is that how you are going to fund the war? You don't have money to fund the war or children. But you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement.”

He then, turned his attention to the topic at hand and went on the usual liberal misinformation campaign to suggest that President Bush was against helping poor children with obtaining insurance.

But, poor Stark, being so badly infected with BDS just couldn't resist one more cheap, pot shot at President Bush:

"...But the President Bush’s statements about children’s health shouldn’t be taken any more seriously than his lies about the war in Iraq. The truth is that Bush just likes to blow things up in Iraq, in the United States, and in Congress."

What is it with these liberal Democrats? How can someone be so full of hatred for Bush that they can't offer their constituents anything more than non-stop, immature, displays of hatred for our nation's President. Their hatred is apparently so deep, and all encompassing, that it leads them to make treasonous, anti-American statements about Bush, the war in Iraq, and even against our soldiers who are fighting that very war.

Democrat Senator Dick Durbin tried to compare our troops in 2005, with Nazis.

Democrat Senator John Kerry made this (it's the video underneath the headline: "U.S. troops terrorize Iraqi citizens") anti-troop remark:

“…and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night terrorizing kids, and children, uh, uh, uh, you know, women breaking sort of the customs of, the, of, of, of, of , of, of historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that.”

Then he also made the snide remark implying that if you were too stupid to go to college then, you wind up a soldier fighting in Iraq. A comment that he later was forced to apologize for after he received much deserved ridicule and blowback.

It seems, "decorated war Veteran", John Kerry forgot that officers have to have college degrees in order to be officers in the first place. He also displayed his ignorance regarding the fact that many enlisted troops also have college degrees, or obtain them during their enlistment. Is this ignorance on Kerry's part or, hatred for his own nation's troops? Either way it's a good thing he never became Commander in Chief.

Senate Majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid who declared the war in Iraq lost, this past April (if that isn't demoralizing to the troops, blatantly false, and aiding and abetting the enemy, I don't know what is) had the nerve to accuse conservative talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh as going over the top with his "phony soldier" comment. You can download the letter that Reid sent to the CEO of Clear Channel Communications, (the company who broadcasts Rush Limbaugh's syndicated radio talk show), to try and get Rush fired here.

Not only was Reid guilty of hypocrisy, (where was his censure of other Democrats and their anti-troop statements, let alone his own self-censure?), but, also, it is really an egregious abuse of power when a congressman uses his office to harass an ordinary citizen that he is supposed to serve, not attempt to slander.

Of course, Rush has gotten the last laugh in this one by auctioning off the letter from Reid and donating the profits to an organization to help the children of fallen marines and firefighters. Rush is even matching the final bid to add to the contribution. Not only was Rush's "phony soldier" remark deliberately taken out of context by the dubious "Media Matters" and Harry Reid, but, the only one guilty of being anti-military in the end is Harry Reid, not Rush.

Last week, Nancy Pelousi, Democrat, Speaker of the House pushed for a bill declaring the Turkish Ottoman Empire guilty of genocide against Armenians between 1915 and 1923.
The timing of this bill threatens to sever the ties we have with Turkey, who is an invaluable ally in the War on Terror, providing us supply access to troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and possibly opening up another front into the War in Iraq, namely, Turkish military forces invading the Kurds in northern Iraq.

Now, either this is a deliberate move on Pelousi's part to sabotage the War in Iraq, or ignorance on her part because she failed to think through the ramifications of such a bill at such a time. I suspect it is the former that drives Pelousi. But, either way, she is clearly not a good person to be in the position of leadership that she currently holds.

If one took the time, one could find quote after quote after quote since 2000 from Democrats showing nothing but: whining over Bush's election victories, hatred for Bush, anti-Americanism, anti-US troops etc. Couple those quotes with the Democrat's half hearted attempts to "cut and run" from a war that they approved of and voted for, (so much for Stark's lie about an "illegal war"), and their attempts to sabotage the war via this new charge against our ally Turkey, it just begs the question: why would any informed, serious US citizen ever vote for the Democrats ever again? They don't represent the American soldier or citizen. They are just power hungry. Couple this lust for power with their obsessive BDS, and it becomes abundantly clear that a vote for a Democrat is a vote against any good direction for this country.

That is, unless you are for race baiting, political correctness, class warfare, limited freedom of speech and limited freedom of religion, and most of all, a move towards turning this Democratic Republic into a Socialist Democracy in line with the rest of the failed Socialist Democracies of Western Europe.

As it has been said several times before, this ain't your grandfather's Democrat Party. It ain't my party any more either. I used to be a Democrat. But, I left that party years ago. And I am very glad that I did. Looking back, especially since 2000, I would have very little, if anything, to be proud of, and everything to be ashamed of, if I hadn't left.

I am in no way a staunch Republican, but there is no way I would ever return to support the Democrat party unless, by some miracle, it weeded out Pelousi, Kerry, Durbin, Reid, Murtha and the rest of the liberals and embraced a conservative platform. If that were to happen, I would leave the Republican Party in a heartbeat!

Some More Food For Thought

2007-10-03T21:20:00.000-07:00
I, once again, have no idea who the author of this piece is but, it is, nontheless, thought provoking.

Sobering thought!!

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior
to World War 2 owned a number of large industries
and estates. When asked how many German people were
true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our
attitude toward fanaticism. "Very few people were
true Nazis," he said, "but many enjoyed the return
of German pride, and many more were too busy to
care. I was one of those who just thought the
Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just
sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we
knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and
the end of the world had come. My family lost
everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and
the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and
"talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace,
and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to
live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion
may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is
meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and
meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics
rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at
this moment in history. It is the fanatics who
march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50
shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who
systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups
throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the
entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the
fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill.
It is the fanatics who take over mosque after
mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the
stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful
majority," the "silent majority" is cowed and
extraneous.

Communist Russia comprised Russians who just
wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists
were responsible for the murder of about 20 million
people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population, it was peaceful as
well; but Chinese Communists managed to kill a
staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War
2 was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan
murdered and slaughtered its way across South East
Asia in an orgy of killing that included the
systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians;
most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into
butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of
Rwandans were "peace loving?"

History lessons are often incredibly simple and
blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often
miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by
their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our
enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend
from Germany, they will awake one day and find that
the fanatics own them, and the end of their world
will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese,
Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis,
Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and
many others have died because the peaceful majority
did not speak up until it was too late. As for us
who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to
the only group that counts; the fanatics who
threaten our way of life.

The Caliber of the Women and Men of our Armed Forces

2007-09-29T09:08:00.000-07:00
Below is a report from a chaplain attesting to just how honorable and patriotic our Armed Forces are.

From a Chaplain in Iraq.

I recently attended a showing of 'Superman 3' here at LSA Anaconda. We
have a large auditorium we use for movies as well as memorial services and
other large gatherings. As is the custom back in the States, we stood and
snapped to attention when the National Anthem began before the main feature.
All was going as planned until about three-quarters of the way through the
National Anthem the music stopped.

Now, what would happen if this occurred with 1,000 18-22 year-olds back
in the States? I imagine there would be hoots, catcalls, laughter, a few
rude comments, and everyone would sit down and call for a movie. Of course,
that is, if they had stood for the National Anthem in the first place.

Here, the 1,000 Soldiers continued to stand at attention, eyes fixed
forward. The music started again.. The Soldiers continued to quietly
stand at attention. And again, at the same point, the music stopped. What
would you expect to happen? Even here I would imagine laughter as everyone
sat down and expected the movie to start.

Here, you could have heard a pin drop. Every Soldier stood at
attention. Suddenly there was a lone voice, then a dozen, and quickly the
room was filled with the voices of a thousand soldiers. "And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave, o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

It was the most inspiring moment I have had here in Iraq. I wanted you to
know what kind of Soldiers are serving you here.

Written by Chaplain Jim Higgins on 5/14/07. LSA Anaconda is at the
Balad Airport in Iraq, north of Baghdad

All I can say is God Bless our Armed Forces. They are without a doubt the best caliber of soldiers, seamen, marines, and airmen in the world.

Cowboy And Indian

2007-09-14T23:04:00.000-07:00
Three strangers strike up a conversation in the airport passenger lounge in Bozeman,
Montana, awaiting their flights. One is an American Indian passing through from Lame Deer. Another is a Cowboy on his way to Billings for a livestock show And the third passenger is a fundamentalist Arab student, newly Arrived at Montana State University from the Middle East.

Their discussion drifts to their diverse cultures. Soon, the two Westerners learn that the Arab is a devout, radical Muslim and the conversation falls into an uneasy lull. The cowboy leans back in his chair, crosses his boots on a magazine table and tips his big sweat-stained hat forward over his face. The wind outside is blowing tumbleweeds around, and the old windsock is flapping; but still no plane comes.

Finally, the American Indian clears his throat and softly he speaks, At one time here, my people were many, but sadly, now we are few." The Muslim student raises an eyebrow and leans forward, "Once my people were few," he sneers, "and now we are many. Why do you suppose that is?" The Montana cowboy shifts his toothpick to one side of his mouth and from the darkness beneath his Stetson says in a drawl,

"That's 'cause we ain't played Cowboys and Muslims yet, But I do believe it's a-comin'."

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Yes siree! For all of those hate-filled, demon possessed IslamoFascists out there, you are about to experience good ole' American cowboy vengance.

Get ready, because it's coming soon to a fake Mosque near you!!!

Political Correctness Defined

2007-09-08T13:20:00.000-07:00
For those who are still searching for the objective definition of political correctness, allow me to offer this opinion:

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I didn't write this but the unknown author has sure hit the proverbial nail squarely on the head.

Whoops! Bush Didn't Lie. Innocent Didn't Die.

2007-09-06T15:43:00.000-07:00
So much for the liberal anti-war propaganda that there wasn't any WMDs in Iraq. According to an article found here, the vials of chemicals recently found in the UN Building in New York city are phosgene, a chemical choking agent. Where did they come from? Iraq. You know that country that we were lied to by the left and told that we attacked Iraq for no legitimate reason since, Sadam Hussein didn't have any WMDs. I wonder if this will be enough for the left to admit that they were wrong, change their position and stop slandering President Bush?

I doubt it. They are too obsessed with their hatred of him. Besides, you can't reason with someone whose capacity for reason is overcome and ruled by hatred. It's also impossible to be open minded and tolerant when one is full of hatred.

Of course, the first questions that come to mind are: what were those vials of WMD doing in the UN building in New York city? How did they get there? Not only is the UN Building a waste of space on American soil, but it appears to also be a dangerous waste of space on American soil.

Then And Now

2007-09-06T15:31:00.000-07:00
I don't know who the author of this piece is but it does a great job of showing just how screwed up our society has become since the Great Society liberals have usurped the reigns.

======================================================================

Scenario 1: Jack goes quail hunting before school, pulls into school
parking lot with shotgun in gun rack.

1957 - Vice Principal comes over, looks at Jack's shotgun, goes to
his car and gets his shotgun to show Jack.

2007 - School goes into lock down, FBI called, Jack hauled off to
jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors called in for
traumatized students and teachers.
---------------

Scenario 2: Johnny and Mark get into a fistfight after school.

1957 - Crowd gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end
up buddies.

2007 - Police called, SWAT team arrives, arrests Johnny and Mark.
Charge them with assault, both expelled even though Johnny started it.
--------------------

Scenario 3: Jeffrey won't be still in class, disrupts other students.

1957 - Jeffrey sent to office and given a good paddling by the
Principal. Returns to class, sits still a nd does not disrupt class
again.

2007 - Jeffrey given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested
for ADHD. School gets extra money from state because Jeffrey has a
disability.
--------------
Scenario 4: Billy breaks a window in his neighbor's car and his Dad
gives him a whipping with his belt.

1957 - Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to
college, and becomes a successful businessman.

2007 - Billy's dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to
foster care and joins a gang. State psychologist tells Billy's sister
that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison.
Billy's mom has affair with psychologist.
------------------
Scenario 5: Mark gets a headache and takes some aspirin to school.

1957 - Mark shares aspirin with Principal out on the smoking dock.

2007 - Police called, Mark expelled from school for drug violations.
Car searched for drugs and weapons.
---------------
Scenario 6: Pedro fails high school English.

1957 - Pedro goes to summer school, passes English, goes to college.

