Friday, October 30, 2009

TEA Party Express, Portland Oregon

Just a few photos I took from inside the crowd at the TEA Party Express visit today. Afterwards, we wanted to purchase something from Michaels to say thanks for the use of the parking lot, but the line was stretched outside the door with others doing the same.

We will return soon to make a purchase and to thank them for standing up for America.

In all I'd estimate the turnout to be a little over 1500, the parking lot was jammed packed. Not too bad for a Friday at 1 PM when most people are working.

If the Express is visiting a city near you or your city, take the time and be there, it is just awe inspiring to see and be around such talent and people.

Follow the Express at Tea Party Express Blog

Tea Party Express Schedule

Monday, October 26, 2009

John Kerry Undermines American Troops In War…. Again

John ‘F’in Kerry, self proclaimed war hero and failed presidential candidate, now senior senator from the once great state of Massachusetts, seems prepared to once again undermine and demoralize American Troops in harm’s way as he did with those of us who served in Viet Nam, diligently seeking to turn public opinion against our war effort in Afghanistan and to demoralize Troops standing in harm’s way.

Kerry, who served a whole 4 months in Viet Nam, one month of which was in training and amassed a chest full of highly questionable medals that he claimed to throw away in protest, but somehow hang on his office wall today, traveled to Afghanistan and in the few short hours he spent there, protected by a burly armed bodyguard, has decided his scant time in Viet Nam gives him more insight into prosecuting a war than General Stanley McChrystal possesses, even though the general was hand-picked by Obama to implement Obama’s new war strategy issued this past March.

To call Kerry an idiot would be an insult to idiots.

A June 2006 Newsmax report has Kerry accusing President Bush of a ‘cut and run’ strategy in Afghanistan saying, “Cut and run while the Taliban-led insurgency is running amok across entire regions of the country. Cut and run while Osama bin Laden and his henchmen hide and plot in a lawless no-man’s land” and “The central front in the war on terror is still in Afghanistan, but this administration treats it like a sideshow. When did denying al-Qaida a terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan stop being an urgent American priority?”

In a December 2007 speech at the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies Kerry said, “Clearly, some military steps are necessary to make our crucial non-military efforts successful and sustainable. And the most obvious is providing sufficient numbers of troops to stabilize a deteriorating security situation. I’ve spoken with top military officials who have emphasized to me just how thinly stretched our troops are in southern and eastern Afghanistan. Unquestionably, if we want to clear, hold, and build—which is what you do in a counterinsurgency—we need more boots on the ground.”

“It may seem counterintuitive, but we also need more troops to make our overall counterinsurgency effort ultimately depend less on the use of military force. During the first half of 2007, while the Administration escalated troop levels in Iraq, there were four times as many air strikes in Afghanistan as there were in Iraq. That’s because, without enough troops, we were forced to rely more on air operations against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.”

In a September 9, 2008 statement decrying President Bush again, Kerry said, “The President’s announcement that by the end of this year he will be sending just one single Marine battalion to Afghanistan is woefully insufficient given the deteriorating situation there, and far short of the three additional brigades that our commanders in Afghanistan have said they urgently need. It is shocking that a President who claims to heed the advice of his military leaders would ignore their pleas to send significant additional troops to the very region where the terrorists responsible for 9/11 still roam free to plan their next attack.”

If you will recall, along with the above, throughout his dismal campaign to unseat President Bush in 2004, Kerry consistently condemned Bush for the Iraq Theater in the War on Terror, even though Kerry voted to invade Iraq, claiming Afghanistan was where we needed to build up the Troops and fight terrorists.

Now that Kerry is the senior senator from the once great state of Massachusetts and sitting as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the same committee he lied before in 1971 as he sought to undermine the Troops in Viet Nam and cause failure there, where does Kerry stand on Afghanistan today?

Kerry, responding to General McChrystal’s assessment of Afghanistan, where in August he requested 40,000 more Troops for Afghanistan, cherry picks one portion of that same assessment and now says, it would be “irresponsible to send more troops to Afghanistan.”

Kerry says, “the U.S. should listen to the advice of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in that country,” cherry picking a few words out of that assessment requesting additional Troops adding, “When our own, you know, commanding general tells us that a critical component of achieving our mission here is, in fact, good governance, and we’re living with a government that we know has to change and provide it, how could the president responsibly say, oh, they asked for more, sure, here they are?”

In the December 2007 comment linked to above, Kerry said of this same Afghan government, “The Karzai government—despite its limited capacity and struggles with corruption—is making a good-faith effort at democratic governance in a country whose agrarian economy, tribal affinities, and war-torn history present daunting challenges.”

Are we to believe there is no longer any “good faith effort” on the part of the Karzai government since Obama and his Democrat cartel seized complete and total dictatorial power over the country?

As Troop Morale declines and they question if their lives are being sacrificed in vain, we hear Kerry once again undermining the Troops as he did us in Viet Nam and Obama spends more time playing golf than leading a nation at war.
That is irresponsible, not backing our Troops.

Army Sgt. 1st Class Teresa R. Coble, deployed on yet another tour in Afghanistan worries that the lives sacrificed will be in vain. She and those in her unit are concerned that the public has lost sight of why we went to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Another young soldier speaking anonymously says, “What are we here to win? I have to believe that what Gen. McChrystal is doing is going to work. But who knows how long that will last before someone else decides to change the game plan again? I mean, do the people in Washington even remember we’re here?”

Sgt Coble also said, “We're not just numbers,” adding, “When people go out on the streets in America and say, ‘Bring our troops home,’ it infuriates me. Don’t go out there talking about bringing our troops home, let us decide when to come back home. We’re here because we want our children, my son, to have a safer world, and we know the risks.”

What they don’t know is whether or not they will see the reinforcements asked for nearly 3 months ago.

Both Kerry and Obama say withdrawing from Afghanistan is out of the question. But, they also are hesitant to reinforce those Troops there, leaving our Brave Troops wondering if the American public gives a damn about them.

Undermining the Troops is old hat to Kerry as we all saw from the efforts of the Swift Vets and POWS for Truth, as they exposed Kerry for the fraud, opportunist and charlatan he is. Hundreds of highly decorated and honorable Veterans and former Prisoners of War from Viet Nam, remembering Kerry’s selling out the Troops and America during Viet Nam stood up and spoke out, many having served alongside Kerry or in similar Swift Boat Units in Viet Nam.

They took the hits from the Democrat Party eagerly wishing to unseat President Bush as Kerry began his campaign of undermining Troop Morale and turning public sentiment away from the very war he voted to authorize.
In large part they showed that he was Unfit For Command.

All aging and many in declining health, some suffering still from wounds received in Viet Nam, they stood up for America, telling the truth that Kerry did not want revealed.

Tragically, the voters of the once great state of Massachusetts did not. They reelected Kerry to the Senate and now we have this traitor and usurper chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee instead of sitting in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary where he belongs.

Kerry lied to the country about Viet Nam. He lied during his 2004 campaign and was completely wrong when he opposed President Bush’s Surge in Iraq, saying how it would fail.

Kerry has been wrong about nearly every matter he has ever been entrusted with. We should not trust him now.

He was Unfit in 2004 and now more than ever, he still is.

I hope the once great state of Massachusetts wakes up to this fraud soon.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

U.N. Rapporteur To Probe Affordable Housing In U.S.

Raquel Rolnik, a professor of urban planning at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil will be touring first New York then 6 other cities and will "report" back to the U.N. about housing rights violations and advances within the U.S.

Rolnik plans to “hear the voices of those who are suffering on the ground,” in the U.S.

Shouldn't Ms. Rolnik be more concerned about the poor housing and poverty within her native Brazil, before she attempts to "teach" us?

Has Obama begun ceding our sovereignty to the United Nations now?

Saturday, October 24, 2009

What Happened To The Death Threats, Congressman Baird?

