Sunday, July 29, 2007

British PM STUNS Bush Critics

Much to the chagrin and I'm sure the displeasure of critics of President Bush and the anti-war left, who have been much expecting for newly installed Prime Minister of Great Britain to "put Bush in his place," PM Gordon Brown actually "hailed President Bush" in their first meeting today at Camp David.

Said PM Brown, "the world owed America a huge debt," as he "praised George Bush for leading the global war on terror." He added, “America has shown by the resilience and bravery of its people from September 11 that while buildings can be destroyed, values are indestructable. We acknowledge the debt the world owes to the US for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism.”

The Sun (UK)

Ever so gradually, people are waking up to the dangers of radical Jihadists and their intent and the strong leadership Bush has shown by finally standing up to these demonic terrorists.

It appears to me that PM Brown does see the dangers of giving in to the terrorists and as needed, will stay in the fight, benefiting his own country and the world.

This isn't a fight that either country wanted, but we are in it and if we are to remain free nations, radical Jihadists must be defeated.

Welcome aboard, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Your assistance and support is indeed much appreciated.


Separation of Mosque and State

July 29, 2007

I recall growing up in South Florida and attending school, starting in 1954, that we opened every morning with a recital of the Lord’s Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag, including the “one nation under God” portion added just that year. It was an every day occurrence and it didn’t seem to bother anyone.

South Florida had a heavy Jewish population at the time and even a very few Muslims. Atheists existed, but didn’t seem to interfere or object to the every morning ritual. I know they existed because my own mother, the daughter of a Methodist minister, did not believe in God and wanted nothing to do with religion. What religious training my sisters and I received was through my paternal Grandmother, who took the three of us to her Assembly of God Church every Sunday for Sunday School.

Even my own atheist mother didn’t object to the schools opening the morning with a prayer or the inclusion of “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, one thing she was adamant about honoring, the American Flag. Children not of the Christian belief were permitted to remain seated or to leave the class if their parent objected to the Lord’s Prayer and often, teachers were Jewish who led the class in the prayer, even though they too were permitted to leave the classroom if they felt it was against their belief. None ever did.

Not until the infamous June 17,1963 Supreme Court Decision did anyone seem to really mind prayer in school. Since then prayer and Christian actions within public schools have been under fire from all sides as groups like the American Atheists and the ACLU seem to seek any and all cases they can dig up to take schools and officials to court over any hint of religion within the grounds of public school.

Down to today we find much controversy still abounding over the 1963 decision and anti-Church groups maintaining websites dedicated to “informing” the public of their rights to be “free from religion.” One such site maintained by the American Atheists, the group started by Madeline Murray O’Hare, the now deceased ‘mom’ who initiated the infamous case resulting in the 1963 decision, lists FAQ’s ABOUT PRAYER IN SCHOOLS. From this page we find,

“American Atheists opposes school prayer for a number of reasons. To begin, it is unconstitutional and a clear violation of our First Amendment. Remember, that amendment contains the "Establishment Clause" which prohibits the government from” establishing" religion. Simply put, secular institutions like the public schools should NOT be a forum for religious ritual or indoctrination.”

We also read,
“School prayer is obviously a form of religious indoctrination; it teaches children that there are invisible, supernatural entities which can be implored and appeased through mumbling prayers or reading from holy books.”

Questioned “how about having different prayers used throughout the school year? they reply,
“That idea ignores the fact that any and all prayer in public schools is unconstitutional, whether one form of religious ritual is used, or a virtual belief-smorgasbord is presented. And do you really think that different religious sects will tolerate the use of each other's prayers? Look at how pluralistic American culture has become; there are hundreds, even thousands of diverse religious beliefs. Many would clamor for "equal time" in this prayer lottery.”

Another article written for the Freedom From Religion Foundation titled The Case Against School Prayer makes statements as
“Public schools exist to educate, not to proselytize. Children in public schools are a captive audience. Making prayer an official part of the school day is coercive and invasive,” and “The schools are supported by all taxpayers, and therefore should be free of religious observances and coercion.”

A June 2000 CNN article boasts,
“The [Supreme] court ruled 6-3 in a Texas case that public schools cannot allow student-led prayer before high school football games, a decision that reinforces the wall between church and state erected by the First Amendment,” and “The central question was whether allowing prayer violates the First Amendment's establishment clause, which states that Congress "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"”
conveniently forgetting the second portion of the amendment, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Needless to say there is now much opposition to any inclusion of religion in public places, especially school. Or, one would think.

That is why I was somewhat taken aback when I recently read A San Diego school adjusts its schedule to accommodate Muslim worship. At recess time, “some students rush out for a quick game of hopscotch, while others gathered in a room for Muslim worship.”

Akram Shami, a volunteer at the Islamic Center of Southern California in Los Angeles said, “At some public schools, students leave class momentarily or wait to pray until they get home. [Our] faith allows prayers to be combined at a later time if necessary.” Was there a ‘pressing need’ to grant only one religion time within the school day to practice their religion, while denying others the right to practice theirs at any time during the school day? What I read by Mr. Shami tells me no!

According to this CNN article, other school districts across the nation have grappled with this decision in allowing Muslim prayers and accommodating those students who are Muslim. Lisa Soronen, an attorney with the National School Boards Association says, “[M]ost Americans don't think about the fact that schools naturally accommodate Christians. There's no school on Sunday, and we get days off for most of the major Christian holidays.” There’s no school on Saturdays either, but apparently the implications of that escapes Ms. Soronen.

While most all of us do indeed have Christmas off (the only school day I recall being off for a Christian Holiday as Easter always falls on a Sunday), the Dearborn, Michigan School district, “schedules two days off during the Islamic holiday of Ramadan.”

Even if a school does not close for Islamic Holy Days, I have never heard of any school taking actions against students or their parents for keeping their children home on those specific days, much as did Jewish teachers and students at the South Florida schools I attended as a child.