2007 - Pedro's cause is taken up by state. Newspaper articles appear
nationally explaining that teaching English as a requirement for
graduation is racist. ACLU files class action lawsuit against state
school system and Pedro's English teacher. English banned from core
curriculum. Pedro given diploma anyway but ends up mowing lawns for a
living because he cannot speak English.
----------
Scenario 7: Johnny takes apart leftover firecrackers from 4th of July,
puts them in a model airplane paint bottle, blows up a red ant bed.

1957 - Ants die.

2007 - BATF, Homeland Security, FBI called. Johnny charged with
domestic terrorism, FBI investigates parents, siblings removed from
home, computers confiscated, Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list
and is never allowed to fly again.
------------------
Scenario 8: Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his
knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to
comfort him.

1957 - In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.

2007 - Mary is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job.
She faces 3 years in State Prison. Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy.

=======================================================================

Thanks alot liberals.

Double Tap And Move On

2007-08-19T09:56:00.000-07:00
This is a good response to those anti-war, anti-military, anti-American liberals who want to subject American military soldiers, marines, airmen, and seamen on trial for "Wire Crimes" just for doing their mission. I can't agree with the author of this piece more. Some worthless thug who murders innocent civilians by beheading them isn't worth anything. He has already sold his soul to Satan. Wait, on second thought, he is worth the bullet to the head.

If it wasn't for the valuable intel to be obtained by prisioners at places like Gitmo, and Abu Graib, I would side with the liberals that we should close those places down. But, for a different reason. And that is we don't need prisons. We just need to wipe every terrorist off the face of the Earth.

Let them stand in judgement before God and find out whom they were really serving. Satan.

_______________________________________________

Regarding the news blurb about the Marine who put two rounds ("doubletap") in a wounded insurgent's head in Fallujah, here's a response from a Marine: "It's a safety issue, pure and simple. After assaulting through a target, we put a security round in everybody's head. Sorry al-Reuters, there's no paddy wagon rolling around Fallujah picking up "prisoners"and offering them a hot cup o' Joe, falafel, and a blanket. There's notime to dick around on the target. You clear the space, dump the chumps, and move on.

Are Corpsman expected to treat wounded terrorists? Negative. Hey Libs, worried about the defense budget? Well, it would be waste, fraud, andabuse for a Corpsman to expend one man-minute or a battle dressing on a terrorist. It's much cheaper to just spend the $.02 on a 5.56mm FMJ. By the way, in our view, terrorists who chop off civilian's heads are not prisoners, they are carcasses. Chopping off a civilian's head is another reason why these idiots are known as "unlawful combatants." It seems that most of the world's journalists have forgotten that fact.

Let me be very clearabout this issue. I have looked around the web, and many people get this concept, but there are some stragglers. Here is your typical Marine sitrep (situation report): You just took fire from unlawful combatants (no uniform - breaking every Geneva Convention rule there is) shooting from a religious building attempting to use the sanctuary status of their position as protection. But you're in Fallujah now, and the Marine Corps has decided that they're not playing that game this time. That was Najaf.

So you set the mosque on fire and you hose down the terrorists with small arms, launch some AT-4s (Rockets), some 40MM grenades into the building and things quiet down. So you run over there, and find some tangos (bad guys) wounded and pretending to be dead. You are aware that suicide martyrdom is like really popular with these idiots, and they think taking some Marines with them would be really cool. So you can either risk your life and your fire team's lives by having them cover you while you bend down and search a guy that you think is pretending tobe dead for some reason.

Most of the time these are the guys with the grenade or a vest made of explosives. Also, you don't know who or what is in the next room. You'realready speaking English to the rest of your fire team or squad which lets the terrorist know you are there and you are his enemy. You are speaking loud because your hearing is poor from shooting people for several days. So you know that there are many other rooms to enter, and that if anyone is still alive in those rooms, they know that Americans are in the mosque. Meanwhile (3 seconds later), you still have this terrorist (that was just shooting at you from a mosque) playing possum. What do you do? You double tap his head, and you go to the next room, that's what!

What about the Geneva Convention and all that 'Law of Land Warfare' stuff? What about it? Without even addressing the issues at hand, your first thought should be, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." Bear in mind that this tactic of double tapping a fallen terrorist is a perpetual mindset that is reinforced by experience on a minute by minute basis. Secondly, you are fighting an unlawful combatant in a Sanctuary, which is a double No-No on his part. Third, tactically you are in no positionto take "prisoners" because there are more rooms to search and clear, and the behavior of said terrorist indicates that he is up to no good. No good in Fallujah is a very large place and the low end of no good and the high end of no good are fundamentally the same .... Marines end up getting hurt or die. So, there is no compelling reason for you to do anything but double tap this idiot and get on with the mission.

If you are a veteran, then everything I have just written is self evident. If you are not a veteran, at least try to put yourself in the situation. Remember, in Fallujah there is no yesterday, there is no tomorrow, there is only now, Right NOW. Have you ever lived in NOW for a week? It is really, really not easy. If you have never lived in NOW for longer than it takes to finish the big roller coaster at Six Flags, then shut your hole about putting Marines in jail for "War Crimes."

Semper fi.

By Thomas Anderson

Happy July 4th!

2007-07-04T21:20:00.000-07:00
It was 231 years ago, that some very brave and revolutionary thinkers decided that liberty was worth fighting for and declared their independence from the British Empire. The desire for independance burned so brightly in their hearts and souls that a small amount of colonists took on King George's vast army and eventually won their independence. This gave birth to the greatest nation and experiment in democracy that the world has ever seen.

America's melting pot culture has contributed to a culture that has led the world in entertainment, science and technology. America's reputation for liberty has insired millions of immigrants to come here to become an American and enjoy the American way of life. There are lots of interesting countries to live in but none better than here. God has truly blessed this nation that started with a rag tag army of colonists and developed into the super power that it is today, a nation that still champions liberty to this day.

Happy birthday America! I am so fortunate to be able to live my life as an American. I hope that God will continue to bless this nation.

Liberals Are For Free Speech & Tolerance? Yeah Right!

2007-06-21T22:36:00.000-07:00
In an article from a liberal think tank found here, the liberals are all up in arms about the conservative dominance of talk radio. Here are some quotes from that article:

"The new report — entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” — raises serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public radio airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans."

It's funny that the liberals don't feel the same way about the television news channels and newspapers. They had a monopoly on most all of these until, their arch-nemesis Fox News entered the scene. They have been whining about the evils of Fox News ever since. They are continually taking a back seat to Fox News in ratings and they are beside themselves over it. You mean that the average American viewer is not enamored with their all liberal coverage?
How could that be?

"Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management."

No. The gap between conservative and progressive (aka liberal) talk radio is occuring because the listeners have made their choice. That liberals arrogantly think that they know what is best for America is a given. What surprises and irritates them is that all Americans don't agree with them and their lofty goals for America.

"Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest."

Yeah, just like they were concerned about the owners of the television news channels and newspapers owners who were forsaking diversity for the liberal agenda. As for the radio station owners being more responsive to their local communities' interests - apparently they are. The success of conservative talk radio reflects this. The local communities wouldn't listen if they weren't interested in the first place. Conservative Talk Radio is a hit for a reason. Just like liberal Talk Radio (like Air America) was a flop for a reason.

"Along with other ideas, the report recommends that national radio ownership not be allowed to exceed 5 percent of the total number of AM and FM broadcast stations, and local ownership should not exceed more than 10 percent of the total commercial radio stations in a given market. "

Where are the percentages limiting liberal television news channels, liberal newspapers and liberal Talk Radio stations, (whoops. I forgot that they don't have any)?

Liberal Democrat party Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton and liberal Senator Barbara Boxer have chimed into this Democrat attempt at limiting Free Speech as well. You can view their ad here.

This is just another example of liberals and their false claims of the importance of freedom of speech and tolerance.

Apparently, the only speech liberals tolerate is liberal speech. They can't stand the presence of any speech that dissents from their viewpoint. Dissent against the Bush Administration is "patriotic". Dissent against the liberal view point is not to be tolerated. In fact, it is to be censured.

Likewise, liberals claim to be tolerant. Hell, to listen to them, they have the corner of the market on tolerance. But, the truth is, their tolerance is only for those who share their viewpoint. Any viewpoint opposed to theirs in not to be tolerated.

That's why it is imperative that they promptly squash any conservative content in the media. After all, the only hope that the liberals have for their cause, is if the only thing being broadcast in the television and radio airwaves, and in the newspapers is the liberal agenda.

I suppose the blogosphere is going to be their next target.

After all, Pravda (American liberal style) should be the only option out there available to American listeners and viewers.

It's the liberal's only hope.

Immagration Gumballs

2007-05-01T00:02:00.000-07:00
This is very interesting. It's certainly worth your thought. In fact, it is more "food for thought":

watch video

Copyright © 2007 YouTube, Inc.

Food For Thought

2007-04-30T08:29:00.000-07:00
A good friend of mine, TJ, sent me this. I don't know who the author is of this analogy but it is very inciteful.

Bird Feeder

I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food. But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue.

Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table...everywhere. Then some of the birds turned mean: They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket. And others birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food. After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore.

I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio. Soon, the back yard was like it used to be...quite, serene and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.

Now lets see...our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, free education and allows anyone born here to be a automatic citizen. Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families. You have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor. Your child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English. Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box. I have to press "one" to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than "Old Glory" are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties. Maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.

"The Ant And The Grasshopper"

2007-04-25T18:21:00.000-07:00
"The Ant And The Grasshopper"

*OLD VERSION*:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

***************************************************************
*MODERN VERSION*:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where then ews stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote.

The Spirit Of "Tokyo Rose" Is Alive And Well Today In The Leftist Anti-War Movement

2007-04-24T23:09:00.000-07:00
I received this in the e-mail from a good friend of mine, James, the other day. I'm not sure who the original author is but it is an excellent comparison of the leftist anti-war movement to the infamous "Tokyo Rose" who was Japan's tool of propagana against our troops back in WWII. There are some striking comparisons between her propaganda and the left who oppose our war in Iraq today.

The other night we watched a movie called, "Flags of our Fathers." During the movie, I pointed out the radio broadcast of "Tokyo Rose."

She had the best music on her station. During World War II; the Japanese developed a way to demoralize the American forces. Psychological warfare experts developed a message they felt would work.

They gave the script to their famous broadcaster "Tokyo Rose" and every day she would broadcast this same message packaged in different ways. The Japanese hoped it would have a negative impact on American GI's morale.

What was that demoralizing message? It had three main points:

1. Your President is lying to you.

2. This war is illegal.

3. You cannot win the war.

Does this sound familiar today? It is because we are being bombarded by Tokyo Hillary, Tokyo Harry, Tokyo Teddy, Tokyo Nancy, Tokyo Murtha, etc., and they have picked up the same message and are broadcasting it on Tokyo CNN, Tokyo ABC, Tokyo CBS, Tokyo NBC, etc., to our troops.

The only difference is that they claim to support our troops before they demoralize them. Come to think of it, Tokyo Rose told the troops she was on their side, too.

Food for thought and yet another reason why the left's agenda is not good for America. Especially our troops, the brave men and women who are making the sacrifice, sometimes, the ultimate sacrifice, for the well being and preservation of our free, American way of life.

Liberal "Patriotism"

2007-04-23T23:42:00.000-07:00

This is one more reason why liberals are dangerous for America.

"The Little Red Hen" (Modern Version)

2007-04-18T21:14:00.000-07:00
My dad sent this to me via e-mail. I don't have any idea who the author is, but it is brilliantly done.

The Little Red Hen (Modern Version)

Once upon a time, on a farm in Indiana, there was

A little red hen who scratched about the barnyard
until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat.
She called all of her neighbors together and said,
"If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to
Eat. Who will help me plant it?"
"Not I," said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the goose.
"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red
hen. And so she did. The wheat grew very tall
and ripened into golden grain.

"Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little
red hen.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
"I 'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.
"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red
hen, and so she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will
help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.
"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,"
said the goose.
"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red
hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for
all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some
and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little
red hen said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves."
"Excess profits!" cried the cow.
"Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck.
"I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose.
The pig just grunted in disdain.
And they all painted "Unfair!!" picket signs and
marched around and around the little red hen,
shouting obscenities.

