Monday, April 30, 2007

Who Will Defend America?

April 30, 2007

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niem̦ller (1892 Р1984)

Once again, we Americans find ourselves deeply entrenched in War. A War becoming increasingly unpopular for a variety of reasons. A War brought upon us that threatens the very survival of our way of life. A War that seems to be being used as a political football for some to use to thrust them into political power. A War where our Brave Troops fight and die for us while others use them as pawns in their quest for power.

We also find ourselves heading into a Presidential campaign season where the sitting President leading this War may not be re-elected, due to Constitutional restraints on term limits. A deep divide between the major political parties vying for control of the nation is denying our Troops the very funds and tools they need to survive on the battlefield and win this war.

Our President is portrayed by the opposition party as an ignorant, stumbling; uneducated foolish cowboy who was crafty enough to mislead them into a War they now say is a mistake. That party glosses over the fact that U.S. interests have been coming under attack ever since 1979, some 15 times now, twice upon our very soil.

The past two Presidential campaigns saw the Democrat party claim that prior Military Service in the Viet Nam War, a War they also ardently opposed and used for political gain, while abandoning a struggling ally, was essential to ones ability to lead the nation. Somehow, they forgot that in the previous two Presidential campaigns it was they who consistently claimed prior Military Service in Viet Nam had no bearing on a candidate’s ability to lead the nation. Of the current leaders in the Democrat party campaigns, none has Military Service. Of the hopefuls, only three have any Military experience, an Army Reservist, a disgraced ex-general and a Veteran of the Korean War era that is best known for releasing sensitive documents used to undermine our efforts in the Viet Nam War. CBS News, 2008 Democrat party Hopefuls.

Of the 3 front-runners from the Republicans, we have only one with Military Service, an ex-POW who is often looked upon as undermining fellow Republicans, a maverick. Of the hopefuls, 5 have Military Service, one was a Reservist as well, and 2 of them served Honorable Tours in Viet Nam, one (that I know of) with a son currently serving in the War on Terror. CBS News, 2008 Republican Party Hopefuls.

Candidates seem divided along party lines with Democrats favoring some sort of withdrawal, now or later, whether the mission is completed or not. Republicans seem to mostly favor seeing it through to the finish, with a possible exception being Tom Tancredo and Chuck Hagel who seems to feel the presence of our Troops is a hindrance to the Iraqis getting back on their feet and a withdrawal should commence in 6 months. Sam Brownback opposed the reinforcements sent to bolster our Troops. The other Republicans appear to still be supportive of the battle ongoing in Iraq, even if some are somewhat critical of the handling so far.

Curiously enough, one of the real hawks on Iraq and the candidate who seems to be the most popular with conservatives, Fred Thompson, hasn’t even entered the race yet. Like most of the Democrat party field, he too hasn’t served in the Military.

Military service alone doesn’t qualify one for the highest office in the land. The last two presidential elections saw the Democrat party trying to claim it did matter after them claiming in the previous 2 elections that it had no bearing on someone’s ability to lead. My guess is that once again, given the lack of Military experience in the Democrat candidates, it will not matter.

Looking around America one might be hard pressed to realize we are currently at war, but we are. That should give a slight edge to candidates with Military experience. Of course, we do have a rather large anti-war group within the country again, so I’m sure that group will push against Military experience, given that many of them have no use for the Military or Veterans, other than to use them for political gain.

We are also in a unique circumstance this time around, given that there is no incumbent or sitting Vice-president running. That opened the field considerably with several candidates running from both parties. We also are seeing the campaigning start much earlier than in the past for nearly all candidates. With so many we have a lot of information on each to digest. Tax cuts, abortion, illegal immigration and most important, the Greater War on Terror, which includes Iraq.

Out of all the candidates we must choose which one will best defend America, Western Culture and our way of life. Sadly, I cannot see any of the Democrat candidates advocating defending the country with their cut and run attitudes and calls. Should one of them gain office and we are attacked again, as we were on September 11, 2001, what will their response be? Will we hear glib speeches while little or nothing is done and they try to shift blame back onto President Bush? Will the lob a few cruise missiles into a desert somewhere and brag of a “strong response?” Or, will they seek who to apologize to?

I can even see some of the Republican candidates acting the same, were we to be attacked again.

I prefer to see the next President ready to take the bull by the horns, ignoring polls and the anti-war leftists and keep taking the fight to the radical Jihadists before they have a chance for another massive attack against America. I would much rather engage the enemy over there and not here.

Of the Republican front-runners, I honestly don’t think any would present as strong a front to terror as needed. Of the hopefuls, only Fred Thompson, should he enter and Duncan Hunter seem ready to fit that bill. McCain might have, but he has shown himself to be a fence straddler, often seeking too much middle ground with those opposed to maintaining traditional American values and other essential matters. He also would expect loyalty, but he didn’t offer very much himself during the past administration. Hunter hasn’t achieved the notoriety of Thompson and the front-runners, but wasn’t B.J. Clinton a dark horse himself?

While I haven’t committed myself to any candidate as of yet, I honestly can’t see one of the current Democrats getting in. Just being a Republican doesn’t automatically garner my support either.

As the campaigns grow, primaries are held, candidates drop out or jump in; I will be keeping a close eye on all of them. My vote will end up going to the one who impresses me will best defend America. I can only pray the rest of the country does the same.


Sunday, April 29, 2007

The causes of the Iraq War

One of the most excellent articles I've ever read concerning why President Bush invaded Iraq. By logic and evidence, the author effectively blows the left's claim of "war for oil" out of the water.

The author makes no conclusion about the right or wrong, just presents an actual evidential discussion about the reasons. A long read, 22 pages in pdf format, but a real eye opener.

What was it all about after all? The causes of the Iraq war

From the article:

"The ‘war for oil’ argument errs, however, on logical and evidential grounds. As some observers have pointed out, if all the Bush administration cared about was oil, it would have lifted sanctions on Iraq’s oil sales and cut deals with Saddam instead of invading the country. Such a policy would have satisfied both the oil companies and America’s long-term needs for oil. Moreover, there is no evidence that oil companies lobbied the Bush administration to topple the Saddam regime. In fact, prior to 9/11, the oil lobby in Washington generally favoured the relaxation of US restrictions on Iraq, not Saddam’s removal. After 9/11, most oil companies were
wary about the Iraq war because they were worried that the war could bring instability to the Gulf."

"Eliminating a major potential source of WMD for Al Qaeda by overthrowing the Saddam regime was only one reason, and likely not the most important one, for going to war with Iraq. The reasons for the Bush administration’s war decision went beyond Iraq. As an aid to Cheney admits, ‘The imminence of the threat from Iraq’s WMD was never the real issue [for us]. WMD were on our minds, but they weren’t the key thing. What was really driving us was our overall view of terrorism, and the strategic conditions of the Middle East’."

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Surrender Is Not Victory

April 24, 2007

Once was the time that when America was involved in a war, we fought it with everything we had. Democrat or Republican, we came together to face a common enemy to us both and did what was needed to defeat that enemy.

In both World Wars, our Troops had the support of the home front. Women entered factories to manufacture the tools needed for battle. They took over many farm responsibilities. Even 4F’s who couldn’t fight in the wars worked in munitions factories, airplane factories, tank factories and the like. Citizens sacrificed luxuries and recycled whatever they could to supply our soldiers with food, bandages and weapons.

Most importantly, they had the support of the normally bickering political parties. They didn’t worry about the minority party, or even the majority party, throwing in the towel and making a mockery out of their sacrifice. The home front had their backs and our Troops didn’t disappoint us. They gave the country and the allied nations stunning victory after victory until the enemies of free societies were utterly vanquished

They returned home victorious to parades and kisses from their wives and girls. Women that entered the Military shared in those victories, as did the women who made the needed tools for the Troops.

That was then, this is now.

Shortly after the horrific attacks against us on September 11, 2001, it was determined that those who planned, executed and financed the attacks were housed in the country of Afghanistan, their government refusing to turn over the bad guys. With what seemed like full support, our newly inaugurated president launched counter attacks on October 7, 2001, in Afghanistan, deposing the Taliban. October 31, 2001 saw the New York Times publish an article, A Military Quagmire Remembered: Afghanistan as Vietnam. Even earlier, the Asian Times was publishing editorials like, Afghanistan quagmire or strategic deception?

Mere weeks into this war and the opposition starts.

March 2003 saw the war enter another phase with the invasion of Iraq over, amongst many reasons, the refusal of Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein’s refusal to allow confirmation of the disposal of his excessive WMD’s and the fear those same weapons would fall into the hands of the terrorists. Opposition began even before the March invasion and has been ongoing ever since, primarily from our own Democrat party.