As of this weekend, the San Diego School District has announced that they will Stop Scheduling Class Time For Muslim Prayer by scheduling “two lunch periods,” one during the time when Muslim students would normally say their prayers. Courts have ruled in the past that students may pray during their lunch periods. But, is not the school still making accommodations for one religious group by scheduling another lunch period to coincide with the traditional Islamic time of prayer?

More shocking to me is the words, “The district maintained that it is legally required to approve students' request for religious accommodation.” Tell that to the 6 Supreme Court Justices that ruled against students reciting a prayer prior to a football game in the Texas case mentioned above.

Searching for more information on this, especially from the ACLU, I ran across the ACLU site The Establishment Clause and the Schools: A Legal Bulletin where it states,
“It is one of the fundamental principles of the Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence that the Constitution forbids not only state practices that "aid one religion . . . or prefer one religion over another," but also those practices that "aid all religions" and thus endorse or prefer religion over nonreligion.”

Of this obvious violation of Separation of Mosque and State, their silence is deafening!


UPDATE: Schools and Universities are installing foot baths to accomodate Muslims students who religious beliefs dictate they wash their feet prior to saying their prayers 5 times a day. Not remaining silent, the ACLU of Michigan says, "Indeed, if the university refused to allow Muslim students to wash their feet in the sink without there being a viable alternative, we would have concerns about whether the university was unconstitutionally interfering with students' right to practice their religion."

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Tennessee To Kick Off Annual Viet Nam Veterans Day

I hope this spreads around and other states follow suit.

2008 will mark start of annual Vietnam Veterans Day

More info at CAP Veterans

Monday, July 23, 2007

Obama: Hey esé, You Owe Me Your Vote

July 23, 2007

In a move courting the Hispanic group, La Raza (the Race), Senator Barack Obama told a group in Miami Beach, Florida that he has earned their support for his presidential campaign. He claims he earned their support “by marching in last year's May 1 immigrant rallies.”

In a Washington Times article titled Obama solicits La Raza backing, the first term Senator also said of the failed Illegal Immigrant non-amnesty/amnesty bill, [it] “was both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights.” I guess the fact that many broke our immigration laws to be here escaped the first term Senator from Illinois.

More troubling to me is who he is courting and what they are purported to advocate.

Reconquista is a policy of taking a sizeable portion of the Western and Southwestern United States and reintegrate it to Mexico as the land of Aztlan. While I don’t have appropriate numbers available, it appears a significant portion of Hispanics within the country advocate this policy.

To be fair, The National Council of La Raza states about “reconquista,” “…while it is difficult to repudiate something we’ve never been for, we want to make very clear that, …NCLR has never supported and does not endorse the notion of a “Reconquista” or “Aztlán,” and has never used, and unequivocally rejects, the motto “Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada.” ”

I have no reason to disbelieve the Council, but what of the members of La Raza? Can the Council categorically state that no one within La Raza advocates ‘reconquista?” When asked if they would “Repudiate all claims that any current American territory rightfully belongs to Mexico,” the NCLR replied, “NCLR has not made and does not make any such claim.”

They weren’t asked if they made that claim, they were asked if they “repudiate all claims of that position.” To me, that would include claims made by other Hispanic groups such as MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán) {Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán}. To me, merely stating they don’t advocate it while not repudiating the calls of MEChA and other groups isn’t exactly sincere.

These are the groups that first-termer Obama claims owes him their votes because he marched in one demonstration.

At the march, a Melanie Lugo said, “We are the backbone of what America is, legal or illegal, it doesn’t matter.” Well, Senator Obama, does it matter? Does the fact that widespread illegal votes are being cast by those not entitled to vote matter, Senator?

The 15th Amendment to our Constitution, ratified in 1870 says, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Later, the 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920 said, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex,” adding and ensuring that legal female citizens of the United States, born or naturalized, shared in the right to vote. Nowhere do I find that illegal immigrants, those who break our laws by being here, have been given any right to vote in national Elections. Yet, many Democrats court the illegal immigrant vote.

Returning to La Raza, we see they were asked, “Does NCLR support undocumented immigration?” They reply, “No. NCLR believes that all immigration to the U.S. should be safe and legal.” Yet, in the very next question they are asked, “Does NCLR support undocumented immigrants?” In reply they state, “NCLR advocates on behalf of the entire Latino population regardless of immigration status.”

NCLR also has a pdf file of Common Myths About Undocumented Immigrants. I am also troubled by another pdf file they have available, Q&A for Voters (in states where ID is not required to vote). Although the pamphlet truthfully says, “Naturalized immigrants over 18 years old who are registered to vote have the right to vote,” I don’t find anywhere on this pamphlet discouraging illegals from trying to vote. In fact, why the emphasis on “in states where ID is not required?”

Is Obama fearful that he may not win without votes cast by illegal immigrants? Is that why he courts votes of legal and illegal immigrants as well? Is that why he brags his Muslim Ties are a strength, yet accuses Christian Right of hijacking faith, maintains a People of Faith for Barack website, all the while hiding the White Grandmother who raised him?

Are we ready for a president during war that says preventing genocide isn’t reason to keep U.S. Troops in Iraq, yet also desires Troops in Darfur to “prevent genocide?”

What else should we expect from a candidate who panders to Hispanics and tells them they owe him their vote for one March and also panders to Unions by telling them he would step out of the Oval Office to walk in their picket lines with them.

That might put him in a ticklish situation should he win the election and any of the Federal Employees Unions were to strike.


Tuesday, July 17, 2007

“Specifics” in Dems Withdrawal Considered “Distraction”

July 17, 2007

So, you want a “withdrawal of American Troops” from Iraq? Think you can count on the Democrat party to engineer it? They are working hard to accomplish that, just don’t expect to hear any “specifics” of this “retreat and surrender.” Armed Services Committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, (D-Mich), has stated that talk of specific numbers was a distraction,” referring to how many Troops would be left behind.

