Obama's Operation Chaos

Barack Obama's mailer encouraging Republican's and Independent's to vote for him in the primary

Obama Mailer

Oregon’s ‘Pregnant Man’ Hoax

News out of Bend, Oregon is that male resident, Thomas Beatie, is 22 weeks pregnant. Articles have been written and an appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show is scheduled. Looking closer, news of a Pregnant “Man” is just a myth.

Thomas Beatie, the Bend, Oregon man making news as a “Pregnant Man” was born Tracy LaGondino, a woman, 34 years ago. Tracy was a lesbian who fought for the right of gay couples to adopt children and against hate crimes in Hawaii, before moving to Bend 2 years ago.

Tracy fell in love with another woman, Nancy Roberts in Hawaii and they desired to be married, strictly against even Hawaii’s liberal laws.

Tracy decided she should obtain a sex change because Hawaii's laws did not support same sex marriage. She underwent a double radical mastectomy and began hormone therapy to change her gender to that of a male, but keeping her female reproductive organs.

When she and her lover decided they wanted a child, and Nancy could not become pregnant, Tracy, now renamed Thomas, ceased the hormone therapy to allow her menstrual flow to return. Tracy/Thomas said it took about 4 months for her body to regulate itself.

Consulting doctors, one who sent her to see a Psychologist “to see if we were fit to bring a child into this world,” she and Nancy finally obtained access to a cryogenic sperm bank to purchase anonymous donor vials and opted for “home insemination,” feeling that doctors who refused to help them due to their own ethical or religious views “discriminated” against the couple.

Tracy/Thomas now claims to be 5 months pregnant.

Writing an article about this “sensation” for the Gay publication, The Advocate, Tracy/Thomas maintains that she is now “transgender and legally male.” A quick review of Oregon Law reveals that the same court with jurisdiction over name changes

“may order a legal change of sex and enter a judgment indicating the change of sex of a person whose sex has been changed by surgical procedure.”

Surgical procedure is not defined.

One Portland, Oregon attorney who specializes in sex discrimination cases says,

“There’s no specific requirement in the law that there be a letter from a surgeon. A specific judge might want to see a letter, but that’s it.”

The same attorney, Lake James Perriguey also claims to know of several cases “in which a person received a legal change of sex on the basis of facial reconstruction.”

Tracy/Thomas said “she legally changed her name and sex about 10 years ago in Hawaii,” because of Hawaii’s ban on same sex marriage. I assume she had a judicial decree to declare herself now “legally male.”

However, in this writer’s opinion, being declared “legally male” does not make one actually male, especially given that her original female reproductive organs and vagina were left intact and viable.

Sexual gender is determined in nature by chromosomes. Two X chromosomes in the nucleus of the egg cell and it will become a female; a Y and an X chromosome and it will become a male. No judge can change that by judicial decree nor can any surgeon. Tracy/Thomas will carry the DNA of a female, regardless of the reconstructive surgery she may ever get. This is something we should have all learned in 7th grade Biology class.

Tracy/Thomas may claim whatever she wishes and any judge can decree what ever they wish, but the natural fact is, she is a woman still, like it or not. To claim otherwise is just fooling herself.

Equally fooling the public is the claim of a “pregnant man,” when by nature, it is a woman that is pregnant, as nature designed long ago.

Confusing headlines like, Pregnant Man Thomas Beatie From Oregon Puzzles Medicine and 'Pregnant' man stuns medical profession only perpetuates the myth that this is actually a male that is pregnant.

Tracy/Thomas’s neighbors have expressed their own skepticism about this “pregnancy.” One said,

“Quite frankly, I think it’s a hoax. I saw him a few days ago and he didn’t look like that,”

regarding the photo circulating showing the swollen belly.

Another said,

“I couldn't say that he looks pregnant. I can stick my stomach out and almost make it look like that.”

Muddying the waters in this is Tracy/Thomas herself when she says, “

Wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire… Despite the fact that my belly is growing with a new life inside me, I am stable and confident being the man that I am…”

Regardless of claims made to further the Gay Agenda, no matter what any judge decrees, no matter how “confident” Tracy/Thomas may feel, the fact remains that if she has retained her baby making equipment, then she is in fact still biologically a woman, not a man.

To claim otherwise, she is only fooling herself and a naïve public.

July 3, 2008: Lesbian Activist Gives Birth! This Is News?

UPDATE 1: The motive seems to be getting clearer. From the Oprah Winfry Show, Pregnant man tells Oprah, It’s a miracle. Winfrey called the development "a new definition of what diversity means for everybody."

What is so miraculous about a woman with female reproductive organs becoming pregnant?

UPDATE 2: The hoax continues as news agencies declare Pregnant Man 4 Weeks From Delivery. They can blur the lines all they desire, having a vagina and female reproductive organs is a female, not a male, regardless of bodily mutilations.

UPDATE 3: Ben Shapiro of Townhall chimes in with his observation,

UPDATE 4: November 13, 2008: "He's" Pregnant Again, But It Is Still A Hoax

Chelsea Clinton On The Campaign Trail

From a “none of your business” reply to being surprised at the extent of “sexism in America,” Chelsea Clinton, daughter of the Senator and former President is learning Clintonian style politics first hand campaigning for her Mom.

Former First Daughter, Chelsea Clinton has been campaigning hard for her Mother, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in what seems to many to be her Mom's futile attempt at being the first woman President of the United States.

Chelsea, who recently turned 28 years old, has graduated from Stanford University with an undergraduate degree in history and earned a Masters Degree in International Relations from Oxford University, leaving her well equipped to speak for her Mom.

Ms. Clinton debuted on the campaign trail in Iowa this past December where she chanted B-I-N-G-O with a little boy and made her way through lines of prospective supporters asking, “Is there anything we can talk about that would push you over the edge for my Mom?”

Later in the month, in Iowa still, a Cedar Rapids fourth grader and “kid reporter” for Scholastic News, Sydney Rieckhoff, approached Ms. Clinton. Nine-year-old Reickoff had previously posed questions to both Democrat and Republican hopefuls when she asked Ms. Clinton,

“Do you think your dad would be a good ‘first man’ in the White House?”

Brushing the question aside Chelsea replied,

“I’m sorry, I don’t talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you’re cute,”

leaving the 9 year old Sydney looking a bit crestfallen. Fortunately for the Senator, Sydney’s Mom, Robyn, had already made up her mind to support Hillary, saying,

“I like her position on family values and health care. And I think it’s time we have a female president.”

By January Ms. Clinton returned to her Alma Mater, Stanford, for a one-day swing through campus in order to talk to young women. Chelsea hosted a round-table discussion and later hosted larger event “open only to sorority members in the Pi Phi lounge.” While some felt it was a success, many Clinton fans and undecideds were “left with a bad taste in their mouths” as the event was only open to members of the Inter-Sorority-Council.

As the Stanford Editorial Board said it,

“[Chelsea] was not a member of a sorority while at Stanford, so her appearance was not a homecoming for a former sorority sister,” adding, “Chelsea sought ‘accessibility’ for her mother’s campaign at a private event that, ten years ago, then-student Chelsea Clinton would not have been invited to attend.”

By February, the former First Daughter was enjoying a sit down breakfast with 21 year old College Junior Jason Rae, who also just happens to be a Democrat Party Super Delegate.

During the 30 minute breakfast, Rae says they discussed Hillary’s electability and mobilizing young people to get involved in politics as well as how the campaign's operations were going.

Just days earlier, MSNBC’s David Shuster came under fire and was suspended for his distasteful comment that the then 27 year old Chelsea’s reaching out to Super Delegates on her Mother’s behalf was “pimping her out.”

At a March event, Chelsea was approached by a Butler University student who worked on the College newspaper, who asked for her opinion

“on the criticism of her mother that how she handled the Lewinsky scandal might be a sign of weakness and she might not be a strong enough candidate to be president.”