This once great political party that helped lead us to a victorious defeat of enemies in the 1940’s has worked diligently to oppose defeat of the current enemy of Jihadists that has been attacking us ever since 1979. Complicit in this too is their willing accomplices in the American media who can’t seem to find any good to say about the war effort or our Troops. Still, they proclaim they “support the Troops, but not the war.”

In the 2004 campaigns, failed presidential hopeful, John Kerry (who did serve in Viet Nam, you know) stated over and over again, “wrong war, wrong time, wrong place.” Although, in November of 1997, he also made a speech before the Senate where he said, “In the final days of that conflict [first Gulf War], a fateful decision was made not to utterly vanquish the Iraqi Government and armed forces, on the grounds that to do so would leave a risky vacuum, as some then referred to it, in the Middle East which Iran or Syria or other destabilizing elements might move to fill.” Later in the Speech, after calling on then President Clinton to launch an attack on Iraq, Kerry stated, “This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.” Once an invasion of Iraq started, one that even Senator Kerry voted for, he labels it a “mistake.”

Ted Kennedy calls the Iraq battle "a misguided war." Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi says of Iraq, "It is a radical doctrine of preemptive war unprecedented in our history" and "a war of choice.” Dick Durbin equated our Troops to, “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others.” Jack Murtha labels them “cold blooded murderers” before an incident is even investigated.

Lately, we have seen Harry Reid issue his now infamous “the war in Iraq is lost” comment and try to backpedal over it. Hillary Clinton demands this war be finished prior to her entry into the White House, assuming she has already won the next election.

House and Senate Democrats very vocally demand a timetable for our Troops to withdraw, telegraphing to our enemies a date certain they win. Funds for our Troops are being stalled while pork barrel projects are added to solicit votes for the bill.

Moderate Republicans, liberals at heart, jump on the bandwagon in sharing the opposition with the Democrats in a futile belief it will gain them votes to remain in office.

In some idiotic way this “cut and run” attitude from the battles is thought of as a victory in the war by the leftists. Asked what will happen if we pack up and leave Iraq, John Edwards answered, “I don’t know.” Yet, he too, after once labeling Iraq as an “imminent threat” waves the white flag of surrender calling Iraq a “bleeding sore.”

Our president and the Troops stand virtually alone while those of us who see this coming threat of International Jihadism are shouted down ridiculed and ignored by the “peace makers.”

Party leaders complain about an “open ended war.” Yet, isn’t that exactly what the Jihadists have been waging now for some 28 years?

It is time to Wake Up America. Surrendering to terrorists and waving a white flag is not victory, it is defeat.


UPDATE 1: A Wall Street Opinon Journal editorial sees that Democrats are taking ownership of a defeat in Iraq.

UPDATE 2: Meet the Iraqi Police in Kirkuk: “If America pulls out of Iraq, they will fail in Afghanistan.”

UPDATE 3: From Amy Proctors blog, “CNN War correspondents Michael Ware and Kyra Phillips called US troop withdrawal from Iraq ‘a disaster’ and the debate on the Hill ‘delusional’ in an interview after their return from Iraq.” CNN Reporters: Troop Withdrawal ‘Disastrous’ and ‘Delusional’

Monday, April 23, 2007

What The Hell Is Wrong With You Democrats?

April 23, 2007

I realize you hate George W. Bush with a passion and can’t stand that others think and feel different than you, but to undermine our Troops and country during war isn’t just wrong, it is treasonous.

Nearly all of your party leaders work over time to insure the War Against Terror will fail, especially in Iraq. Harry Reid declares it ‘lost.’ Pelosi visits a country strongly suspected of aiding those killing our Troops, emboldening them. Murtha declares once the pending funding bill for our Troops is vetoed, he will ensure that Troop funding is restricted to two months.

Pleas from the Troops for support and backing are ignored while you announce what you think is best for them while your leaders Exploit them for more political gain.

Don’t you realize that your words of discouragement, your anti-everything rhetoric and your very vocal opposition are broadcast all over the Middle East? That is the same Middle East that has spawned the brutal animals that is currently killing our Troops and the Iraqi people that are struggling for freedom.

You took control of the Senate in 2006 and voted unanimously for placing General Petraeus over operations in Iraq. Your leaders demanded to be kept up to date of any progress or setbacks. Now, your leaders won’t even make time to meet with him. Are they fearful of hearing some real progress?

If you dare, here is an email from a Soldier in Iraq (Hat tip to Spree @ Wake Up America). Late last year, while visiting the Troops in Iraq, outgoing Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was asked Why am I more patient than someone sitting at home in Fort ‘Livingroom’?”

Although there is no draft for the Military and entry is strictly voluntary, you claim a ‘victory’ because Military recruiters back out of UC Santa Cruz job fair.. (Hat tip to YankeeMom). Yet, not too long ago, members of your anti-freedom groups were actively trying to block shipments of much needed Medical Equipment and additional armor to our Troops. But, you care about them, right?

In Portland, Oregon, more from your ranks left another ‘peace’ protest to burn not only the American Flag, but also a Soldier in effigy, including one “peace protester” actually dropping his pants to defecate on a burning flag. And, it is reported as only Rudeness.

Early in World War Two, when we faced an enemy much less ruthless than we do today, charges were made by Republicans that the Democrats weren’t sufficiently handling the war, due to severe setbacks and bad news from the battlefront. They did not travel to our enemies and cry constantly that the war was ‘lost,’ trying to stir up emotions amongst the population to withdraw support for Roosevelt’s leadership.

Instead, they joined forces with the Democrats in winning the war. Afterwards, they joined forces again with the Truman administration in an effective post-war foreign policy.

Today, we see Democrat party leaders using this war to further their own political agenda and grab at power, regardless of what happens to the Troops. Not only does Senate Party Leader Reid declare the “war is lost,” he and Chuck Schumer showed their goal when they were caught saying [Reid] plans to continue an aggressive push for an early withdrawal from Iraq and does not particularly care that Republicans will try to paint that position as a lack of support for U.S. forces. Why? Reid answered, [Because] “We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.”

Echoing that, Schumer said, “The war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle,” gleefully adding, “We will break them, because they are looking extinction in the eye.” If you can’t figure it out, “they” is Conservative Republicans.

In the lead-up to the November 2006 elections, Now Speaker Pelosi released a pamphlet titled A New Direction For America. In it, she promises to “double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.” Did she forget that it was her party leaders under former president B.J. Clinton that gutted both the Military and our Intelligence capabilities? After all the antiwar rhetoric and exploitation of the Military, where does she propose to get new recruits, reinstate the draft?

Even the 911 Commission Report stated on Page 93: “Cuts in national security expenditures at the end of the Cold War led to budget cuts in the national foreign intelligence program from fiscal years 1990 to 1996 and essentially flat budgets from fiscal years 1996 to 2000.These cuts compounded the difficulties of the intelligence agencies.” Page 358 sees, “Responsibility for domestic intelligence gathering on terrorism was vested solely in the FBI, yet during almost all of the Clinton administration the relationship between the FBI Director and the President was nearly nonexistent.”

Now, we are to entrust the security of the nation, while we are facing the most ruthless enemy we have ever faced, to your leaders because they claim they have “A New Direction For America?”

The “New Direction” isn’t new at all. It is the same old cut and run, retreat, snatch defeat from victory that the left has embraced since Viet Nam. Nowhere do we see you encouraging any Victory in this War.

To play off of what one of our Founding Fathers said, we aren’t going to let you LEAD us into defeat. You do not desire to FOLLOW us into Victory. So, just GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY!


Hillary Plays Southern, Again

April 23, 2007

Once again, Hillary Clinton dons a phony Southern Accent to talk before a predominantly Black Audience. Alongside of her was Al Sharpton.

Video Source

Of particular note is her words, "You know, what is it about us always having to clean up after people?"

Does she really view a predominantly Black audience as little more than janitors?

Pandering is bad enough, but saying that she and Blacks have to always "clean up after people?"

I would think the "world's smartest woman" would have moved on from seeing Blacks in that light.

UPDATE: Hillary comments on her on again off again Southern Accent, U.S. Ready for ‘Multilingual President'

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Does Seung-Hui Cho Deserve Forgiveness?

April 22, 2007

To most of us who recall the recent massacre at Virginia Technical College, the murder of 32 innocent people and suicide of the shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, that might appear to be a curious question, if not a stupid one. Apparently, though, some feel it is the appropriate way to go. Virginia Tech pays respects to victims, and gunman, Students Forgive Virginia Tech Killer.

