Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Obama Vindicated On Prayer Note? Questions Left Unanswered.

After the Israeli paper Ma’ariv came under fire for their release and publication of B HO’s “personal and private” prayer note left at the Western Wall during his rock tour visit last week, threats of a criminal probe and boycott of the paper apparently have spurred Ma’ariv to issue a recantation of their claim that Obama’s campaign pre-approved publication of the note.

According to the New Republic’s Zvika Krieger, a Ma’ariv spokesman now says the accusation of the Obama camp approving publication of the note is “completely false.”

Today’s Ma’ariv spokesman says,

No official spokesman for Ma’ariv told this to any of the papers. The Obama campaign did not give us a copy of the letter or approve it for printing.”

A spokesman for one of the other Israeli papers quoting Ma’ariv stated the possibility that
Ma’ariv [may be] trying to deflect criticisms of it by releasing these spurious rumors about the Obama campaign, but upon realizing that they’ll have to back up those accusations, is now disavowing them.”

While this should settle the matter and clear the messiah in waiting, unfortunately it raises questions not addressed by the press or the Obama camp.

As mentioned and shown in my previous post on this matter, “Obama’s Western Wall Note Just A Campaign Stunt?” the Western Wall was festooned with Obama campaign posters upon his pre-dawn 5 A.M. arrival for this “personal and private” moment of placing the note in the wall.

Not only were the campaign posters prevalent, the media and photographers were available to witness, photograph and report on this pre-dawn “personal and private” moment.

It leaves me wondering if B HO had been denied placing his campaign posters prominently shown and photographers present to photograph this "personal and private" moment, would he have canceled his "personal and private" moment with God, as he did visiting the wounded Troops in Landstuhl, Germany?

If that isn’t fishy enough, just how did other media outlets in Israel, the ones who declined to publish the “personal and private” note, obtain their copies of the note?

We are told a yeshiva student identified only as Aleph took the note from the wall “as sort of a prank.” It has been claimed he gave it to Ma’ariv, but no mention of how other Israeli media obtained copies as well.

In apologizing on TV, Aleph said, “I hope he wasn’t hurt. We all believe he will take the presidency.” Is it just possible that Aleph is an Obama supporter as well?

Another unanswered question is just how did the “personal and private” moment end up on a You Tube video, complete with an invitation to “visit the official campaign site” with the notation, “Paid For By Obama For America?”

Had this happened with President Bush or other prominent Republicans, I can all but guarantee the National Media and blowhards like Bill O’Reilly would be in their usual lynch mob mode crying foul and demanding investigations into improper campaigning.

As it is, the leftist inspired media will just drop it and circle the wagons around the messiah in waiting …… and America continues the slide towards Socialism.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Obama’s Western Wall Note Just A Campaign Stunt?

John, over at Powerline has posted some not too surprising information about the “personal and private prayer note” left at the Israeli Western Wall last week by messiah in waiting, Barack Obama, while on his rock tour of the Middle East and Europe.

As we recall, the B HO campaign made a big splash about his visit to the Wall and leaving his own “personal and private prayer note” embedded in the wall, complete with pre-dawn coverage and Obama ’08 campaign signs prominently displayed in front of the revered symbol.

Shortly after he left, the Israeli newspaper Maariv mysteriously published the note, sparking outcries from the Rabbi who manages Judaism's holiest site and even members of B HO’s staff. Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitz stated,

The notes placed between the stones of the Western Wall are between a person and his maker. It is forbidden to read them or make any use of them.”

The Seattle Times claimed,
as soon as he left, a snoop pulled a folded piece of paper from a crevice in the ancient wall and offered it to the mass-circulation newspaper Maariv.”

Residents were outraged and expressed it to the paper in many critical notes written in. Curiously, one Israeli attorney said, “Obama probably knew what would happen to his prayer.”

Did he? Did Obama deliberately place a supposedly private prayer at Judaism’s holiest site, just so it would be found and published for the whole world to see?

Facing calls for a criminal investigation into the papers publishing the note, a Maariv spokesman said,
Barack Obama’s note was approved for publication in the international media even before he put in the Kotel, a short time after he wrote it at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.”

This begs the question, “how did the international media know, shortly after the note was written, that it was to be placed at the Western Wall?” Just who tipped them off and how did they so easily discover the note?