There was a lot of noise made back in August of this year over Congressman Brian Baird, (D. Wa.) canceling out on all of his town halls over alleged death threats he claims he received.

Baird was under fire from both sides for not holding face to face meetings with constituents and was strongly criticized for incendiary comments made comparing town hall attendees to “Nazi’s,” “Brown Shirts,” “Timothy McVeigh” and the like, which he eventually apologized for and agreed to hold some town halls.

The day after the first town hall, Baird again came under heavy criticism for what was perceived to be yet another incendiary comment at a local Rotary Club luncheon where he said, “If there is a Ryder truck parked out front, it has my name on it.”

The comment drew strong criticism from the Clark County Republican Party as Clark County Conservative previously noted at Brian Baird Steps On His Tongue Again.

The Columbian, the paper of record for Clark County strongly condemned the criticism. Staff writer Kathie Durbin, who was present at the luncheon and must have missed the “threat disclosure” herself as she saw fit not to mention it in her first article on the luncheon, wrote the condemnation of the GOP criticism in her piece, Death threat disclosure by Baird draws criticism.

Previously we had only heard about the faxed image of Barack Obama as the joker and now we heard about a phone message left at his office allegedly saying, “You think Timothy McVeigh was bad, there is a Ryder truck out there with your name on it.”

Naturally, such a comment must be taken seriously and Baird’s office staff claimed to have reported the comment and fax to the Secret Service and to the Capitol Police in Washington D.C.

A local blogger called the Capitol Police to inquire about a police report and said he was told no such police report existed. The Columbian’s managing editor, Lou Brancaccio also placed calls to the Capitol Police and wrote he was told that there was an ongoing investigation of an unspecified nature.

Kathie Durbin wrote a more specific account claiming the Columbian was told, “A matter was brought to the attention of Capitol Police from Congressman Brian Baird’s office. But we cannot comment on any details of any ongoing investigation.”

A comment left on a September 6 Brancaccio column, There He Goes Again asked about whether or not any additional information had come about from the investigation into the death threats allegedly received and Lou replied, “I've spoken with law enforcement several times since we reported that the matter was brought to their attention. (Which, as you recall was the large issue at hand at the time.) No additional info was given.”

It seems that since that comment by Lou Brancaccio in September a very strange thing has happened in regards to this death threat and the investigation.


Wondering why we have not heard anything more about this in nearly 2 months, I emailed Lou Brancaccio Thursday October 22 asking about the status of any updates on the investigation, whether settled or still ongoing and received in reply, “No update Lew.”

No curiosity on what we were told was “the large issue at hand at the time?” No follow up from the media? No questioning whether or not we have some loon in our community who feels death threats to elected officials is okay?

I didn’t bother emailing Kathie Durbin because she never replies to me anyways. But, still curious I did call Congressman Baird’s office in Washington D.C. to ask about the status of any investigation.

Almost as soon as I asked I was placed on hold for a few moments and the young man on the other end came back on saying he “was not privy to any such information” and that there was no one in the office who had such information.

A little later the same day I called Baird’s Vancouver office with the same question and again was told no one was present who had any such information. I was invited to leave a message with Kelly Love, Baird’s District Manager asking her, which as of this writing has not been returned.

In both phone calls I envisioned from the answerers tone of deer caught in a cars headlights, shocked surprised and not knowing what to do.

After this length of time shouldn’t constituents have heard some sort of update on such a serious matter?

I have to wonder why, since even Lou Brancaccio stated it was a “large issue,” that our local journalists lost interest and have not followed up on the charge in 2 months, especially since in early September Brancaccio stated he had called the Capitol Police “several times?”

If a serious threat was received and the investigation showed that, shouldn’t we have an arrest of a suspect?

If it was a ploy by Baird to draw heat away from his initial refusal to hold town halls, aren’t we also entitled to hear that as well?

Candidate running against Baird for Washington’s Third Congressional District, David Castillo, has been calling out Baird for his hypocritical grandstanding in trying to appear as if he isn’t a liberal and that he has been diligently representing constituents, when in fact, he hasn’t.

Has Baird sold us a bill of goods on these death threats that was supposed to just go away and be forgotten by now?

I would hate to think that Baird’s claims of death threats was little more than a sympathy play back in August, but given the lack of curiosity seen in a supportive press and his lack of straight forwardness with us on the investigation, what are we left to think?

Thursday, October 22, 2009

V.P.Cheney: Obama, Keep Your Commitment

August 17, 2009 Barack Obama, current occupant of the Oval Office, made a speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention in Phoenix, Arizona.

In that speech, the glib Obama stated, “I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary. And when I do, it will be based on good intelligence and guided by a sound strategy. I will give you a clear mission, defined goals, and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That's my commitment to you.”

Two months after receiving a request for that “equipment and support you need to get the job done,” Obama is only close to deciding when he might decide on what to do.

Wednesday evening, October 21, 2009, V. P. Dick Cheney, after receiving the Center For Security Policy’s Keeper of the Flame Award made a speech in which he said of the Obama regime, “It's time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America's armed forces are in danger.”

It’s time to wage war on the terrorists instead of warring with Fox News.

UPDATE: As expected, the Obama regime adamantly denies they are dragging their feet saying, "What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform and to the American public."

Left unexplained is how he was so decisive in rapidly dispatching his goons against Fox News.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009


Why are abortion doctors more important to the Obama administration than our Troops in Afghanistan?

When Dr. Tiller was murdered, Federal Marshals were dispatched immediately to protect abortion clinics.

Since General McChrystal requested reinforcements for our Troops in Afghanistan in late August, over 50 have lost their lives and nearly 2 months later, Obama simply ponders what to do, announcing no decision for weeks.

The same day Dr. Tiller was brutally murdered Obama released a statement saying,

“I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.”

October 6, 2009 a statement from the White House said,
“Given the importance of the policy to our security -- and to our troops -- the president said that he will be rigorous and deliberate, while moving forward with a sense of urgency.”

By October 13 we hear, Obama: Afghanistan Decision within Weeks

Weeks? That’s what Obama considers as “moving forward with a sense of urgency?”

Is it “with a sense of urgency” that failed presidential candidate John ‘F’in Kerry states it would be irresponsible to send more troops to Afghanistan?

It appeared to be “with a sense of urgency” that Kerry co-sponsored a bill condemning violence against abortion doctors, but reinforcing our Troops in Afghanistan is “irresponsible?”

As much as I hate to quote such a person, Osama bin Laden said long ago,
“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

Obama and the Democrats are providing such a “weak horse” attitude.

How can we expect the Afghani people to stand alongside of us when they see this administration cares more for abortion doctors than our own Troops in harms way?

If only Obama would wage war against terrorists as much as he is Fox News.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Obama Escalates War On Fox, No Need For The First Amendment

Being the only news channel the Obama administration cannot control, war was declared by the Obama Administration after Fox News Sunday's guest, Tammy Duckworth, was caught making controversial claims that did not pan out.

Mao Zedong admirer Anita Dunn said, "fact-checking an administration official was something I've never seen a Sunday show do."

But fact-checking a Saturday Night Live skit is no problem?

Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want "the CNN's and the others in the world to basically be led in following Fox."

David Axelrod said, "Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way. We're not going to treat them that way," to ABC's George Stephanopoulos.

David Carr of the liberal New York Times warned that the White House war on Fox "may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling."

Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said on CNN: "I don't always agree with the White House. And on this one here I would disagree."

David Carr went on to say, "The administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight."


Video of Anita Hill explaining how the Obama campaign controlled the media

While the resident Beaverton troll brigade will no doubt be delighted at this, don't forget boys, it's your free speech that may be lost too.

Obama is indecisive about reinforcing the Troops in Afghanistan, falling down on job creation and economic matters, can't get his health care pushed through (thankfully), divided the country more than it ever has been in our entire history, makes more cmpaign speeches than any president and all he can do is attack the number one news network that doesn't lick his boots?