Then a government agent came, he said to the
little red hen, "You must not be so greedy."
"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.
"Exactly," said the agent. "That is what makes
our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone
In the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But
under our modern government regulations, the
productive workers must divide the fruits of their
labor with those who are lazy and idle."

And they all lived happily ever after, including
the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am
grateful, for now I truly understand."
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in
her.

She never again baked bread because she
joined the "party" and got her bread free. And
All the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been
established. Individual initiative had died, but
nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared ..... As long
as there was free bread that "the rich" were
paying for.

And that is a summary of the liberal vision for America.

ACLU Experiences Loss In Their Attempt To Ban Boy Scouts From DOD Bases

2007-04-05T22:01:00.000-07:00

I always feel good when common sense prevails. It's good to know that not every court in this land has lost their way when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

Recently, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the District Court decision in Winkler v Gates, a lawsuit to prohibit the Department of Defense (DOD) from supporting Boy Scouts jamborees by hosting them on federal property. The Scouting Legal Defense Fund staunchly defended the Scouts by filing an amicus brief in the case in support of the DOD.

The ACLU had previously won a victory in the District Court by claiming that Fort Hill's allowance of the Boy Scouts to hold their Jamboree on their premises was somehow, (in the sophistic, twisted logic of the ACLU), a violation of the Constitution. The ACLU presented the absurd argument that the Boy Scouts were a "religion", (hmm... a perusal of all of the denominations of Christianity reveal no Boy Scout denomination. The same is true of Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist religions etc. They similarly don't contain a Boy Scout faction.), and therefore, the DOD's permission to host a Boy Scout Jamboree on its property was an attempt to circumvent the Constitution's prohibition of the "establishment of religion".

Yep. The ACLU expect for you to believe that the presence of a Boy Scout Jamboree on DOD property is a blatant attempt to establish a national religion, (which would soon become compulsory for all American citizens if it weren't for the valiant efforts of the good old ACLU). Is this a bunch of ridiculous sophistry on their part? You bet. But, they are counting on citizens who are ignorant about what the Constitution actually says regarding citizen's freedom of expression of religion in this country to see them as performing some kind of important service to them on their behalf to protect them from the evil Boy Scouts and their mission to convert all American citizens to their religious view point.

This is utter poppycock!

I've posted on the fallacy of the ACLU's argument regarding their mythical "separation of Church and State several times on my blog, so I won't repeat it in this post. I think what the General Counsel for the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU) Peter Ferrara's comments about the 7th Circuit Court's reversal decision say it all:

"What sound public purpose does it serve for the ACLU to be suing an organization like the Boy Scouts over their national jamboree? The interpretation of the Establishment Clause advanced by the ACLU is so extreme that it does not serve to protect liberty, but, rather, it assaults the liberty of the religious and those seeking to promote traditional moral values."

I couldn't have said it better. The ACLU is basically a bunch of misguided lawyers who stand to take away more American Constitutionally granted freedoms (civil liberties) than they do protect them.

The Constitution grants the right to freedom of religion.

What it doesn't grant, is the right to freedom from religion.

Only an egghead would believe that a Boy Scout Jamboree is an event that "establishes a national religion" in violation of the 1rst Amendment.

I'm glad that both the Scouting Legal Defense Fund and the ACRU exists. It's about time someone stood up to those despicable lawyers that make up the ACLU. The more you follow the ACLU's actions, the more it is plain to see that they are anything but "American".

If, and when, any religious group does try to establish themselves as a national religion that threatens the freedom of American citizen's right to choose their own religion (or none) to follow then, I will be right there immediately on the ACLU's side if they challenge that. But that hasn't even come close to happening yet.

Given their penchant for attacking non-issues so vehemently, I doubt that that the ACLU would recognize an actual attempt to breach the 1rst Amendment's establishment of a national religion ban, even if it was right under their anti-religious noses.

So, thank you 7th Circuit Court, for helping to salvage my lost faith in our judicial system. It's good to know that the ACLU can't bully every judicial court in our great land.

Captain China?

2007-03-19T07:59:00.000-07:00

Say it isn't so!

Now This Is The Way Business Phones Should Be Answered!

2007-03-12T17:02:00.000-07:00
A good friend of mine sent this piece to me. I have no idea who wrote it, but it is spot on.

Rules for the phone.

How ALL business phones SHOULD be answered!

GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

Press "1" for English.

Press "2" to disconnect until you learn to speak English

And remember only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier.

One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Which Side Do You Stand On?

2007-03-02T09:42:00.000-08:00
I found this on a good friend of mine's blog.

Do you identify with Democrat/liberal values and goals for this country?

Or do you better identify Republican/conservative values and goals for this country?

Here's how I stack up on the leftist/liberal Democrat side:

You Are 4% Democrat
If you have anything in common with the Democrat party, it's by sheer chance.You're a staunch conservative, and nothing is going to change that!
How Democrat Are You?

And here's how I stand on conservative Republican side:

You Are 88% Republican
You are a card carrying Republican, and a pretty far right one at that!There's no chance anyone would ever mistake you for a Democrat.
How Republican Are You?

A Message To America From Gen Patton's Ghost

2007-02-12T17:20:00.000-08:00
I got this piece in the e-mail today. I have no idea who the author is but, this is brilliant.

"Amercia's Greatest Generation" (those Americans who lived during WWII), is slowly, but surely, dying out. It is ashamed that the generation after them chose to admire socialist/communist peace-nic values. They obviously learned nothing from the noble generation that preceded them.

Gen Patton was one of the most prolific icons of the "Greatest Generation". America desperately needs more voices like his. Especially now, when we are finding ourselves again in a situation that threatens our great way of life.

Instead of a Gen Patton type of American, who is ready to rise to the challenge of ensuring our free way of life is preserved, we have a bunch of liberal, hand wringing panty waists trying to call the shots for this great nation.

Hopefully, this message from the "ghost of Gen Patton" will get through to some and help them shed their misguided, wrong-headed views about the enemy we are facing.

"The times they are a changing". In a very dangerous, negative direction. This ain't Viet Nam. This is a very real threat to our entire way of life as Americans who have enjoyed our freedom at the expense of those of "The Great Generation" who laid down their lives to preserve America and her freedoms for us.

This is our "wakeup call".

Listen up!!!!!

A Message from the Ghost of General Patton.... ATTENTION!

To those whining, panty-waisted, pathetic Maggots, it's time for a little refresher course on exactly why we Americans occasionally have to fight wars.

See if you can tear yourself away from your "reality" TV and Starbucks for a minute, pull your head out of your flabby ass -- and LISTEN UP!!

Abu Ghraib is not "torture" or an "atrocity". This is the kind of thing frat boys, sorority girls, and academy cadets do to newcomers. A little fun at someone else's expense. Certainly no reason to wring your hands or get your panties in a wad.

THIS IS an atrocity!

So Was This!!!

WHICH PART DON'T YOU GET?

Islam a peaceful religion??? Millions of these sons-of-bitches are plotting as we speak to destroy our country and our way of life any way they can. Some of them are here among us now.

They don't want to convert you and don't want to rule you. You are a vile infestation of Allah's paradise. They don't give a shit how "progressive" you are, how peace-loving you are, or how much you sympathize with their cause.They want you dead, and think it is God's will for them to do it.

Some think if we give them a hug or listen to them, then they'll like us... and if you agree? Then you are a dumb ass! If they manage to get their hands on a nuke, chemical agents, or even some anthrax -- you will wish to God we had hunted them down and killed THEM while we had the chance. Stop bitchin' about your damn Health Care, Social Security, Gas prices, and your measly 3.25% unemployment rate...and start worrying about you, your family's, and your friends' asses. How many more Americans must be beheaded. You've fallen asleep AGAIN, maggots! And you may not get another chance!

DISMISSED!!!

Still Feel Sorry For All Of Those Illegal Immigrants?

2007-01-31T18:50:00.000-08:00
Here is a brilliant analogy that demonstrates how absurd the illegal immigrant has rights to be here argument really is. I don't know if this really ever appeared in any editorial page in any newspaper here in the U.S., but if it didn't, it sure should!

Breaking Into Your House

A lady wrote the best letter in the editorials in ages!!! It explains things better than all the baloney you hear on TV.

Her point:

Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.

Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests.

Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).

According to the protesters:

a. You are Required to let me stay in your house.

b. You are Required to add me to your family's insurance plan.

c. You are Required to Educate my kids.

d. You are Required to Provide other benefits to me and to my family.

e. My husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part.

f. If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.

g. It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself.

h. I'm a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house.

i. And what a deal it is for me!!!

j. I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.

k. Oh yeah, I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! (so you can communicate with me).

Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?

I am in no way for closing America's borders to people who want to come and live, and work, and raise their families, and contribute to America's work force and culture legally.

Perhaps, one of America's greatest strengths is that we are a melting pot of numerous cultures blended together to make us the great and culturaly rich country that we are. The numerous immigrants that have entered our nation and become citizens, Italians, Irish, German, British, Mexican, Canadian, and countless others, have all contributed to making us the great, innovative country that we are.

However, for those illegal immigrants who think that they somehow have some right to be here and thumb their noses at all of those legal immigrants, both past and present, deserve to be escorted out of our country. If they illegally enter our borders again, then they should expect to be imprisoned. Indefinately.

And I'm not advocating a air-conditioned, resort stay complete with computers and libraries and fine meals either. Prison work camps would be more appropriate.

If you want to come to America legally, then you are more than welcome.

But, if you want to come here illegally and expect us to provide hospitals, schools, social security benefits and U.S dollars for you to send back home, think again. You are nothing more than the theif that the analogy above demonstrates that you are.

America doesn't need your kind here. Stay home theif and stay out of my house, which you didn't build, or pay for.

Democrat's Tax Cut Plan

2007-01-30T17:08:00.000-08:00
Having trouble understanding what the Democrat view point is regarding something we all can agree on, tax cuts, this should help clarify how they in their liberal, socialist/communist viewpoint view tax cuts and of course that old communist/socialist standard of "wealth redistribution":

Tax Cuts - If you don't understand the Democrats' version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), maybe this will help explain it:

50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due.

The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness.

After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the ticket holders of the most expensive tickets. That would be unfair and unconscionable.

People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an "Earned Income Ticket Credit." Persons "earn" it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.

People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that's only fair.

People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund. After all, if they can afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.

People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.

The people driving (or walking) by the stadium who couldn't afford to watchthe game will get $10 each, even though they didn't pay anything in, because they need the most help (sometimes known as Affirmative Action!).

Now do you understand?

If not, contact Representative Nancy Pelosi, Senator Ted Kennedy or SenatorHillary Clinton for assistance.

No Punches Pulled Here!

2007-01-30T16:56:00.000-08:00
I haven't checked Snopes.com as to the veracity of the authorship of this piece, but even if it isn't the views of who it claims to be the author, the woman or man who wrote this piece as done a very good job of portraying these ("don't question my patriotism") appeasers in the name of liberalism over National Security, liberalism over eliminating our enemy who definitely has our nation's demise as their mission.

__________________________________________________________________

Insight of a Sergeant Major (The author, J.D. Pendry, is a retired Army Command Sergeant Major who writes for Random House.)

NO PUNCHES PULLED HERE

Jimmy Carter, you're the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the Runner-in-Chief.

Bill Clinton, you played "ring around the Lewinsky" while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia, and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses embolden the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately they grew bolder, until 9/11.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our Soldiers of terrorizing women and in Iraq. You called Iraq "the wrong war, wrong p lace, wrong time"... the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You're a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did ! the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq. You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof. And said we should re-deploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert. Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You're not a Marine sir. You wouldn't amount to a pimple on a real Marine's ass. You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned South East Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Grhaib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraq's torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news this week Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrate real torture for you again. If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese which led to a communist victory there. You're a bloated fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer et al ad nauseam. Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied. That the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers. That we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers - cause to think that we will run away again and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.

American news media, the New YorkTimes particularly. Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Meccato admire your Pulitzer.

You are America's axis of idiots. Your collective stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don't ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home, as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies. Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with -self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war and this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

No Commander in Chief, you don't get off the hook either. Our country has two enemies. Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It's your obligation to support them by confronting the axis of idiots. America must hear it from you that these people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets. Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot. They need you to do it now.