I am not directly faulting those who feel he deserves forgiveness. After all, they have been taught in today’s feel good culture that they must not harbor ill will or hold acts against others. They have been taught that this culture of ‘instant forgiveness’ raises the weight of anger from their heart and such.

If someone calls you a name in an angry outburst, cheats you from something, or performs another transgression against you, I could agree with their culture of forgiveness. But, a mass murderer? A person who planned and carried out one of the largest massacres in modern American history?

In December 1997 at Heath High School in Paducah Kentucky, a 14 year old killed 3 others and wounded more in another shooting. The day after the shooting, some students and preachers were urging ‘forgiveness’ for the student shooter, prompting Dennis Prager to pen When Forgiveness Is A Sin in the Wall Street Journal and reprinted in the March 1998 edition of Reader’s Digest.

Nine years later, we saw the horrific slaughter of 32 people at West Virginia tech and once again, some are not only issuing “instant forgiveness” of the shooter, they have actually erected a small memorial to Seung-Hui Cho amongst those to the other 32 he murdered. Found in that memorial is a note which says, "I just wanted you to know that I am not mad at you. I don't hate you, I am so sorry that you could find no help or comfort." It is signed, "With all my love, Laura."

Chris Chabalko, a 29-year-old graduate student at Virginia Tech added, "He was a student. Thirty-three people died. There's nothing anyone can do about it now. We've got to remember them equally." He sees a memorial to Cho as “fair.”

What we see at work here isn’t Christianity; it’s the infiltration of religion by the 60’s culture of “feel good doctrines.” It may be being taught in Churches but make no mistake, it is from the same 60’s leftist culture that has been gradually overtaking our lives for decades now. In reviewing several articles about this weeks shooting at Virginia tech we see Cho described as having been diagnosed autistic at age 8, bullied, made fun of due to his speech, outcast by others and on and on. Nearly everything but he was an evil person who struck out at others.

If we should issue instant forgiveness to Cho, why not others? Why is there such an outcry, even from the left, to get Osama Bin Laden? Shouldn’t he be “forgiven” for his acts, including the slaughter of nearly 3,000 on September 11, 2001? Why isn’t Charles Manson “forgiven” and released from prison?

In fact, why do we even have prisons and a Police Force? If we are expected to “instantly forgive,” why are criminals even labeled as such and locked up? Shouldn’t we just “forgive” them their transgressions and just move on?

HELL NO we shouldn’t!

While leftist infiltration of religion has moved us towards this “feel good doctrine” of forgiveness, it is noticed that Mass Shootings Are More Common Since the 1960s, the era that we saw the mass influx of leftist doctrines transfused into society. It should also be noted that along with this influx of leftist doctrine, gun control measures started making it much harder for law-abiding citizens to obtain and keep a personal weapon.

As this was starting we also saw a landmark Supreme Court decision in 1962 removing prayer from schools followed by the decades long removal of God from our public society. Yet, the same ones urging removal of God from our Public Institutions also insist that the “feel good doctrine of instant forgiveness” betters us.

Nothing could be further from the truth!

As noted in the Dennis Prager article above, forgiveness does come with stipulations. Evildoers have not met those stipulations and have no intention of doing so. Seung-Hui Cho is dead at his own hand. His eternal fate is in the hands of God, not us. Other evildoers still alive will one day meet a similar fate and face their own judgment. Only God knows whether or not they deserve forgiveness and only God will decide if they receive it. All we can do is eliminate them from our midst to protect our families and loved ones.

As we instantly forgive those who do such evil acts, we send a message to others that evil isn’t really as bad as said. Evil acts become minimized and move closer to acceptable in the minds of evildoers. There are no repercussions for evil and crime, just “instant forgiveness.” No repercussions, no deterrent. As we have seen, crime flourishes as does evil acts.

As for Seung-Hui Cho, his Maternal Grandfather said it all. Kim Hyang-Sik, 81, is quoted as saying, "Son of a bitch. He deserved to die.”

Towards forgiving and erecting a memorial to this mass murderer, I say not just NO, but HELL NO!


Thursday, April 19, 2007

To Win, Democrats Must Cause Defeat

April 19, 2007

As I have noted before, the current Democrat party and leftists are heavily Invested In Defeat. By their own words, deeds and actions, they have painted themselves into a corner in regards the current war we are fighting. They cannot afford for there to be a Victorious outcome for America and Iraq. They voice emotionless support for the battle in Afghanistan, but even there they have undermined the Military and President Bush’s administration.

How can we forget John ‘F’in Kerry’s (who served in Viet Nam) words during his failed bid for the White House? How many times did he repeat, “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time?” This after he voted for authorizing the war!

Hillary Clinton also voted for the war and now wants us to believe she was misled. Unfortunately, in late 2003 she told Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard, “[T]he intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent” about Saddam Hussein having Weapons of Mass Destruction. She also said at the time that she had done her own “due diligence,” including consulting national security officials from her husband’s administration whom she trusted.

Now, she states, “If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will." Nowhere, however, can I find any words or plans on how to “WIN” this war, just cut and run.

Former President B.J. Clinton, in October 2005 predicted that the U.S. will lose the war in Iraq, saying "the odds are not great of our prevailing there."

Shortly before the 2004 elections, Jimmy Carter, undeniably the worst President in American history declared on MSNBC’s “Nutball,” with Chris Matthews, “there is no doubt that American troops’ presence is stimulating additional violence [in Iraq].” He added, “Obviously, the only way out of this quagmire that we have formed in Iraq now is to have some guarantee of withdrawal of American troops…”

Today, we have one of the most anti-war leftists in Congress, Dennis Kucinich, saying his party leaders have capitulated to Bush on a withdrawal date for the Troops. He says, “The Republicans don’t want any timetables and the Democrats want non-binding ones.”

Democrat Jim Moran of Virginia claims, “We’re not going to let [Troop] funding expire. The administration will play chicken with the welfare of our troops, but we will not.” Yet, Democrats, under Speaker Pelosi are stalling the war bill while our the Troops run out of cash for much needed equipment in the war.

Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, after declaring today that This War Is Lost, is also quoted that he “plans to continue an aggressive push for an early withdrawal from Iraq” and “does not particularly care that Republicans will try to paint that position as a lack of support for U.S. forces.”

Why? He answers, “We are going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.”

Chuck Schumer echoes Reid with, “The war in Iraq is a lead weight attached to their ankle,” gleefully adding, “We will break them, because they are looking extinction in the eye.” “Them,” of course, is Republicans.

This war is nothing more than a maneuver for them to gain power, regardless of how many Troops die, as they embolden our enemies. Not once has any Democrat leader expressed any plan for Victory. Seeing Reids’ and Schumer’s words above, we now see why.

If this war is won, they are proven wrong and their quest for power is done. Win the war, they lose. Lose the war, they win, they think.

What they fail to realize, in their delusional quest, is that the Jihadists hate them as much as they do us, if not more. Even in hate, Jihadists respect those that will stand and fight them much more than those who run from them.

If the Democrats force us into a loss in this war, it won’t be like Viet Nam, the last time they forced us into a loss. The enemy won’t be content to just over run and oppress Iraq. They will be spreading out deeper into the West to bring the entire world under their domination.

Playing politics with our troops while they are in Harm’s Way is unconscionable to me. If we lose and suicide bombers start showing up at our Malls, look back to the Democrats you voted into office. Just don’t blame me, I voted Republican!


UPDATE 1: President Bush answers the Democrats in Washington D.C.. And, with a lot more class and style than they have ever afforded him;

There's a good group of people in Washington, fair, decent, honorable people -- and by the way, in this political discourse, we should never question anybody's patriotism if they don't happen to agree with the President. That's not the American way. The American way is we ought to have a honest and open dialogue. There are good people, patriotic people who didn't believe that additional troops would make that big a difference, and therefore, we should not increase, but in some cases, pull out; in some cases, pull back. Either case, having weighed the options, I didn't think it was viable, and I didn't think it would work.

A couple of points I want to make, and then I promise to stop talking and answer your questions. People often ask me, what are we seeing on TV? What's happening with the violence? Here's my best analysis: One, the spectaculars you see are al Qaeda inspired. They claim credit for a lot of the big bombings. The bombing of the parliament was al Qaeda; the bombing of the Golden Samarra was al Qaeda. These are the Sunni extremists inspired by Osama bin Laden who attacked the United States. I keep repeating that because I want you to understand what matters overseas, in my judgment, affects the security of the United States of America in this new era.

Their objective is twofold: One, shake the confidence of the average Iraqi that their government is incapable of providing security, and therefore, people will turn to militias in order to protect themselves. Their second objective is to shake our confidence. It's an interesting war, isn't it, where asymmetrical warfare is -- and that means people being able to use suicide bombers -- not only, obviously, kills a lot of innocent people, like which happened yesterday in Iraq, but also helps define whether or not we're successful.