Isn't that what others did, like Joseph Stalin, Hugo Chavez, Saddam Hussein and a Mr. Schicklgruber?

Where did America go?

Saturday, October 17, 2009

Can A Senator Be Any Dumber?

In an interview to be televised on CNN's Politcal Ticker, Sunday October 18, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and failed 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry says, Obama would be 'irresponsible' to send more troops to Afghanistan now

In that interview, Kerry (who is rumored to have served in Viet Nam) says, "the U.S. should listen to the advice of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in that country."

That advice being "that a critical component of achieving our mission here is, in fact, good governance, and we're living with a government that we know has to change," adding that Obama would be irresponsible to send more Troops now.

But, isn't it also General Stanley McChrystal who has been advising more Troops in order to succeed in Afghanistan?

Are we seeing yet another classic Kerryism, "we actually should listen to the general's advice before we ignore the general's advice?"

UPDATE:This makes me sick.

Five years on, Senator Kerry makes comeback

At the Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry has gone full circle, from witness to chairman.

As a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War in 1971, Kerry testified before the panel in opposition to that war.

Kerry was in Afghanistan to review the war there with U.S. military brass and soldiers in the field.

"I've asked to meet with guys who are out there slogging it out," Kerry said before he left Washington last week. "I want to hear what they have to say."

I have to ask, why? He never wanted to hear what we had to say in 1971.

Will he recreate the Fulbright Commission to give the IVAW their voice and sell out America again?

Two Cases Of Racism, Only One Makes National News

In another display of obvious media bias, we have two cases of racist acts currently, yet only one merits coverage by the so-called mainstream media.

Justice of the Peace Keith Bardwell in Tangipahoa Parish in southeastern Louisiana is rightfully under fire for his refusal to grant a marriage license to an interracial couple.

Bardwell claims his decision is not racist as he does marry Black couples. He states his reason for not marrying interracial couples, “he doesn't marry the couples because he's worried about their children's futures,” and “interracial marriages don’t last very long.”

Granted, interracial children may face a tougher time, but that is mostly in past times as we see several interracial offspring in society today than we used to, including Barack Obama.

That is also something that hopefully, is discussed with parents of younger interracial couples and clergy. It is not the place of a Justice of the Peace to make such a decision.

Calls are out from various Civil Rights groups for his JP license to be revoked and for him to step down.

This case was worthy of national reporting. The next seems not so worthy of the same coverage.

Equally disturbing and just as racist is the case of 22 year-old Nikole Churchill, recently chosen as Homecoming Queen at predominantly Black Hampton University in Virginia. Ms. Churchill is the Universities first ever non-Black Homecoming Queen.

At the announcement of her winning the title several Black students stormed out of the auditorium upset that a White girl won the title. The negativity Nikole has received prompted her to write a letter to Barack Obama, which she has since apologized for writing.

Some students, faculty and professors are speaking out, some saying how great is for this first, other complaining that she’s not black and doesn’t attend the main campus. Others claim their “disgruntlement with Churchill had nothing to do with her race.”

Where have we heard that before? I wonder if any also said, “some of my best friends are white?”

One Black blogger is at least honest in her struggle with the feelings she feels over the decision, which I am sure Whites also feel at times.

The point here though, is why is only one newsworthy enough to make national news? Both have racist undertones and both are being denied as racist.

The White incident has calls for stepping down, investigations and censure while the Black case is largely overlooked and excused.

Our media must expose racism wherever it rears it ugly head and whoever by.

If we are ever to be one people, as Martin Luther King Jr. called for, we have to get past such bias as this. The man gave his life for us to reach equality where our skin color no longer mattered.

Can we ever achieve that Dream he spoke of if we turn a blind eye to one incident of racism, while condemning another?

I don’t see how.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Columbian Misleading Washington Voters On R-71

Dripping of left-winged bias, Thursdays In Our View column in the Columbian, In our view: Approve R-71 also tries to mislead voters about the measure.

They are right in saying, “Voters are being asked if they support Senate Bill 5688, which passed this year in the Legislature and expanded domestic partnerships,” but little else.

Where they actually begin misleading is when they say, “It's also key to know that R-71 is not about gay marriage, despite dire warnings from those who advocate rejecting the measure.”

Technically, although SB 5688 says nothing about same-sex marriage and is called "everything but marriage," that is the ultimate intent, as admitted to by Senator Ed Murray, the author of SB 5688 who has repeatedly stated SB 5688 is but one more incremental step to same-sex marriage.

Therefore, this particular measure will not make same-sex marriage legal, at this time, but it is just another step closer to it according to the author of the bill. So, it does have everything to do with same-sex marriage in Washington State, just not at this time.

A parable capturing wild pigs applies here. Although about losing freedoms to socialism, it also applies in how small steps eventually lead to a societal change society does not want. They just aren’t aware of it being changed due to deception.

You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.

You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat; you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught.

Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

This is the second “domestic partnership” bill we’ve had in two years with more planned until we have the fence of same-sex marriage around us and the gate is slammed shut. Our constitution will be changed. Where we now have a Defense of Marriage Act in place, that will be gone and what will we have in its place?

Maybe nothing because once we throw away the definition of marriage being “one man to one woman,” the Pandora’s box is opened. Once opened, how can it be closed again when others who “lifestyle” is not fully accepted today decide they are discriminated against?

Could we see Pederasty, Bigamy and Polygamy accepted and the norm?

Not by this bill, no. But what about the future moves to approve of same-sex marriage?

How can the Columbian split hairs saying, “The truth is, R-71 will have no impact whatsoever on your marriage or anyone else’s?” What about the institution of marriage itself?

A Long-Term Strategy To Legalize Gay Marriage

This is the strategy for winning gay marriage in Washington. Pursue incremental change but talk frankly and frequently about the ultimate goal.

State Senator Ed Murray, an openly gay Seattle Democrat, is a key architect of this approach. He says gay rights advocates are borrowing a page from the civil rights movement.


With Democrats in control, the expanded domestic partnership bills in Washington are likely to pass this session. It will be another step in Senator Ed Murray’s plan to legalize gay marriage within a decade.

Lawmakers announce everything but marriage bill

A measure legalizing same-sex marriage measure also has been introduced to the Legislature, but is unlikely to go anywhere this year, and supporters have made no secret of their desire in that effort.

Washington expands domestic partnership law

Senator Ed Murray, one of six gay lawmakers in the Legislature and the author of SB 5688 said, “We needed to have a multiyear discussion with the state on gay and lesbian families. I believe DOMA won’t long be the law of the state because those conversations are changing hearts and minds around the state.”

In classic liberal “attack the messenger, not the message” tactic, the editors demean and denigrate Larry Stickney and Gary Randall, the men who authored R-71 and worked to have it placed on the November 3 ballot, giving voters in Washington State the choice of whether they support SB 5688 or not.

And for a second time, to emphasize their canard I suppose, they again state the misleading, “But again, as the ballot states, this is not about marriage at all. It's about domestic partnerships.”

The Columbian ends with, “Voters should reject such narrow views and mark ‘Approve’ on Referendum 71.” The “NARROW VIEW” is really in their masking the true intent of SB 5688.

When you look at your ballot, it's actually very simple. If you desire to see same-sex marriage legalized in Washington’s future, approve R-71.

If you wish to stop same-sex marriage from eventually becoming legal in Washington, reject R-71.

It's really that simple.

I’m voting to reject R-71.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009



Columbus Day, an American tradition observed annually on October 12, may soon disappear under the culturally transformative presidency of Barack Obama, in which American traditions, and values, are, indeed, being transformed in what is being called the “Age of Obama.”