Evan Strange, the student and Clinton supporter who asked the question said he

“was simply trying to give her daughter an opportunity to show people what makes Hillary so strong.”

Evan said he wasn't expecting Chelsea to lash out at him with her reply,

“Wow, you’re the first person actually that’s ever asked me that question in the, I don’t know maybe, 70 college campuses I’ve now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business.”

Others present said the mood of the room after the question and reply was one of “shock.” On CBS’s Early Show, Evan said,

“I can see where she’d get a little defensive because of the question and hearing Lewinsky over and over again, I can see where she would have reacted that way. But I would like to hear her say something about her record or something else like that rather than dismissing the question.”

Saturday, March 29, Chelsea appeared at the Young Democrats of North Carolina convention, which normally only draws appearances for statewide races. Chelsea reminisced about a couple of isolated incidents on the campaign trail with,

“I didn’t really get how much sexism there still was in our country until I was at a rally with my mom in New Hampshire, and someone came up to me and said, ‘I just can’t see a woman being commander in chief,’” adding that at another New Hampshire rally, “some men stood up and said ‘Iron My Shirt’” while her Mom was giving a speech.

Chelsea explained that she didn't understand that sexism still existed because both the men and women have always supported her in her family. She said,

“I didn’t realize that that wasn’t expected yet in the rest of our country. I have been so profoundly more grateful than I have ever been over the past few months for my parents because of that.”

She also expressed dismay as to why some people find humor in a nutcracker doll that looks like her mother.



Explaining the differences between her Dad’s support of NAFTA and her Mom’s opposition to the trade pact, after a member of the audience said his Mom lost her job due to its passage, the young Clinton replied,

“We don’t agree on everything as a family. I agree with my mother on most things - not everything. I agree with my father on most things - not everything. My mother and father agree on most things - not everything.”

Chelsea appears destined for a life of politics as well. As we learned in the Army, “If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your BS.” If nothing else, throw out your favorite ‘Victim Card.’

UPDATE: Chelsea once again ducks a Monica question. Why is it that character doesn't ever matter when a Clinton is running for office?

Move America Forward Requests Investigation of Berkeley

Reposted with permission from Spree at Wake Up America and Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward

To show support for the United States Marine Recruitment Center in Berkeley, California, the pro-America group, Move America Forward, has been holding counter protests to the group Code Pink, after the Berkeley City Council passed a resolution declaring the Marines “uninvited and unwelcome intruders,” while granting Code Pink free sound permits and reserving publicly funded parking space in front of the Marines Office.

At a February 12 counter-protest, MAF members, including Patriots, Veterans and Retired Military, were harassed, threatened, and intimidated by anti-war groups, while the Berkeley Police Department stood idly by at a distance, ignoring repeated requests for assistance by MAF members, some of whom were victims of violent acts.

Move America Forward has retained council and has sent a letter to the United States Attorney’s Office requesting an investigation into not only the Berkeley P.D., but the Berkeley City Officials who have “encouraged all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station, and applaud residents and organizations such as Code Pink, that may volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley,” impeding the work of a Federal Agency while in the performance of their duties.

Ms. Morgan and Move America Forward issued a Press Release earlier this week announcing their intent to call for the investigation. By permission, the Official Letter sent to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Francisco, California is reproduced below,

BY FEDERAL EXPRESS DELIVERY

Tracking No.: 7984 0570 0813

The Honorable Joseph P. Russoniello

United States Attorney, Northern District of California

11th Floor, Federal Building
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102

Dear Mr. Russoniello:

This Firm represents Move America Forward, Inc. (hereinafter “MAF”), a non-profit organization committed to supporting members of the United States Armed Forces and their families.

Our client participated in what began as a peaceful demonstration in support of the United States Marine Corps Recruiting Center, located on Shattuck Avenue in the City of Berkeley, on February 12, 2008. MAF obtained a permit from the City of Berkeley prior to the demonstration. Sadly, the peaceful demonstration was disrupted with violence. During the demonstration, several incidents occurred which the Berkeley Police Department failed to respond to adequately. MAF supporters were harassed, threatened, and intimidated by opposing groups. In addition, several acts of violence were committed against MAF supporters, and the Berkeley Police Department ignored their repeated requests for assistance. The police failed to protect its citizens during what should have been a peaceful demonstration. These incidents of intimidation, violence, and government inaction were widely reported in both the Bay Area and national media.

Our client also remains concerned that recent legislative action by the Berkeley City Council, which ultimately precipitated the unfortunate events of February 12, 2008, runs afoul of federal law. As you are likely aware, the Berkeley City Council approved a resolution on January 29, 2008, that provided in pertinent part that “the Marine recruiting office is not welcome in [Berkeley], and if recruiters choose to stay, they do so as uninvited and unwelcome intruders….” The Council then resolved to “encourage all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station, and applaud residents and organizations such as Code Pink, that may volunteer to impede, passively or actively, by nonviolent means, the work of any military recruiting office located in the City of Berkeley.” The legacy of this “encouragement” was the shameful events that transpired in Berkeley on February 12, 2008.

The City of Berkeley is actively, through the legislative action by the City Council, encouraging private organizations to disrupt the lawful governmental operations of the United States in the City of Berkeley, by encouraging groups to “impede” the efforts of the United States Marine Corps to recruit qualified young people to serve in the Corps. There is little question that Berkeley, as a college town, is an appropriate place for the Marine Corps to recruit qualified, patriotic young people to serve their country as United States Marines. By encouraging disruptive behavior patently calculated to drive the Marine Corps out of the City of Berkeley, the City Council appears to be soliciting unlawful, and quite possibly criminal, interference with the lawful operations of a federal agency operating within the City of Berkeley.

We hereby request an investigation into the timely lack of response by the City of Berkeley and the Berkeley Police Department during the events of February 12, 2008. In short, the City of Berkeley failed to protect its citizens engaged in the lawful exercise of their rights under both the First Amendment and federal civil rights laws. As you know, these laws fully protect our client’s right to participate in such peaceful expression, and they have the right to be protected from such acts of violence. Further, Move America Forward requests that your office inquire into the legal propriety under applicable federal law of the efforts of the City of Berkeley to “encourage,” through legislative action, organizations actively committed to undermining the ongoing military operations of the United States both at home and abroad to impede the lawful activities of a federal agency operating within the city limits.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

SWEENEY & GREENE LLP

James F. Sweeney

Spree has shown the seriousness of this with her article, The Financial Costs To Berkeley, California For Their Anti-Military Stance.

Catherine Moy, Executive Director of Move America Forward says, “That is a blatant misuse of tax dollars and a violation of civil rights,” referring to the privileges granted to anti-war groups, most notably Code Pink.

Melanie Morgan concluded, “Berkeley has got to realize that we’re not going away.”

Kudos’ to Move America Forward and all involved. It is long past time that Patriotic Americans that support our Troops in harm’s way fought back in every legal way possible.

Anti-War Films Continue to Fizzle At The Box Office

In spite of rave reviews given the latest anti-war films coming out of Hollywood, none have yet to perform as well as did similar films shot three decades ago to turn public opinion against the War in Viet Nam. Stop Loss, the latest, is no different.

Stop Loss opened to a measly $1.6 Million this weekend with Paramount announcing they expect little more than $4+ Million overall. Studio officials said they weren't expecting much because “no Iraq war-themed movie has yet to perform at the box office.”

During and right after the Viet Nam War we were treated to a multitude of films heavily leaning on an anti-war theme, or as some saw it, anti-American theme, portraying the Viet Nam Veteran and the American Military as negatively as possible. Even the successful Sylvester Stallone “Rambo” series portrayed the movies hero, John Rambo, as a war torn killing machine ready to destroy a town for being denied a meal and getting arrested.