You thought it would be a total withdrawal like Viet Nam? That’s what you get for trusting a Democrat. Republicans might be in disarray currently as they work to retain their seats, but even a minimal check on Democrats reveals they suffer from frequent lapses in their personal integrity.

Levin said, “I’m not going to get into numbers — because it changes the subject from what the issue is, the issue is whether we’re going to change course, whether we’re going to begin to reduce our troops….”

Did Senator Levin miss the unanimous vote approving General Petraeus as Iraqi Commander and the subsequent reinforcement of Troops there? Did he miss early signs of the reinforcement working? Or, later signs it is working?”

Of course he didn’t miss them he ignored them! As I pointed out in April, To Win, Democrats Must Cause Defeat.

Sen. Jon Tester, (D-Mont.) says, “there was a significant number of troops in the Middle East before we started this thing; there’s going to be some troops in the Middle East; there’s U.S. interests involved and that’s the nature of the beast.” He adds, “We’ve been there (in Iraq) for four years and I don’t think you can anticipate that everybody is going to be out. I don’t think that’s going to be the case. There’ll be some left, as needed. That’s his job as commander in chief.”

Senator Tester, how nice of you to point out that prosecuting a war is “job of the Commander in Chief,” but you and your cronies are tying his hands. You undermine his job and then lay it off on him too?

Senator Harry Reid (D. Nev.) said last week, “under the Democrats’ plans for Iraq tens of thousands of troops could remain,” revising it this week to, “the number of soldiers remaining would be in the low thousands if Democrats pass the Levin-Reed measure.”

Is that what anti-war moonbats desire? Just a few thousand Troops left back ostensibly for counter-terrorism and training of Iraqis? Hasn’t their complaint been for too long that not enough Troops were there to secure the country or fight terrorists? So, what would they expect to happen to just a few thousand Troops left? Personally, I doubt they are ready or willing to admit that those “few thousand would end up being sacrificial lambs to radical Islamic Jihadists that have declared Iraq is the Center of the War on Terror.

The anti-war left was very wrong on Viet Nam, as was once noted by newly elected Democrat Senator James Webb when he penned The Triumph of Intellectual Dishonesty back in 1995. That Webb has joined forces with those he castigated then is not only disappointing, it tells me that he has now embraced that Intellectual Dishonesty he so clearly condemned before.

Most troubling to me is that these Representatives of the American People, that lay claim to “We support the Troops, but not the War,” would not even consider the senseless slaughter they are setting our Troops for in Iraq, all to feed their BDS and attempt to grab permanent political power once again. Their lives apparently mean nothing to them, just the appearance of they try and when it goes wrong, it is Bush’s fault.

Sen. Mary Landrieu, (D- La.) proposes, “to re-focus U.S. forces on the hunt for Osama bin Laden and the al Qaida network, with troops being moved from Iraq to Afghanistan.” The quest for one man, if he is even still alive, IS the distraction from battling the much larger movement of radical Jihadists that are determined to rule the world by their misguided and wrongful interpretation of the religion.

Then again, since these same Democrats and other leftists consistently clamor that Al Qaeda was never in Iraq until we sent Troops there, won’t a significant number just follow our Troops there and await the inevitable Democrat leftist cry of withdrawal from there as well?

Maybe this is why the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, assigned prosecution of wars to the hands of one man, the President, whoever and whichever party that may be.

If Democrats would ever discuss methods of “winning” instead of methods of “surrender,” this war could be over much sooner and not drug out endlessly or having to return in another 12 years to face the same enemy, after they have grown even stronger.

The real “distraction” has been the Democrats endless call for surrender instead of supporting the successful prosecution of this new type of war.


UPDATE 1: Pro-Troop Supporters Announce Major September Push

UPDATE 2: Think the reinforcement isn't showing progress? Al Qaeda faces rebellion from the ranks

Thursday, July 12, 2007

A Lesson In Diplomacy

July 12, 2007

In justifying agendas and bias’s in humans, we often hear of how we are just part of the Animal Kingdom. I know you have heard the relations stated over and over. Yet, it seems that we tend to ignore lessons taught us by animals in the wild all too often.

We were savagely attacked on September 11, 2001 at the cost of nearly 3,000 innocent people, many from several nations residing and working in the United States. The attackers had no regard for who may have been killed in their suicide attack. All that mattered was they wanted to kill as many people as possible to instill fear in the rest of us.

Instead of cowering in fear or treating yet another terrorist attack as a mere crime, the newly elected President, the most hated George W. Bush, took the fight back to the enemy, radical fundamentalist Jihadists. Instead of gratitude that finally, after three decades of attacks against our interests abroad and at home, someone is finally going to try and stop this senseless slaughter of innocent people in the name of a wrongful interpretation of a Holy Book, a very vocal portion of our society aligned themselves against the President and the war effort.

There were cries of “warmonger,” “let the United Nations handle it,” “get permission from the United Nations” and every sort of slogan one could imagine, except for defeat the terrorists. Biased media and political opportunists took up the gauntlet thrown down by the ones who didn’t like the outcome of the previous election and who now saw a chance at creating scandal after scandal and undermine a sitting President, who was fighting to protect America.

I restate the above for a reason. That reason being we are always hearing of “War is not the answer” and “give diplomacy a chance” and such, like we have been doing for some three decades now, with terrorist attacks getting worse and worse. Relating this back to the Animal Kingdom, the link below will take you to a YouTube video some 8 minutes in length of an eerily similar attack on a Water Buffalo Calf by some lions, a natural occurrence in the wild.