That transformative change from the values of the Founding Fathers to the values of Obama is perhaps reflected by the fact that on Oct. 12, 2009, as “Columbus Day” went unobserved or unexplained in Portland schools, California established by law the mandatory observance of “Harvey Milk Day” in California schools in honor of Milk, who became a homosexual martyr when he was shot to death, although the killer was not some alleged “rightwing” or “religious” or “homophobic” fanatic, but, rather, was a colleague of Milk’s on the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors who infamously claimed that an overdose of “Twinkies” made him do it.

Columbus Day this October 12, 2009, in contrast to California’s mandatory new Harvey Milk Day in the transformed American culture, came under escalated attack by liberal and leftists bearing allegiance to political-correctness, cultural relativism, multiculturalism, homophilia, and intolerant totalitarian contemporary secular humanism, who raised outraged protest against honoring Columbus on the anniversary of his reaching the Americas on October 12, 1492 after a daring sea voyage which changed history.

Although the evidence is indisputable that Columbus was a master mariner of extraordinary skill, courage, and vision, whose journey into the unknown was as visionary and heroic in his era as the journey into outer space is in our time, the evidence is also clear that he was a devout Christian, who planted the flag of Christianity on these shores and avowedly sought to Christianize the indigenous people he believed to be inhabitants of India, thus naming them "Indians."

Thus, we Americans are instructed 700 years after Columbus’ extraordinary journey which changed the world, that it is “racist” to honor Columbus -- who "dared to go where no [Italian] man had ever gone before”-- because It might offend some American Indians, Native Americans, who were in fact treated cruelly by the later Spanish (not Italian) conquistadors and occupiers.

Some Native Americans, vocally supported by a variety of America-despising, morally-superior elitist leftists, ultra-liberals, and revanchists, now assert that not only should “Columbus Day” be abolished, but that all of us would be better off if what is today the United States of America had never been sighted by Columbus.

Many Americans warily take heed of this liberal demand to dishonor Columbus. For in this increasingly secularized age of fawning politically-correct intolerant totalitarian liberalism, "racist" is the worst thing one person can allege another to be, and giving "offense" to one member of one tribe or another, e.g., Native American, (Black) African-American ("white" African-Americans are excluded), Hispanic, Homosexual, Hebrew and other Semites, Muslim, etc., et al., has become the Eighth Deadly Sin, unless, of course, the person to be offended is an American White, Male, Heterosexual, Christian of European Descent (an “AWMHCED”), the only category of American not included as a "protected class" under anti-discrimination laws, preferential affirmative action policies, and anti-discrimination enforcement agency regulations.

Thus, many Americans would rather deep-six Columbus Day and Columbus himself rather than give “offense” by honoring him and risk being thought to be, or called a “racist,” a term now so powerful in causing one to be despised or shunned that the law ought to recognize it as “per se” defamatory for purposes of libel or slander suits.

Therefore, on Columbus Day, Oct.12, 2009, almost one-fourth (24%) of Americans polled stated that Columbus Day should not be observed in the United States. Philadelphia's traditional "Columbus Day Parade" was canceled this year. Several institutions of [Liberal] "higher learning (sic) " are observing the holiday, but not in the name of Columbus but in nicey-nice non-offensive, pagan-like "green" names, e.g., “Fall Day

And, perhaps most importantly, the schools which are transmitters of our American history, heritage, and culture, are observing a school holiday but without designating it as Columbus Day or educating the kids about Columbus or why he has been honored by so many for so long, until this politically-correct era.

For instance, our Seventh-Grade daughter had Friday off from her Portland school. When I asked her why the kids had a day off school on Fri day and not Oct. 12, Columbus Day, she said she thought it had something to do with the teachers having some kind of conference or other work to do. But, she said, nothing was said about it being a Columbus Day holiday. In fact, she said nothing in particular was taught about Columbus or his historical significance. Further, Columbus Day was a “school day,” but, she informs, there was no special education about Columbus.

This is consistent with the transformed policies Portland’s and other schools, so liberal, so politically-correct, so much given to teaching cultural relativism and multiculturalism and not teaching about the Founding Fathers or the traditional American values to American students. It brings to mind Abraham's Lincoln's observation to the effect that: "Tell me what one generation is being taught in the schools, and I will tell you how the next generation will be governed."

Fortunately for me, and my daughter, I subscribe to "," published by one of the great minds of this generation, William J. Federer, author of "America's God And Country: An Encyclopedia of Quotations," the best single resource on what the Founding Fathers actually said and wrote of their beliefs and values.

Although an AWMHCED, Bill Federer, has published at least another dozen outstanding books on America’s heritage, and publishes daily on his, a brief snapshot of history.

For the benefit of my precious daughter who will not be taught her American history and heritage in her Portland school, and perhaps for your daughter or other loved American child, of whatever race, color, ethnicity, national origin, or creed, I quote Bill Federer's "" for Columbus Day, Oct. 12, 2009:

"Muslim Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453, cutting off the land trade routes from Europe to India and China, so Europeans sought new routes.

"During Portugal's golden age of sea power, Columbus sailed south along the African coast and then north to Iceland.

"He heard stories of Irish monk St. Brendan sailing in 530 AD to "The Land of the Promised Saints which God will give us on the last day" and of Leif Erickson's voyage in 1000 AD to Vinland.

"Columbus read 2nd century astronomer Ptolemy's Guide to Geography, which described a spherical earth with one ocean connecting Europe and Asia.

"Columbus corresponded with Florentine physician Toscanelli, who suggested China was 5,000 miles west of Portugal.

"On OCTOBER 12, 1492, Columbus sighted what he thought was India.

"He imagined Haiti was Japan and Cuba was the tip of China.

"Naming the first island "San Salvador" for the Holy Savior, Columbus wrote of the inhabitants:

"So that they might be well-disposed towards us, for I knew that they were a people to be...converted to our Holy Faith rather by love than by force, I gave to some red caps and to others glass beads...

"They became so entirely our friends that...I believe that they would easily be made Christians."

Was there cruelty by the Spanish after Columbus’ landing in the Americas? Indeed. Was there cruelty before the landing and occupation by the Spanish? Indeed, there was.

Is the United States of America better for the Christian creed whose ideals and values informed the Declaration of Independence and which first came to the Americas with Columbus? Would the U.S. be a better place if the creeds, ideals and values of the indigenous tribes of the Americas of human sacrifice, slavery, and cannibalism had continued? Would we Americans be the freest people in the history of the world if the United States had evolved not from the Founding Fathers’ Judeo-Christian values which guaranteed in a written Constitution that the rights of the individual must be respected by the government, but had evolved from the indigenous cultures, when it is indisputable that not one indigenous tribe, culture, or civilization in the Americas respected individual rights?

Forgive me if, as an AWMHCED, I emphatically reject such an absurdity, and continue to honor, and teach my daughter to honor Christopher Columbus, the heroic Italian explorer and visionary, notwithstanding that he would be classified today as a culturally and perhaps genetically defective White Male Heterosexual Christian of European Descent by those who despise him, AWMHCEDs, and the United States, which has given them the individual freedom that no member of any indigenous tribe ever had in the Americas before Columbus.

[Rees Lloyd, a longtime civil rights lawyer who has been honored by numerous Black, Chicano, Native American, Asian, and other organizations, including the ACLU of So. California for "pioneering efforts in the area of workers rights," and whose work has been profiled on such programs as ABC's 20/20 and Nightline, is an unapologetic AWMHCED.]

Swastika Vandalism: Ignorance or Hate?

Spreading across the news is a story out of Lakeville Massachusetts where overnight, vandals carved into a golf course's green "I Swastika Obama."

Inexcusable and indefensible, whoever did it, but look closer. It isn't the Nazi Swastika but the symbol still used by Buddhist's and Hindu's in their religion today throughout Asia as a good luck sign.


As can be expected, knee-jerk reactions, with no knowledge of whom or why, blame Republicans as "Nazi's," "Rednecks," "Supremacists" and any other derogatory term one can find to throw at only Republicans.