A succession of movies like The Deer Hunter, Full Metal Jacket, Rumors of War, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July and many others carried forth the notion of the “deranged veteran” and the “evil soldier” raping, maiming and indiscriminately killing both in war and at home afterwards.

Even successful movies like M*A*S*H*, even though set in the earlier Korean Conflict, reflected the strong anti-war sentiment leftists pushed off on the public, many in the public accepting these movies as a true reflection of the U.S. Military members.

Apparently the effectiveness of those films spurred critics of both the war and President Bush, very prevalent in far left leaning Hollywood, to attempt a repeat with a whole new stable of anti-war films aimed at turning off public support for the ongoing battle in Iraq in the greater War on Terror.

We’ve been treated to movies like Lions for Lambs, Rendition, In the Valley of Elah, Redacted and now Stop Loss, that have all been flops at the box office, neither earning the expected money or turning public opinion more against the war and the Military.

As one studio source puts it,

“No one wants to see Iraq war movies. No matter what we put out there in terms of great cast or trailers, people were completely turned off. It’s a function of the marketplace not being ready to address this conflict in a dramatic way because the war itself is something that’s unresolved yet. It's a shame because it’s a good movie that’s just ahead of its time.”

Perhaps the movie isn’t as “good” as this source claims and the public is waking up to the manipulation instead of entertainment Hollywood has been producing.

Perhaps more in the public than is reported sees the ongoing threat of radical Jihadism and realizes our All Volunteer Military merits the support that was denied the soldiers of the Viet Nam War.

Perhaps the countering efforts of Viet Nam Veterans and Patriots to the leftist’s protests and disinformation spread about this time gives Americans needed insight into the truth of their sons and daughters fighting for our way of life and the freedom of the Iraqi people.

Perhaps memories of millions of murdered Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian civilians after our abandonment of South Viet Nam turns the public away from these films.

Whatever the reason is, these films continue to tank at the box office and in this writers opinion, rightfully so.

An Obama View of America

Michelle Obama long ago revealed The Chip On Her Shoulder.

Now there is video of her View of America, from a January 2008 speech at USC




"We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables- you all living in different dorms. I was there. You’re not talking to each other, taking advantage that you’re in this diverse community. Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance. That’s America. So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?"

Shouldn't she be directing some of her own divisive verbiage towards Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Obama's Pastor of he last 20 or so years?

I hate to tell Mrs. Obama, but America moved beyond the hateful rhetoric she and the Reverend Wright preaches, for the most part, years ago. We do not wish a "CHANGE" back to that.

It must totally escape her that if we in America were the racist whites she speaks of, her husband would not be a front-runner for the Presidency of the United States, nor would she be earning $350,000 a year and living in a $1,650,000 mansion.

D.B. Cooper’s Parachute Found?

On November 24, 1971, a man parachuted out of the back of a high jacked Northwest Orient Boeing 727 somewhere over Southwest Washington State, launching the mystery and legend of D.B. Cooper, America’s only unsolved aircraft highjacking.

Children playing in Amboy, Washington this month discovered an old tattered parachute. At the urging of the children, their Dad contacted the FBI. FBI agent Larry Carr overlaid the family's address onto a map made in the early days of the investigation and learned they lived right in Cooper's most probable landing zone, between Green and Bald mountains.

The FBI is asking for someone with expertise in parachutes to come forward and inspect the remnants they have to determine if it is the type of parachute used by Cooper in 1971, a Navy Backpack 6 with a 26-foot canopy, before beginning to excavate the property.

MSNBC

Seattle PI

Is a major Pacific Northwest mystery and America's only unsolved highjacking closer to being solved, 36 years later?

If it is Cooper's parachute, will it just open more questions about how did the money discovered on the banks of the Columbia in Vancouver, Washington, $5,000 of the $200,000 extorted, back in 1980 get there from Amboy?

Do we even want the legend of D.B. Cooper solved?

Church Withholds Medical Care, Child Dies

A small sect in Oregon, the Followers of Christ, does not believe in medical treatment of any kind. Following the death of a 15-month-old girl, the parents may be facing criminal charges for failing to seek medical treatment for a gravely ill child.

Following the deaths of several children from easily curable disease, the Oregon legislature passed a law they felt was “drawing a fine line between punishing devout parents and ensuring necessary medical care for youngsters” in 1999.

Following the death of 15-month-old Ava Worthington from bacterial bronchial pneumonia and infection, easily treatable with antibiotics, says Dr. Christopher Young, a deputy state medical examiner, prosecutors are looking into whether or not the parents should be prosecuted under the 1999 law. If so it would be the first prosecution under the law.

Dr. Young also reported a benign cyst that had never been medically addressed on Ava’s neck that would have complicated her breathing and could have been easily removed.

Oregon, like other states, wishes to be tolerant of religious views and a citizens First Amendment Right to Freedom of Religion. That freedom, though, should not supercede a child’s life, felt the Oregon legislature, when they passed the law HB 2494, stripping the “shield of religious exemption from a parent's or custodian's duty to provide a sick or injured child with medical care.”

Prior, Oregon law stated,

"charges of criminal mistreatment do not apply" to a person who provides a child "with spiritual treatment through prayer from a duly accredited practitioner of spiritual treatment ... in lieu of medical treatment."

Officials felt they had resolved the ongoing problem with the Followers of Christ, a small sect of approximately 1200 people, until the death of 15-month-old Ava.

Clackamas County chief deputy district attorney, Greg Horner said,

“it's too early to know what, if any, charges the parents could face. We are reviewing the case, and our investigation is progressing.”

Neither the family nor the Church has made any statement or returned any calls.

Rita Swan, president of Iowa-based Children's Healthcare is a Legal Duty says,

“It certainly was our fervent hope that changing the laws in 1999 would change the behavior of the Followers of Christ,” adding, “they’re very stubborn people who have decided it’s more important to act out their religious beliefs than protect the life of their flesh and blood child.”

Just how far the state should go into interfering with Freedom of Religion in order to save children will have to be settled by the courts. Whether or not this becomes a Supreme Court case also is unknown at his time.

While prosecutors ponder the fate of the parents and lawyers line up on either side of the issue, an innocent 15-month-old girl lies in a grave, never having had a chance to decide her own free choices.

UPDATE: Little Ava's parents, Carl Brent Worthington, 28, and Raylene Worthington, 25, have been indicted on charges of second-degree manslaughter and second-degree criminal mistreatment in the March 2 death of their daughter.

“Children,” In Prison For Life?

Mary Jones says of her sister Ashley, "She should have a chance to have a life. Her life shouldn't just be taken away from her like that.” Ashley brutally murdered their grandfather, aunt and attempted to murder Mary and their grandmother.

It was in August 1999 when Ashley, then 14, and her 16 year-old boyfriend decided to slay Ashley’s family because they disapproved of the relationship. The mayhem that followed involved shooting, stabbing and setting on fire of those who were raising Ashley and Mary, then 10. Mary and the grandmother barely survived. The grandfather and aunt did not.

Ashley’s grandparents took her in because she had stabbed her Mother while the mother was 8 months pregnant.

An adult committing such a brutal and heinous crime could expect the death penalty, but a 2005 Supreme Court decision banned imposing the Death Penalty on youthful offenders who weren’t 18 at the time of the crime. 19 States allow “Life Without Parole” for offenders who commit such brutal crimes and were under 18 at the time, according to a group opposing even that sentence, the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI)

Bryan Stevenson, executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, which represents Ms. Jones and several other juvenile lifers said,

“Thirteen- and 14-year-old children should not be condemned to death in prison because there is always hope for a child.”

Human Rights Watch in California has released a 100 page report, When I Die, They’ll Send Me Home, claiming that often, the “children” receive heavier sentences than adults.

Elizabeth Calvin, children’s rights advocate at Human Rights Watch and author of the report says,

“Sentencing children to life without parole means they will die in prison, without the possibility of a second chance at life. The public can be kept safe without locking children up forever for crimes committed when they were too young to vote, drink, or even drive.”