If the definition of success in Iraq or anywhere is no suicide bombers, we'll never be successful. We will have handed al Qaeda "that's what it takes" in order to determine whether or not these young democracies, for example, can survive. Think about that: if our definition is no more suiciders, you've just basically said to the suiciders, go ahead.

UPDATE 2: Tom DeLay discusses Tom Trancredo's response to Reid's outrageous comment, Another Tom That Makes Sense

Hillary Clinton, Wagging Her Tongue

April 19, 2007

It appears that yesterdays 5 to 4 decision upholding the ban on Partial Birth Abortions has Mrs. B.J. Clinton fit to be tied.

In an email sent out from her campaign today, she expresses her displeasure with a legal ruling by the High Court. The email says, “The Court took a dramatic departure from decades of rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Let's be clear: this allows the government to dictate to women what they can and cannot do about their own health.”

This is total BS! Any thinking person knows that abortions are less about ‘health’ and mostly about getting rid of an ‘inconvenience’ of having a baby. Cases of Health concerns, rape, incest and the like account for no more than one per cent of all abortions performed today.

Further proof that she is just plain wrong is found in the ban that the Roberts Court upheld. It states, “This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.”

Hillary continues by quoting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the most liberal Justice on the Court and a former ACLU attorney (appointed by the Clintons), "This cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

Sorry, but as I recall, our “rights” are spelled out in the constitution, not legislated from the bench. The Supreme Court’s responsibility is spelled out in Article III, section 2 of our constitution, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”

Nowhere in our constitution is abortion listed as a “right” nor has any state or even the Federal Legislature passed any laws granting that right. It was legislated from a very liberal Supreme Court decision in 1973.

Mrs. B.J. continues, “When the Senate debated the nominations of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court, I spoke out on the Senate floor about the danger they posed to our constitutional liberties, including the right to choose.”

As shown, the “right to choose” was never a legislated ‘right.’

Seeing a liberal complain about ‘dangers to constitutional liberties’ is most amusing. Many of our constitutionally mandated liberties have already disappeared under the guidance of liberals and more are under threat to disappear, especially our right to ‘free speech’ and second amendment right to ‘bear arms.’

Mrs. B.J. goes on, “We need a president who understands that the best way to protect women's health and reduce the number of abortions is to expand access to family planning -- not to threaten doctors and patients. We need a Congress that will say no to rolling back the rights of women.”

No, we need leaders that see that unbridled lust coupled with the “new morality,” actually just the old immorality, is what encourages unwanted pregnancy. Yes, women have just as much right to enjoy it as do men, but it is the women who ends up pregnant. Sorry, that’s just nature. Not even the liberal Justice Ginsberg can change that.

If you really want to reduce the number of abortions, allow parents to teach decency and morals at home and stop interfering by giving the children free access to condoms while teaching them that their parents are just old ‘fuddy duddy’s’ who don’t understand. We need to allow parents to teach their boys that women are not just sex objects there for their pleasure to use and walk away from.

We need to teach them that while sex is very pleasurable, it does carry a severe consequence, if you aren’t ready. A warm wonderful child if you are ready.

We don’t need government tax dollars given away to pro-abortion groups encouraging unchecked abortions without counseling girls of psychological dangers in the future of wrong decisions when older.

But, above all, we need a Congress that will see that protecting our unborn children is an important step to eliminating the Democrat party’s “culture of death.”

Mrs. B.J. closes with the promise, “As a senator, I will do everything I can to make sure women can protect their health, and when I am president, I will treat the health and well being of women and our constitutional rights once again as true American values.”

If she were serious, she would apply equal importance to our Second Amendment rights, as clearly written and explained in our constitution and even upheld by the Supreme Court.

If she really wants to ‘uphold constitutional rights,’ then overturn Roe vs Wade and allow the individual states, through their citizens, the right to determine for themselves. After all, if a state outlaws abortions, what stops a woman desiring to slaughter her unborn to simply visit a state that allows it?

The hilarious aspect that exposes Hillary and pro-abortionists is found in the opening sentence of the Roe vs Wade decision, “A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life.”

In other words, “treat[ing] the health and well being of women and our constitutional rights once again as true American values,” by health concerns, as she keeps alluding to, WAS ALREADY LEGAL!!!!!!! Roe vs Wade wasn’t about a woman’s health, it was about legalizing the slaughter of unborn children.

To you girls, keep your legs closed. To you boys, keep your zippers pulled up. To the adults, if you’re gonna dance, don’t be surprised you have to pay the piper.


UPDATE: The complete text of her email:

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:18:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Hillary Rodham Clinton" {}
To: lewwaters@I’
Subject: Consequences of yesterday's decision

Dear Lew,

We already knew how important this election was for every American. Yesterday, the Supreme Court raised the stakes even higher.

The Court took a dramatic departure from decades of rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Let's be clear: this allows the government to dictate to women what they can and cannot do about their own health.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with this decision and warned, "This cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."

When the Senate debated the nominations of Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the Supreme Court, I spoke out on the Senate floor about the danger they posed to our constitutional liberties, including the right to choose. I urged my colleagues to reject them, and I voted against both of them. Yesterday, unfortunately, we saw the consequences of failing to stop their confirmations.

The decade of work that the far right has done to chip away at our rights was paid off in this Supreme Court decision. They worked hard to gain the presidency and the Senate so they could shape a Supreme Court that rewarded them by putting a narrow ideology above our constitutional rights. In their ruling, the conservative majority even used right-wing code language, referring to obstetricians as "abortion doctors."

There's one way we can respond: redouble our efforts to win the White House and more seats in the House and Senate. We need a president who understands that the best way to protect women's health and reduce the number of abortions is to expand access to family planning -- not to threaten doctors and patients. We need a Congress that will say no to rolling back the rights of women.

And here is my promise to you: As a senator, I will do everything I can to make sure women can protect their health, and when I am president, I will treat the health and well being of women and our constitutional rights once again as true American values.

I hope you'll pass this message along to your friends and talk with them about why this issue is important to you. I'll follow up with you soon with ways you can take direct action to protect our right to choose.


Hillary Rodham Clinton

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Making Sense Out Of The Senseless

April 18, 2007

Now that the smoke is settling from the Virginia Technical College shootings, people have started searching for answers, to try to make some sense of it all. People the world over are asking, why? What made this young man do such a heinous act?

As I previously mentioned, gun control advocates jumped on this right away, as they usually do. ‘Coulda,’ ‘woulda,’ ‘shoulda’ doesn’t help, but they never pass up a chance to further their agenda.

Records have surfaced showing the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, a Korean who has been living in the U.S. for 17 years, was a very troubled individual. He was labeled as a danger to himself and to society in 2005 and was supposed to be receiving outpatient care.

As easy as it is to point fingers and say the “system” let him and everyone down, just who is the “system?” We are!

We have allowed ourselves to become so Politically Correct that a troubled individual like Cho can fall through the cracks. We don’t want to make records available to authorities and those who should know about him, so as not to “harm his future.” So, when a person like this goes to buy a gun to carry out such a premeditated massacre, nothing appears in the required background check.

Troubling to me is just who associated with Cho? Surely someone did and turned a blind eye to his conduct leading up to this. Or, was it a case of don’t worry, kids are just kids? Who knows now?

Much has been made of what he wrote on his arm, "Ismail Ax." A deranged mind? Something from literature? Possibly a reference to Islam, as some believe? We may never know. Watching videos and reading the ‘manifesto’ he sent to NBC News between the shootings sheds a little light, but not enough to know for sure. They could be just as easily interpreted to be Muslim outrage as they could be a criminally deranged mind. However, I have seen or read nothing to indicate he had any dealings with Islam.

Franklin Graham, up and coming Preacher son of Billy Graham, says Satan is Behind the Virginia Tech Killings. Pope Benedict XVI calls the shootings a senseless tragedy. Even Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, released a statement saying, "Attacking innocent people, irrespective of their race and nationality, is contrary to divine and human values no matter which group or person carries out such an act under any name." (Let’s hope they come to feel that way towards Israel).

So, how do we make sense out of this? We don’t! We can’t! The only explanation is there is inherent evil in the world. Even among the mentally disturbed, there is evil. Some things are beyond our understanding. We will never make sense out of them.

There is no magic government program. No special chant. No Psychobabble book written to understand. No special classes in school. For whatever reason, evil comes over some people and we must deal with them.