CAUTION: This video is graphic in nature and if you are an animal lover or can’t take violence, I urge you not to watch it. You’ve been warned.

Battle at Kruger

A brief synopsis for those who chose not to see the video. In what I assume to be Africa, a film crew is filming a water hole as a small group of Water Buffalo approaches, not suspecting across the way from the Water Hole are a few Lions, lying in wait for food. Seeing the Lions, the Water Buffalo flee, with the weakest among them, a young calf, caught and drug into the water. A total of 5 Lions show up and end up fighting a crocodile for the calf, who all assumes is dead by now.

Unbeknownst to the Lions, the Water Buffalo return en masse, the whole herd. They gradually attack the Lions, picking them off one at a time, goring them with their horns and throwing them off the calf. Amazingly, the calf survives and the herd of Water Buffalo chases away the enemy, the Lions, saving the calf, which returns to the herd.

So, you ask, what does this have to do with the current war? Since you ask, I’ll relate it into human terms for you.

We were attacked on 9/11, just as the Lions attacked the small group, picking off the weakest, the calf.

The Lions that did not attack show up to take part in the feast, just as terrorist supporters celebrated at the success of the 9/11 attacks.

The Water Buffalo return en masse, just as President Bush did when he invaded Afghanistan and even Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, who nearly the entire world suspected of helping terrorists, just as the Lions who did not attack helped in dragging the calf out of the water, fighting the crocodile.

The Water Buffalo, now surrounding the Lions, launches counter attacks on the Lions, as did President Bush. Of course, our fight with terrorists isn’t as easy as this one appears on video, but all too often, the fights in the Wild Animal Kingdom don’t go easy either. But the point is, they counter-attacked en masse and saved the calf, driving off their enemy, the Lions.

Of note, none of the Water Buffalo protested, complained about sacrifices if they fought the Lions or demanded restraint on the part of the herds Bulls. None encouraged going to the United Animal Kingdoms for resolution after resolution condemning the attack and capture of the calf, they reacted swiftly and with the total support of the herd, saved the calf.

From the Wild Animals we are shown how to protect ourselves, to take up the arms needed when the weakest among us are attacked and to take the fight back to the enemy. The Bulls weren’t condemned for taking the fight back to the Lions, they were supported. No other Water Buffalo called for hearings and investigations for the Bulls violating International Animal Laws. None cried out during the counter-attack, “end the war now!” Even more amazing, there were no banners flying with “we support the Bulls, but not the counter attack.”

Imagine, if like the herd of Water Buffalo, we Americans and foreign allies banded together against the radical Jihadists and presented a United Front and supported the attack, without all the bellyaching from those scared to death they might have to step in and protect the weak, how much more progress might be seen today in this fight.

Terrorists, like those Lions, are not yet defeated. They will return and attack again. But, if they have a memory like I believe they do, those 5 Lions will think twice next time they see some Water Buffalo. Likewise, if more stand up to terrorists, they too will think twice, as will those who might fall prey to their radical view and promises of martyrdom and such and look at the advantages of not joining terrorists. The numbers will dwindle and in time, we will be safer from this latest enemy of all mankind.

The Water Buffalo instinctively knew the only diplomacy was to take the fight back to the Lions. When will we humans learn that as well?


Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Hot 4 Hill???

The subliminal screams in this youtube presentation,


Is this what our politics have degraded to?

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Are There Any ‘Men’ Left In Washington?

July 10, 2007

A very poignant line from the two-part mini-series that aired on ABC in September 2006 serves as an apt reminder of where we are as a free nation on the brink of yet another surrender to our enemy and abandonment of yet another struggling ally. Slowly, the forces of the hate America left are politicizing the current effort at defeating another enemy desiring the destruction of our free society.

Democrats have long demanded a “new direction,” or a “new strategy” in the War on Terror, Iraq Theater. President Bush gave us one when he brought General David Petraeus on board as Iraqi Theater Commander and our Senate voted for his acceptance, unanimously. About this same time, Democrats like Harry Reid started going public with their catcalls of “the war is lost.” Sending in reinforcements to give General Petraeus the tools he needed to provide the security needed to keep a free Iraq moving forward was labeled first a “surge” then an “escalation,” setting the scene for the eventual defeat Democrats desire.

Throughout we keep hearing “no exit strategy,” “no end in sight,” or “end the war.” Nowhere have we heard any of the Democrats ever utter the words, “win” or “Victory.” Not once have they ever spoken of winning this war, just do whatever they can to oppose it and cause the defeat of America, while a Republican is in office.

As we begin hearing reports of Iraqi citizens pour out to fight al Qaeda, we now see an increased push by defeatist Democrats to negate that and to surrender before any good effects can be shown.

Today, Speakerette and supreme America hater, Nancy Pelosi released a statement of Six Months After Iraq Escalation, Still No End in Sight or a Clear Exit Strategy. In April, shortly after General Petraeus took Command, he returned to give a briefing to the House and Senate on early progress, as the Troop Reinforcements was getting under way. Pelosi was one of those Democrats that decided they were too busy to meet with the General, desiring to ignore any progress.

Are they afraid to hear of or admit to progress? No, they wish to ignore any so they can paint the war as a failure and bring about America’s embarrassing defeat, all so they can grab political power for good, setting up their vision of reinstating the failed Soviet Union, but in America. It is all a calculated effort to force failure in this fight, in my opinion. Political power comes well before the safety of American citizens, to these aging wealthy hippies.

In the run up to the 2006 elections, San Fran Nan released a booklet titled “A New Direction for America.” On page 10 of that booklet, appears the claim that Democrats would “Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.” Yet, they fabricate, ignore and exaggerate tough goings and refuse to acknowledge any progress. Every step has been to encourage citizens to believe failure is the only option and discourage any who might desire to join the Military. Then, they decry that recruiting goals may be missed. Where has she ever made any effort at keeping any promises she made?