Another daily paper, Yediot Aharonot, says they too received a copy of the “personal and private prayer note,” but declined to publish it.

Yediot Aharonot claims,
it now appears that Maariv had collaborated with the Obama campaign in getting the ‘private’ prayer, with its ‘modest’ supplication to the Lord, out to the public, buffing his Christian credentials and showing his ‘humility,’” adding, “What initially seemed to be a journalistic scoop of dubious moral propriety now seems to be a case of an Israeli paper being played by the Barack Obama campaign.”

B HO’s handwritten “humble” note said,
"Lord - Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will.”

It would appear that this venture of B HO’s was little more than a campaign stunt, possibly designed to deflect criticisms he has received for his Muslim heritage or to distance himself further from the ramblings of Black Liberation Theologian, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Whatever the case may be, sad to say that the messiah in waiting now seems even more to be nothing less than just another cheap liberal politician playing the game.

UPDATE: Ma'ariv spokesman recants the claim of pre-approval from the Obama campaign to publish the "personal and private" note. However, it leaves several questions unanswered about the incident. Obama Vindicated On Prayer Note? Questions Left Unanswered.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

We Are A Nation Of Laws, Aren’t We?

As I often do on Saturdays, I was watching Fox News early as panelists were discussing Sanctuary Cities, those cities that pass ordinances forbidding their Police Forces to enforce federal immigration laws, thereby giving ILLEGAL immigrants a pass in the city.

As the discussion moved to ways to combat these cities that feel federal laws shouldn’t apply to their city, a proposal I have often thought of was made, cut off all federal funding to those cities.

Needless to say, the more liberal panelists disagreed with this approach as one made a statement I have often heard from liberals when discussing any method of combating those matters that harm our country, “we can’t do that. After all, we are a Nation of Laws!”

Unlike Chris Matthews, I did not feel a tingling up my leg, but even after hearing that comment so many times, it struck me, how are we a Nation of Laws when so often liberals encourage our laws to be ignored?

From Gun ownership to ILLEGAL immigration, to harboring AWOL and Deserting Military, Liberals seem to feel those laws either do not or should not apply.

Many west coast cities, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle and several others proclaim they are “sanctuary cities” for ILLEGAL immigrants, with Portland wanting to be declared a sanctuary for Military Deserters.

Are we really a Nation of Laws when many residing within our country in violation of our Immigration Laws openly and brazenly protest and march against our immigration laws, aided by liberal Democrats?

Constantly we are told that we must respect Court rulings handed down by liberal activist judges, yet do we not still hear complaints and grumbling about the Democrats being beat at their own game by the US Supreme Court in 2000 when they ruled that Florida Courts could not violate and change their own laws to benefit the recounts in favor of Democrat, Al Gore?

We are currently fighting a war on two fronts, Afghanistan and Iraq, combating terrorists that have been attacking us for thirty years and to prevent weapons and support from a now deceased rogue leader from possibly getting into the hands of the terrorists. Laws and legalities are satisfied through Congress and the United Nations in prosecuting those wars. Yet, we hear of calls for impeachment and suits filed in court to circumvent those laws and remove a president who is only desiring to protect us all.

Just a few years ago, we had a president who, in his youth, brazenly violated our draft law and who’s administration became embroiled in scandal after scandal. Yet today, he is held up as a heroic figure by the leftist liberal Democrats.

Returning to ILLEGAL immigration, San Francisco’s Sanctuary policy is coming under scrutiny due to murders by ILLEGAL immigrants there.

Since ignoring our laws is excused, it seems that even murders by ILLEGALS of American Citizens have drawn the attention of the Mexican government and the World Courts as they have attempted to intercede and demand Mexican ILLEGALS convicted of brutal rapes and murders within our borders not be executed, as would be Americans who have committed similar crimes.

But, we are a Nation of Laws, right? Or, is it we may have laws provided third world countries and the liberal leftist Democrats agree with them?

If we are truly a Nation of Laws, our Laws must be obeyed. We cannot be a Nation of Laws by picking and choosing laws to follow in the hopes of getting votes, as Democrats are doing.