How, is a different matter. Our current Politically Correct System isn’t working. Red flags thrown up were ignored or not seen. Trying to make everybody “feel good about them selves” by prescription doesn’t always work. Disarming legitimate gun owners just leaves us more defenseless. Finger pointing at each other doesn’t do it, either.

I don’t have an answer. It is as senseless to me as it is to you. One thing I’m sure of, though. Had there been two more guns on campus Monday, Cho’s carnage could have been stopped long before he reached 32 dead.

It is certain, though, that we as a society had better come up with an answer soon. An answer that moves us away from the liberal wishy washy, feel good direction we have been moving towards.


Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Struggling With Another Senseless Massacre

April 17, 2007

The news of the terrible tragedy that struck the Virginia Tech College yesterday has traveled the globe. 33 Students murdered by a lone crazed gunman, a 23 year old South Korean Student, Cho Seung-Hui, who has been in the country legally since he was 8.

Shortly after the release of the gunman’s name, Cho Byung-se, a South Korean ministry official handling North American affairs stated, “We are in shock beyond description.” He added, “We convey deep condolences to victims, families and the American people.” South Korean Diplomats are said to be traveling to the scene of the carnage. While this incident is a major embarrassment to the Korean people, fixing blame on them is just wrong. Citizens or government of South Korea have nothing to do with this senseless act of murder.

Upon hearing of this I looked in on some blogs, both right and left leaning. Before even the smoke had settled from the shooting, some on the left were trying to fix the blame on President Bush. Similarly, some on the right were sarcastically expecting the onslaught of gun control advocates to spin this towards their political agenda.

Europeans wasted no time in chiming in with bashing Americans and guns for this tragedy. Keith Ashcroft, a British psychologist said, "I think the reason it happens in America is there's access to weapons -- you can go into a supermarket and get powerful automatic weapons."

I’d like to know where these “supermarkets” are that sell “powerful automatic weapons” are located. When I legally purchased each of my guns, I had to fill out endless forms, submit to a background check over a minimum of a week and just wait. The entire transactions are registered with the Sheriffs Department, even though I am not required the register the guns themselves. Mr. Ashcroft, please send me details of where I can visit one of the “supermarkets” you say I can so easily purchase a “powerful automatic weapon.”

Not to be outdone, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly and Geraldo Rivera couldn’t wait for the smoke to dissipate before they were crying and blaming the police and University president. Rivera was incensed that he was unable to ask accusatory questions of officials. While I am a fan of Fox News, I dislike both of these phonies and don’t need either of them “looking out for me,” as O’Reilly like to claim he does.

Britain’s UK Telegraph asks, Why are there so many shootings in America? Yuan Peng, an Chinese American studies expert is quoted, “This incident reflects the problem of gun control in America.” Italy’s daily Corriere della Sera’s ran an opinion piece entitled “Guns at the Supermarket,” a critical view of the U.S. gun lobby and the ease with which guns can be purchased. Shootings draw global condemnation. Germany’s Spiegel Online ends up Blaming Charlton Heston, indirectly.

It appears Europeans know something we legal gun purchasers don’t.

In all the calls for gun control again, no one seems to realize that the campus of Virginia Tech already banned all guns!

Last October I wrote of The School Shooting They Never Mention, the one where an Assistant Principal put a stop to the shooting by retrieving his own gun and confronting the shooter.

Could some armed faculty, administrators or even trusted students have stopped Cho Seung-Hui before the death toll reached as high as it did? We will never know, now.

With all of Europeans cries of the ease of our obtaining guns and needing stricter gun laws, as they have, perhaps they should look into their own problems as they too have endured these terrible tragedies. America isn’t the only one that deranged loners choose to shoot people in schools:

December 1989: Marc Lepine shot dead 14 women in Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique.
March 1996: Gun enthusiast Thomas Hamilton shoots 16 children and their teacher dead at their primary school in Dunblane, Scotland before killing himself.
March 1997: Mohammad Ahman al-Naziri killed six children and two staff during attacks on two schools in Sanaa, Yemen.
November 1999: A 15-year-old student in Meissen, eastern Germany, stabbed his teacher to death after taking bets from classmates he would dare commit the crime.
March 2000: A 16-year-old pupil at a private boarding school in the Bavarian town of Branneburg, shot a 57-year-old teacher, who later died from injuries.
February 2002: A former pupil killed his headmaster and set off pipe bombs in the technical school he had recently been expelled from in Freising near Munich.
April 2002: Seventeen people killed after a gunman - a former pupil - opens fire in a school in Erfurt, eastern Germany. He then turned the gun on himself.

Each of these countries brags about their superior and stricter gun control laws, yet they didn’t prevent their own tragedies.

I am reminded too of the unthinkable carnage we saw in the country of Rwanda in 1994 over 100 days, resulting in over 800,000 senseless deaths. Slaughtered, not by crazed gunmen, but by machetes and clubs. Could many of those Rwandans have survived if armed against their attackers? They weren’t because the Rwandan government of the time was complying with strict gun control measures recommended by the United Nations, in their quest for “world peace.”

Adding insult upon injury, Michael Daly, NY Daily News Columnist, penned a particularly ugly piece directed towards Virginia, Yes, Virginia, guns kill innocents. I have to wonder if Daly will end up fired, as was Don Imus for offensive speech. Somehow, I doubt it.

Michael S. Brown, O.D., a member of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws treats us to Evidence says gun laws don’t work earlier this year.

Some say, “if only Cho Seung-Hui hadn’t been able to attain those guns.” They don’t realize that a crazed killer can obtain guns, anywhere, illegally. That he obtained them legally, this time, is largely irrelevant. Had he not had a gun, a knife, hammer or similar tool could have done as much damage.

Another school shooting that wasn’t fully reported was the Jan. 16, 2002 Virginia Appalachian School of Law shooting. What went unreported in the media was that this shooter also was stopped, and captured by students that used their own legal guns!


UPATE: Emilio Karim Dabul at Canada Free Press sees the dangers this shooting exposes us all to. Making note that Al Qaeda also makes note of our unprepardness to handle a single shooter, how much easier it will be for terrorists to slaughter even more of our people. Read the article at The VT Massacre and What it Means to the War on Terror

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Say Anything Hillary

April 15, 2007

Typical campaign tactic of a Clinton, other than the total destruction of your opponent, is the continual speaking out of both sides of the mouth. B.J. Clinton was notorious for it in 1992 and 1996, but third party candidate votes helped him squeak by with barely a higher number of votes to hold the White House and America hostage for two full terms. Seeing Hillary following the same example makes one wonder if that tactic isn’t hers that she encouraged B.J. in following.

From what I have been able to read, she wrote her College Thesis on Saul Alinsky, a radical community organizer from Chicago. The thesis titled, "There is Only the Fight ... An Analysis of the Alinsky Model,” is said to reveal her ideological attachment to the radical Alinksy by some. Others claim she concludes that "[Alinsky's] power/conflict model is rendered inapplicable by existing social conflicts" and that Alinsky's model had not expanded nationally due to "the anachronistic nature of small autonomous conflict."

It didn’t help the mystique of her thesis for the Clinton’s to request Wellesley College to seal it away during their time in the White House, leading her former professor and thesis adviser Alan Schechter to label the move, “a stupid political decision.” No longer sealed, copies have not been made public, which makes me wonder, considering her penchant for saying whatever a crowd wishes to hear, if Alinksy didn’t leave a larger impression upon her than realized.

With that in mind, a look at examples of statements made recently to statements made prior seems in order.

In an April 13 article, she says that Cynicism Is Our ‘Birthright' in regards to how the populace looks upon politicians and government and that her plan would remedy that.

Yet, in 1998, as details of her husbands sexual affair were coming to light, she labeled that cynicism as "a vast right-wing conspiracy" “that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president” As B.J. admitted to the affair, no apologies or withdrawal of the claim were made. Instead, she said it was possible her husband gave gifts to Lewinsky but said, “if that is true it is because he is gregarious and giving to everyone he meets.”

In further slamming of her opposition, she cited a few examples of voter irregularities in 2002 to resurrect the vast right wing conspiracy in March 2007. However, she neglected to list the voter irregularities by members of the Democrat party. ‘Vast Right Wing Conspiracy’ Redux.

Hillary also acknowledged “We know government isn't the answer to all our problems.” Yet, isn’t she the one who advocates a National Health Care System?

Taking a page from the campaign of 1992, she resurrects "Reinventing Government," or REGO, a program launched in B.J.’s administration and run by Al Gore. Although it was credited with saving taxpayers more than $136 billion by cutting the federal work force, trimming layers of management and cutting subsidies, how many of those cuts were actually to our defenses and intelligence that allowed us to be blind-sided by the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001? B.J. proposed a $60 Billion cut over 4 years, but after attaining office, the cuts proposed to the Military grew to $120 billion. During the “reinvention of government,” of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts. A Guide To The Political Left, Bill Clinton.