This is long but this retired CSM lets it all hang out! This should be sent to every person in the USA and that includes the President and the rest of our country's leaders...It's time we as Americans stood together!

Exactly! Can I get an Amen?!

A Question For Gen (Retired) Wesley Clark

2007-01-23T20:15:00.000-08:00
On the "Hannity & Colmes"show on Fox after the "State of the Union" speech, Gen Clark aligned himself with Webb's "Democrat Response" speech on the point that CEOs of companies make far more than the average worker.

The obvious question for Gen Clark is:

So are you sir willing to donate the vastly more retirement pay that you get as a retired General to be spread out among the more unfortunate Army Privates (Recruits), Air Force Airmen Basics, Marine Privates and the Navy/Coast Guard Seamen (Recruits)?

I don't think so.

This is typical liberal hypocrisy. When it comes down to righting a perceived socialist/communist wrong, their checkbooks are "hands off".

Of course, "its different for them".

Yeah, right.

Bush's State Of The Union Speech & The Questionable Democrat Response

2007-01-23T19:30:00.000-08:00
President Bush's State of the Union Speech was, as usual, stellar and right on the mark. I'm not going to respond point by point to each item of agenda in his speech now. However, I do want to comment on some of what he said.

One of the immediate "take away" points he made in his speech was, that no matter how one voted on the war in Iraq no one voted for failure. That is most certainly true of the votes at that time. However, now many democrats have decided that failure in Iraq is preferable to Bush's unwarranted war in Iraq. Democrats want, as Democrat Senator, Jim Webb stated in his "Democrat's Response Speech" that they want the troops to withdraw and return home as fast as possible.

This, of course, would as Bush rightfully pointed out in his speech, (and is the second "take away" point from his speech), that if we withdraw now, we will leave Iraq in a dangerous position. Rivaling sectarian violence between Shiite and Sunni that would soon spill out into the whole population of Iraq. The vaccum left by the American military withdrawl would be filled by both internal and external fighters the result of which would allow Iraq to become one bloody battlefield. In the end Iraq would become a stronghold for those bloodthirsty, murderous terrorists who hate us and what we stand for. They would be then better able to establish their Islamo-Fascist regime and develop weapons of mass destruction to turn against us and the rest of Western Civilization.

Our failure in Iraq would bring even more senseless violence to our shores.

I noticed that throughout Bush's speech, the left aisle, (the Democrats) only managed to stand and applaud when it meant their political ass was on the line with their constituents if they didn't stand and class. In particular, his call for Immigration reform and the importance in respecting the sacrifice that our troops are making.

To be fair, I did see a few Democrats rise at times. These must have been the conservative (is that possible?) and moderate members of the Democrat party. Probably those that were recently elected based on their moderate stance. That was probably to demonstrate their resolve to maintain their stances that they made during their election campaign.

The Democrat response, delivered by Democrat Senator, Jim Webb was typical. His main "take away points were a socialist/communist resentment that CEO's earn salaries far largers than the company's employees, and an unsubstantied claim that the majority of the American military is against the war in Iraq, and that Bush ignored the advice of many military advisers, (probably military advisers active under the Clinton Adminstration) and just rushed headlong into Iraq regardless of the "sound warnings" of the disatrous consequences of this.

Webb also contadicted himself when he first said that the Democrats weren't interested in just pulling out and risking failure, and then calling for the withdrawl of our troops ASAP.

As Fred Barnes stated in his assessment on Fox News immediately after Webb's Democrat Response speech, Bush presented the view of a victorious win in Iraq while Webb called for an honorable end, which I guess we can conclude is to "cut and run"

Webb also concluded his shrill diatribe with the threat that if Bush didn't go the Democrat way, he would be shown the way. Shown the way? To the door?

Based on the Democrat Response it clear, now more than ever, that trusting them with majority of power and, God forbid, a Presidency, would be disasterous to our National Security. A Democrat vote is an indirect vote for the Islamo-Fascists and their murderous agenda.

The Democrat response to taking the fight to the terrorist threat is to cut and run.

We, and the rest of the free world can't afford that option if we cherish liberty.

I don't know about you, but I am not willing to convert to their demonic religious viewpoint.

The Islamo-Fascist Terrorists Aren't A Part Of Humanity Worth Keeping

2007-01-11T17:50:00.000-08:00
It has been more than 60 years since the dispicable, horrid, Holocaust happened.
Decent human beings consider this to be the lowest point in human history. The total
depravity that the Holocaust demonstrated will forever pop the bubble of those humanists who claim that mankind is to be deified, that mankind has nowhere to go but
up. It also fueled the nihlistic, lame philosophy of existentialism. You know, life
has no meaning, there is no God, there is no such thing as absolute morals. Everything is relevant to the individual's viewpoint. Yeah, so, Hitler was justified
after all...because for him, murdering Jews was the right thing to do.

Just when we thought that such a horrid, evil philosophy had disappeared from human
interest, here comes the Islamo-Fascist terrorists like al-Qaeda, and the leader of Iran. They have demonstrated that the evil of Hitler is back and full steam ahead. For these vermin, the extermination of the Jews is their number one mission. Once these demon-possessed murderers get the opportunity, they will seek to make the evil acts of Hitler and the Nazis in the Holocaust look like a misdemenor!

If you haven't yet quite grasped the total depravity and evil that our enemy, these Islamic terrorists have as their mission yet, (as if 9/11 wasn't enough), it is time to wake up and see once and for all, the evil that we are facing. They must be eradicated from the face of the earth, if any thing decent in human kind is to continue to survive.

The following cartoon illustrates what we should have been able to say was a one time blemish on the history of mankind: [You will have to double click the image to see it in a larger size. I seem to be unable to get this image to be larger. But, if I, who wear glasses can read the text without them, hopefully any one can].

It's time for all of us to recognize the enemy of all humankind: the Isalmo-Fascist terrorist movement. They must be destroyed, whatever the cost. Human history can't afford another Holocaust like event. If there is to be any further genocide in human history, it must be directed against each and every terrorist.

And, just in case you think that the genocide of Jews isn't really that much of a problem for you, consider this: You are next.

All of Western Civilization will be the next target. These bloodthirsty terrorists won't be satisfied until all infidels (those that don't subscribe to their demonic cult) are dead.

One battle cry for us should be: "Remember the Holocaust!"

What do you think?

Bush's Speech Last Night

2007-01-11T13:51:00.000-08:00
Bush is right on this one. We cannot afford to abandon Iraq to be over run by Islamo-Facist terrorists. That will only embolden them to seize Iraq as their base of terrorist operations. Then they will be able to turn their violence upon us, via nuclear or WMD weapons. If we pull out now, we risk not only our safety, but, it will resound a message to the world that America is not really for freedom of the oppressed. It will let them know that America is nothing more than a hypocrite when it comes to the idea of the importance of liberty.

The only question I have is why did it take until now? Why weren’t we fighting this way in Iraq before?

Nonetheless, this is the right direction for us to pursue. I am NOT a Bush sycophant.
Domestically, he is too much to the left on his plans. But, nonetheless, since 9/11 he has definitely been the right man for the job. Thank God, we weren’t under a Al Gore, or John Kerry president.

Democrats seem to be stuck on appeasement as their response. You can’t appease these terrorists. They are devoted, until death to enslaving the world to their Islamo-Fascist rule. If liberty is to survive, we must squash this threat to our way of life. Handing them yet another defeat,(first in Afghanistan, now in Iraq). They must learn that their nihilistic goal for the world is not going to happen on America’s watch.

The most important thing about Bush’s plan is that it will finally transfer the onus of responsibility for Iraq’s freedom to Iraq itself. It is their time to step up to bat. And it is long overdue. America is still willing to help them in their fight against the enemies of their government, but, it is their time to put up or shut up.

Democrat's New Seal For The Country

2007-01-07T20:05:00.000-08:00

This is both funny and accurate, at least in terms of what the Democrat party stands for.

Speaker of the House Elect Nancy Pelosi today announced that the Democrats will change the country’s emblem from an Eagle to a CONDOM because it more accurately reflects the new government's political stance. A condom allows for inflation, halts production, destroys the next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and gives you a sense of security while you're actually being screwed. Damn, it just doesn't get more accurate than that

Urine Tests For All!

2007-01-02T19:13:00.000-08:00
Here's an interesting idea with respect to welfare handouts. This guy has a valid and reasonable, and novel idea: equity. Click on the image for a larger view, so that you can read this guy's ingenious idea. After all, fair is fair!

Farewell Marine.

2006-12-29T20:50:00.000-08:00
Words can harldy express the gratitude most Americans hold dear in their hearts for the brave men and women of our Armed Forces as they sometimes, bravely make the "ultimate sacrifice" in their mission to defend liberty. Click here to see an outstanding tribute to our brave men and women of the United States Marine Corps.
If this doesn't move you, I feel sorry for you. Really.

Where Has America Gone Wrong? Some Salient Observations

2006-12-27T15:50:00.000-08:00
My father sent me the following piece he wrote intending to submit it as an editorial letter to his local newspaper. With his permission I am posting his excellent letter here. I wish I could write as well as he does.

Where did we go wrong?

A problem with getting old (I’ll be 67 in January) is that you’ve seen most everything happen over and over. It hurts to see people you care about making bad decisions when you know a bad mistake could be avoided if they would only listen.

We are going down the same road we were led down during previous conflicts. Beginning in the early fifties and the Korean Conflict, America for the first time in history began listening to the media and our politicians quickly saw a great opportunity to take advantage of the situation and without much thought of regret seized the chance to grab more power no matter what the cost. All a politician had to do was to make himself available to the journalist, say on camera and in print what the journalist wanted him to say and he was made a overnight star for what the media wanted to portray (which converts to power for the politician).

All of us who lived through the terrible times of Viet Nam can remember what the problems really were. We had a war that was being run by the Pentagon who were being controlled by the Congress who were being controlled by the media. We all believe that we could have and certainly should have won that war in very short order but the fact that we had such problems with the media causing such upheaval in the country we simply gave up and abandoned South Viet Nam to face the communist alone. That is called disgrace and that was the first war America ever ran from and didn’t win. That defeat had nothing to do with the armed forces and everything to do with bad politics exacerbated by a liberal media.

We are now suffering from over forty years of “brain-washing” brought on by a media who answers to NO ONE. Did you ever wonder why over ninety percent of journalists are liberals? That’s right, over ninety per cent. That fact should jolt your senses and make you wonder if we’re getting a true picture what is really going on from the so-called news media. I would think it wouldn’t be a problem if there weren’t such a lop-sided weighting over to the left side. Surely America is not made up of ninety percent liberals. What has made this situation? Could it be the money? Just consider this: Every two years there’s an election and candidates together with their money raising machines gather huge sums of money to ensure their election. Did you ever wonder where all that money goes? How about to the newspapers, television, etc.? Why has that become so necessary? We’re told that the first thing a newly elected politician does is to begin raising money for a very vigorous re-election campaign, before he does anything else.

Another interesting question is: What would happen to the liberals’ political party if suddenly the balance of journalists were somehow evened up? It’s my opinion that without the media bias this would be a whole other country. Our great historical heritage is being re-written by a liberal media. Situations and great principles are daily being compromised and warped into travesties that our founding Fathers would deeply grieve over as they prepared for another Revolutionary War. Without the powerful support of the media, liberal judges would cease to rule. Most Americans are so distracted by the clever subterfuge being laid down by this “out of control” media that the very pillars of freedom are being shaken to a dangerous point. Children are being taught false history lessons, they can’t tell you where Kansas is on a map and are being told that our Founding Fathers were mostly deists who didn’t believe in Jesus Christ being the Son of God. Mottos such as: “In God we Trust”, “One Nation Under God”, along with the prohibition of displaying the “Ten Commandments” are just the precursor to much more destruction to come.

I’ve noticed that everything being reported by the major news media about what is going on in Iraq is in stark disagreement with all the soldiers I’ve talked with, one on one, who’ve just come back to the states. Everyone I’ve talked to tell an entirely different picture than what we get from: CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and some times FOX News. Who’s zooming who? Why do you think our soldiers would come back from a tour of duty and tell lies about what is really going on? Could it be for the money he will get for lying about what is happening? Not a chance! While on the contrary any news journalist who brings back a report that shows how badly we are mishandling the situation over there is rewarded with money, accolades and awards. Something is certainly not right here folks and it doesn’t take a genius to figure this one. I say it’s the money!