Monday, July 21, 2008

Delavar Shares Ron Paul’s Naiveté

Cross posted from Clark County Conservative

I was somewhat surprised last evening to receive an email from Candidate Michael Delavar about midnight. No, it was not the usual run of the mill “vote for me” email, but a personal note asking why, back on May 26 on Victoria Taft’s forum, I said I would not vote for Delavar and would cast a vote for Democrat Brian Baird instead, due to his support for winning in Iraq now.

Apparently, Delavar, 34, considers himself the sole conservative running. In subsequent emails, he speaks of the race as between him and Baird, neglecting that the Washington State Republican Party unanimously endorsed the candidacy of Christine Webb, not Michael Delavar, to run against Baird and another Democrat anti-war activist, Cheryl Crist.

I’ve never met Delavar, Crist or Webb, but I have Brian Baird. Even as a Republican I was going to vote for Baird over Delavar, but due to Baird’s joining fellow Democrats in not supporting the Broadcaster Freedom Act, I am having second thoughts on that.

Currently Delavar appears ahead of Webb in gaining enough votes on our August 19 Primary to face Baird, but Webb is a late starter and just getting going.

Delavar can be found on many Ron Paul forums, supporting his failed run this year. Paul considered himself a conservative Republican, but has a history of being a lifelong Libertarian, losing a previous bid for the presidency under that parties banner in 1988.

Delavar and Paul both have some excellent fiscal ideas that I agree with. Then again, even a broken watch shows the correct time twice a day.

I was a bit surprised that a candidate for the House of Representatives would be thin skinned enough to contact a single voter who expressed opposition to him for an explanation of why. Out of the thousands of voters in the 3rd Congressional District, surely one little voter isn’t all that important for one who claims to have “jumped ahead” of an incumbent.

Most disturbing to me was his reply after I told him that I cannot support any candidate that advocates withdrawing from the War on Terror prematurely, as we have often done since WW2, leaving allies at the mercy of enemies who have historically slaughtered millions of innocent civilians as we turned a blind eye. I also stated that I could not support anyone who advocated the use of Letters of Marque and Reprisal, essentially outsourcing the defense of our nation to mercenaries.

So, I was somewhat taken aback that someone considering themselves to be a Conservative Republican would reply with,

one question we have to ask is whether the Republican party has become the party of war.”

Being a Viet Nam Veteran myself, I do not like war, but understand that our liberties and freedoms are ensured and protected by our Brave Troops fighting on our behalf to prevent another September 11 attack upon our country. I do not see the love of freedom and liberty, understanding the price that must be paid and has been paid since our country was founded, and being willing to pay that price as being “the party of war.”

I am left with the impression that Delavar, like Ron Paul, feels we brought the attacks of September 11 on ourselves.

Delavar also asked,
What about being pro-life, fiscally conservative, for securing our borders without amnesty, and protecting our sovereignty? None of those things seem to be important to our supposedly "conservative" Republican party. Only war.”

As I see it, Delavar is completely missing the boat in what we are fighting. Of course, if we lose this war, or just walk away and allow the Iraqis and Afghanis to flounder as Al Qaeda and the Taliban take over two countries to base out of, of what use will the other issues be once the suicide bombings and I.E.D.’s begin within our borders?

Additionally, Delavar said,
If we want bankruptcy as a nation, we should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until the cows come home.”

Does it escape him that “the cows” haven’t yet come home from Japan, Germany and South Korea, not to mention hundreds of other bases around the globe in some 60 years? That hasn’t bankrupted us. He must not realize that the cost of fighting terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan currently amount to less than 4% of our GDP, hardly bankruptcy range, I believe.

Explaining to him that as a Viet Nam Veteran, the thought of abandoning another struggling country to their fate against a heavily armed enemy, as we did Viet Nam, which culminated in millions of innocent lives being lost in South Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, was abhorrent to me, the reply of
Yes, there are some unpleasant possibilities that might come about when we leave. We don't know exactly what will be happening until that happens,” was elicited.

I don’t know about you, but millions of innocent people slaughtered because of what they believe, many thousands more dying when escaping a Communist nation in rickety boats, is a bit more than merely “some unpleasant possibilities.” I place more value on life than that.