Pelosi isn’t alone, though. Like I said, this is a concerted and calculated effort from the Democrat Party as a whole. As Feds warn of 'spectacular attacks' from al Qaeda this summer are very likely, Democrats are stepping up the pressure on weak and spineless Republicans to oppose the war effort. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) claims, “Democrats have 37 Democratic-sponsored Iraq bills to choose from to create ‘a steady drumbeat’ of votes voicing disapproval of Bush’s handling of the war.” Of course, no Democrat ever joins in with anything towards the war except, “cut and run.” Victory and Win are no longer in the vocabulary of the Democrat Party.

Senate Democrat Harry Reid began his drone of “the war is lost” in April, long before any of the reinforcements reached full strength in mid-June of this year. He continues that cry today. He too was too busy to meet with General Petraeus when he gave the early assessment of the Troop Reinforcement.

Senator Clinton has fully embraced the anti-war arm of the defeatist Democrats now as she calls out, "Our message to the President is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today.” Note: it isn’t ever time to a Democrat to “Win this war,” just end it.

Among her illustrious plans are “focusing on aid efforts that put money in the hands of the Iraqi people.” Typical of a Democrat to think that throwing money is a way out. Did it ever occur to the junior Senator that once they succeed in abandoning Iraq to Al Qaeda that terrorists, to aid in obtaining weapons and logistics to carry out the next attack on America, would steal monies given to the people? No, they fail to realize that. September 11 taught them nothing, as all the attacks during her husband’s administration and before has failed to wake them up to the dangers to our way of life.

As Democrats point to Bush’s failure being reflected in his low approval numbers, they ignore and deflect that their numbers are the lowest in a decade, lower than even President Bush’s. Apparently assigning their unpopularity to Iraq and furthering their quest for absolute power, they begin this push to force America into another defeat at the hands of terrorists.

Their timing just may be catastrophic for the nation as recent reports indicate the strong possibility of another spectacular attack may possibly be coming our way. Of course, should President Bush’s anti-terror efforts prevent one, Democrats will surely cry there never was a threat. Should Al Qaeda succeed, Democrats will cry that Bush failed to prevent it, never acknowledging their own shortcomings and failure to secure America.

Missing or clearly minimized by defeatist Democrats and their followers are Al Qaeda’s own claim of Iraq is the Central Front of this war. It is now where they have taken their stand to defeat America, with the help of Americas Defeatist Democrats.


UPDATE 1: The New York Sun Editorial staff sees the perfidy of the defeatist Democrats, Running From Petraeus

UPDATE 2: Iraq War Veteran Pete Hegseth, asks, Give the 'Surge' a Chance

UPDATE 3: Although I am no fan of Senator McCain, he hit the nail on the head today when he addressed the Senate. McCAIN STATEMENT ON DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

Duncan Hunter Answers America, MSNBC Video

Click to hear who I consider the best prospect currently running and his answers to Americans.

Duncan Hunter on Iraq, Health Care Etc.

Monday, July 09, 2007

Sheehan’s, A Saga of a Fallen Heroes Family

July 9, 2007

From one outlook or another we all have heard of the exploits of Cindy Sheehan, as she became the darling of the anti-war left and the Democrat party, as long as she served their political usefulness. When her antics no longer suited them and failed to garner them all the support they desired, she was dropped like a hot potato, leading her to Announce her retirement in July, after first announcing her resignation in May.

Whatever our personal feelings about Cindy Sheehan’s antics are, lost in the media coverage is her now ex-husband and the heroics of her son, Casey, as he gave his life for the freedoms of others by volunteering for a dangerous mission in Iraq, April 4, 2004.

In bashing President Bush or leveling charges against his administration of “Bush Lied, Men Died,” gone are references to Casey pulling rank and voluntarily replacing a lower ranking person on the truck that carried him to his fate. Gone are references to his being a grown adult man making a grown adult man’s decision. As his Father, Patrick said, “He was an adult, making his own decisions when he volunteered that day. And he would do it again. Nothing can tarnish that. What he did matters.”

Although Casey’s Father is also opposed to this war, he sees his son is an American Hero, deserving of any and all praise and respect that we have ever given to any of our historic heroes throughout history.

While Cindy jetted around the globe making a spectacle of herself, using up the insurance money and government gratuity paid for Casey’s life, his actual grave in Vacaville remained unmarked for some time, in spite of Cindy posing sprawled out over his grave in the January, 2006 issue of Vanity Fair magazine. After receiving some $350,000 in insurance from taxpayers and another untold amount from a Prudential policy on Casey, it became George Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Roves fault that her son’s grave went unmarked so long.

During this time, what I perceive as a quiet and unassuming man, Patrick, Casey’s Father, issued a call, Cindy, go home, as he filed for a Divorce from her. Cindy’s response, as we all now know, was to ignore her family as she stated, "..they're supportive. They understand what I'm trying to do." It was also Patrick that handled all matters concerning Casey’s gravesite, according to Cindy. She also claimed the headstone was very expensive and she had to pay for it herself. Somehow, she missed or ignored that grave markers for deceased Veterans are available free of charge from the government with only the effort of filling out a simple one-page form being required. Then again, the receipt of a $100,000 gratuity from taxpayers for covering expenses related to his death was for what?

Claiming her grief prevented her from purchasing a headstone earlier; Casey Sheehan’s grave was left with no headstone for over two years! Of course, the false cemetery that was set up in Crawford, Texas for public show has white wooden crosses, but her hero son’s actual grave sat with little more than a small marker placed on it with his name.