Last week CBS renewed David Letterman’s contract for several years more and agreed to pay him 35 million dollars per year. Katy Couric is knocking down millions just to appear on the CBS Evening News each week night for thirty minutes and act out what her editors want her to present. The CBS Evening News should rightly be renamed “The CBS Evening News Show” because that is what it really is: a show done up in Hollywood style by actors who demand outrageous money to sell their souls.

I’m reminded by what Nikita Kruschev told the United States back in November 1956: “We will bury you” (without firing a shot). Maybe he knew something that we haven’t yet come to see.

Iraq Study Panel: America Is Nothing But A Losing Paper Tiger!

2006-12-06T16:50:00.000-08:00
The Iraq Study Panel co-chaired by James A. Baker III, and Lee Hamilton released their findings to President Bush today. They have come to the conclusion that we are losing the war in Iraq and must begin withdrawing our troops and establish diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria to try and stabilize Iraq with their help and guidance. You can read about the panel’s report in a story found here.

Of course it hasn’t taken long for the Democrats to chime in:

“"If the president is serious about the need for change in Iraq, he will find Democrats ready to work with him in a bipartisan fashion to find a way to end the war as quickly as possible," said Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat who is in line to become speaker when the new Congress convenes in January.

"The president has the ball in his court now ... and we're going to be watching very closely," said Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who will take over as Senate majority leader in January.”

In other words, Democrats will cooperate with our nation’s war in Iraq, our War on Terror, when appeasement is finally an option. The American people are about to discover just how bad of a mistake it was to vote the Democrats back into power. The Republicans were certainly not doing what they promised, but the Democrats are dangerous.

If, God forbid, the Bush Administration lets the recommendations of this panel influence what we do in Iraq all hell well break loose and we will be sending the following messages:

1. To Osama Bin Laden, al Qaeda, and Islamo-Facist terrorists everywhere: America is nothing more than a “paper tiger”, your patience has paid off. You have won. When the going gets tough, Americans will always turn and run. These messages will no doubt embolden them further, and the mass carnage that will rush into fill the vacuum we leave in Iraq, will result in Iraq becoming nothing more than an Islamo-Facist state. There will be no freedom for its citizens.

2. To the airman, marines, solders and sailors of the US Military: America will always never hesitate in risking your lives for a mission that we will then readily abandon when it gets tough, making your sacrifices for the mission, your country, and those you are fighting to liberate be nothing more than in vein. Our military have sacrificed beyond words these last four years. Life and limb has been given. Families have been separated by the long amounts of tour of duty time. Fathers have missed milestones in their children’s growth yet, have proudly re-enlisted. This panel would make all of that meaningless with their cowardly cut and run policy.

3. To the people of Iraq and its military: Once again, America is abandoning you again to brutal torture and slaughter. America can never be trusted to come to your aid when your liberty is threatened. Those Iraqis who have come to look upon America favorably will grow to despise us. There will never be any hope of diplomatic relations with them, even if they did manage to overcome the Islamo-Fascist threat to their becoming a free country.

4. To the rest of the world: America is no longer a “super power”. She’s just a bloated, coward of a nation who can’t stand by her convictions. Never trust in America for any assistance. She won’t be there for you in any meaningful way. This should make the Michael Moore liberals of this country very happy. They have wanted to see America be put down a notch or two for quite some time.

Of course further studies on the situation on Iraq are forthcoming from the Pentagon, State Department and The National Security Council. Hopefully those panels won’t be comprised of the hand wringing, cut and run cowards that this panel was comprised of.

The very idea of going to Iran and Syria, both bastions of support for Islamo-fascist terrorists, is ludicrous. Why should they try and help the “Great Satan’s” cause? They wouldn’t, which is something that the “appeasement” Democrats don’t seem to get. But they surely would, rather quickly, if they were given the power to try this nonsensical approach. There is no way that the Islamo-Fascists will tolerate a free Iraq. Their goal is the antithesis of freedom: bondage to their Fascist form of Islam.

It is my prayer that Bush will do the right thing with this panel’s recommendation and just reply with “thanks but no thanks”.

Any chance of defeating the terrorists hangs on what we do with Iraq. If we botch Iraq up, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

Civil War My Eye!

2006-11-27T16:53:00.000-08:00
In a story found here, NBC has decided to start referring to the terrorist insurgent activity in Iraq as a civil war.

Matt Lauer said on the "Today" show that "after careful consideration, NBC News has decided that a change in terminology is warranted, that the situation is Iraq with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas can now be characterized as civil war."

Mr. Lauer and NBC seem to have conveniently forgot that a majority of the terrorist insurgents murdering fellow Muslims and standing in the way of the new Iraq government and nation from standing back up, after being held down under the brutal dictatorship of Sadam Hussein have poured into the country from outside her borders. They are coming in from Iran and Syria. I guess in NBC and Mr. Lauer's understanding if America was invaded by Canadian and Mexican terrorists we would be in a civil war? Yeah right. Civil wars are wars fought within a country by different factions of that country's citizens, NOT foreigners!!!

So much for the false notion of a civil war that we can just back away from without losing face.

I suspect NBC and Lauer know full well that they are being disingenuous. They are just hoping that their audience won’t know the difference. An ignorant mind is canon fodder for liberal propaganda. Which is what runs NBC in the first place.
Nice try NBC and Matt Lauer. But, if you want to sell the notion that we should withdraw from Iraq why not try reasoned arguments in place of lies.

It’s no wonder I said goodbye to main stream media news programs like NBC and went over to Fox where lies aren’t passed off as news and I get a “fair and balanced” report.

Reinstate The Draft?

2006-11-27T16:19:00.000-08:00
Well, now that the Democrats have gained control of Congress, they have decided to take a step in their “new direction” on the War Against Terrorism: reinstate the draft. Democrat Senator, Charles Schumer, soon to be the head of the House Ways And Means Committee has vowed that he plans to revive a bill he drafted to reinstate the draft. This is yet another bone-headed idea that liberals have in mind for our country. If the push to reinstate the draft is any indication of the type of nonsense that Democrat leadership has to offer then we are in for one bumpy ride.

I heard radio talk show host Glen Beck say on his TV show the other night that he thinks this is a scare tactic that Rangel and the Democrats are using to get us out of Iraq. MTV tried to use the draft as a scare tactic during Bush’s reelection campaign with their “Vote or Die” hysterics. They were obviously hoping that their audience would fall for the lie that if Bush got reelected, their viewers would likely die, as Bush would reinstate the draft and drag them all into “his war” in Iraq. Of course any informed MTV viewer had the luxury of having a good laugh at MTV’s badly botched ploy. Somebody at MTV failed to inform the “Vote Or Die” campaign masterminds that, Psstt! It’s not Bush or the Republicans who want to re-instate the draft. It’s the liberal Democrats. Whoops!

It’s too bad that fact wasn’t pointed out. Had it been clearly advertised that it was the Democrats who wanted the draft, MTV’s “I love liberal Democrats” “Vote or Die” campaign would have backfired on them as voters indeed rushed to vote. Vote against the Democrats and their desire to drag people involuntarily into military service. Vote or die indeed.

Glen Beck speculated that what Rangel and the Democrats are using the reinstatement of the draft for is to scare people who support the war in Iraq into changing their mind and come over to the appeasement party’s side with a threat. Either abandon the war in Iraq or face the draft! Glen Beck could be right, but I don’t know. It sounds like an expected liberal tactic.

Thankfully, Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration wisely shot down the idea of the need for a draft. Charlie Rangel needs to pull his head out of his….well you know. He is apparently stuck back in 1940. We fought World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War under a military draft. The latter war demonstrated just how bad an idea the draft really is. Rangel needs to come and live in the 21 Century with the rest of us.

As a result of the abandonment of the draft, America’s military has developed into a military comprised of very professional, technical savvy, bright men and women. The best military force in the world. The military attracts bright men and women who enlist in the military of their own free will. There’s no one in the military who didn’t choose to be there. Not only that, but the military is very picky about who can join in the first place. Not just any Tom, Dick, Sally or Susan can join.

If Rangel and the Democrats get their way and reinstate the draft it will drag the military down in quality and ability. It would then be a conglomeration of professional, (those that are willing to put up with riffraff) and a bunch of malcontents who don’t want to be in the military in the first place. So much for us having the finest military in the world. It is very hard to work with a bunch of malcontents who are liable to thumb their noses at orders. Reinstatement of the draft would be damaging to our military and its ability to perform its mission. In fact it would be damaging to our national security posture.

You can also expect Rangel and the liberal Democrats to reduce the quality of life and pay of military members once the draft has been re-instated. After all, the incentives that have previously been offered to attract the best and brightest will no longer be needed now that the government can force people to enlist. The liberal Democrats will see the money saved in these cuts as money that could be better spent in new failed socialist/vote buying programs. Once the quality of life and pay incentives are abolished, I would suspect that the number of former quality soldiers would dwindle down dramatically leaving us with a military that will no longer be on top, but dragged down considerably.

And that is dangerous for our National Security. But then again, Democrats, at least liberal Democrats, don’t really care that much about National Security. After all, according to them, America got what she deserved on 9/11. They would be all too happy to see America dragged down a notch or two.

I am praying really hard that the moderate Democrats send Rangel and his dangerous bill packing or else we are all in big trouble.

A Letter From One Of Our "Educationally Challenged" Military Members

2006-11-16T21:50:00.000-08:00
My Dad sent me this e-mail. I don't know who the author is but apart from being humorous, it is just the perfect response to that "haughty French Senator from Massachusetts who ,by the way, served in Viet Nam", John Kerry:

SENATOR JOHN KERRY
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510

DEAR SENATOR KERRY:

WE ARE STILL LAUGHING OVER HERE IN IRAQ AT YOUR JOKE ABOUT THE TROOPS BEING DUMB. WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ARE A LOT SMARTER THAN WE ARE BECAUSE YOU WERE ABLE TO GET OUT OF COMBAT IN THREE MONTHS. THIS IS WHY WE ARE SEEKING YOUR ADVICE. PLEASE GIVE US GUIDANCE.

1. WHERE IS THE LEAST PAINFUL AREA ON THE BODY TO INFLICT A WOUND?

2. DOES IT HAVE TO BLEED OR WILL A SCRATCH DO?

3. WHERE DO YOU GET THE FORMS TO FILL OUT RECOMMENDING YOURSELF FOR A PURPLE

HEART?

4. DO YOU NEED A WITNESS? IF SO, HOW MUCH DOES THAT COST?

5. ARE THREE PURPLE HEARTS STILL GOOD FOR A TRIP HOME?

6. WHAT IS A REALISTIC PERIOD OF TIME IN WHICH TO ACQUIRE THESE WOUNDS? LESS THAN

THREE MONTHS SOUNDS A LITTLE SUSPICIOUS EVEN TO US.

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP AND KEEP THE JOKES COMING.

JUST A DUMB G.I.

Happy Veterans Day

2006-11-11T17:19:00.000-08:00
Today is a very important day for Americans. Next to July 4 it is one of the most important days. Today is Veterans Day. It is a day set aside for us to pause and reflect on the many sacrifices of life and limb American soldiers have given since July 4, 1776 to ensure our great nation is protected.

It is very difficult to take in the extreme sacrifice and loss that so many soldiers, and their families for that matter, have given for our country. One can generally imagine it, but it is too much to fully grasp all of it. Thanks to them, I am able to blog here, and speak my mind without fear of the government crashing down my door and arresting me.

We Americans love our freedom. So, to the veterans out there, and to the currently serving military men and women of this great country: I would like to extend a deeply felt thank you for all you do for us. You are our heroes!

A Tounge In Cheek Take On The Election Results

2006-11-10T21:58:00.000-08:00
I was watching the Glenn Beck show the day after the election and he displayed the following phrases that would make a good bumper sticker:

The Republican Party: Abandoning its principles since 2004!

The Democrat Party: Thanks for voting for us...suckers!

I plan on posting on the election results soon, but for now, this sums it up in a nutshell.