I am sure any neo-Nazi would know how to draw their hate symbol, but what else could such vandalism represent?

An ignorant uneducated liberal trying to make conservatives look bad?

A supporter of the Dalai Lama giving Obama their symbol of good luck? Doubtful.

My guess is the former.

Are we witnessing steps to America's Reichstag Fire?

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Foul Mouthed Punk Gets Punked

35 year-old British Gulf War Vet Jason Smith has no idea why 23 year-old Les Andrews came to his door and began verbally and physically assaulting him. As you can see, Andrews ended up with the worst of it.

Andrews was arrested for "yobbery," a yob being British slang for an “aggressive and surly youth, especially a teenager.”

The main lesson Andrews should have learned is, don't bully people, you never know what the other guy knows.

Smith it turns out, is a 15st master in karate and jiu-jitsu, holding two black belts. How he displayed the restriant he did is beyond me.

Of the incident Smith said, "People sick of yob culture enjoy seeing someone turn the tables," and "He deserved it."

If only more people in America would adopt Smith's attitude now.

Source: UK Sun

Friday, October 09, 2009

Nobel Peace Prize To Obama?

Stripping the Nobel Peace Prize of any substantial meaning, the Nobel committee has awarded it to Barack Obama, less than one year in his first term, leaving many wondering why.

Former Polish President Lech Wałęsa, a 1983 Nobel Peace laureate, commented: “So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far. He is still at an early stage. He is only beginning to act.”

Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who won the prize in 1984, also felt that the award acknowledge not what Obama had done, but said Obama's award shows great things are expected from him in coming years.

Speculation seems to be that the award was more of a political slap at former President George W. Bush.

The cut-off for nominations was 12 days into the Obama administration.

Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg said, “The exciting and important thing about this prize is that it's given to someone ... who has the power to contribute to peace.”

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna said, “Obama’s tangible and intangible contributions to world peace during his first year as President could not be underestimated or denied. In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself.”

The Norwegian Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said, “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”

Ignored by the distinguished people lapping at Obama’s feet, is that we have Troops in Afghanistan losing their lives as Obama wrings his hands wondering what to do, nearly a month and half after reinforcements were requested by General McChrystal, the General hand-picked by Obama to lead the fight in Afghanistan.

Also ignored by these leftists is just how many of former President George W. Bush’s policies and programs fighting terror remain in place.

For all the hatred of Bush going into Iraq, they ignore that Obama has not withdrawn the Troops from Iraq either, as he promised or that he has not closed Guantánamo yet.

In all they prove that this so-called award is nothing more than a political joke and symbol of leftist popularity that no longer has any definitive meaning, if it ever did.

If Obama were a man of conscience, he would respectfully decline receiving such an award based upon such a false premise, instead of pretending to be humbled by it.

No man has ever been less deserving of such an award, as is the boy king.

From Russia Today, "Big mistake by Nobel Committee."

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Commander-in Chief AWOL - Obama "Fiddles Around" While American Troops Lose Heart

Cross posted with permission from ARRA News Service

Bill Smith, ARRA Editor: Before proceeding it is only right to say that as a 22 year veteran, I am by nature a "hawk" and support all efforts to stop the enemies of America. However, I already saw one war - the Vietnam War - mired down by bureaucracy and lack of direction. [For those who prefer using the term "Vietnam Conflict," tell it to the American families, friends of the veterans who served and lost 58,159 comrades in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia plus all those who died from war related issues after that "conflict."]

Most career military have served under Presidents with whom we did not politically agree. Some Presidents were more competent than others. Most Presidents and Defense Secretaries who had not served in the military have made decision or failed to make decisions that resulted in the wasting of military resources and lives. Although not always understood by the general population, military leaders clearly understand that the military is both a tool in defending America including America's economic interests and a tool of diplomacy. However, when a president lacks declared interest or focus during a time of war - or major deployments with people at risk, military casualties increase and troop morale suffers and leads to more losses.

The Times Online is reporting a story about "American troops in Afghanistan losing heart." It is like "deja view" - a scene from the past when leadership and adequate direction was not shown by prior Commander-in-Chiefs and Secretaries of Defense. A few excerpts from the article:

American soldiers serving in Afghanistan are depressed and deeply disillusioned, according to the chaplains of two US battalions that have spent nine months on the front line in the war against the Taleban [sic, Taliban]. Many feel that they are risking their lives — and that colleagues have died — for a futile mission and an Afghan population that does nothing to help them, . . . “They feel they are risking their lives for progress that’s hard to discern,” . . . “They are tired, strained, confused and just want to get through.” The soldiers are, by nature and training, upbeat, driven by a strong sense of duty, and they do their jobs as best they can . . . admitted that their morale had slumped.

“We’re lost — that’s how I feel. I’m not exactly sure why we’re here,” . . . “I need a clear-cut purpose if I’m going to get hurt out here or if I’m going to die.” . . . Asked if the mission was worthwhile, . . . “If I knew exactly what the mission was, probably so, but I don’t.” The only soldiers who thought it was going well “work in an office, not on the ground”. In his opinion “the whole country is going to s***”.

The battalion’s 1,500 soldiers are nine months in to a year-long deployment that has proved extraordinarily tough. Their goal was to secure the mountainous Wardak province and then to win the people’s allegiance through development and good governance. They have, instead, found themselves locked in an increasingly vicious battle with the Taleban [sic, Taliban].

They have been targeted by at least 300 roadside bombs, about 180 of which have exploded. Nineteen men have been killed in action, with another committing suicide. About a hundred have been flown home with amputations, severe burns and other injuries likely to cause permanent disability, and many of those have not been replaced. More than two dozen mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs) have been knocked out of action.

Living conditions are good — abundant food, air-conditioned tents, hot water, free internet - but most of the men are on their second, third or fourth tours of Afghanistan and Iraq, with barely a year between each. . . . The men are frustrated by the lack of obvious purpose or progress. “The soldiers’ biggest question is: what can we do to make this war stop. Catch one person? Assault one objective? Soldiers want definite answers, other than to stop the Taleban [sic, Taliban], because that almost seems impossible. It’s hard to catch someone you can’t see,” . . .

“It’s a very frustrating mission,” . . . “The average soldier sees a friend blown up and his instinct is to retaliate or believe it’s for something [worthwhile], but it’s not like other wars where your buddy died but they took the hill. There’s no tangible reward for the sacrifice. It’s hard to say Wardak is better than when we got here.” "We want to believe in a cause but we don’t know what that cause is.” . . . The soldiers complain that rules of engagement designed to minimize civilian casualties mean that they fight with one arm tied behind their backs. . . “You get shot at but can do nothing about it. You have to see the person with the weapon. It’s not enough to know which house the shooting’s coming from.” . . .

The constant deployments are, meanwhile, playing havoc with the soldiers’ private lives. “They’re killing families,”. . . “Divorces are skyrocketing. PTSD is off the scale. There have been hundreds of injuries that send soldiers home and affect families for the rest of their lives.” The chaplains said that many soldiers had lost their desire to help Afghanistan. “All they want to do is make it home alive and go back to their wives and children and visit the families who have lost husbands and fathers over here. It comes down to just surviving,” . . . “If we make it back with ten toes and ten fingers the mission is successful,” . . . “You carry on for the guys to your left or right,” . . .

Lieutenant-Colonel Kimo Gallahue, 2-87’s commanding officer, denied that his men were and insisted they had achieved a great deal over the past nine months. A triathlete and former rugby player, he admitted pushing his men hard, but argued that taking the fight to the enemy was the best form of defense. . . . Above all, Colonel Gallahue argued that counter-insurgency — winning the allegiance of the indigenous population through security, development and good governance — was a long and laborious process that could not be completed in a year. “These 12 months have been, for me, laying the groundwork for future success,” he said. . . .