A Bill, SB 999, banning ‘Life Without Parole’ for juveniles in California, died in the Senate this past February.

Alison Parker, deputy director of the US program of Human Rights Watch says,

“Kids should be punished, and held accountable. The crimes we're talking about are very serious crimes. But children are uniquely able to rehabilitate themselves, to grow up and to change. A life-without-parole sentence says they're beyond repair, beyond hope.”

Deborah LaBelle, a human rights attorney and director of the ACLU's Juvenile Life Without Parole Initiative claims,

“As every parent knows and as every social scientist understands, this is a time of ill-thought-out, impulsive lack of judgment, problematic years … To throw them away and say you're irredeemable as a child is a disturbing social concept.”

All over the land bleeding hearts pour out, “they're not mature enough to understand their actions, they’ve had hard childhoods, they were abused or molested, jail is not a deterrent, won't someone please think of the children?” Reformists seem more concerned about the quality of life of the killer rather than the victim who no longer has a life.

Justice for victims and personal responsibility seem to have been forgotten in the quest for more leniencies for juvenile murderers.

Many have said the parents should be held responsible for these young criminals. Forgotten is that parental authority has been usurped by state authority and that all too often, the parents are the victims who are now dead.

Mary Nalls, the 81-year-old grandmother left to die by Ashley Jones and her boyfriend, now says,

“I believe that she should have gotten 15 or 20 years. If children are under age, sometimes they’re not responsible for what they do.”

Laura Poston, the prosecutor in Ashley’s trial says,

“I don’t think every 14-year-old who killed someone deserves life without parole. But Ashley planned to kill four people. I don’t think there is a conscience in Ashley, and I certainly think she is a threat to do something similar.”

Ashley, now in her 20’s said in a telephone interview, “Everybody I loved, everybody I trusted, I was betrayed by,” claiming her mother to be a drug addict and her step father sexually molested her. Yet that isn’t whom she and her boyfriend killed.

As is expected she also says, “I’m very remorseful about what happened.”

I am reminded that when animals, which the left and evolutionists often compare humans to, kill a human, they are hunted down and killed themselves. Be it a household pet or a wild animal, they are euthanized with no chance for retraining.

Leniency, in this writer’s opinion, isn’t in order for those who commit the most heinous of crimes in the most brutal manner. It isn’t about rehabilitation; it is about protecting society from a sociopath.

Obama: My "Typical White Grandmother"

Don Imus gave John Kerry valuable advice once when he told him, “stop it, stop talking, you are going to ruin this.” That advice might have better been given to Barack Obama as he intimated his grandmother was “a typical White person,” fearful of Blacks.

Aptly stated is, “when you find yourself deep in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.” If anything ever applied more to the junior Senator it would be the above, as he tried to sooth over a previous gaffe where many took his words to describe his White grandmother as a racist, but made matters worse.

In his first effort to excuse and distance himself from what many describe as hateful race-baiting speeches of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, he said of his grandmother,

“…a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”

Under fire for that less than honorable description of the woman who lovingly raised and cared for him, Senator Obama sought to sooth that over when he was asked by Philadelphia’s radio 610 WIP host Angelo Cataldi about the reference to his grandmother that he gave. He replied,

“The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way and that’s just the nature of race in our society.”

So, grandma isn’t one to harbor racial animosity, but like a “Typical White Person,” she fears those she doesn’t know who approach her, presumably Blacks?

It can safely be said to refer to Blacks approaching her as he wrote in his book, Dreams of My Father, about her being upset because an aggressive panhandler that once accosted her was Black.

I would think the grandma would be as equally fearful had a White aggressive panhandler accosted her demanding money too! In fact, I’m not aware of too many people who are accosted by aggressive persons on the street who don’t become upset at the encounter.

But, how does that make grandma a “Typical White Person” who imputes motives upon Blacks automatically? Where did he ever learn that it is “Typical” of Whites to act in such a manner? Does he not realize he is half White and that must mean his White side would share that attribute he assigns to Whites as “Typical?”

On the other hand, imagine, if you will, any White person, especially a conservative campaigning for high office, publicly stating that his Kenyan father’s getting his White mother pregnant and leaving her behind as he returned to Kenya represents a “Typical Black Man.” Would not he and every Black American be offended at such a crass misrepresentation of Blacks?

The Senator campaigns on a platform as a “uniter.” Off the cuff remarks as the above don’t unite; they further divide an already divided nation.

Some say such an unscripted remark reveals an insight often hidden from public view of a candidate as the Senator is labeled a Black racist. Some others have said this is the death roll of is quest for the presidency, which obviously remains to be seen.

Obama campaign spokesperson, Ben LaBolt said,

“Barack Obama said specifically that he didn’t believe his grandmother harbored any racial animosity but that her fears were understandable and typical of those often shared by her generation,” adding, “But the campaign also said the senator did not mean to suggest all white people share his grandmother’s reaction to seeing a black person pass her by on the street.”

I hardly see an aggressive panhandler as simply a “Black person passing her by.”

Is grandma a racist? Could she be since she raised a White daughter who fathered Obama with a Black African? Could she be if, as Obama also described her, she is “a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world?”

Of his Kenyan father, who left when the Senator was 2 years old, Obama said in his book,

“When I was ten, my father came back from Africa to visit us for Christmas. After a week of my father in the flesh, I decided that I preferred his more distant image, an image I could alter on a whim - or ignore when convenient. If my father hadn't exactly disappointed me, he remained something unknown, something volatile and vaguely threatening.”

Yet, Obama doesn’t describe him as “Typical” anything.

If, as his spokesperson LaBolt says, such a reaction is “understandable and typical of her generation,” what then does a similar reaction today make of people who say,

“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved?”

Reverend Jesse Jackson, December 1993.

Senator, a wise saying we had in the Army, “Caution! Place brain in gear before placing mouth in motion.”

One is left wondering if the Senator would be where he is today had his “Typical White” mother and grandparents simply shipped him off to Kenya to be raised by his “volatile and vaguely threatening” father, instead of lovingly raising and nurturing him as they did.

Senator, you just might have handed your opponent the nomination for your party.

Preacher on Obama

Misleading Media Headlines Malign President, Again

The left’s hatred of the Bush administration is no secret. Our mainstream media lined up against him long ago and have shown utter disdain for anything positive in regards to Bush. Recent news headlines showed their hate continues.

We all saw the headlines last week, as our media lined up saying once again how Bush lied about Saddam’s Hussein’s ties to Al Qaeda. From the New York Times we saw, Study Finds No Qaeda Hussein Tie.

Fox News said, Pentagon Study of 600,000 Iraqi Documents Finds No Link Between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

McLatchy Newspapers reported, Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida.

The Washington Post was a bit more benevolent with, Study Discounts Hussein, Al-Qaeda Link.

CNN treated us to, Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says.

ABC declared, No link between Saddam and Al Qaeda: Pentagon.

And on it went, the media once again lining up to discredit President Bush and the Battle in Iraq. Knowing that the average reader rarely reads the entire article, slyly buried in nearly every article was something to the tune of, “Among other findings, the report said that Mr. Hussein’s government provided support to other regional and international terrorist operations.”

One newspaper, the New York Sun, seemed to be honest in their assessment when they published, Report Details Saddam’s Terrorist Ties, telling us early in the article, “The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.”

Once the declassified portion of the report was made public, The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes wrote, Saddam's Dangerous Friends, What a Pentagon review of 600,000 Iraqi documents tells us, outlining extensive ties to terrorists and organizations loosely and directly affiliated with Al Qaeda and much more.

On page 15 of the summary, in the middle of one paragraph we read what the Bush hating media based their Headlines on, where it says, “This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.”

Surrounding that lone sentence, though, is two paragraphs showing a different picture,

The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements. The relationship between Iraq and forces of pan-Arab socialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities of the Ba'ath movement.