A Response From The Battlefield To John Kerry

2006-11-09T22:37:00.000-08:00
I had planned on posting on the ramifications of the Democrat Party's victory yesterday, but I received this via e-mail, and I believe it is more important than my "take" on the election. I don't know for sure if this really is a letter from a Marine in response to Democrat Senator John ("I'm a decorated Viet Nam veteran")Carey. Even if it isn't real it does seem to acurately depict the feelings of a lot of enlisted people after his arrogant, ridiculous comments.

Keep in mind that John Kerry was his party's selected candidate to run against Bush in the '04 election, so his comments about the military don't miss the mark in any sense of what Democrats have traditionally thought of the military (traditionally starts with the liberal invasion of the party in the '60's with their "baby killer" portrayal of our troops):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yesterday John Kerry said, "You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, and if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq"

So I wrote him a letter:

I am a Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps. I am currently on my second tour in Iraq, a tour in which I volunteered for. I speak Arabic and Spanish and I plan to tackle Persian Farsi soon. I have a Bachelors and an Associates Degree and between deployments I am pursuing an M.B.A. In college I was a member of several academic honor societies, including the Golden Key Honor Society. I am not unique among the enlisted troops.

Many of my enlisted colleagues include lawyers, teachers, mechanics, engineers, musicians and artists just to name a few. You say that your comments were directed towards the President and not us. If we were stupid Senator Kerry, we might have believed you.

I am not a victim of President Bush. I proudly serve him because he is my Commander and Chief. If it was you who was President, I would serve you just as faithfully. I serve America Senator Kerry, and I am also providing a service to the good people of Iraq. I have not terrorized them in the middle of the night, raped them or murdered them as you have accused me of before. I am doing my part to help them rebuild. My role is a simple one, but important.

You see Senator Kerry, like it or not, we came here and removed a tyrant (who terrorized Iraqis in the middle of the night, and raped them and murdered them). And we have a responsibility to see to it that another one doesn't take his place. The people of Iraq are recovering from an abusive relationship with a terrible government and it's going to take some time to help them recover from that. We can't treat this conflict like a microwave dinner and throw a temper tantrum because we feel like it's taking too long.

Senator Kerry, you don't have to agree with this war. You don't have to say nice things about those of us who choose to make sacrifices for the rights of every American rather than sit back and simply feel entitled to it. But please Senator Kerry, if you're going to call me a stupid murdering rapist, stick by what you say. Don't tell me that I misunderstood you or that you would never insult a veteran because you're one too. Having been there and done that does not give you a free pass to insult me.

My suggestion for you, Senator Kerry, is to remember that your speeches are recorded, and broadcast to us simpletons over here. You may want to write down what you want to say before you say it, maybe have somebody look at it before you say it and tell you what others might hear. Remember that we can't read your mind, if there are any misinterpretations in what you say, it's because you didn't communicate clearly.

Good luck to you Senator Kerry, if nothing else it's always entertaining to watch you try and climb out of the holes that you constantly dig for yourself.

Sincerely,

Somebody who is watching his daughter grow up in photographs so that you can have the right to say whatever you want about him.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That nails it completely. I can't help but wonder though, where was Kerry's: "I was misunderstood" after his remarks before Congress accusing his fellow soldiers of rape and murder on the level of Genghis Khan? Wait. Oh yeah. That's right. He was setting up his future political career with the military hating, liberal future leaders of the Democratic party. Silly me. I forgot.

Vote, But, Please Vote Wisely

2006-11-06T15:10:00.000-08:00
Tomorrow is election day. There is much ado now from both sides of the political spectrum about their ability to win the day. A really good friend of mine, James at Right Face! sent me this article via e-mail. It makes the best case for not voting for Democrats, the damage that such a vote would incur and just how much Bush has been right about his handling of the War on Terror. And this is coming from a Democrat!

This piece is extremely well written. I wish I could write like this! It's a bit long, but I promise you that it is well worth the read.

The Only Issue This Election Day
By Orson Scott Card

(Card is a best-selling author ["Ender's Game"], Mormon, and a conservative Democrat.)

There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.

And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

To all intents and purposes, when the Democratic Party jettisoned Joseph Lieberman over the issue of his support of this war, they kicked me out as well. The party of Harry Truman and Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- the party I joined back in the 1970s -- is dead. Of suicide.

The "War on Terror"

I recently read an opinion piece in which the author ridiculed the very concept of a "war on terror," saying that it makes as much sense as if, after Pearl Harbor, FDR had declared a "war on aviation."

Without belaboring the obvious shortcomings of the analogy, I will agree with the central premise. The name "war on terror" clearly conceals the fact that we are really at war with specific groups and specific nations; we can no more make war on a methodology than we can make war on nitrogen.

However, there are several excellent reasons why "War on Terror" is the only possible name for this war.

1. This is not a war that can be named for any particular nation or region. To call it "The Iraq War" or the "Afghanistan War" would lead to the horrible mistake of thinking that victory would consist of toppling certain governments and then going home.

In fact, it is precisely the name "War in Iraq" that is leading to the deep misconceptions that drive the Democratic position on the war. If this were in fact a war on Iraq, then in one sense we won precisely when President Bush declared victory right after we occupied Baghdad. And in another sense, we might not see victory for another five years, or even a decade -- a decade in which Americans will be dying alongside Iraqis. For a "War in Iraq" to linger this way is almost too painful to contemplate.

But we are not waging a "War in Iraq." We are waging a world war, in which the campaigns to topple the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan were brilliantly successful, and the current "lukewarm" war demands great patience and determination from the American people as we ready ourselves for the next phase.

2. We cannot name this war for our actual enemies, either, because there is no way to name them accurately without including some form of the word "Islam" or "Muslim."

It is our enemies who want to identify this as a war between Islam and the West. If we allow this to happen, we run the risk of achieving the worst of all possible outcomes: The unification of one or both of the great factions of worldwide Islam under a single banner.

President Bush and his administration have shown their grasp of our present danger by stoutly resisting all attempts to rename this war. We call it a "War on Terror" because that allows us to cast it, not as a war against the Muslim people, with all their frustrations and hopes, but a war in which most Muslims are not our enemies at all.

That can be galling for many Americans. When, after the fall of the towers on 9/11, Palestinians and others poured into the streets, rejoicing, it was tempting to say, A plague on all of them!

But it is precisely those people -- the common people of the Muslim world, most of whom hate us (or claim to hate us, when asked by pollsters in police states) -- whom we must treat as if they were not our enemies. They are the ones we must win over for us to have any hope of victory without a bloodbath poured out on most of the nations of the world.

Nation Building

Another charge against the Bush administration's conduct of the war is that they are engaged in the hopeless task of "nation-building." And this is true -- except for the word "hopeless."

But what is the alternative? I've heard several, each more disastrous and impossible and even shameful than the one before.

In the New Testament, Jesus once used the analogy of a person who was possessed by a devil. When you cast out the devil, don't you leave an empty house, swept clean, to which seven devils will now come to live, making things worse than ever?

No matter which miserable dictatorship we moved against after the Taliban -- and we had no choice but to keep moving on if we were to eradicate the grave danger we faced (and face) -- we would have faced the same problem in Syria or Iraq or Sudan that we had in Afghanistan: We had to establish order in a nation that had never actually become a nation.

The boundaries on the ground in the Middle East were not formed in the traditional way -- by compromise or war. Instead, European powers drew lines that pleased their fancy. The lines did not create the hatreds that plague the region, but they guaranteed that traditional enemies would have to face each other within these boundaries.

It is in part because of the resulting chaos and oppression that groups like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and the Shiite fundamentalists of Iran have been given an opportunity to offer the solution of returning to the core values of Islam -- as defined, of course, to their private advantage.

If we topple one government and then walk away, the result in any Middle Eastern nation would be civil war, and the probable winner would be the well-funded international terrorist groups that do not shrink from wholesale murder in pursuing their cause.

Just as Kerensky's attempt at a liberal government in revolutionary Russia was almost instantly snuffed out by Lenin's Bolshevik thugs in 1917, so also would any attempt at unified democratic government in Iraq, Iran, Syria, or Afghanistan be quickly converted into Islamo-fascism of one stripe or another.

And if that happened, Islamicist puritanism would be seen in every nation as the "wave of the future." Just as, when Nazi Germany was in the ascendant, the nations of southeastern Europe quickly made their accommodation with Hitler, since the alternative was to be swept away like Poland, France, or Yugoslavia, so also would nominally democratic nations adopt the trappings of Islamicism -- if they weren't already toppled by puritan revolutions from within.

Democracy -- the Other Hope

Wherever Islamicism has been tried, the result has been identical to Communism's miserable track record. The people are oppressed; the worst sort of vigilantes and thugs terrorize the population; the new power elite, regardless of their supposed piety and dedication to a holy cause, is quickly corrupted and comes to love the wealth and privileges of power.

When there is no hope of deliverance, the people have no choice but to bow under the tyrant's lash, pretending to be true believers while yearning for relief. In Russia it came ... after more than seventy years. China and Cuba are still waiting -- but then, they started later.

So it would be in the Muslim world -- if Islamicism were ever able to come to seem inevitable and irresistible.

You know: If America withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan and exposed everyone who had cooperated with us to reprisals.

As happened in South Vietnam. The negotiated peace was more or less holding after American withdrawal. But then a Democratic Congress refused to authorize any further support for the South Vietnamese government. No more armaments. No more budget.

In other words, we forcibly disarmed our allies, while their enemies continued to be supplied by the great Communist powers. The message was clear: Those who rely on America are fools. We didn't even have the decency to arrange for the evacuation of the people who had trusted us and risked the most in supporting what they thought was our mutual cause.

We did it again, this time in the Muslim world, in 1991, when Bush Senior encouraged a revolt against Saddam. He meant for the senior military officers to get rid of him in a coup; instead, the common people in the Shiite south rose up against Saddam.

Bush Senior did nothing as Saddam moved in and slaughtered them. The tragedy is that all it would have taken is a show of force on our part in support of the rebels, and Saddam's officers would have toppled him. Only when it became clear that we would do nothing did it become impossible for any high-ranking officials to take action. For the price of the relatively easy military action that would have made Saddam turn his troops around and leave the Shiite south, we could have gotten rid of him then -- and had grateful friends, perhaps, in the Shiite south.

That is part of our track record: Two times we persuaded people to commit themselves to action against oppressive enemies, only to abandon them. Do you think that would-be rebels in Iran and Syria and North Korea don't remember those lessons?

Fortunately, there are other lessons as well: West Germany and Japan, Taiwan and South Korea, where liberated nations were protected. In the first two, we took on the task of nation building and transformed both political cultures into democracies. In the latter two, we tolerated strongman dictatorships for many years, but eventually we made it clear that it was time for democracy, and under our protective umbrella, the governments were transformed and oppression ended.

So ... which America is operating now in the Muslim world?

In Iraq and Afghanistan -- but especially Iraq -- President Bush is behaving according to America's best and most honorable tradition. We did not come to destroy, we came to liberate and rescue, he says -- by word and deed. We bring freedom and opportunity. Our money will help rebuild your devastated (or never built-up) economies; our expertise will help train your most talented people to be ready for prosperity and self-government; and our military will keep enemies from overwhelming you as you reinvent yourselves.

Instead of leaving an empty house, swept clean but unprotected, waiting for the devils of Islamic puritanism to come take over, President Bush has sworn that America will bring democracy, and that American soldiers will do their best to protect the decent, ordinary people until they are able to protect themselves.

The Competing Stories

Here's the story the Islamic puritans are telling: The West is full of terrible evils -- atheism, sexual filth of all kinds -- in defiance of God's will. So seductive are the wiles of Shaitan that many Muslims aspire to dress, act, and live like westerners. Only by turning to full enforcement of ancient Muslim law can Islam purify itself and resist the blandishments of the west. It's evil on one side, God on the other.

If all we had to answer them was Hollywood movies, politically correct anti-religious dogmas, and the other trappings of a West that is almost as decadent as the Islamicists claim, then we would only prove their point.

Instead, President Bush has offered something quite different. We don't want to turn you into mini-Americas, he says. We offer you, instead, democracy, in which you can choose for yourselves what parts of western culture to adopt. You will govern yourselves. It isn't a choice between wickedness and righteousness, it's a choice between freedom and oppression.

In other words, through nation-building, through the promise of democracy, Bush has created a rallying point with far stronger resonance than anything the Islamic puritans have to offer.