Earlier on he was mentioning his “pro-life” stance in opposing abortions, as most of us do. How pro-life is it to support a child being born but consider millions of innocent men, women and children being slaughtered as an “unpleasant possibility?”

Little wonder that the July 22, 2008 “In Our View” section of The Columbian says,
Michael Delavar, is trying to seize on the Ron Paul passion that rose but now fizzles among many conservatives. He and others made big noise at the Clark County convention, but the real news occurred in the February GOP primary when Paul earned less than 7 percent of local votes.”

This Conservative Republican has no intention of standing by as Ron Paul Libertarians step in and take over the Republican Party as Liberals did the Democrat Party. The GOP is fractured and does need repair, but not adopting the views of a whiner as Ron Paul who can’t even see who our enemies are, in spite of three decades of attacks against us.

Support our Troops. Support their mission. And, help return the GOP to its true conservative base by voting for Christine Webb.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Run For The Presidency Yourself!

Since the Democrats have a totally unknown for their candidate, and this years election is largely a joke, why not me too?

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Do You Really Want to Rear Your Child in a Socialist Society?

The following is a Term paper written by a young Vietnamese woman now married to one of the Pilot's I served in Viet Nam with. Lily was born after American involvement ended in Viet Nam and the Communist takeover. She is enrolled in a Business Law Course and the Term paper was for that class. Her effort was awarded with a 100%

Posted with the permission of Lily.

Do You Really Want to Rear Your Child in a Socialist Society?

By Lily Cuc White

July 11, 2008

I was born and reared in a Socialist Society. Here is my personal testimony as to how good, or bad, I turned out. I turned out great! I would never cheat, or steal, or mislead anyone. I enjoy hard work, and my goals for my life are very lofty. I know that I will succeed in reaching my goals, and that my life will truly amount to something.

Considering that I was born in Vietnam and lived under socialist rule for the first 20 years of my life. (Furthermore, I lived in a very poor environment, reared by an uneducated single mother. We lived on the side of a tall mountain which, beginning at the age of nine, I climbed each night two and three times to pick up loose coal that had fallen from the coal trucks, then carry two buckets full down to the town below to be sold on the black market. This is how my mother, my grandmother, and my aunt survived. Just after I was born in the mid 1980’s and during the 1990, Vietnam was bankrupt. There was little or no food available to buy with the small amounts of money my mother, grandmother, and aunt made carrying coal). I seem to have turned out quite well.

Looking at my life one may think that rearing a child in a socialist society must have some very good advantages, after all, how did I turn out so healthy, happy, and moving towards a successful future? The answer is that things are not always what they appear to be.

It is true that I am healthy, happy, and moving towards a successful future, but this is despite of my socialist society upbringing and not because of it.

Vietnam may be an extreme example of a socialist society in the minds of Americans. However, it may be that many Americans do not think of Sweden as being “communist” in the same vain as China, Russia, or Vietnam. Nevertheless, the political system in Sweden, for many years, was a very “left leaning” socialist government. “Imagine a life where work is optional and the state guarantees a minimal standard of living regardless of employment or effort. Such a cradle-to-grave entitlement system has been the centerpiece of Swedish politics since 1932.” (The Washington Times; June 17, 2007; “Sweden's Turn from Socialism;” By Josiah R. Baker).

Another country that has had a strong communist or socialist society form of government is Israel. “The kibbutz in its original form was communal living with everything shared.” (The Jerusalem Post; April 24, 2008; “Living in a Kibbutz;” By John Benzaquen). These two countries, along with Vietnam and others are coming to realize that rearing a child takes more then just a village, or a socialist society. In fact, it is my opinion that it is the young people of these countries that have been reared under the philosophy of socialism, like me, that are quickly moving for change towards a more conservative, capitalist, less government political system. (Ironically, the young people in the United States seem to be moving in the opposite direction.)

In Sweden, the younger generation had their say in a political revolution. “Scandinavian political revolutions are quiet on the surface, but a sea of change lies below. The tide that brought victory to Mr. Reinfeldt's coalition (Christian Democrats, Folk Party and Center Party) represents a flood of Swedish desire, particularly from those younger than 40, to embark on a new economic course. Privatization, tax reduction and deregulation are all part of the program to bring Sweden into the global economy of the 21st century.” (The Washington Times; June 17, 2007; “Sweden's Turn from Socialism;” By Josiah R. Baker).