At a time of war, facing a Global Enemy of Jihadists bent on the destruction of Western Civilization, a “reinvention of government” in the example already made by the Clinton’s would be sheer suicide.

Hillary said her proposed changes would be made through executive order and others through legislation. Is it any wonder she demands the war be finished by January ‘09?

Clinton also claimed, "You're not invisible to the rest of America and you're certainly not invisible to me," adding, “when we take back the White House, you'll no longer be invisible to the president of the United States."

Anyone who watches even the anti-Bush reports on TV can see how people flock to him and he embraces them. Unprecedented for any President is Bush’s private meetings with families of fallen heroes.

Contrast that to accounts of Hillary found in the book I've Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words by Thomas Kuiper. It is filled with attributed quotes of rudeness and superiority over others around her.

Unlike other ‘cut and run’ Democrat candidates, Hillary refuses to apologize for her vote authorizing the battle in Iraq in the Greater War on Terror. Instead, she now lays claim to "Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way." Yet, she told Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard in late 2003, “[T]he intelligence from Bush 1 to Clinton to Bush 2 was consistent” about Saddam Hussein having Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In April 2004, to CNN’s Larry King, she said, "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." Echoing what she previously stated in regards to the lack of WMDs found, she said, “The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.”

In addressing Fred Barnes, she said she did her own "due diligence" by attending classified briefings on Capitol Hill and at the White House and Pentagon and also by consulting national security officials from the Clinton administration whom she trusts. "To a person, they all agreed with the consensus of the intelligence" that Saddam had WMD. Hillary Gets Tough.

But now, she claims she was “misled by faulty intelligence from the Bush administration.”

Returning to the thesis on Saul Alinksy, Hillary wrote to be effective he needed “an enemy in order to translate community interest into community action.” She also wrote, “Much of what Alinsky professes does not sound 'radical.' ” Additionally, she also wrote that Alinsky, "is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared -- just as Eugene McCarthy or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of all political faiths -- democracy."

I think it is very obvious just who and what she has decided is the enemy she needs to propel herself back into the White House, but not as the First Lady this time. She seems to have embraced Alinsky’s “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.”


Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Democrat Party Intimidating the Media?

April 11, 2007

Last month I wrote about Nevada Democrats Caving to Far Left Kooks by canceling their participation in a debate scheduled for August amongst state Democrats due to it being partially sponsored by the Fox News Channel. The far left Socialist wing calls Fox News “conservative propaganda” and in true Socialist fashion, demands no one have anything to do with any news network that doesn’t kowtow before the altar of the far leftist agenda in America today.

Now, barely a month later, John Edwards withdraws from debates scheduled and co-sponsored by Fox News and the Congressional Black Caucus. Within hours, other Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama withdraw from the debates as well.

Rush Limbaugh labels this move as “Part of the Democrat Party Civil War” over who runs the party, the Howard Dean side and the far left-wing blogosphere or more traditional and moderate Democrats. Other conservative commentators ask, “What are you Democrats afraid of?”

I don’t see them actually afraid of anything other than Americans hearing the views of conservatives opposed to the far left kook fringe of the once great Democrat party. I see something a bit more sinister going on. More sinister even than the Politics of Personal Destruction the Democrats have become known for.

Towards the end of World War One, a movement came to power in the country of Russia, Bolshevism which ended up becoming the Communist Party of the Soviet Union by 1924.

One of the many steps the Bolsheviks used to win their revolution was take over the media of the time, the press, and determine what the populace read. Dissent was seen as widespread and spoon-fed to the populace to sew more seeds of discontent. World War One was unpopular and propaganda from the Bolsheviks made it even more so.

In time, all of the media was state owned and controlled. Whereas dissent was seen as Patriotic, in the overthrow of the Russian Tzar, it became forbidden once the Bolsheviks had power.

Today, we see similar actions from the far left kooks who claim they now own the Democrat party. CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and major printed media broadcast and publish nearly only bad news about the War on Terror, especially in Iraq. President Bush is labeled as a simpleton, a buffoon that can hardly tie his own shoes. Yet, they also tell us he is crafty enough to mislead and lie the entire Democrat party into voting for an unnecessary war. They tell us 9/11 wasn’t the acts of Islamofascists, but George W. Bush, Karl Rove and other Republicans to justify the war we are currently fighting.

Many of our own populace fell for this nonsense, rarely if ever hearing anything truthful or positive about any but the Democrats that ‘tow the line’ of the far left kooks. That is, until the birth of the Fox News Channel. Fox, it appears, has the audacity to give both views, liberal and conservative and actually tells some of the good news coming out of the war. The “we report, you decide” is actually true.

To the far leftist, this cannot be allowed as people can see the situation in the country isn’t as bleak as they make it out to be. They only want their far leftist view to be seen, heard or read. While they call dissent “patriotic” when against conservatives, dissent against the liberal view is “a vast right winged conspiracy” or a “smear campaign,” as over 250 combat decorated Viet Nam Veterans, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, are labeled for exposing the long standing Socialist liberal actions and agenda of former presidential candidate, John Kerry, who served in Viet Nam.

Fox News Channel threatens the far left kooks. Hence, they must be silenced. They don’t have the political power to completely stifle them, yet. So, they ridicule them, label them biased to conservatives and do whatever they can to minimize them, encouraging sheeple to not listen to or watch them.

In their minds, having the top three contenders for the Democrat Party nomination for president in 2008 refuse to appear on debates co-sponsored by Fox News minimizes them. It hurts their viewership. Without viewership, advertising dollars dry up and the business fails. It stops the populace from hearing dissenting views against the left, having to resort back to the lamestream media they control and who share their far left views.

Part of the First Amendment to our Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” While no law has been passed, freedom of speech and of the press (media) has been a long held inheritance of our Democratic Republic. Efforts to stifle or intimidate one segment of our media breaches the very foundation of our freedoms.

This attack and intimidation of Fox News from the far left kooks of the Democrat party is such a breach. A breach not unlike that seen in the days that led to the establishment of the oppressive Soviet Union.


UPDATE: Emmett Tyrrell At Town Hall adds his excellent commentary on the intimidation by the far left. The Naked Bloggers

Sunday, April 08, 2007

Nancy Pelosi, Should She Resign as Speaker?

April 8, 2007

Her unauthorized trip to Syria has been all over the news this week. She was asked by the Bush administration not to make a trip to Syria to engage in “dialogue” with Syria’s President Assad, but took it upon herself to travel there anyways.

While there, Democrat Congressman Tom Lantos, who traveled with her, declared that Democrats have an “Alternative Foreign Policy”. Pelosi herself said, "We have no illusions but great hope."

After the visit, in a telephone interview with the Associated Press, Pelosi stated, "Our message was President Bush's message."

In June 2005, Pelosi said of Bush, “The American people understand what is at stake in Iraq and in the Middle East. That is why it is so disappointing that the President failed tonight, as he has failed consistently since the war began, to lay out specifics for success, including performance benchmarks.”

September 2006 brought the following quip from Speaker Pelosi; "It is one thing to give a speech about promoting peace, freedom, and democracy in broad, general terms as President Bush did at the United Nations today. It is another to commit to doing the hard work of diplomacy on a daily basis to resolve matters such as Iran's nuclear ambitions, Syria's support for Hezbollah, and the issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians.”

In a September 2006 campaign email sent out, titled ‘Despicable,’ she said, “President Bush will try to make terrorism the issue nationally, casting the election as a choice between two distinct approaches for protecting the nation from attack. He will continue to divide this country over national security, instead of uniting it.”

Just last month, March 2007, she stated, "President Bush’s Iraq policies weaken our military’s readiness, dishonor our nation’s promises to our veterans, and fail to hold the Iraqi government accountable for overdue reforms.”

Also last month, did she not ram through a Defense Spending Bill she added some $20 billion in vote-buying pork, including $74 million for peanut storage, $25 million for spinach growers, $283 million for dairy farmers and not one single dime for Veterans care or Military Hospitals? Yet, also sends our enemies a definite date of withdrawal from Iraq, giving them foreknowledge of the day we quit so they can wait us out, killing American Troops in the meantime?

And now, we are to believe and accept that she traveled to Syria, without White House approval, against the wishes of the White House to “deliver President Bush's message?”

Many conservatives, indignant over this usurpation of Executive Powers, are looking to the Logan Act for redress of her Illegal Diplomacy. Don’t waste your efforts. The act, created in 1799 forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. In its history, there has never been a prosecution and only one indictment was ever handed down, in 1803.