These reported comments depict more than just complaints by G.I.s. They are a clear signs of bigger issues both at the DOD, in the force structure and support of today's military, and with the direction of the war as defined by the President of the United States. As for the field commander on the record comments about his belief in the mission, this was expected but it is not a measurement of success. However, while failing morale and expressions like "you carry on for the guys to your left or right" are both true and admirable, they are also a definite indicator of failed purpose and direction.

As heads up, the following comments are directed to what appears to be an often AWOL (absent without leave) Commander-in-Chief: Mr. Obama, you choose to run for President of the United States. And, the American people elected you to be president. Most Americans know that a "chief" responsibility of the president is being Commander-in-chief of the military. It is not being the commander of the American people. While you have "fiddle around" tripping off to other countries expressing your regrets about the United States or to another location to promote or sign a bill that could have been done efficiently right in the Oval office; while you wasted time trying to recruit the Olympics or taking time for another sports event or White House party; while you expend a disproportionate amount of your time on agendas which have or will send the United States further into debt and on efforts to reshape the social fabric of America, you are not focused on your primary responsibility of being Commander-in-Chief.

American military are dying or at risk because of your lack of leadership. Members of the military understand sacrifice and giving their lives for a greater cause. However, they do not understand dying without purpose or a clear objective. Often they die for their comrades but they do not wish to die for absentee leadership or an undefined mission.

Mr. President, above all else, (except possibly for those who feel they must engender themselves to you for their jobs and their agendas or who happen to hate America) people on both sides of domestic issues expect you to complete your primary duties as president. The United States of America has men and women in harms-way risking America's chief treasure - American blood. For "Pete's sake" - Wake-up! You are the Commander-in-Chief! It cannot be delegated; nor should it continue to be ignored! It is a lonely sacred responsibility. Mr. President, no matter how important you believe your other agendas to be, you must focus on your primary responsibility as Commander-in-Chief!

Pull ‘Em Up!

For some time we have been seeing a little too much of America's youth, especially when they bend over. Where and how the fad of "saggin" got started is controversial, but let it be said to adults, you guys look stupid waddling around like ducks trying to hold up your pants.

For a couple years now a few Rap Artists have been campaigning and singing to the youth of America about this fad. Rapper Maddlines has the following video out telling our youth, "I don't want to see your tighty whities."

Rapper BigSix8 released a video in 2007 too.

Rapper Dooney Da Priest reminds young men what 'saggin' spelled backwards is in his video, Pull Your Pants Up

Pull 'em up, America.

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Mojave War Memorial, JFK Eternal Flame & The Law Of Unintended Consequences

Long ago, Veterans of World War One suffering from the effects of mustard gas they had inhaled and to recover from physical and psychological injuries sustained, migrated to California’s Mojave Desert and its dry climate. They formed a local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and in 1934 Death Valley Post 2884 erected a simple wooden cross on what is known as “sunrise rock” as it reminded them of a “doughboy” out in the middle of nowhere in what was to become the Mojave National Preserve.

The simple Memorial bore a small plaque reading, “Erected in Memory of the Dead of All Wars.”

Over the years members died off as they aged until the last survivor of VFW Post that erected the Memorial, John Riley Bembry also passed away in 1984. In 1983, Bembry asked fellow Desert Dweller, Henry Sandoz to repair and maintain the simple Memorial as it had been destroyed due to being vandalized.

In 1986 it was vandalized again with some gravesites in the area being disturbed. Sandoz, adhering to his promise to Bembry rebuilt the Memorial one more time out of pipe this time filled with concrete to discourage further vandalized.

The plaque commemorating the Memorial was never replaced.

Bembry, with no known religious affiliation, obviously saw the cross as much more than just a religious symbol. As explained to me by a learned friend,

“The Cross manifestly has a religious aspect. But, equally manifestly, it conveys a secular meaning -- the meaning of selfless service and sacrifice for others, and is so understood. Universally. Beyond language barriers. In fact, there is not other symbol so universally recognized as representing selfless service and sacrifice for others, including the ultimate sacrifice of one's life. That is how it is understood at veterans memorials, and why it is the symbol so often chosen to honor the war dead.”

Today, after being vandalized numerous times, the simple Memorial in the middle of nowhere faces total destruction if the ACLU and Frank Buono, a retired Ranger who once worked at the Mojave Preserve prevails before the US Supreme Court, after a decade long battle seeking the destruction of a 75 year-old Memorial to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation.

Rising out of an incident in 1999 when a Buddhist Monk was denied permission to erect a Stupa, a Buddhist holy monument filled with Buddhist relics and other holy objects.

From the link we read of Stupa’s,
“A stupa is the most sacred monument found in all of the ancient Buddhist countries. Unique amongst all forms of sacred architecture, it is the quintessential symbol of enlightenment. Stupas are filled with sacred images, mantras and the relics of holy beings. The foundation, symmetry, orientation and contents of the stupa create incredible power to those who even look upon it. It has the potential to transcend the limitations of language to activate enlightened knowledge.”

A far cry from a simple Memorial dedicated to those who lost their lives defending our country.

Perhaps disagreeing with the denial of the Stupa for the Buddhist, Buono, upon retirement from the Park Service, immediately went to the ACLU who contacted the National Park Service “formally requesting removal” of the Memorial.

What strikes me is that neither Buono or the ACLU on his behalf, have fought for the Buddhist to be granted permission to build his Stupa, but only the destruction of a long-standing War Memorial is sought. This suit being brought under the so-called Establishment Clause to “protect the religious rights of all.”

Being misled in my opinion, some members of the Jewish War Veterans, the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council and the Muslim American Veterans Association on the basis of the Memorial being in the shape of a Cross, believing it denies recognition of their service.

I am left wondering if they are equally offended at the sight of our Second Highest Award for Valor, the Distinguished Service Cross or if any of their members have refused receipt of the award due to it being a Cross also?

Over four million other Veterans, members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, The American Legion, The Military Order of the Purple Heart, VFW of California, and American Ex-Prisoners of War, stand together in support of preserving our War Memorials as constructed.

A congressional land swap, returning the 1 acre of land the Memorial is located on in exchange for 5 acres elsewhere in the Preserve did not satisfy Buno or the ACLU and they filed suit to have that overturned. That alone shows me the only satisfactory solution to the ACLU and Buono is total destruction of the Memorial.

Should they succeed, there is an aspect of life all too often ignored, the Law of Unintended Consequence, which states that any purposeful action will produce some unanticipated or unintended consequences.

The ACLU has stated they have no desire to have crosses and such removed from gravesites in cemeteries such as Arlington National Cemetery since they allow numerous religious symbols on graves within the cemetery.

Although I have little confidence in such guarantees from the ACLU I’ll take them at their word for now, in regards to crosses on headstones. But, only for now as I do not trust the ACLU since they have shown a penchant for attacking anything remotely resembling a Christian symbol on public property.

My gut tells me that in time, headstones with Christian Crosses won’t be safe either.

Nor will numerous public memorials to War Veterans across America as several contain either crosses or some other symbol that can be associated with Christianity, whether any religious significance was intended or not.

One such symbol stands in front of the grave of our 35th President, John F. Kennedy, struck down by an assassin’s bullet November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. At the request of his wife, Jacqueline, an “eternal flame” was placed in front of his gravesite.

Eternal flames have an old history dating back to early Christianity and other religions as well.

Kennedy, a Democrat, is revered by many of those on the left who support destruction of such War Memorials as is currently under fire in the Mojave National Preserve.

I doubt any of them see any religious significance in such an eternal flame, just as visiting Veterans and those who honor fallen Veterans do not visit the Mojave War Memorial for religious significance.

Yet, with the ACLU’s continuing push for removing any symbol someone associates with Christianity and claims offense at, the law of unintended consequences could very well come back on the left as someone claims offense at the historical religious significance of the eternal flame on the President Kennedy’s grave and wins a Court Case to extinguish it.

Actions have consequences and all too often they aren’t what was expected.