During the long wait for a headstone to be placed on her hero son’s grave, Cindy wrote a post for the far left Huffington Post in which she said, “For Casey to even join the Army, let alone being killed in battle was the thing that was most uncharacteristic of him. He was a gentle and kind soul who only wanted to help others.” Two months earlier she appeared on a radio interview with Amy Goodman where she said of Casey’s feelings about the War, “Casey was against it, but he felt it was his duty to go because he was in the Army. And he felt that he had to go to protect his buddies, to be there for his buddies, to be support, and they are brainwashed into thinking that even if they don't agree with the mission, they're brainwashed into just blindly following it. I begged Casey not to go. I told him I would take him to Canada. I told him I would run over him with a car, anything to get him not to go to that immoral war. And he said, ‘Mom, I wish I didn't have to, but I have to go.’”

What Cindy didn’t say is that her son, who supposedly opposed Iraq, was in the Army when 9/11 happened, having enlisted in May 2000. His enlistment was up as we were preparing to invade Saddam’s Iraq and Casey re-enlisted, knowing his unit was set to go to Iraq.

Mary Mazzocco, Faculty adviser at Casey’s school said, “He was so sweet and so shy and so quiet, you had a hard time seeing him as a soldier, but he really did get into it. The last time I saw him on campus he was in his uniform and very proud of it and very proud to have made it through basic training.” His father, Patrick also said a few days after his death, “One night he came home after running some errands and announced that we were looking at the newest recruit in the U.S. Army,” surprising his family. Even Mother Cindy first said, “He just wanted to go over to fight for his country, and serve his country.”

It doesn’t sound to me like Casey Sheehan “was against it,” or that “he wished he didn’t have to go.” Sounds more to me like he is the type of young man that made America great and free.

Within a few weeks of hero son Casey’s death, the Sheehan family was invited to Ft. Lewis, Washington near Seattle to meet with President Bush. After that meeting Patrick said, "We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," noting that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election. Even Cindy said, "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." She even asked the president to “make her son's sacrifice count for something.”

Of that meeting, Cindy later claimed that President Bush seemed "totally disconnected from humanity and reality."

Another parent who was present at that meeting with President Bush, wrote the following email to Melanie Morgan of Move America Forward, which was posted at Michelle Malkin.

“I have an e-mail from Jim Krause, whose brother Elmer was killed in Iraq at the same time as Casey Sheehan. Cindy Sheehan was with Mr. Krause at Fort Lewis, Washington when President Bush joined them in the chapel.”

“Mel, let me tell you his guard was down. He was real. He was genuine. He was sincere. His eyes teared while we told of our loss. He said he was sorry. During that time we all could have blasted out our anger, criticism and contept. He would have stood there and taken it.”

What happened to Cindy Sheehan, while her family and several others maintain their support for Victory? By the account of another Vacaville Mother, John ‘F’in Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) is what happened. According to the poster, Mom of Two Soldiers, Vacaville resident, posted on Free Republic,
“We knew of the John Kerry campaign coming out to visit them just after it occurred, as they tried to do with many other families. We knew of the referral to the Fenton Communications agency. Most of us know how she has been used.”

“Most frustrating are the times in which Casey died. In March of that year, John Kerry stood up for Al Sadr, the Muslim Cleric who called in his newspaper for the deaths of U.S. troops. Kerry stated in public radio that Al Sadr had a legitimate voice (to call for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq) and that the military should not have shut down his newspaper. It was Al Sadr's people who killed Casey Sheehan. It was John Kerry who approached her and used her after that occurred. None of us can understand why Cindy Sheehan would embrace someone after that occurred.”

The saga of Cindy Sheehan appeared to be headed for obscurity when she announced her ‘retirement’ from the anti-war movement. That, or she was out of Casey’s insurance money and couldn’t afford to keep buying all the publicity. Whatever the reason, it was short lived as she is now announcing her plans to organize a march from the Crawford Property she reportedly sold to progressive talk radio host Bree Walker, after refusing to sell it to Move America Forward, who desired to erect a Memorial to Fallen heroes, like Casey Sheehan, on the property. That’s right, she even refused others an opportunity to erect a memorial to her own Son, among others.

On this march, she now claims that Bush’s commutation of L. Scooter Libby’s jail sentence is the “straw that broke the camel’s back” of her short lived retirement into peaceful obscurity. So incensed is she that she has now threatened to run against Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi if she doesn’t seek impeachment of Bush immediately. Somehow, I fail to see wealthy veteran Democrat Pelosi quivering in her leather slingback shoes.

In all of this, Cindy misses and doesn’t ever speak of the heroism of the son she so lovingly misses or his heroic sacrifice the day he ordered a soldier of lesser rank out of the truck so he could take his place on a rescue mission of fellow soldiers that he sacrificed his life for. Missing are the thoughts of his Father, Pat, who wishes his ex-wife no ill will and doesn’t want to be pitted against her, who says, “I would rather that Casey be viewed with dignity.”

We do, Mr. Sheehan, in spite of the actions of your ex-wife.


Saturday, July 07, 2007

Think Gas Costs Too Much Now?

So, if you think gas is too costly at the pump now, watch what your Democrats do now that are back in control of both Houses of Congress.

Dingell to propose 50 cent gasoline tax increase

You read that right, Democrat Dingell, from Michigan, wants to raise the price of your gasoline another 50 cents. Just as gas prices are beginning to fall, you can always count on Democrats to come up with a way to part us from our money.

We conservatives tried to warn you all, but hey, you get what you ask for!


UPDATE: Congressman Dingell now states the proposed tax hike is to show that Americans are not willing to face the real cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. His message appeared to be that Democratic leaders were setting unrealistic legislative goals. Counting on Failure, Energy Chairman Floats Carbon Tax. Is it Rocket Science to see citizens, already complaining about costs of gas, will not like a tax hike on gas?

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

Independence Day

July 4, 2007

As this 231st celebration of American Independence winds down, the sun is setting and the fireworks displays starting, I am left to ponder just how many more of these celebrations will we be able enjoy.