If it were invoked, it undoubtedly would trigger a case straight to the Supreme Court with the expected 4 to 4 vote from the Justices, leaving Justice Kennedy to cast the deciding vote, again. It could be expected he would cast his lot with the Liberals approving of her “shadow presidency.”

Still, Pelosi should not be allowed to escape unscathed from this unconstitutional usurpation of Presidential authority.

Jerry Zeifman, Democratic Counsel of the House Judiciary for 17 years has written an article, Nancy Pelosi Should Resign, outlining several missteps she has taken in her short three months as Speaker as well as steps taken back when the Republican minority had a spine when Democrat former Speaker Jim Wright was eventually forced to resign from Congress over his undermining President Reagan’s Central American policy towards the Communists regimes of the late 1980’s. Our spineless Republicans today should follow suit.

Correspondent Ronald Kessler sees Pelosi As Our Neville Chamberlain, invoking the failed Diplomacy tried in 1938 to appease Hitler’s ambitions.

A Washington Post editorial, Pratfall in Damascus, labels her trip as “Nancy Pelosi's foolish shuttle diplomacy,” saying, “Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.”

As mentioned in the Jerry Zeifman article, she has fostered what is known as "tyranny by the majority" and violated House Rules that give her the duty to maintain order, civility, and decorum, and to foster "comity," not only by her unauthorized trip, but by her attempts at strong arming others into accepting her choices for important seats in the House, regardless of any ethics or other investigations ongoing.

She has described herself as a partner in the Presidents power, clearly overstepping the Constitutional powers granted even to the Vice President as well as purporting to speak for the entire electorate when it was only a majority of San Francisco citizens that elected her as their spokesperson, not for the entire country.

It is clear to me that this woman has become even more power mad than the usual politician in Washington D.C. is. As far as I’m concerned, the only honorable thing for her to do is to resign, as she and other Democrats have called upon every member of the Bush administration to do. At least they haven’t grossly overstepped their Constitutional Authority in setting themselves up as “Queen.”


UPDATE: Queen Pelosi and Tom Lantos contemplating “DIPLOMATIC” trip to Iran

Saturday, April 07, 2007

Remember Me!

Our Troops need us as much as we need them. Have tissues at the ready and consider what they willingly sacrifice to protect us.

Friday, April 06, 2007

An Open Letter to all of the Jenny Ballantine’s

April 6, 2007

Anyone listening to Rush Limbaugh’s radio program yesterday morning (afternoon back east) heard his discussion with the 22 year old College student, Jenny Ballantine, who made news this week for the question she asked Democrat Presidential candidate, John Edwards. She expressed frustration at how hard it is being on her own as a student with student loans and saying,

“I need to be able to look to my leader and see words of encouragement, words of hope. I need to be able to trust that person. I need to be able to know that I'm going to be grow [sic in transcript] in a world that's not going to be full of hate and prejudice and racism and to know that I matter, that I wasn't just dumped in this world for no particular reason whatsoever.”

“I'm busting my ass in school, I work 25 to 30 hours a week, and it's just me and my dog. So what can you do for the people that are in my situation, that are trying their damnedest in school, wanting to go to grad school, is going to be hit with the loans--and, uh, I have no idea what I want to do when I grow up. I don't know what I want to be when I'm an adult. But I'm 22 right now, so people are like, "Honey, you are an adult." You know what? It's about me. It's about me voting for you or supporting somebody who's going to be the next president. So it's all about me right now. Just give me something.”

What Jenny, and many like her don’t realize, is that they are so far ahead of the game already. Being in college with better than a 3.0 GPA is a good solid foundation for the rest of her life.

Jenny, at your age, 22, I was completing my second tour in Viet Nam and soon to be married the first time. Like you, I had a very rough childhood. My parents didn’t even know I was in Viet Nam until I had been there about 10 months. What college I took was later in 1980 under the old G.I. Bill, as I was married with a family by then and in my early 30’s.

I give that, not to minimize Jenny’s situation, but to show that I too have been where she is and even down to today, am frustrated with life, some of the time. Receiving hugs and kisses from my grandsons makes it all better, though.

Our youth today have been taught that government is the answer to everything. Democrats and even Republicans promise the sun, the moon and the stars to get reelected. The end result is they stay in office and we sit back waiting and expecting what they promise, which rarely materializes, just more empty promises.

For a good example of the futility of waiting on government just look to New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as thousands waited at the Super Dome for days and help didn’t come for many days.

Contrast that with neighboring Mississippi and Alabama, which took the brunt of the storm and suffered far more devastation. They didn’t wait for help but started helping themselves and each other until some help could arrive.

At 22 we often think we are at the pinnacle of our life when we are really on the first step of the journey. We are unsure of the future, as it has always been. The only safety net is the supportive friends we acquire along the way and ourselves.

In the interview with Rush, Jenny expressed some considerable obstacles she has already overcome. She needs to be applauded for that as many give up when faced with obstacles.

Rush is correct in telling her to find her passion, regardless of what it is and pursue it with vigor. No politician will ever supply your life’s passion to you. They are pursuing and clinging to their own by whatever means they can muster, power.

One thing Jenny did seem to realize is that every obstacle she overcame taught her some of life’s lessons and earned appreciation for what she accomplished, on her own. Self esteem cannot be given, it can only be earned by our own accomplishments.

In the April 5, 2007 WSJ Opinion Journal, columnist James Taranto, who I ordinarily agree with, wrote what I feel is a condescending account of Jenny’s question of John Edwards. My apologies if I misunderstand Taranto’s column, but his ending remark of “And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what your country can do for Jenny Ballantine,” I feel is out of line.

Likewise, John Edwards reply was equally empty of anything actually substantive. He replied; “God bless you. If I were choosing a president, uh, that's what I'd be doing. I'd be looking for the specifics of what they want to do, because that matters, but I would also be judging them personally, because we need to trust our president.”

Jenny, and all others like her out there, don’t be despondent. Nearly every one of us have asked similar questions or been in your shoes. For thousands of years mankind has been in similar situations. It is a struggle, yes. But, look back at what you have already accomplished and don’t stop there. It is often said, “adversity makes us stronger.” That is very true. We all get our strengths, not from government programs, designed to keep us all down and dependant on them, but by what we set our focus on and accomplish.

That is the traditional American way. Rush told her what I often told my own two daughters as they grew up. “The only limits on you are those you place on yourself.” Don’t ever let anyone tell you that you cannot accomplish whatever goal in life you want. Work hard enough and you will acquire it.

Any that tell you different or discourage you, cast them away from you. You don't need people dragging you down with them.

One day, the Jenny Ballantine’s will be inheriting leadership of America. Always remember that we are guaranteed “life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness,” not happiness itself. It is incumbent on us to build our strengths, cling to our values and pull together to achieve our individual dreams and better the country in the process. That is true leadership, what the country needs and what will keep it on the path to its greatness it is known for.

Don’t fall for any politician’s glib and poetic speech, Jenny. Look at your own strengths and approach each challenge as another strength builder. Grab life with all the gusto you have and exude the strength within you outward. You, your friends and our country will notice and be much better off because of you.


UPDATE: Taranto recants his article of yesterday. "We were too hasty to mock Jenny Ballantine yesterday." In Praise of Jenny Ballantine

Thursday, April 05, 2007

If You Can’t Lose A War Any Other Way

April 5, 2007

It is no secret that the Democrat party leadership has no designs on the Global War on Terror other than to ensure it is lost, especially in Iraq. Oh, they deny it, supporters deny it, but nowhere has any of the current Democrat party leadership proposed anything other than “cut and run,” “modified cut and run,” or “renamed cut and run.”

Believing they were swept into power because Americans agree with their ‘failure at any cost attitude,’ Democrats have tried nearly every trick they can muster to undermine the war effort and President Bush.

After unanimously approving General Petraeus as Commander in Iraq, what do they do? Why, theyoppose the reinforcements General Petraeus says he needs and they have been demanding up until December 2006, that’s what.

With early reports showing the Troop Reinforcement is showing some success, they pass legislation packed with vote buying pork that is supposed to fund the Troops and the war effort, knowing full well it will be vetoed. But then they can campaign in 2008 that Republicans refused to fund Troops in War.

In spite of their best efforts, Democrats haven’t secured the defeat of America yet. So, what to do? How about deny we are even in a war and divert the public’s attention away from any successes?