But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks. A review of available Iraqi documents indicated the following:

Here the study outlined several links to terrorists and terror organizations either directly working with Al Qaeda or indirectly supporting Al Qaeda. Page 54 says,

“When attacking Western interests, the competitive terror cartel came into play, particularly in the late 1990s. Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda-as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's longterm vision.”

Page 62 of the report reveals,

“Saddam’s interest in, and support for, non-Iraqi non-state actors was spread across a wide variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. For years, Saddam maintained training camps for foreign 'fighters' drawn from these diverse groups. In some cases, particularly for Palestinians, Saddam was also a strong financial supporter. Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.”

Clearly, President Bush and members of his administration did not lie and after the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, it would have been utterly irresponsible to have ignored the possibility of those ties to terrorists resulting in terrorists obtaining what the entire world reported Saddam held.

Most distressing and despicable, in this writer’s opinion, is the irresponsible reporting of events and findings as this by our media in their effort to undermine a sitting president and a successful execution of a very necessary battle against terror in Iraq or elsewhere.

Puzzling is why the Bush administration remains mum as these misleading headlines are spread and many citizens buy in to them. As Stephen Hayes said, “What good is the truth if nobody knows it?”

As imperfect as he is and in spite of mistakes made, he deserves credit for finally facing up to terrorists and tackling them head-on, instead of assuming they'll just stop. It cannot be forgotten that ever since we were blind-sided that early September morning, terrorists have not succeeded in attacking American again.

Former enemies have stated that the discord they saw within the country is what led them to hang on and wear American will down to defeat America and spread communism. Today’s enemy sees that same discord once again and realizes all they need do is continue inflicting American casualties to wear down public opinion and win, enslaving Iraqi’s and Afghani’s in something much worse that communism, that will spread to our shores again.

Our Troops fighting over there to give Middle Eastern Muslims a chance to form a free society and to keep terrorists from our shores deserve better then to have our media supporting our enemies, either directly or indirectly.

Real Patriots Counter-March in D.C. March 15, 2008

Anti-War Protesters Parade Rained On

Protesters in Portland, Oregon, their numbers nearly halved after last years embarrassing conduct by some who burned a soldier in effigy and defecated on the American flag, held another march today in spite of the rainy Pacific Northwest weather.

Marking the fifth year of the Iraqi Theater of the War on Terror, and still reeling from the antics of some far leftist protesters just last year, anti-war groups in Portland organized under an umbrella group, the PDX Peace coalition and held another protest/march today, claiming attendance of some 8,000, just over half of last years claims of 15,000 attending.

It what can only be surmised as desiring to draw support and numbers from non-citizens in the country illegally, the groups made their flyers available in both English and Spanish this year.

In the weeks running up to today’s “World Without War” march, the protest groups debated inclusion of the younger, more radical groups that caused last years disruption and who advocate “disruptive and sometimes violent civil disobedience.”

One group, Oregon Military Families Speak Out, who has supported protests of the past, withdrew their endorsement of the planned march this year due to a potential repeat of the despicable conduct of some last year, which included a young man defecating on a burning American Flag in the middle of the street, burning a US Soldier in effigy while chanting “Bye Bye GI In Iraq Your Gonna Die” and singing, “Build a bonfire, Build a bonfire, Put the soldiers on the top. Put the fascists in the middle, and, we'll burn the f**king lot.”

Adele Kubein, a member of Oregon Military Families Speak Out said,

"We wanted assurances that there wouldn't be actions that disrespect the troops. We didn't get those."

Tom Hastings, who teaches the Ecology of War and Peace at liberal Portland State University, said of last years conduct,

“That's a great way to erode the movement,” adding, “the debate about how the radicals would mesh with the coalition slowed planning for this year's rally and turned off some of the more mainstream activists.”

Showing despair in their decreased numbers and ineffectiveness, one of the event's organizers, Kelly Campbell, of the American Friends Service Committee said,

“I think people are recognizing that we're not going to have a big march and the war will end.”

Echoing this, Will Seaman of Portland Peaceful Response said,

“It’s easy to despair. But if you understand the scope of the problems, it’s ridiculous to think we’re going to solve them overnight.”

By reports so far, marchers, carrying their signs and beating on drums, marching in the rain through downtown Portland, caused only traffic delays of some 20 minutes and delaying public transportation as they stretched out over half a dozen blocks early afternoon, closely watched by Police.

In the pre-protest efforts at reinventing the protest groups after last year’s debacle, they drafted a resolution to make Portland a sanctuary where police officers refrain from arresting soldiers AWOL, trying to revive the PDX Sanctuary movement, who’s mission statement says,

“We the people of Portland, OR, seek to provide a sanctuary for members of the military who exercise their duty to object to an illegal war. To that end, we hope to have the County Board and the City Council pass resolutions to not waste public funds on the arrest or detention of service members who are absent without leave.”

Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, mirroring the sanctuary effort, created a page where they state their mission is,

“The project aims to (1) counter-recruit the military's effort to swindle, coerce, and deceive the youth of America into entering military service; and (2) provide direct counseling and information to GI's attempting to withdraw from military service.”

Both ignore the seriousness of being AWOL (Absent Without Official Leave), especially during war time and that it is a Federal Crime, that has the potential to further erode relations between Portland and Federal Authorities after Mayor Tom Potter withdrew Portland from anti-terror task force in 2005 because he wasn’t granted access to Top Secret information.

Explaining the seriousness of going AWOL or deserting, the US Army released a pamphlet, AWOL and the CONSEQUENCES.

Another protest, some 150 miles north of Portland, in Tacoma, Washington, a much smaller band of malcontents with the intent of “shutting down” Military Recruitment Offices in a mall, were surprised when they were met by superior numbers of counter protesters who assembled earlier to protect the Recruitment Offices and the Recruiters inside, fearing the group would repeat actions taken elsewhere against Military Recruiters.

Other than shouting matches between the groups, separated by Police, no arrests or other incidents occurred, all disbanding with the counter-protesters feeling confident they had defended the Recruiters well.

Unlike during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, when anti-war anarchists had the run of the country and received the support of the main media unchallenged, today’s anti-war cretins will be met anytime they indicate a desire to harm or belittle our Troops by those of us who endured their abuse decades ago, when we returned from the battlefield of protecting freedoms these instigators only take for granted, rain or shine.

Protesters Seek Sanctuary City for AWOL Soldiers

Living so near Portland, Oregon, one of the more left leaning cities on the West Cost of the country, we become used to the protesters burning soldiers in effigy and even defecating on a burning American Flag. But, a Sanctuary City for AWOL Troops?

Forming an umbrella group for anti-war activists in Portland, the PDX Peace coalition has announced a planned protest today in Downtown Portland. Under the group, recognizing the fiasco of last years protest, protesters have “changed tactics in the hopes of broadening support, creating year-round opposition to U.S. foreign policy and perhaps making the city a sanctuary for AWOL soldiers.”

To that end, the group has drafted a resolution to “make the city a sanctuary where Portland police officers refrain from arresting soldiers who refuse to return to duty because they oppose the war.” The idea lost steam before, but is being revived.

Nearly two years ago a web site was set up called PDX Sanctuary with the words,

“We the people of Portland, OR, seek to provide a sanctuary for members of the military who exercise their duty to object to an illegal war. To that end, we hope to have the County Board and the City Council pass resolutions to not waste public funds on the arrest or detention of service members who are absent without leave.”

Another web site from Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, set up a page just for encouraging Soldiers to seek Administrative Discharges. Under their “Mission Statement,” we read,

“The project aims to (1) counter-recruit the military's effort to swindle, coerce, and deceive the youth of America into entering military service; and (2) provide direct counseling and information to GI's attempting to withdraw from military service.”