(This is exactly what a young doctor friend of mine in Saigon, who is one of our country’s new political leaders, told me is taking place in Vietnam. Her words were; “if the ‘old soldier’ do not leave, we will through them out.” “Old Soldiers” is how we refer to the communist that have ruled our country along with Ho Chi Minh for so many years.)

It seems that these anti-socialist quiet revolutions are rising up all around the globe. In Israel, “The philosophy behind the kibbutz has gone out of fashion. It was socialism and even pure communism impersonificated. The motto that every one should consume according to their needs and produce e.g. work according to his abilities was implemented in a kibbutz. In the large context of a state such an economic political philosophy did not work. In the small closed super ideological society of the kibbutz it worked - for a time.

Now the kibbutz or communal living as a way of life is something of the past. The vast majority of the kibbutzim are no longer communal. This is the point where the real estate element comes in. The kibbutzim are facing grave demographic problems. The younger generation is leaving. They want to spread their wings in the wider context of Israel's future.” (The Jerusalem Post; April 24, 2008; “Living in a Kibbutz;” By John Benzaquen).

In my case, I chose a more singular form of “revolting,” I ran-a-way from my commune and home, and from socialism. At the age of 14, I realized that where I was, my only future would be that of all the other kids my age. I could work hard at my schooling and maybe the government would notice me and place me in a schooling program that I enjoyed. Then, after I finished their program, I could hope that they sent me to a part of the country that I liked where I would have to find a husband that I could live with (nothing about love) and have the decreed two children, hopefully one boy and one girl. If my kids got sick, I could take them to the government run hospital where they may recover, or they may die; not from the illness, but from the lack of care, and the unsanitary conditions. Either that or I could become a drug addict, get pregnant and carry coal down that mountain all my life. I chose neither of the above. I chose fright, uncertainty, and freedom. As it turned out, I took the correct path.

What is a socialist society? Actually, in theory, socialism is a kind, loving, wonderful way of life. In Hillary Clinton’s book “It Takes a Village,” which expound the virtues of a socialistic society, “the language isn’t hostile, nationalistic, racist, or aggressive. To the contrary, it brims with expressions of love and democratic fellow feeling.” (National Post; [f/k/a The Financial Post] [Canada]; February 29, 2008; National Edition; “A Very Creepy Village;” In a new book tracing the roots of the modern left, Jonah Goldberg).

In fact, reading the definition from the web site of the World Socialism Organization it is no wonder so many people embrace the ideals of socialism.

“What is Socialism? Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.”

“In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.”

“Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism.” “Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced.”

“So how would we decide what human needs are? This question takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will reflect their needs.”

“In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness.” (

If only the working system could match the intellectual concepts. But, alas, they cannot, and will never. Why is that? The answer is quite simple—human nature. Yes, in all their wisdom, the philosophers of socialism have failed to account for the nature of us humans.

The fact that we need to look over the next hill; that all of us in small and huge ways have the desire to create; to make better of where we are, (or are told that we should be content with being where we are). It is our nature to want to have things more then we need things. There is an innate desire within us to reach out towards the distant universes and be more then just another one of the “same.”

The young revolutionaries who have grown up under the restrictive “democratic socialist societies” in Sweden, Israel, and Vietnam have felt these ideals inside their hearts. They are human feelings that no “village,” or society can replace. I believe that humans came together and learned to govern to fulfill our natural aspirations to improve our own lot. In that sense it does take a village, a city, a country to rear children, however, these governing political bodies must be of a system that do not restrict, or catalog the governed, but allows each individual to flourish using their God given talents. Government’s role should not be to own or control, but to protect and to serve.

That, however, is not how it has been throughout the histories of much of the world’s socialistic governments where the dogma of socialism has overwhelmed common sense, especially when it comes to the indoctrination of children and young adults. For example, here is an excerpt from the Cuban young communists. “We have our invincible Party as a guide, with the intelligence and the culture that the Revolution has instilled in us and the unbreakable conviction of victory at the cost of our own lives. We cannot conceive of a future without socialism and independence. That is what we are working towards and we do so convinced that the empire will never have Cuba. We swear it! (National Bureau of the UJC [Union of Young Communists]; BBC Monitoring Latin America - Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring; June 23, 2007; Text of report by Cuban newspaper Juventud Rebelde website on 22 June).