That might seem a strange thought for me to express, but look around us. Most of our time honored holidays are either under assault, such as Easter and Christmas, or they are going ignored as to their significance, as in the case of Veterans Day and Memorial Day. To be sure many of us honor them for their significance, but many more just take the day off and enjoy barbecues, a day at the beach, go shopping (as many business now hold Xday Sales) and still others just watch TV. For whatever reason, the significance is gradually being lost and I’m afraid, that same fate is starting to befall the Fourth of July, the day we celebrate our Independence from England two centuries ago.

What started me thinking of this was hearing a portion of the “Man on the Street” interview yesterday on the Sean Hannity radio program. It was astonishing to me how many people seemed to have little or no idea why we celebrate this day. While most said it was to commemorate our Independence, most couldn’t say from whom. Some said France. Others said we won our Independence through whomever we fought during the Civil War. Most had no idea who wrote the Declaration of Independence and didn’t seem to know just who Thomas Jefferson was.

Discussing the Fourth of July with some anti-war liberals recently, they were aghast that I claimed our annual celebration included commemorating war as well. One replied, “The fourth of July is not a celebration of war but a celebration of independence from tyranny.”

I guess the symbolism of the stanza “And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air” in our national Anthem, the Star Spangled Banner, escapes that person completely as does the significance of the fireworks displays tonight. As I see it, we celebrate the VICTORIOUS end to the Revolutionary War that won our independence from England in 1783. What also escapes many is that we could not have won that war and our Independence without the aid of other European nations, mostly France, Spain and the Netherlands who joined in opposing Britain.

Fast forward to today and we see our Troops engaged in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, both struggling for their freedom from a tyrannical faction of Islam. After our Troops, with the aid of several other nations, overthrew previous tyrannical groups oppressing both nations, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda led groups now in Iraq are fighting to re-impose tyrannical rule once again.

As we set about celebrating our own independence, many within our country are doing their best to ensure the Iraqi’s and Afghani’s don’t receive that chance we did when others joined against the one we fought to be free so long ago. Political opportunists that agreed initially to set these countries free while seeking and fighting the ones responsible for the worst attack ever to hit our shores on September 11, 2001, not express outrage and disgust that we are still fighting the despots seeking world domination, not just the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Government leaders are saying we need to get out, leave them to work out their own problems, all is lost there and on and on. At the same time, the second in command of Al Qaeda releases a tape telling the world the end of the west is imminent. Just last year, this same terrorist, accompanied by an American traitor, Adam Yehiye Gadahn, issued another tape “Inviting” Americans to join Islam, with just a hint of ‘or else’ in the message.

To these and other messages and terrorist attacks overseas, we have at least one candidate for President labeling the current War on Terror as “a Bumper Sticker Slogan.”

Every one of the candidates for President from one party advocate, not winning this war, but “getting out.” The other party has some of the same mindset as well, but not all.

In this encroaching age of Political Correctness, we also have the newly seated Prime Minister of our closest ally, Great Britain, the same we fought for our Independence long ago, issuing a directive banning the term “War on Terror” or identifying Muslim Extremist as “Muslim.” In a nutshell, war and Political Correctness are not compatible. Allow me to also state that I am NOT of the mind that all Muslims are terrorists; they are not! At the same time, I also have to acknowledge that the vast majority, if not all, of the terrorists currently are Muslim, even if only a small faction of the religion.

If our allies cannot, or refuse, to see or acknowledge our enemy, can we win this war, this Radical Muslim Crusade against the West? Just as in our own War for Independence, consider if our allies then simply threw in the towel because it was a bit tough or refused to see Britain then as their enemy as well. Would we have our liberty today? I doubt it.

It is the same for the Iraqi’s and Afghans. There freedom and liberty will not only benefit their people, it will benefit us as well, denying Radical [redacted] terrorists a place to form, train and strengthen. This war is as much for us as it is them.

As this 231st celebration of American Liberty winds down, as we expend all the fireworks, put away our barbecues and prepare for work tomorrow, reflect back on the price many paid for our Independence. It was worth their sacrifice for us to be free today. Surely the sacrifices made by the brave today is equally as worthwhile to give more their liberty as well.

Above all, remember why we celebrate and what we celebrate. Don’t let the Political Correctness of today minimize this day and forget the high price paid by the brave and courageous for our liberty throughout our history. The weak among us would have us lose our liberty by denying liberty to others.

May God continue to Bless America and all who have defended her.


Monday, July 02, 2007

Glaring Hypocrisy From The Left, Scooter Libby

After President Bush issued a commutation of Libby's sentence today, while maintaining his conviction and imposed fine, Democrats came out in droves expressing their usual moral outrage.

Libby was convicted of covering up a crime that was never committed in "leaking Valerie Plames" name, while the real exposer of her name was known all along, Richard Armitage. Armitage, last I heard, faces no prosecution in what the left has declared to be a crime compromising our National Security.

From Democrats,

Senator Hillary Clinton issued the following statement on President Bush’s decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby:

"Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."

Senator Harry Reid: Bush's Commutation of Libby's Prison Sentence Endorses Administration's Culture of Corruption

Washington, DC — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today after President Bush commuted the prison sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby for obstruction of justice:

“The President's decision to commute Mr. Libby’s sentence is disgraceful. Libby’s conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq War. Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone. Judge Walton correctly determined that Libby deserved to be imprisoned for lying about a matter of national security. The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own Vice President’s Chief of Staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law.”

Howard Dean,

“Once again President Bush and the GOP have undermined a core American value: equal justice under the law for every American. By commuting this sentence, President Bush is sending a clear message that the rules don’t apply to the Bush White House or loyal Republican cronies. After promising that anyone who violated the law would be 'taken care of,' President Bush instead handed Scooter Libby a get out of jail free card. Though Libby was convicted by a jury of lying about a matter of national security, President Bush is sparing him the consequences ordinary Americans would face. This conviction was the first moment of justice in a Bush Administration void of accountability. It’s a sad day for America when the President once again puts protecting his friends ahead of equal justice under the law.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on President Bush’s commutation of Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence today:

"The President's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence does not serve justice, condones criminal conduct, and is a betrayal of trust of the American people.