What is their program, after all? We'll take your sons and get them to blow themselves up in order to murder westerners! Forget the rhetoric -- Muslim parents are human beings, and there is nothing more devastating than to lose a child. The only consolation is when it seems to be in a noble cause. But because of President Bush's promise of democracy, the Muslim puritan cause does not seem noble to more and more Muslims.

Even if they live in countries (or neighborhoods) where they dare not speak up -- yet -- they do not want any of their children to die just so that the rest of them can live and suffer in slavery to a privileged, selfish class of elitist tyrants.

President Bush's story offers the common people hope of living decent lives and seeing their children live to adulthood, to grow old surrounded by grandchildren.

The Al-Qaeda, Ayatollah story promises them dead children and the lash.

There are, of course, fanatics who will embrace Islamic terrorism because they choose to blind themselves to the truth and embrace the noble-seeming lies of the tyrants. Al-Qaeda does not lack for recruits.

But it also does not lack for people who fear and hate them. There are few pro-Al-Qaeda demonstrations on the Arab street. The people remember the images of liberated Iraqis tearing down the images of Saddam. And they know -- because they have relatives and friends, they hear from merchants and travelers -- that in most of Iraq, there is freedom and prosperity like never before.

They're getting the story, at the level of gossip and personal anecdote, that the anti-American media -- you know, Al-Jazirah and the New York Times -- never report: The Americans really mean to give the Iraqis self-government.

You hear about the power outages in Iraq and it's always somehow Bush's fault. What nobody points out is that these outages come in places where Saddam barely offered electricity at all. The reason the new power systems can't cope is because the newly prosperous Iraqi people are buying -- and plugging in -- vast quantities of electrical appliances they could never afford to buy before! When a town that used to have two dozen refrigerators and washing machines now has two thousand of each, the old power supply is never going to do the job.

"Americans Won't Stay"

How do the Islamicist tyrants answer the obvious success and growing appeal of Bush's democracy program?

They kill people, of course.

But they also tell the story, over and over: "America will never stick it out. We'll keep killing Americans till they give up and go away, and then you will answer to us!"

Until they believe that the Islamofascists are never coming into power, many people will remain afraid to commit themselves to democracy.

Under those circumstances, the remarkable thing is how courageously the Shiites of the south have embraced democracy, and how many of them are beginning to trust that we mean what they say.

But against Bush's promises and the actions of our brave and decent soldiers, the tyrants can set the behavior of Bush's political opponents, who are doing their best to promote the propaganda of the tyrants. Every Congressman who says "We must set a timetable for departure" is providing ammunition to the tyrants in their campaign of terror.

Because even more than they fear terrorist bombs, the pro-democracy forces within Iraq and Afghanistan fear American withdrawal. Every speech threatening withdrawal is a bomb going off in Baghdad, killing, not people, but the will to resist the tyrants.

Bin Laden predicted it. The Democratic Party in America is following his script exactly.

Can We Win?

That is certainly not what most who call for withdrawal intend. They see Americans dying and they have no hope of victory. The Iraq War (as they call it) is costing lives and shows no sign of ending. Meanwhile, Iran is getting nuclear weapons, North Korea already has them, Syria and Iran are sponsoring continuing and escalating attacks on Israel -- how can we possibly "win" a war that threatens constantly to widen? Let's cut our losses, retire to our shores, and ...

And will you please stop and think for a moment?

There is no withdrawal to our shores. American prosperity requires free trade throughout most of the world. Free trade has depended for decades on American might. If we withdraw now, we announce to the world that if you just kill enough Americans, the big boys will go home and let you do whatever you want.

Every American in the world then becomes a target. And, because we have announced that we will do nothing to protect them, we will soon be trading only with nations that have enough strength to protect their own shores and borders.

Only ... what nations are those? Not Taiwan. If they saw us abandon Iraq, what conclusion could they reach except this one: They'd better accommodate with China now, when they can still get decent terms, than wait for America to walk away from them the way we walked away from Vietnam and Iraq.

We cannot win by going home. In a short time, "home" would become a very different place, as our own prosperity and safety steadily diminished. Isolationism is a dead end. If we lose our will to protect the things that support our own prosperity, then what can we expect but the end of that prosperity -- and of any vestige of safety, as well?

The frustrating thing is that if people would just look, honestly, at the readily available data from the Muslim world, they would realize that we are winning and that the course President Bush is pursuing is, in fact, the wisest one.

Mistakes

Critics of Bush love to cite the many "mistakes" his administration has made. Most of these "mistakes" are arguable -- are they mistakes at all? -- and when you sum up the others, with any kind of rational understanding of military history, the only possible conclusion is that this is the best-run war in history, with the fewest mistakes. And most of the mistakes we've made are the kind that become clear to morning-after quarterbacks but were difficult to avoid in the fog of war.

Worse yet, Bush's opponents invariably depict these mistakes as being the result of deliberately chosen policies -- a ludicrous charge, but one that is taken seriously by an astonishing number of people who should know better. The game, you see, is blame. It's not enough to say, Bush made a mistake. You have to say, Bush deliberately did it wrong for evil purposes and he must be punished.

But let's accept the fairy tale that this war has been badly run. That still does not change the fact that on all of the biggest points, Bush has made exactly the right choice -- and he has been the only one who has even seen the need to make those choices!

Take North Korea, for instance. Bush recognized instantly that North Korea, with China as its sponsor and protector, is simply beyond the reach of American power at this time. This will not always be true, but his administration is pursuing a careful, quiet, firm policy of diplomatic pressure on China to do what must be done to curb North Korean insanity.

What about Iran? The idea of a ground war in Iran -- especially when we're still fighting in Iraq -- seems impossible.

But it is also probably unnecessary. Because Iran's present government is not just hated, it is also losing its grip on power.

Not on the trappings of power -- they control the "elections" to such a point that nobody can be nominated without the approval of the ayatollahs.

But government power -- even in democracies -- depends absolutely on the will of the people to obey. And when you rule by tyranny and oppression, the obedience of the people comes from the credibility of the threat of violence from the government.

The obvious examples are Red Square in Moscow and Tiananmen Square in Beijing. In Moscow, when Yeltsin and the pro-democracy demonstrators defied the tanks, the Russian Army did not open fire. Why not? Either they refused to obey the order to shoot, or the order was not given -- but if it was not given, it was almost certainly because the tyrants knew that it would not be obeyed.

In other words, the government had lost the ability to inflict deadly force on its own population.

In Tiananmen Square, however, the government gave the order and the troops did fire. As a result, the tyranny continued -- and continues to this day.

Tyrannies only continue in power when they can give the order to kill their own people and be obeyed.

In Iran, there have been several incidents in the past months and years where troops refused to fire on demonstrators. This is huge news (virtually unreported in the West, of course), because of what it means: The ayatollahs' days are numbered.

If President Bush invaded Iran on the ground, bombing Iranian cities and killing Iranian soldiers, he would accomplish only what Hitler did by invading Russia -- uniting an oppressed people in support of a hated tyrant.

But, as was pointed out in a pair of excellent analytical pieces in the most recent Commentary magazine, we don't have to do anything of the kind.

Oil Is Our Weapon, Too

Iran's ace-in-the-hole is not its nuclear weapon -- in their rational moments, even the most rabid of the ayatollahs must understand that if they ever used (or allowed someone else to use) a nuclear weapon, we would destroy them, period. That nuke is meant only as a deterrent -- it can't be used any other way -- and while there's a remote chance that Iran might allow their nukes to be put into the hands of some terrorist group, it would have to be a group they control absolutely. In other words, it would not be Al-Qaeda. (Though Hezbollah would be bad enough.)

The real threat from Iran is their ability to shut down the Persian Gulf and cut off the world's supply of oil from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and the Gulf nations.

That would not really bother the United States -- gas prices would shoot up on the open market, of course, but we can get by on oil provided by non-Gulf sources.

Not so for the rest of the world, though. And Iran is poised, with small boats and thousands of missiles, to shut down all oil production and transportation in the Persian Gulf.

What few seem to realize (according to the article in Commentary) is that Iran is far more dependent on oil revenues than we are on getting their oil. When President Bush determines that he has given the Iranians ample chance to demonstrate to the few rational statesmen left in Europe that there is no possibility of meaningful negotiations with the tyrants of Tehran, his obvious course of action is to shut down Iranian power in the gulf and seize their oil assets.

If we strike first, we can eliminate their ability to do mischief in the gulf quite readily. Their forces, however numerous, are pathetically vulnerable. Unlike their dispersed and shielded nuclear development capability, their military forces in the gulf are in obvious and accessible positions.

So are their own oil assets. They are as dependent on the Gulf to reach the world oil market as any of their neighbors. If we seize their oil platforms, destroy their shipping, and impose an absolute blockade on Iranian shipping in the Gulf -- while eliminating their ability to damage anybody else's shipping -- how long do you think the tyranny would remain in power?

Here's a hint: They'd run out of money very, very quickly.

Here's another hint: Their military is already refusing to obey their most outrageous orders. When the military finds themselves saddled with a government that has brought the destruction of most of their oil revenues, all because of their insane determination to take on the United States, how long before the ayatollahs are arrested and sent home? Or else made irrelevant by placing a "committee of public safety" above them, to veto their decisions and make peace with the West?

Maybe it wouldn't turn out that way. But it's our best chance -- and that's the chance that Bush is obviously preparing for. He has made no attempt to prepare the American people for an invasion of Iran. But he has made it crystal clear that Iranian misbehavior will not be tolerated -- and that regime change is the desired outcome.

If Iran's ayatollahs were toppled, how long would Syria continue to misbehave? Answer: About fifteen minutes. Syria is a poor country. They are only able to make trouble because they have Iran's support.

Shiites and Sunnis

Here's the other asset we have that no one seems to take into account when judging Bush's conduct of the War on Terror: We are really caught up in an ancient civil war between Shiites and Sunnis.

Al-Qaeda on the Sunni side and Iran's ayatollahs on the Shiite side have both been playing the same game all along. They don't seriously think that they can conquer the United States (yet) -- so why have they been provoking us?

Because they're belling the cat. Or poking the bull with sticks. Why? Because they are performing on the stage of world Islam, putting on rival plays. Both plays have the same message: Look, we're the heroes who have God on our side, because we're the ones who have provoked the great Shaitan and gotten away with it!

Iran's Shiites had the upper hand for quite a while, bringing down one U.S. President (Carter) and getting another -- tough-guy Reagan -- to withdraw the Marines from Lebanon and then come begging to Iran's door in his stupid, cowardly arms-for-hostages deal.

Then Al-Qaeda had the upper hand in their play, showing the Muslim world that it was the Sunnis who were blowing up American boats and embassies and, finally, the twin towers in New York City itself.

It's all theatre. It's all an effort by Bin Laden to restore the Caliphate with himself, of course, as Caliph -- spiritual dictator of the Muslim world. The goal? Not just to unite Sunni Islam under a Caliph again, but to then make war on and crush Shiite resistance. That is the prize. Only when it is won would a united Islam be ready to conquer the rest of the world, finishing the task that was left unfinished by previous waves of Muslim conquest.

Meanwhile, Iran's ayatollahs are trying to show the Muslim world that it is they, the Shiite leaders, who have God on their side. That was what the recent campaign in Lebanon was all about -- to steal the glory back from Al-Qaeda.

But wait. It's even more complicated than that. Because there are other divisions within the Muslim world. Iraqi Shiites have no love for, and do not accept the authority of, the Persian clerics. Arabic-speaking Shiites have no desire to have Farsi-speaking Shiites rule over them.

So we have an amazingly convoluted situation in the middle east. Iran and its puppet, Syria, are cooperating support of the Sunni resistance in Iraq. Why? It's not because Syria's rulers are nominally Baathist as Saddam was -- Baathism is dead. Instead, it's the ancient tribalism that is at the fore. Syria's rulers are members of a tiny religious minority that is an offshoot of Shia, and thus they help Iran maintain access to its Shiite allies in Lebanon partly in order to shore up their own position vis-a-vis their own mostly-Sunni population.

So why are these Shiites and crypto-Shiites supporting the Sunnis in Baghdad?

Because anything that keeps America distracted is good for them. And if the Americans do pack up and go home, then the Shiites can claim the victory -- even though it's mostly Sunnis who are blowing themselves up in Israel and Baghdad.