The Nazi Government of Germany, which was actually socialist, did away with the idea of Christmas in order to control everything in German life. “The tree looked perfect. The gold and silver tinsel, draped so elegantly over the branches, sparkled with seasonal cheer. Small lights flashed prettily and imitation snow had been dusted over the pine. It was, you might think, a vital part of any German home's Christmas. But you would be wrong. For instead of the Star of Bethlehem shining from the top of the tree, there was a huge black-and-white swastika. And any hint of it all being part of a great Christian festival had been eradicated. The truth was that the Nazis had, slowly and cunningly, hijacked Christmas and subverted it for their own propaganda purposes. They wanted to control everything in German life - and that included Christmas. Even the Christmas season was stolen by the Nazis - with children told that presents came from the Führer, not Santa, and carols being ditched for military songs.” (U.K. 1st Edition; “How Hitler Hijacked Santa; by Paul Callan).

Speaking to a gathering in Seattle in November 2002, about the wonderful life under a socialist society here in the United States, Megan Cornish said, “Won’t socialism in the US look like Stalinism in the USSR? (No, it will not. Here is why.) Russia before the revolution was a terribly backward country, whereas the US today is the richest country in the world. After our revolution, we will be starting at a technological, educational, historical point far ahead of where the Russians began. You see, socialism is by definition, shared wealth. The revolutions that took place in Russia and other economically backward countries could only go so far, because they were held back by poverty. Whenever there is scarcity, a scramble for the good things that are in short supply is inevitable, and a consequent division into the haves and have-nots occurs. What is socialism? Quite simply, it is public ownership of all major corporations—industry (manufacturing, services, and energy), banks and insurance companies, agribusiness, transportation, the media, schools and medical facilities. Socialism is also by definition democratic. It is economic as well as political democracy. The people will either directly make policy decisions on what to produce and how, or have immediate recall rights over their representatives. The first economic steps will… guaranteed employment and housing, free medical care, childcare and education through advanced degrees, elder care, and sports, music and arts opportunities for everyone. At our level of economic development, none of these things will be hard to provide on a global basis, and there is no excuse for everyone in the world not to have them—today! How do we get there? (We get there) by understanding the role of leadership, and not being afraid to take it, or follow it. There’s lots of misunderstanding about what leadership is. It is a relationship in which people who want to go in a certain direction turn to those who can help them carry out their own aims—they turn to people who know what needs to be done to win, and aren’t afraid to say so. Armed with those tools, the people then take leadership themselves, and can move mountains! All too many leftists shoot the movement in the foot by refusing to talk about a radical analysis within the mass movements, and by pressuring other radicals to shut up about it. This is all in fear of "turning people off.” Some people are turned off by radical ideas. We spread the word that socialism is the next step of human evolution” (Strong Medicine: Toxic Capitalism and the Socialist Cure; This talk was given by feminist author Megan Cornish at the Imagine Revolution Conference held in Seattle in November 2002 (

Lastly, in this montage of the philosophies of socialism both historical and present, I must quote from a critique of Hillary Clinton’s views of socialism as found in her book “It Takes a Village,” because I believe that her views represent much of the progressive, liberal, politics of the United States. “In Clinton's village, however, there is no public square where free men and women and their voluntary associations deal with each other on their own terms free from the mommying of the state. There are no private transactions, just a single ‘spiritual community that links us to a higher purpose’ managed by the state.” (National Post [f/k/a The Financial Post] [Canada]; February 29, 2008; National Edition; A Very Creepy Village; in a new book tracing the roots of the modern left, Jonah Goldberg).

My views on Megan Cornish’s talk are that she is wrong about socialism in the U.S. not ending up the same as in Russia. Wealth or poverty will not be the deciding factor. Both Sweden and Israel began their experiments in socialism from positions of relative wealth. Today the young people of these and other socialist countries are not in the process of revolution from socialism because they have no wealth to distribute, but because the young people that are churning out that wealth no longer see socialism as the advertised utopia. (I, also, believe that much of the folly of socialism is in the idea that “leadership” can be as simple as following, or leading which ever you may feel like. I look to the French revolution when I think of the concept of leading and following. The Guillotine fast dwindled the leaders, and many of the followers. Stalin and Ho Chi Minh did fast work on many a good leader and many followers, as well.)