Going AWOL (Absent Without Official Leave) or UA (Unauthorized Absence) from the Military is a Federal Crime. Enlisting in today’s All Volunteer Military, made that way due to pressure from protest groups and anti-war politicians in the early 1970’s, is a contract, legal and binding. If one is opposed to war or fighting, they should not consider enlisting, as many did through the 1990’s, believing it to be an easy way to earn college money instead of service to the country.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, many found that the easy ride they were led to expect was over and some wanted out, claiming they didn’t join to fight. Those that enlisted after September 11 have to have known what was ahead.

Efforts have been launched to undermine not only President Bush’s prosecution of the war, but recruitment efforts as well, documented lately by the group Move America Forward.

A Military Litigation Law Firm in Virginia lets AWOL Soldiers know,

“If you are absent without authority, or in a deserter status, you have a major problem on your hands. As you are probably aware, once you are absent for more than 30 days, you are declared a deserter and a federal warrant is issued for your arrest. A simple speeding ticket by your local police can result in your immediate arrest, transfer back to the military, confinement, a punitive discharge and a federal conviction that will be on your record for the rest of your life.”

The Department of the Army even has a pamphlet out letting Soldiers know of the consequences of going AWOL, AWOL and the CONSEQUENCES, explaining the seriousness of going AWOL and even Deserting.

Those desiring Portland, Oregon to be turned into a “Sanctuary City” for AWOL Soldiers have little or no idea of the long-term consequences for those they encourage to walk away from their Military Contract. Many never served and have no comprehension of the sense of Duty and Honor most enlistees’ hold when they volunteer for the Military. Going against that sense can have very long term effects that may affect one for the rest of their life.

Like said earlier, AWOL is a Federal Offense punishable by Federal Court or Military Court’s Martial. If picked up by local Police, the AWOL Soldier is turned over to Federal Authorities for prosecution. Those that turn themselves in usually face much less severe punishment, depending on length of time gone.

Portland has an FBI Office Downtown and other Federal Law Enforcement Officials as well as Recruitment Offices for all Branches of the Military. Would such a Sanctuary City arrangement degrade cooperation between law enforcement? Would activist fight to keep one from being arrested or detained by Federal Officers?

Portland is already on thin ice with Federal Officers over the Mayor’s withdrawal from the anti-terror task force in 2005, because he didn’t get his way over access to top-secret information. Would this ill-conceived idea further deterioate the relations in Portland?

Over the years many have condemned Southern States for their secession from the Union that led to the American Civil War. Efforts as this by the anti-war groups seem like they have decided to secede cities from the rest of the country now.

Where this anarchist attitude will lead is anybodies guess. One thing for sure, though, their misguided efforts will not diminish terrorists nor help any of the Soldiers they encourage to go AWOL.

Conservative Talk Radio Station Attacked by Angry Listener

Around 1 PM during the airing of Conservative Radio Host Lars Larson’s Friday show, witnesses observed an older model Toyota Corrolla slam into the front of Portland, Oregon’s KXL 750 AM radio station, backing up and slamming it again.

It was about 1 PM Friday, March 14, when KXL’s receptionist, Leann Wheatley noticed movement from the corner of her eye. Looking up she saw the White Toyota come crashing through the glass front of the stations lobby, showering glass all over the lobby. Ms. Wheatley wasn’t injured but was left shaken by the experience.

Witnesses outside said the car smashed into the building three times before taking off. Witnesses took down the license plate of the car, tracking the owner to neighboring Vancouver, Washington after the license number was released to the public.

By 3 PM Vancouver Police had a 30 year-old man in custody, detaining him for “mental evaluation.” Police have not released the man’s name nor if he was the driver of the car.

According to a station employee, KXL had been receiving threats from a particular person for a number of years over their programming, leading station management to believe the incident may be tied to the threats.

P.K., one of the morning personalities at the station said,

"About four years ago we started getting e-mails about how he doesn't like the morning show. And once very six months we'd get death threats. We got one last Wednesday, which was just a bunch of nothingness, you know. I think he was talking about throwing babies in hot oil. It was just nothing. We didn't read it. We just threw it away. We thought it was one of his rants and next thing we know we're at lunch and somebody drove a car through a window."

Although the incident happened during Conservative Lars Larson’s Friday Show, he is not believed to have been a target.

Sgt. Brian Schmautz, of the Portland Police Bureau, who notified Police in Clark County Washington, said the 30 year-old was detained but not arrested or charged with a crime. The case will most likely be taken before a Grand Jury, he added.

Kevin Allen, managing editor in KXL’s newsroom, said they weren’t exactly sure what the man was upset about Friday, but said that in previous calls from the man to the station, he’d made death threats.

The station broadcasts a number of talk shows, many political, including Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Roger Hedgecock and Lars Larson.

Lars Larson has placed audio of an interview he did shortly after the attack with Ms. Wheatley on his website, LarsLarson.com

Other local coverage at: The Columbian; KATU TV News;

Behind The Scenes: Anti-War Activists Exposed

Melanie Morgan, of Move America Forward, has posted evidence of the length the anti-war crowd goes in opposing and trashing our Troops.

Behind The Scenes: Anti-War Activists Exposed

Support the Troops?

Not these despicable cretins. Visit Move America Forward for video and audio evidence and see just what they really believe and how much they hate!

Anti-Illegal Immigrant Crusader May Face Charges

When a Providence Rhode Island storeowner asked to see the Social Security number of a customer he suspected of being in the country illegally, a firestorm was touched off that may result in his being charged with a hate crime.

José Genao came to the Heating and Supply Store owned by David Richardson with a friend to purchase an $18 part for his boiler. As Richardson was ringing up the purchase and noticing that Genao’s friend wasn’t speaking any form of English, he asked to see proof of citizenship in the form of their Social Security Cards.

Genao and his friend, both natives of the Dominican Republic and U.S. Citizens refused, prompting them to tell Richardson he “did not have the right to ask all those questions.” Genao added, “There is no problem with his status. He is legal.”

Richardson admitted to being ‘surprised’ when the friend urged Genao to leave, in English.

Accounts given, although similar, by Genao and Richardson differ somewhat. Genao stating Richardson demanded and Richardson saying he “kinda asked” to see the cards.

Richardson, a member of Rhode Islanders for Immigration Law Enforcement that seeks curbs on illegal immigration says it is his “legal right to demand a Social Security card.” Latino leaders demonstrating outside of the store say it isn’t, as they demand criminal charges be pressed.

Rhode Island law, however, may be on the side of the offended Latino’s. Rhode Island General Law 6-13-17, related to Unfair Sales Practices states,

“Unless otherwise required by federal law, no person shall require that a consumer of goods or services disclose a Social Security number incident to the sale of consumer goods or services,”

said Steven Brown of the Rhode Island affiliate to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Brown said,

“by demanding that this customer present his Social Security card, the owner clearly ran afoul of that law,” adding, [his actions] “also appear to clearly violate state laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race or national origin in places of public accommodation. There can be little question that this customer was singled out for discriminatory and humiliating treatment based on his national origin. Store owners have a legal obligation to serve all customers, and threatening to arrest a customer for speaking Spanish and for refusing to show a Social Security card is precisely the type of discriminatory conduct that the state’s ‘public accommodations’ law was meant to bar.”

Mark Potok, of the Southern Law Center’s Intelligence Project said,

“the incident reflects the tide of anti-immigrant sentiment in this country, not solely restricted to illegal immigrants.” He continued, “This kind of thing is happening every day in this country. Do we really want to bring the country to this point where everyone who is brown-skinned is suspect? It’s really quite incredible people can be confronted in this way. We hear everyday from U.S. congressmen and television pundits and talk radio about the many terrible things brown-skinned immigrants are doing to this country, and they are almost universally false, but the reality is, they lead directly to incidents like this and, less directly, to violence.”