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Microsoft Donates $100,000 To Support Washington State Gays

It was announced today that Computer Software giant Microsoft Corporation has donated $100,000 to the campaign advocating approval of R-71, which will grant more benefits for Washington state gay couples under SB 5688, the so called “everything but marriage bill” passed earlier this year by the legislature.

Although called “everything but marriage,” sponsors of the bill openly admit it but an incremental step towards full-blown same sex marriage within Washington State.

A citizen’s referendum, R-71 obtained enough signatures on petitions to place SB 5688 on the November ballot, placing the matter in the hands of voters, angering Gays throughout Washington.

Microsoft’s donation against the citizens of Washington gives the pro-gay group calling themselves Washington Families Standing Together some $780,000 to support campaigning to vote for same-sex marriage one step at a time.

How much money has flooded into Washington from outside the state coffers is unknown at this time.

Protect Marriage Washington; the group opposing this one step at a time move into same-sex marriage reportedly has only raised some $60,000.

Clark County resident Chuck Miller says,

“The citizens of Washington passed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. The Democrat controlled legislature has continued to chip away at it with the goal of over riding the will of the people. They passed SB 5688, which Gregoire signed. This bill takes a huge leap toward their final goal, redefining and destroying marriage! Against great odds, Washington citizens, lead by Faith and Freedom and Protect Marriage Washington collected the required signatures to put it to a vote of the people. Citizens were dispatched to oversee the counting and too be certain that Secretary of State Sam Reed be faithful in his duty to apply the strict letter of the law in counting the ballots. Opponents of traditional marriage filed two lawsuits to try and stop it from even making the ballot. Both failed.”

“Webster’s dictionary defines marriage as ‘the institution whereby men and woman are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family’.”

“California voters said NO to the destruction of traditional marriage. Washington voters can save marriage by voting NO on Referendum 71 in November.”

It is disappointing to see Redmond based Microsoft turn their backs on the majority of citizens of Washington who depend on their products for computers in favor a small minority of those who feel they are entitled to special rights.

As disappointing was seeing Washington States Attorney General, Rob McKenna, file suit against “a federal judge’s ruling that granted an injunction to keep the names of people who signed a petition to put Referendum 71 on the ballot private.”

As shown at Traditional Marriage Foes Try To Intimidate Washington Voters, gays demanded the names so they could place them on a searchable web site to make their names and addresses known and that some gays have openly threatened violence against those who oppose same-sex marriage.

This move cost McKenna the support of this blogger should he try to run for governor in the future, as well as his ‘pro-choice’ position on abortions. This was the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back.’

With Microsoft’s support, the pro-gay groups hell-bent on doing away with the traditional views of marriage now have a massive treasure chest to mount a propaganda campaign in favor of “everything but marriage.”

Do not let them fool you when they come out saying it isn’t same-sex marriage. The author of SB 5688, Seattle Democrat Senator Ed Murray, who also authored the 2007 domestic partnership law, has openly admitted this is but incremental step of A Long-Term Strategy To Legalize Gay Marriage.

Vote NO on R-71

Monday, October 05, 2009

What Happened To “I Will Listen To The Generals?”

Early in the stages of the Iraq ‘Surge,’ three retired liberal generals banded together in opposition to President Bush. Wesley Clark, John Batiste, and Paul Eaton put their heads together and issued a stern condemnation of President Bush with their “words of warning.”

Clark said, “The fact is, this president never listened to the soldiers on the ground. The problem is not just a military problem. It is a political problem and a diplomatic problem.”

Clark, if you recall, made a failed and pitiful attempt at a presidential run him self.

Batiste added, “[Bush] ignores sound military advice and surrounds himself with like-minded subordinates,” and “There was a time when we could have pulled this out. Quite frankly, it is time to call a spade a spade.”

Eaton said Bush was “incompetent” and his effort with the others “is an effort to render competence to an Administration that needs it.”

An ad released by the 3 had Batiste say, “Mr. President, you did not listen. You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the army in protest in order to speak out. Mr. President, you have placed our national in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women.”

I assume that last was a call for impeachment, as many tried to encourage congress to do.

It touched off a firestorm of calls from the left of “listen to the generals.”

As it turns out, Bush did listen to the Generals, the other Generals and the Iraq Surge was a huge success, but that did not stop the few opposed to Bush from receiving accolades from the left, even prompting candidate Barack Hussein Obama to criticize President Bush saying he did not listen to the Generals unless they agreed with him.

Of course, candidate Obama said he would listen to the Generals. So, why isn’t he?

Obama has repeatedly stated, “Afghanistan is a war we must win.”

Mid August General McChrystal submitted a report outlining the seriousness of the war in Afghanistan and requesting reinforcements. August and September have been two of the bloodiest months we’ve had what we see from Obama, when not stumping for a future Olympics game in Chicago or wining and dining Michelle for their anniversary, is nothing.

No answer, no strategies, no reinforcements, nothing!

What we do hear are words to the effect of “I want to think about it.”

What is there to think about? At a time our Troops are fighting and trying to gain the trust of the Afghani’s, dragging our feet is exactly what will prevent us from earning their trust.

Obama once in office told us, that he had instituted a new strategy in Afghanistan and fellow Democrats said in may, “that the Obama administration's new U.S. strategy is working in the war-scarred Afghanistan.”

Now, we see Obama seemingly irritated that General McChrystal has spoken out on the need for reinforcements and some claims that Obama desires to “muzzle” field commanders.

We even see Eugene Robinson, who never served a day in the Military, penning a column, Tell General He Should Put A Sock In It concluding, “Privately, Obama needs to hear McChrystal’s advice. Publicly, he needs to hear one simple phrase from the general, ‘Yes, Mr. President’.”

Robinson had no trouble conjuring up visions of Bush just ignoring General Petraeus, but says General McChrystal should just basically “shut-up and salute?”

National Security Adviser, Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.) downplays the seriousness of Afghanistan when he claims, “I don’t foresee the return of the Taliban. Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling.”

What about our Troops being in “imminent danger” of needlessly losing their lives because this administration drags its feet and is unsure of what to do? How many of our Brave Troops will die while Obama “considers” reinforcing them and ignores that Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and General Petraeus but agree with McChrystal’s assessment?

Oh wait, that’s right, they are but one of the people Obama must listen to, politicians who aren’t being told “put a sock in it” by the likes of Eugene Robinson and many of whom never served either.

That great strategist, V.P. Biden, who never served, expresses the desire to return to the failed policy of Clinton is simply launching missiles from afar or from drones into Pakistan to hit Al Qaeda.

Does it escape Biden that missiles launched in such a way produce massive collateral damage, such as civilian deaths? Haven’t we heard before that civilian deaths must be avoided at all costs?

And, firing over the border into Pakistan? Is Biden reluctant to escalate the war in Afghanistan, but willing to escalate it by dragging Pakistan in against us?

Why isn’t Eugene Robinson telling him to “put a sock in it?”

Obama’s “committee approach” to fighting this war is insanity. Dr. James Jay Carafano, a former Army lieutenant colonel says, “You don't fight wars by committee. Because now [Obama’s] turned this into a political debate, and you're going to end up with a sub-optimal outcome,” adding “Obama appears to be replaying all the worst decision making of McNamara and Johnson in Vietnam.”

Obama, Thomas Paine is credited with saying, “Lead, follow or get out of the way.”

A leader must make tough decisions and swiftly, then live with the consequences.

A leader doesn’t sit and wrong their hands about their popularity.

A leader leads and you sir, are not leading by allowing our people to languish in Afghanistan, wondering if they will life long enough to see reinforcements.

Playing the race card will not work against terrorists, Obama, it only guilt trips some people in to casting a vote for you.

If you cannot make the tough decisions, step aside and allow someone in who will.

Sunday, October 04, 2009

Who Is Stoking Paranoia?