Reuters David Morgan does just that in his April 3 article, Bush success vs. al-Qaeda breeds long term worries. Succeeding in war leaves us more vulnerable now? If that isn’t twisted logic I don’t know what is. Funniest part of his article is the final sentence; "Our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11," credited to Alexandria, Virginia-based IntelCenter chief executive Ben Venzke.

Since I am now 5 years older than I was on September 11, 2001, I am closer to my own mortality than I was then too. I’m closer to retirement than I was too. How ridiculous a statement to make.

Not only do they fear our successes hurt us, they now decide that we shouldn’t refer to the war as a “war,” any longer. In a game of pure semantics, Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee have banished any reference to a “Global War on Terror” and “Long War.” Of course, there is no ‘political motivation’ behind the move, they say.

By effectively separating the battles in the greater war to individual wars now, the intent must be to convince the public that the battles are not connected.

Democrats can play semantics. They can deny we are at war. They can undermine the Troops and the President. It doesn’t change the fact that we have been under attack by radical Islamists since 1979 and the terrorists are in it for the long haul. This is a real war Democrats and our All Volunteer Military have willingly placed themselves in Harm’s Way for us.

You can call it an “open ended war,” if you wish, but that is how our enemies are fighting it. Like I said, they are in it for the long haul. If our new leaders aren’t up to it, we need leaders that are or prepare to be ruled by radical Islamists.


Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Democrats and “Alternative Foreign Policy”

April 3, 2007

Circumventing long standing constitutional principle, Democrat Congressman Tom Lantos, a member of Speakerette Pelosi’s delegation to Syria said, "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy." It has been long accepted that the President, whoever it may be, sets Foreign Policy, until the ‘coronation’ of ‘Queen’ Nancy Pelosi.

Totally ignoring admonitions from the Bush White House, as well as totally undermining their policy towards the country of Syria, who is well believed to be arming and supporting terrorists killing our Troops in Iraq, Pelosi decided to travel to Syria and hold her own meetings, for whatever purpose.

Three Republican delegates recently also visited with Syrian leaders. Their intent was let known, though. According to Syrian news sources, "The statement that three US Republican Congressmen issued at the end of a visit to Damascus was something like a slap in the face of the hoped-for dialogue between Syria and the United States."

Syrian Journalist Thana al-Imam says, “the congressmen's call for stopping support for Hizballah and HAMAS, preventing fighters from crossing into Iraq, recognizing Israel's right to live in peace, and refraining from intervening in Lebanon means that ‘we are back to square one. For, these American demands have not changed for more than three years.’”

So far, what we hear from Pelosi is, "We think it's a good idea to establish the facts, to hopefully build some confidence between us. We have no illusions but great hope."

Hope for what, Ms. Pelosi? “peace in our time,” as was done in 1938 by England’s Neville Chamberlain?

In truth, with the Democrats announcing they have their own “Alternative Foreign Policy,” are they declaring their own separate government now? Or, have they declared total ownership of the country, before the 2008 elections are even held?

Pelosi isn’t a Prime Minister; she isn’t representative of the White House. Anything she and Syria’s Assad discuss or agree to is meaningless. She may make headlines, but only the White House determines foreign policy, as was wisely designed by the framers of our Constitution, the document Democrats only partially support, when it suits their agenda.

Maybe Democrats have always had their own “alternate foreign policy.” We saw their undermining of the Nixon/Ford administrations when they denied any and all support to South Viet Nam in 1975, allowing them to fall to Communist aggression.

Recent documents made available through a KGB Defector shows that Democrat Ted Kennedy worked in close concert with high level Kremlin officials to alter the direction of foreign policy during the Reagan administration.

Also during the Reagan years, Senators Kerry and Harkin visited Nicaragua’s Marxist leader, Daniel Ortega, while Reagan was supporting the overthrow of Ortega, who idolized Fidel Castro and had strong ties to the now defunct Soviet Union. They made an agreement with the Marxist regime for direct talks with Washington, which the Reagan administration flatly rejected. Kerry and Harkin were proved dead wrong with their appeasement attempt.

I don’t recall Republican Congresscritters visiting regimes the Clinton administration opposed to make separate agreements without his consent. Had they done so, you can bet the lamestream media would have been blasting them daily for their “unconstitutional acts.”

So now we have Speakerette Pelosi traveling to Syria to make her own deals, while Democrats pack Defense spending bills to fund the war with needless pork and withdrawal dates, assuring President Bush will veto the bills. All while we have Troops in harm’s way, being demoralized, made vulnerable and costing needless deaths.

Don’t be surprised if Pelosi gets off the airplane upon her return, waving a piece of paper and announcing “peace in our time,” just as Neville Chamberlain did. Also, don’t be surprised to see that piece of paper turn out to be totally worthless, as also happened to Neville Chamberlain.

Is it any wonder that we are the laughing stock of the world now? It isn’t because Bush decided to fight back over terrorists. It is because our enemies have seen the longstanding policy of the Democrat party to undermine any Republican who grows a spine and defends America.

Pelosi’s trip is a stunt, just as is packing the Defense Bill with pork and withdrawal dates. She will claim she achieved peace when Bush couldn’t. Democrats will also claim that the Bush White House did not fund our Troops, causing us to loose the war, when it is they that have been working hard to make us lose it ever since they voted to fight it.

God help us if they win the White House too in 2008. Terrorists wanting to see America destroyed will be elated, their pursuit being made that much simpler.


Sunday, April 01, 2007

Swift Boat Backlash

April 1, 2007

In an opinion piece written March 30, 2007, Fox news contributor and Legal Professor, Susan Estrich, lends her voice to the glee being expressed over the withdrawal of the nomination of Republican, Sam Fox, for Ambassador to Belgium.

Swift Boat Backlash

From her article, we read, “No one ever suggested that Mr. Fox didn't have whatever qualifications are required to be ambassador to Belgium.”

And, quoting Senator Chris Dodd; "Tough politics I accept," said Sen. Chris Dodd, Kerry's fellow Democrat, a committee member and current presidential candidate. "Strong partisan views I accept. But he went over the line."

She continues with, “The issue is not retribution, but responsibility.”

Really, Ms. Estrich? May I ask where are your calls for “responsibility” for George Soros,, DailyKOS and other left winged groups who went so far as to actually fabricate documents in their futile effort to prove President Bush’s Military Service in the Texas Air national Guard dishonorable? What about Michael Moore, Ms. Estrich? Did you miss his fraudulent ‘documentary,’ Fahrenheit 911? Should he not be held responsible, as well?

What about Rosie O’Donnell’s outrageous conspiracy theories she spews daily on ABC’s, the View? Not only is she ignorant of what she speaks, she spews lies as facts and falsely accuses the President of the United States of War Crimes, while she advocates for the enemy of the United States. Where is the call for her “responsibility,” Ms. Estrich?

What I find especially ironic is that just two days earlier, March 28, 2007, Susan Estrich wrote another article decrying the intent of Monica Goodling to invoke the Fifth Amendment in testimony she is to give concerning the trumped up non-scandal scandal the Democrat Party leaders are trying to build over the Bush Justice Departments firings of 7 U.S. Attorneys, completely legal, even according to Democrats.

Taking The Fifth

The claim of scandal against these firings is that they were purely “politically motivated.” According to the statement released by Ms. Goodlings attorney, "The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real, One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby."

Libby, you recall, was recently convicted of perjury for the non-outing of Valerie Plame, a purely “politically motivated” trial over his lack of memory during questioning about this alleged “outing.” I say, “alleged” because all along who released her name was known to the U.S. Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. That did not stop the “politically motivated” witch-hunt trying to create or find evidence of a crime not committed and tie it to the White House.

Ms. Estrich says in the second article, “Based on what her lawyer is saying, Monica Goodling has no right to invoke the 5th Amendment. If she has nothing to hide, she has to testify.”

Sorry, Ms. Estrich, but Kangaroo Investigations set up to entrap people over any charge that can be trumped up is sufficient cause for me to understand her invoking the Fifth Amendment to protect herself from potential charges and tried in a very biased court, as was Libby.

Senator Dodd said Mr. Fox “went over the line,” yet neither he nor Ms. Estrich explains how, other than he donated to a grassroots effort comprised of highly decorated combat Viet Nam Veterans and ex-POWs who openly and legally opposed the candidacy of Senator John ‘F’in Kerry over his treasonous acts after his scant 4 month tour in Viet Nam.

What I find sanctimonious in her Swift Boat article is that she excuses the “Politically Motivated” denial of Sam Fox’s nomination over who he donated money too, something we have every right as American Citizens to do, while decrying the Justice Departments legal firings of the 7 U.S. Attorney’s over Democrats cries of “Politically Motivated.”

I guess you have to be a Liberal Socialist to have everything your way in today’s Political Climate.