Richardson said,

“I have no problem as a citizen of the United States of America to try and pursue people who are breaking laws. I was just trying to make [them] understand that people who come into this country who are illegal shouldn’t be here. I am very passionate about that,”

adding that he did not call ICE or make a citizen’s arrest, as accused, “because I didn’t have enough proof.”

Asked what led him to suspect Genao’s friend as an illegal, Richardson said,

“What proof is there? I think the majority of people who don’t speak English in Rhode Island, at least 51 percent or more, are illegal aliens. I’m trying to wake America up. I’m trying to wake him [Genao’s friend] up, and let him be aware that people who are breaking the law shouldn’t be breaking the law.”

Terry Gorman, founder of the anti-illegal immigrant group Richardson belongs to, took exception to Richardson’s actions. In a phone interview, Gorman said,

“There’s no way I can defend what he did. It definitely isn’t the policy of RIILE to go around and use your RIILE card to intimidate people. That’s not something that RIILE would promote … to make citizen’s arrest.”

Genao said,

“I told Richardson I’m a U.S. citizen by choice, whereas he was just born here. I have every right to be here. I told him his behavior was shameful. And he went on to say that a lot of these illegal immigrants are criminals and we have to stop them, and he said he did this for his country, because it’s going downhill, because of all these illegal immigrants. What he should have done was say, ‘Thank you for shopping with me.’ That’s all he had to do.”

Genao ended with,

“Somehow, we have to keep on educating people. When it comes to this man, does he have any children or grandchildren? Does he let them see anyone who is not their kind? Or does ask them for their documents before he can let them play together?”

One point missed by nearly all is that the “tensions” over illegal immigration might not exist, were the authorities to enforce our immigration laws.

Mr. Ogonowski Goes to Washington

John Kerry must go.



His "Holier than thou" shtick is old and his elitism an embarrassment to the country, much less Massachusetts. His conduct against Viet Nam Veterans is well known, regardless of his pandering today.

Anti-War Group Takes Protest To The Senate

An anti-war group, dressed ‘ghostly’ disrupted Senate proceedings Wednesday resulting in their arrest and sparking a “tense exchange” between reporters and Capitol Police, as reporters were ushered out of the hallway while events were unfolding.

As public support for the War effort is rising, an anti-war group disrupted the Senate with their message as Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) was speaking during a budget debate.

Protesters, looking as ghostly as they could with what appeared to be cheesecloth over their faces and wearing black shirts that read, “We will not be silent,” began chanting, “The war is immoral! Stop funding the war!” over and over. One protester chanted, “Stop the dying.”

The group identified themselves as "National Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance."

Capitol Police removed about 10 of the protesters, arresting them, after Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.) asked the Sergeant of Arms to clear the disturbance.

A “tense exchange” ensued between Capitol Police and News Reporters as the Police ordered reporters to “clear the halls” where the protesters were being detained, preventing them from covering the event.

Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer appeared before the reporters as they complained about being barred from witnessing how police handled the protesters. Gainer said the episode “unfolded quick” and it was not the Senates intent to block the press from covering the arrests.

Gainer said the reporter’s complaints were “reasonable” and a “point well-taken,” adding, “To the extent we were imperfect, we will try to improve.”

Protesters, most likely upset due to their inability to sway public opinion more to their line of thinking and being met with ever increasing opposition from Veteran and Patriotic Groups, apparently believe taking their antics direct to the U.S. Senate will accomplish their goals.

Remaining unknown is how they gained entry into the Senate Gallery dressed as they were.

Undoubtedly, these middle-aged protesters “Support the Senate, but not the performance of their duties.”

Fallout From AF Tanker Contract, European Job Loss

As U.S. Politicians express their outrage and Boeing Corporation announces they will protest their loss of the $35 Billion contract, Europe seems more concerned if this contract will accelerate Airbus’s exodus out of Europe.

As announced last week, EADS/Northrop trumped Boeing in Air Force tanker competition and was awarded the lucrative contract over Boeing Corporation.

The award sparked a series of fireworks from both s ides of the aisle as lawmakers expressed their outrage and voiced concern of jobs being shipped to Europe for the manufacture of this tanker, based on the highly successful Airbus 330 aircraft.

Little or no consideration has been given to European Workers, who are less than euphoric over the contract since EADs has been talking about “increasing its production capacity in the dollar zone,” while they have been implementing “far-reaching cost cutting measures.”

A two part article appearing in Germany’s Der Spiegel today brings up the questions, Could the Air Force Contract Cost European Jobs? And, Will the Airbus Deal Cost European Jobs?

At a time when unemployment hovers around 9%, compared to the United States’ half that, just under 5%, European workers express concern as they see this contract reducing the once near 97% European Workers at EADs shrinking to about one fifth as manufacturing is shifted away from Europe, mostly to the United States and Asia.

EADs began this shift in earnest a year ago as their subsidiary, Eurocopter, in Donauwörth, Germany was told, “[EADs] plans to shift significant portions of its production to the dollar zone.”

Workers were told that EADs “plans to procure both parts and complete subassemblies outside Europe in the future, thereby protecting itself against further decline of the dollar,” still the principal currency used in Aviation Business dealings today.

Indications of the move are the EADs Research and Development Center in Mobile, Alabama where 90 US engineers are already engaged in research for the European manufacturer. EADs will assemble the tankers in a yet to be built factory in Mobile, then the aircraft will be shipped to Northrop Grumman for final assemble and installation of electronics.

Airbus also intends to build Cargo versions of the Airbus 330 in Mobile sometime in the future

Speculation is that once production has gotten successfully underway in Mobile, the city could become Airbus' fourth-largest assembly site for passenger aircraft, next to Hamburg, Toulouse and Tianjin, China, although company executives currently say, “There are no such plans at present.”

In related news, Boeing today announced they will formally protest the contracts being given to EADs/Northrop Grumman citing, “serious flaws in the process that we believe warrant appeal.”

Northrop Grumman said the tanker competition was “the most rigorous, fair and transparent acquisition process in Defense Department history.”

In another article in today’s Der Spiegel, Boeing's Audacious Allies, the point is made,

“Ever since the Air Force announced its decision on Feb. 29, Americans from Seattle to Capitol Hill have railed about lost jobs and the risks of foreign-made military assets.”

“But what about when Boeing wins a big contract? You don't hear many complaints then, despite the fact that large portions of the parts and labor in its commercial planes come from overseas --70 per cent of Boeing's new 787 Dreamliner and 60 per cent of other models are made outside the US. Even many of Boeing's military planes have many foreign parts in them. Key portions of the fuselage and tail on the airborne-refueling plane Boeing wanted to build for the Air Force would have involved non-US companies.”

As Corporate Executives, Lawyers and Politicians maneuver this contract through hearings, investigations and courts, this writer is left wondering if European workers, already besieged with high unemployment, aren’t secretly pulling for the contract to be returned to Boeing!

Congress Erupts Over Air Force Tanker Contract

Stunned by the announcement of Washington States Boeing being beat out on the new Air Force Tanker contract by Northrop Gruman/EADs to replace the aging fleet of aerial tankers, Senator Patty Murray says she is “shocked, angry, and wants answers.”

The Boeing Company, based in the Seattle area of Washington State, was the odds on favorite to win the contract to build a new fleet of aerial tankers, a potential $40 Billion for the first 80 tankers. The Boeing 767, nearing the end of its commercial life was to be the frame the offered tankers were to be based on.

Northrop’s KC-30, based on the EADs Airbus 330 passenger jet ended up winning the contract. The 330 is bigger, enabling it to carry 20 percent more fuel, 20 percent more passengers, and 30 percent more cargo. It can also carry 45,000 pounds more fuel than Boeing's KC-767. It will be designated the KC-45 when pressed into service.

The loss of the contracts means that Boeing’s 767 line may wind to a close by 2012 when the commercial orders run out, costing Boeing and Washington State a potential of 9,000 new jobs.