Sometimes I read a letter in the Columbian’s Letters To The Editors page that is just so over the top I have to respond and point out some obvious projections of the writer.

One such letter appears in the Sunday October 4 edition,

Paranoia stoked by the right

It seems like every time I open the letters to the editor page, I see some drivel from the radical right wing of the Republican Party. Right-wing writers keep trying to define liberals according to their principles. The problem is, the right wing doesn't have any principles. They still support the Bush administration that almost ruined our nation.

Now we have the argument over reform of our health care system. This is what defines the Republicans perfectly. Our health care system is not breaking — it is already broken and they don't want to fix it. Never mind the millions of people who have no coverage. The right wing of the Republican Party couldn't care less.

Racism, Nazi flags at Democratic town halls, the "birthers" who don't think President Obama is president, and racist cartoons are just a few of the things that defines the Republican Party and their reactionaries. These people prey on the weak-minded and the elderly in suggesting "death panels." I believe most right-wing Republicans suffer from paranoia and pass it on to people who listen to hacks like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. They have used fear for a decade to fool the American people. Low morals and hypocrisy define the right wing.

Frank Wastradowski

Fortunately for Mr. Wastradowski, freedom of speech gives him the right to be as ignorant and uninformed as he chooses to be. If his name seems familiar, he is the man who cried victim of Hate Crime last year when his car was vandalized, although every other Obama supporter in the neighborhood was left untouched.

From the tone of Wastradowski’s letter, the one with the hate becomes very apparent.

Let’s look closer at some of Wastradowski’s claims,

1. Right-wing writers keep trying to define liberals according to their principles. The problem is, the right wing doesn't have any principles.

Who keeps defining whom? Did he not just write a letter defining Republicans according to his perception?

And, “no principles?” Are we not he ones who want our Immigration laws respected?

Are we not the ones who wish to see life preserved and given a chance? Are we not the ones who support fighting those that have been attacking us for three decades?

Study after study has shown that it is those of us he considers “the radical right wing of the Republican Party” that consistently donates more time and money to charity than does the more liberal in our society.

And, we are the ones without principles?

2. They still support the Bush administration that almost ruined our nation.

And, who engaged in 8 years of “fearmongering” to convince everyone that Bush ruined the nation? While we don’t think of Bush as the greatest ever, he did try to do much more than he ever received credit for.

It was Bush who in 2003 tried to head off the fiasco we see in our economy today by reigning in the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac debacle, blocked by prominent Democrats who said there was no building problem then.

There is much he could have done different, but does that excuse our deficit now being raised to more than in our entire history, borrowing billions and billions of dollars from countries that have no love of us?

Does it excuse government taking over control of Wall Street, Banks, the Auto Industry and more?

Isn’t that what communism did?

3. Our health care system is not breaking — it is already broken and they don't want to fix it. Never mind the millions of people who have no coverage. The right wing of the Republican Party couldn't care less.

Obviously, it escapes Mr. Wastradowski that many of those without health insurance DON”T WANT IT!” They could afford it but choose to spend their money elsewhere.

And for those who don’t want it, they face possible fines and imprisonment for not purchasing what those like Wastradowski say they must have?

And, “the Republican Party couldn’t care less?”

With all due respect, Mr. Wastradowski, Google HR 3400 and read it. Google how many times Republicans have submitted amendments and ideas in what is supposed to be a “bi-partisan” effort at reforming healthcare and then explain why every single one of the is blocked, denied or dies in committee.

Obviously, to Democrats and Mr. Wastradowski, “bi-partisan” means you must give up your thoughts, ideas and yes, principles and blindly agree to what Democrats want.

4. Racism, Nazi flags at Democratic town halls, the "birthers" who don't think President Obama is president, and racist cartoons are just a few of the things that defines the Republican Party and their reactionaries.

Aw yes, the old tried and true “race card,” how typical of a radical left-winger.

Democratic townhalls? I thought they were “community” townhalls open to anyone from the community?

Sorry, but I see no waving of nazi flags, but I did see photos of Obama with a Hitler moustache, being held and passed out by members of the Lyndon LaRouche Society, a “left-winged Democratic” group.

Why worry about the so-called “birthers” when the matter could be easily put to rest by simply showing the long form birth certificate, as was demanded of and supplied by John McCain?

Then again, does Mr. Wastradowski refute the “911 Truthers” who still maintain George W. Bush planned and carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks and not the radical Jihadists?

And, racist cartoons? Where was Mr. Wastradowski when Black Republicans were viciously attacked for stepping off the liberal plantation?

Where was he when liberals depicted Michael Steele, chairman of the RNC as a “Simple Sambo” with a blackened minstrel-style face, nappy hair and big, think red lips?

Where was he when Condoleezza Rice was depicted by Democrat cartoonists as an ignorant, barefoot “mammy” saying “I don't know nothin’ ‘bout birthin’ no babies?”

5. These people prey on the weak-minded and the elderly in suggesting “death panels.”

I recall a time when saying “these people” was considered racist.

But, death panels? Yes, the words were stated and with reason. Perhaps the booklet “Your Life Your Choices” hasn’t made it to Wastradowski’s mail yet.

Perhaps he shut his ears when Obama was making the speech and said words to the effect of “maybe grandma would be better off taking the pain killer instead of getting the surgery.”

What would he label the deep cuts proposed in Medicare and Medicaid in the proposed healthcare bill?

Who is it currently crying thousands are dying in the streets because they have no health insurance? Who makes speeches twisting and distorting stories of mishaps with health insurance?

What does he think of the current proposal of taxing medical devices used primarily by the elderly such as wheelchairs, hearing aids, pace makers, artificial hips and such that cost over $100?

With such a proposal as that, who is really “preying upon the elderly?”

6. I believe most right-wing Republicans suffer from paranoia and pass it on to people who listen to hacks like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. They have used fear for a decade to fool the American people.

Fortunately, there is no law against thinking or believing, not yet.

But using fear? Who kept up for 8 years telling how Bush was destroying the nation? Who for 8 years cried that Bush was causing terrorism? Who for decades now cries about Global Warming/cooling/climate change, whatever the cry is today?

Who is it that keeps crying gloom and doom if we don’t do exactly as they say we should, while they continue a ‘high on the hog’ lifestyle?

Who is it that wants more and more of our paychecks to pay for their luxuries and for us to do without, “to save the planet?”

While many of us don’t really listen much to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, it is obvious that Mr. Wastradowski listens too much to the likes of Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Randi Rhodes.

7. Low morals and hypocrisy define the right wing.

Is that why Duke Cunningham sits in jail while William Jefferson, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, John Murtha and more are free?

Is that why Mark Foley and Richard Curtis are no longer in office while Barney Frank and Sam Adams still are?

Is that why liberals are flocking to the defense of Roman Polanski for raping a 13 year-old and fleeing justice for over three decades?

It still bothers me that someone vandalized the Wastradowski’s car last year. I am pleased the community came together to donate to have it repaired. I suppose it never occurred to Mr. Wastradowski that some of those very people he labels as “the radical right wing of the Republican Party” also donated money and quite possibly were some who worked on repairing it.

But, reading this letter and seeing the tone, I wonder now if last years vandalism might not have been somewhat of an inside job?

It must escape Mr. Wastradowski that his party, the Democrats, currently hold not just a majority in the House, but a dominant majority, they have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and the White House to boot. They have all the cards and yet, somehow, it is the Republicans stopping anything from getting done.

I guess one thing Rush says is right, that even with all the cards and able to push through anything they wish, by themselves without any Republican votes, they only know how to play victim.

It’s always the Republicans fault.

To Mr. Wastradowski I can only say, seek some anger management classes. Just because we disagree with you and Obama doesn’t make us the scum of the earth or the enemy.

If you desire to be lead around like cattle heading off to slaughter by the current administration, go for it, that’s your right.

But many of the rest of us desire to maintain our freedom and liberties.