"The President said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the President shows his word is not to be believed. He has abandoned all sense of fairness when it comes to justice, he has failed to uphold the rule of law, and he has failed to hold his Administration accountable.”

Senator Barack Obama statement on Bush decision to commute Libby's sentence

Barack Obama today released the following statement on President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby.

"This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people's faith in a government that puts the country's progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years."

Former Senator John Edwards Statement On President Bush Commuting Libby's Sentence

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Senator John Edwards released the following statement today about President Bush commuting Scooter Libby's prison sentence.

"Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today. President Bush has just sent exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world. In George Bush's America, it is apparently okay to misuse intelligence for political gain, mislead prosecutors and lie to the FBI. George Bush and his cronies think they are above the law and the rest of us live with the consequences. The cause of equal justice in America took a serious blow today."

Governor Bill Richardson Calls Bush Commutation of Libby Sentence "Breathtaking Arrogance"

Administration clearly thinks it is above the law

SANTA FE, NM -- New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson today issued the following statement regarding President Bush commuting the sentence of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted on federal charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators.

"It's a sad day when the President commutes the sentence of a public official who deliberately and blatantly betrayed the public trust and obstructed an important federal investigation," said Governor Richardson. "This administration clearly believes its officials are above the law, from ignoring FISA laws when eavesdropping on US citizens, to the abuse of classified material, to ignoring the Geneva Conventions and international law with secret prisons and torturing prisoners.

There is a reason we have laws and why we expect our Presidents to obey them. Institutions have a collective wisdom greater than that of any one individual. The arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking.

Will the President also commute the sentences of others who obstructed justice and lied to grand juries, or only those who act to protect President Bush and Vice President Cheney?"

Senator Joe Biden Issues Statement on President Bush Commuting Scooter Libby's Sentence

Published: 07/02/2007

Hours after a federal appeals court ruled that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby would have to begin serving his prison sentence while appealing his conviction for crimes of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, President Bush commuted his sentence.

Last week Vice President Cheney asserted that he was beyond the reach of the law. Today, President Bush demonstrated the lengths he would go to, ensuring that even aides to Dick Cheney are beyond the judgment of the law.

It is time for the American people to be heard.

I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law.


Remind George Bush what he told staffers during a swearing in ceremony for White House staff back in January 2001:

"[We] must remember the high standards that come with high office. This begins with careful adherence to the rules. I expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct. This means avoiding even the appearance of problems. This means checking and, if need be, double- checking that the rules have been obeyed. This means never compromising those rules. No one in the White House should be afraid to confront the people they work for, for ethical concerns, and no one should hesitate to confront me as well. We are all accountable to one another. And above all, we are all accountable to the law and to the American people."

Senator Chris Dodd

"By commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, the President continues to abdicate responsibility for the actions of his Administration. The only ones paying the price for this Administration's actions are the American people."

Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, who is representing the Plame and her husband Ambassador Joe Wilson in a civil suit against Libby and other top Bush administration officials.

First, President Bush said any person who leaked would no longer work in his administration. Nonetheless, Scooter Libby didn’t leave office until he was indicted and Karl Rove works in the White House even today." "More recently, the vice president ignored an executive order protecting classified information, claiming he isn’t really part of the executive branch. Clearly, this is an administration that believes leaking classified information for political ends is justified and that the law is what applies to other people."

Representative John Conyers (D-MI), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

"Until now, it appeared that the President merely turned a blind eye to a high ranking Administration official leaking classified information. The President's action today makes it clear that he condones such activity," he said in a statement e-mailed to RAW STORY. "This decision is inconsistent with the rule of law and sends a horrible signal to the American people and our intelligence operatives who place their lives at risk everyday."

Joe Wilson "Scooter Libby is a traitor." He also said that the White House was "utterly and totally corrupt...from top to bottom."

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald:

We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative.

· We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as “excessive.” The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

· Although the President’s decision eliminates Mr. Libby’s sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.

Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter released the following statement in response to President Bush’s commutation of Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence today:

“The President has claimed Mr. Libby’s sentence was excessive. But the only excessive actions taken were those of the Administration as it sought to exact retribution against a critic. As I learned personally from the testimony of former CIA agents, its actions were unconscionable.

“The case against Scooter Libby always involved much more than the fate of one man. By revealing Valerie Plame’s identity, the Administration endangered her life, the life of everyone in the field she had worked with, and America’s national security. This illegal action set back the work of our intelligence community immeasurably by breaking bonds of trust which take years to form. Two years is a paltry price to pay for the damage done to our nation, damage Mr. Libby made possible.

“With its decision, the Bush Administration has proven that to the very end, it is interested only in shielding its members from accountability rather than encouraging it, even when doing so comes at the direct expense of our nation’s security.”

Funny thing is, I can find no similar moral outrage over former President B.J. Clinton's unconditional pardons of terrorists, drug dealers, killers and his former cabinet member, Henry Cisneros, as well as his own brother, Roger Clinton (what was that Hillary said about cronyism?)convicted Democrat Congressmen and more. Best I recall, it was stated it was his legal and executive privilege to pardon anyone he felt like.

Of course, Hillary's brother, Tony Rodham, being paid to lobby on behalf of those pardons didn't play anything in the decision, right Hillary?

What was that comment again about cronyism?


UPDATE: Former Democrat New York mayor, Ed Koch, adds his two cents, It’s Only Fair To Commute Libby

Duncan Hunter Appeals To Conservatives On The Net