Northrop, who will build the new tanker in a to be built factory near Mobile, Alabama, claims it will add 25,000 new jobs to that region. Many parts will be built in Britain and France to be shipped to Alabama for assembly into the new planes, raising the ire of Union workers, as well lawmakers from both Washington and Kansas, where Boeing also assembles aircraft parts.

Upon announcement of the award, a few dozen Union Workers protested outside their Union Hall displaying signs saying, “American workers equal best tankers” and “Our military deserves the best.”

Richard Michalski, general vice president of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, told reporters,

“We’re not going to sit back and just let this happen.” He added, “his group was working with members of Congress to either stop this funding and kill this project, or start the competition all over again,” citing a meeting he held with Rep. David Obey, (D. Wis).

Leveling harsh criticism at Gen. Arthur Lichte, one of four Air Force officials who announced the contract, Michalski said,

“That general should look at where his paycheck comes from. That general should quit his job, move to France and join the French Foreign Legion.”

In a statement released March 3, Senator Murray said,

“At a time when our economy is hurting, the decision to outsource our tankers is a blow to the American aerospace industry, American workers and America’s military,” adding, “This contract puts our warfighting ability in the hands of a foreign government. We're handing countries like France and Russia control of our most important military asset – our tankers which support all of our men and women in uniform.”

A bi-partisan letter sent to both Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates and Secretary of the Air Force, Michael W. Wynne asks why the promised debriefing hasn’t taken place and that it be initiated immediately.

Duncan Hunter, Republican Representative from California and ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee has tried several times to insert legislation into the defense authorization bill that would prohibit the Pentagon from awarding contracts to foreign companies that receive government subsidies, thwarted each time by Sens. John McCain (R-Az.) and John Warner (R-Va.) and others who have challenged the language.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi said Congress should examine the Air Force contract. She said,

“The Air Force's decision to award the contract for a much-needed modernization of the nation's aerial tanker fleet to Northrop Grumman and Airbus raises serious questions that Congress must examine thoroughly," citing among the questions, “national security implications of using an aircraft supplied by a foreign firm, as well as whether the Air Force gave sufficient consideration to the contract's effect on American jobs.”

On Monday, March 3, Congress erupted into a fierce debate as Representatives from areas that stand to lose and those that stand to gain expressed their opposition or support for the award.

Sen. Richard Shelby, (R. Ala) says the contract award does not threaten national security. Said Shelby,

“Nothing could be further from the truth. The prime contractor of the team that won, Northrop Grumman, is no less an American company than is Boeing.”

Democrat Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both expressed their disappointment in the Air Force decision. Clinton said,

“I am deeply concerned about the Bush administration’s decision to outsource the production of refueling tankers for the American military.”

Obama said,

“[he] found it hard to believe that having an American company that has been a traditional source of aeronautic excellence would not have done this job.”

Sen. John McCain (R. Az), who has cinched the GOP presidential nomination, says that he hasn't made up his mind on the contract adding jobs were not the key issue. He said,

“I’ve never believed that defense programs, that the major reason for them should be to create jobs. I’ve always felt that the best thing to do is to create the best weapons system we can at minimum cost to taxpayers.”

McCain was also instrumental in wresting a previous tanker contract from Boeing after unethical behavior was uncovered that led to prison terms for a senior Boeing official and a senior Air Force civilian.

One resident from the Puget Sound area, commenting at FreeRepublic.com speculated,

“when the Pentagon team came to Seattle they were met along the road by hordes of protestors with signs saying, ‘out of Iraq,’ ‘Impeach Bush,’ ‘Defund the War Machine’ and all the usual stuff. When they went to Alabama the highway was lined with American flags as far as the eye could see.”

UPDATE 1: Northrop Grumman Responds to Inaccurate Comments Concerning the U.S. Air Force KC-45A Award Decision

Also,

Northrop Grumman, before the companies merged in 1994, has a long history of building and supplying our Military with aircraft. Northrop supplied the N-3PB patrol bomber, the P-61 Black Widow, the XB-35 flying wing, the F-89 Scorpion, the F-5 Freedom Fighter/Tiger II, the T-38 supersonic trainer, the F/A-18 Hornet, F-20 Tigershark, B-2 stealth bomber and is working on the YF-23.

Grumman aircraft are largely known for their excellent performance throughout World War Two and after with the F4F Wildcat, the F4F-3S Wild Catfish, the F5F Skyrocket, the F6F Hellcat, F7F Tigercat, F8F Bearcat, G-21A Goose, G-44 Widgeon, JF Duck, TBF Avenger, the XP-50 Skyrocket, and later the A-6 Intruder, the E-2 Hawkeye, the OV-1 Mohawk and the F-14 Tomcat among many others.

Grumman also built the Apollo Lunar Module.

To cry they are a foreign company due to their teaming with EAD’s for the Tanker Contract is just ludicrous.

UPDATE 2: Boeing Reponds, Boeing defense chief: 767 tanker was better, cheaper

Eco-Terrorists Pollute The Earth, Not Save It

Groups like the notorious Earth Liberation Front have a history of destruction and vandalism against what they claim is polluting the earth. Like spoiled children throwing tantrums, they actually do more harm than good to the earth.

ELF has taken credit for the $7 million damage outside of Seattle, Washington this morning, as luxury homes were set ablaze, destroying three and damaging another. Left behind by the eco-terrorists was a sign saying, “Built Green? Nope black! McMansions in RCDs r not green. ELF.” “RCD” stands for “rural cluster development.”

Arson appears to be a favorite of this group of radicals as they have a long history of torching what they don’t like, especially if a luxury the wealthy may come to own.

A 2005 statement from Senator James M. Inhofe (R. Ok) elicited the remarks, concerning ELF and their sister group of terrorists ALF (Animal Liberation Front),

“ELF and ALF are terrorists by definition using intimidation, threats and acts of violence, and property destruction to force their opinions of proper environmental and animal rights policy upon society. ELF and ALF resort to arson, sabotage, and harassment in hopes of using fear to attain their goals of hampering development and free commerce. In fact, ELF and ALF are responsible for, estimating conservatively, over $110 million in damages and 1,100 acts of terrorism in the last decade. ELF and ALF’s weapon of choice is arson, placing instructions on how to effectively set fire to “animal abusers” on their website.”

Their history in the U.S. reveals they have torched a Ski Resort in Vail Colorado in 1998, burned several Hummer vehicles at a Dealership in Oregon in 1999 and set part of the horticulture center of Washington State University ablaze when they mistakenly thought they were doing genetic modification to trees.

While others show their concern for the environment by suggesting ways to cut down on smoke pollution, the ELF eco-terrorists create polluting smoke from burning of the materials in these homes, the plastics, paint and other materials in the SUV’s and even the homes they burn.

If, as we are told, burning wood in fireplaces causes pollution, how much more is caused by the deliberate arson of complete homes, including carpet, insulation, PVC piping, wiring and such? And, it doesn’t mention the distinct possibility of setting the very forests they claim a desire to save from destruction of being destroyed by the very fires they set.

A 2002 article written by Elaine Close, spokesperson for ELF, justifying their eco-terrorism for Mother Jones magazine, the statement was made,

“The ELF/ALF are not focusing on public opinion. They are focusing on actually stopping the destruction of animals, the environment and ourselves. Property destruction targets the motive behind environmental destruction: profit.”

Close also said,

“I don't consider damaging property to be violence. The end goal of the ELF is to save life on this planet….”

For a loose knit group concerned for the earth, expressing your displeasure by polluting the very thing you claim concern for seems counter-productive to the announced goals of the group.

Some today have referred to this group of radical misfits as “ecological activist.” Wanton destruction of other people’s property isn’t “activism,” it’s a crime!

While the degree of pollution caused by these acts of arson over the years is apparently unknown, these people are not “activists,” they are just another bunch of radicals jealous over someone else working successfully and bettering their lot in life.