Besides, the Sunni insurgents in Iraq are keeping the Iraqi Shiites off balance. The last thing the Iranian ayatollahs want is for Iraq to become a democratic nation with a Shiite majority, because at that moment it will be the Iraqi Shiite leaders who will have the most credibility as leaders of the Shiite wing of Islam.

So the leadership of the Iraqi Shiites are perceived as rivals by the ayatollahs of Iran. Thus the Iranians support the Iraqi Shiites' enemies -- providing the weapons that are used to murder Shiites in Iraq.

It's an astonishingly twisted game -- and as long as we don't do anything really, really stupid, like withdrawing from Iraq, all these various treacheries will inevitably lead to the fall of the tyrants in Iran, and therefore in Syria, and therefore the taming of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Bush's game is to keep from letting any of these faction unite, while preparing to deliver strategic blows that can bring down the ayatollahs at relatively little cost.

Every action has repercussions. Just as our withdrawal from Iraq would terrify and silence our allies everywhere, and embolden our enemies, so also would the fall of the ayatollahs -- particularly if it is as the result of an American intervention in the Gulf -- make waves everywhere. Democracy would be perceived as the wave of the future. Our friends in many countries would feel free to speak up for democracy and pro-American policies -- and their enemies would be afraid to silence them.

North Korea might go through a paroxysm of defiance -- but they would still understand the lesson. America will not be bullied by tyrants. We will stand for democracy, destroying our enemies at the "time and place of our choosing." Negotiations with North Korea would instantly take on a very different tone; and China's attitude, too, would become considerably more cooperative with us.

This is the victory that awaits us -- and it remains possible for two reasons only:

1. America's brilliant, brave, and well-trained military, which projects not just power but decency and compassion wherever our soldiers go, and

2. President George W. Bush, who, regardless of his critics and detractors, has steadfastly pursued the only course that holds the hope of victory without plunging us into a worldwide war with a united Islam or isolating America in a world torn by chaos.

Those are the scylla and charybdis that threaten us on either hand. If we do not win this containable war now, following the plan President Bush has set forth, we will surely end up fighting far bloodier wars for the next generation.

And the rhetoric of this election proves that we have precious few politicians in either party who have the brains, will, or courage to be taken seriously as alternatives to George W. Bush in the guidance of our nation through this dangerous, complicated world.

If we, the American people, are stupid enough to give control of either or both houses of Congress to the Democratic Party in this election, we will deserve the world we find ourselves in five years from now.

But Bush, being the wise and moderate politician that he is, may actually be able to continue his foreign policy despite the opposition of a Democratic Congress.

What really scares me is the 2008 election. The Democratic Party is hopeless -- only clowns seem to be able to rise to prominence there these days, while they boot out the only Democrats serious about keeping America's future safe. But the Republicans are almost equally foolish, trying to find somebody who is farther right than Bush -- somebody who will follow the conservative line far better than the moderate Bush has ever attempted -- and somebody who will "kick butt" in foreign policy.

So if we get one of the leading Democrats as our new President in 2009, we'll be on the road to pusillanimous withdrawal and the resulting chaos in the world.

While if we elect any of the Republicans who are extremist enough to please the Hannity wing of the party, our resulting belligerence will likely provoke Islam into unifying behind one of the tyrants, which is every bit as terrifying an outcome.

I hope somebody emerges in one of the parties, at least, who commits himself or herself to continuing Bush's careful, wise, moderate, and so-far-successful policies in the War on Terror.

Meanwhile, we have this election. You have your vote. For the sake of our children's future -- and for the sake of all good people in the world who don't get to vote in the only election that matters to their future, too -- vote for no Congressional candidate who even hints at withdrawing from Iraq or opposing Bush's leadership in the war. And vote for no candidate who will hand control of the House of Representatives to those who are sworn to undo Bush's restrained but steadfast foreign policy in this time of war.

First appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC

This quote from Mr. Card's brilliantly argued piece sums it all up:

"If we, the American people, are stupid enough to give control of either or both houses of Congress to the Democratic Party in this election, we will deserve the world we find ourselves in five years from now."

Keep that in mind as you go to cast your vote tomorrow.

Hey John Kerry, The Troops Hear You!!!

2006-11-01T13:13:00.000-08:00
John Kerry has opened his mouth and exposed himself for who he truly is once again: an ungrateful loser who is against our military, who happen to defend his right to make such pompous lies in public. John Kerry and the Democrats are trying to spin his anti-military comments as part of a botched joke about Bush. In fact he refuses to apologize for his comment and has the nerve to insist that President Bush is the one who should apologize to the troops.

Every time I have heard Bush speak about our military it has been with nothing less than the highest respect. He hasn't called our military ignorant people who couldn't hack academic life. He has never accused our fine military members as rapists or baby killers.

Here is Kerry's "botched joke about President Bush":

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Notice that there is not a tie in to President Bush in this statement whatsoever. In fact, the statement is made in the second person throughout. There is no way to make a connection to Bush in this statement anywhere.

Not only that, but the statement doesn't make any sense, at least not for today's military. It might apply to our military at the time Kerry was in. Kerry was in a military at a time when this country still had a draft, and people were conscripted against their will. But, even then, I doubt it is fair to call Kerry's fellow troops losers who couldn't hack it in school.

It is also worth noting that even in John Kerry's day, officers had to have a college degree. In today's all volunteer military, not only are officers highly educated, but a great many entlisted troops have, or go on to earn college degrees. So much for our military not being able to hack academic life.

But then, John Kerry knows this. He was an officer himself. He is just a liar who has never had any respect for the military. Not the military he was a part of then, and not the military now. That's it plain and simple.

Our sharp, professional, military members today are not in the military because they aren't smart enough to graduate from anything beyond high school. They have enlisted because they want to serve their country. They have enlisted because they are patriotic.

As much as he and the democrats would have us believe this was meant to refer to Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, sorry no dice. It is clearly a slight aimed at our troops.

This isn't the first time that Kerry has slandered our military. Apart from his shameless lying accusations against his fellow troops in Viet Nam, a post found here reported that Senator "I support our troops" Kerry had this nonsense to say about our troops during an interview in the Sunday edition of CBS's "Face The Nation":

"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs."

This is reminiscent of the accusations he made against his fellow troops during the Viet Nam War. Kerry has a history of slandering our troops. That anti-US military history exposes his spin attempt as nothing more than yet one more bald-faced lie coming out of his mouth.

Despite the Democrats who insist upon proclaiming, "how dare you question my patriotism", I am questioning John Kerry's patriotism. He can't have a history of slandering our country's military, the very one's who sacrifice their lives so that he can make such arrogant, slanderous bs, and expect that no one will have the right to call him on it, to question his patriotism. There is no such thing as patriotic immunity.

The more Kerry talks, and the more the Democrats defend, him the better it is for the Republicans. It baffles me why anyone who loves our troops would throw their vote away on the Democrat party.

Thanks to Jay at Stop The ACLU, here is a picture reflecting the military's response to John Kerry:

Yep. That just about says it all.

Vote for Kerry in '08! That is, if you want a Commander in Chief who has no respect for the troops he will command.

The Difference

2006-10-31T11:04:00.000-08:00
I received this piece in an e-mail. It speaks volumes.

THE DIFFERENCE IS...

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week"

The florist is pleased and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open there is a thank you card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week."

The cop is happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The Republican is very happy and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a thank you card and a dozen different books such as "How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming More Successful."

Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The Democrat is very happy and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen Democrats lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between left and right.

God Bless America

If We Could Just Capture Osama Then, All Would Be Well!

2006-10-25T05:48:00.000-07:00
I was watching a little bit of Fox News today during lunch. There was a panel of people assembled to respond to different issues. They played some portion of a speech President Bush had made in Florida regarding the seriousness of the war against terrorists that we are engaged in. Bush had pointed out that it was the Democrats who were standing in the way of our ability to wiretap and listen in to phone conversations between al Qaeda operatives, as well as standing against any benefits we might gain from interrogating the blood thirsty vermin that we did catch.

After the clip the panel was asked for their opinion. The first guy expressed his delight that Bush was taking the battle to them vice waiting for the terrorists to bring it here to our city streets. The second panelist chimed in with the fact that we haven't had any more incidents here in America since 9/11. Next came the self proclaimed "Young Democrat" and guess what she had to say? Her point was that because we haven't yet captured Osama Bin Laden, the voters would take note of that and vote accordingly.

You see? The Democrats when pushed into showing us their "war face", their concern for our national security try and boil it all down to capturing Osama bin Laden, as if that would bring an end to all terrorist activities and mission of war against us by the myriad of Islamo-Fascist thugs in the Middle East.

Would it be nice to capture Osama? Of course it would. But I don't think the voting public is quite as naïve is that “Young Democrat” thinks we are. Of course, she was just pushing the typical Democrat talking point that they have formulated whenever a response is asked of them regarding the importance of this war we are in and our need to persevere is brought up. It seems that for the Democrats the only goal they have is to capture Osama bin Laden, pull out of the Middle East, and it will all just go away.

While, I wish it was as simple as the naïve Democrat solution, it unfortunately isn’t. The hatred for the US and Western Civilization isn’t only coming from Osama and his al Qaeda band of thugs. It permeates throughout the Middle East and even in some mosques in the UK. Capturing Osama will not bring and end to the terrorist threat that those blood thirsty vermin who want to conquer the world by sword and force us to forfeit our liberty and bow to their twisted version of Islam.

This election, and every other election for the unforeseeable future, rests upon two choices. Do we teach those Islamo-Fascist thugs a lesson in what it means to attack the home of the brave and free, or do we take the fairytale solution of the Democrats and reap more violence right here at home?

At least President Bush was smart enough to take the fight to those bloodthirsty demon-possessed thugs on to their own turf. It is noteworthy that not one single terrorists attack has occurred on our soil since 9/11.

A vote for the Democrats and their solution will only serve to justify Osama bin Laden’s charge that America is just a paper tiger and will cut and run at the first sign of difficulty. They will see America as weak and therefore easy, low hanging fruit. Are you sure you want to give the Democrats the chance to do that to our country?

I’m positive that I don’t.

The strongest reason that I will never vote for the Democrat party is because I am highly concerned for our National Security. The Democrat Party’s liberal flirtations with socialism (communism in the extreme left), takes second seat to my concern for the preservation of our freedoms and our ability to walk around in our cities free from terrorist violence.

The Democrats have only one touted stance on the war against the Islamo-Fascist terrorists that we are engaged in: capture Osama and cut and run from the Middle East (read re-deploy our troops from Iraq).

Sorry that’s just not enough!

What If Liberals Win In The Upcoming Elections?

2006-10-12T19:59:00.000-07:00
I received an e-mail today from a friend who received an e-mail from some organization called, "The American Family Association". You guessed it. My friend sent me the e-mail that he received. Now, usually, I don't pay much attention, because, although I am conservative, I don't jump at every tidbit that I see coming from some other "conservative" source. But this one time, I noticed that the e-mail was making some good points.

So, before you decide to sit out the election because you are pissed at how much Bush and the rest of the Republican party has let us down, you might want to mentally chew on the following considerations regarding what you will have to live with under a Democrat victory:

Here is what we can expect if the liberals win:

* Amnesty for 12,000,000 illegal immigrants.

* A push to make homosexual marriage and polygamy legal in all 50 states.

* Only liberal judges will be appointed. They will create laws to implement the social agenda liberals cannot get passed through the legislative process.

* Liberals will make the killing of the unborn more difficult to stop.

* Liberals will continue to try to rid our society of Christian influence, including any reference to God in our Pledge and on our currency.

* A return to the "Fairness Doctrine" in broadcasting where opposing views must be given equal time. Every conservative talk show host will be forced to give a liberal equal time on every issue. The purpose of this rule will be to shut down conservative talk shows.

* An increase in taxes to push new social programs.

* Passing a new "hate crimes" law making it illegal to refer to homosexuality in a negative manner.

* Liberals will give terrorists from other countries who try to kill Americans the same rights American citizens enjoy under our constitution.

* We will withdraw from Iraq, sending the message to the terrorists that if they will just be patient they can win and bring their terrorist acts to the U.S.

I don't know about you, but I am definatley going to exercise my Constitutional right to vote. I love America too much to allow liberal, socialist/communist Democrats to ruin her!