In conclusion, it becomes impossible to be a parent in a society where the state laws require you to send you children to state run schools, then directs their futures in place of their mothers and fathers. A village should be a place where people gather to buy and sell their goods, where the citizens can enjoy many diverse schools, churches, guilds, and businesses interacting in safety, peace, and good will under limited government laws, which enhance freedom of chose.

From my experiences and from what I have seen of socialist societies, I do not want to bring my son up under socialism. I want to make free choices as to his education, and his medical care. (He is a hyperactive boy, and I do not want some public school nurse telling me that I must pump him full of drugs to sedate him.) Furthermore, I do not want the state telling my son what he must be when he grows up, or where he must live, or work. Utopia is not for me either. I would rather suffer, struggle, and make what I can of myself on my own without the government holding my hand. I will ask of my government only these three things. The first is to provide a safe country and city for me to live in and I will help in this by giving of my service when needed.

Next, is to treat me fairly and equally under the law. Lastly, I want to have what the last six words of the American Pledge of Allegiance state, which is “liberty and justice for all.”

Work Cites

1. The Washington Times; June 17, 2007; “Sweden's Turn from Socialism;” By Josiah R. Baker.

2. The Jerusalem Post; April 24, 2008; “Living in a Kibbutz;” By John Benzaquen.

3. National Post; [f/k/a The Financial Post] [Canada]; February 29, 2008; National Edition; “A Very Creepy Village;” In a new book tracing the roots of the modern left, Jonah Goldberg.

5. National Bureau of the UJC [Union of Young Communists]; BBC Monitoring Latin America - Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring; June 23, 2007; Text of report by Cuban newspaper Juventud Rebelde website on 22 June

6. U.K. 1st Edition; “How Hitler Hijacked Santa; by Paul Callan

7. Strong Medicine: Toxic Capitalism and the Socialist Cure; This talk was given by feminist author Megan Cornish at the Imagine Revolution Conference held in Seattle in November 2002 (

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Westboro Scumbags to Picket Tony Snow's Funeral

If ever there were a lower group of asshats on earth, they went unheard of compared to these cretins calling themselves a "church." They are not!

Fred Phelps, self proclaimed leader of this band of homophobic, hateful cretins ha seen fit to spew his filth and twisting of the Holy Scriptures on You Tube, I will not give that piece of slime air time on my blog.

When these inbred pigs meet their maker, they are in for a big surprise as they soon discover who their worship really went to. It isn't God Almighty, rest assured.

Don't fall for their clever use of scripture trying to justify their hate of America or even homosexuals. Judgement is left to God, not misfits from Kansas.

I honestly can't think of a lower group of riffraff alive today.

That they protest the funerals of our fallen Heroes, bringing distress to the families and now, a good and decent man like Tony Snow, angers me so much I am almost left without adequate words.

I only pray that God Almighty smite them where they stand and send them to the eternal lake of fire, where they belong. Old fashioned tar and feathers would be too good for these cretins.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

The Audacity Of Bill Clinton

In what can only be described as pure hypocrisy, former disgraced president, William Jefferson Clinton, draft dodger and womanizer, spoke before the National Governors Association's semiannual meeting warning of a “growing polarization” facing America.

Who in our history has polarized the country more than the Clinton’s? From the “Vast Right Winged Conspiracy” to Monica Lewisnky, Whitewater to trashing the White House when leaving, I can’t recall any President who did more harm to America, except for maybe Jimmy Carter.

What have we been hearing from Democrats ever since President Bush won the election in 2000? It has been a constant drone of George W. Bush wanting to starve people, hating Blacks, starting wars, favoring the rich, and virtually any and every derogatory matter one can think of. The Democrats, including B.J. Clinton and his ambitious spouse, have spared no expense in spewing hateful rhetoric towards Republicans and Conservatives in general.

Prior to the 2000 election of President Bush it was unheard of for any former President to openly bash or complain about a sitting President, regardless of party. Carter and Clinton changed that by their vitriolic opposition to the Republican Presidents Administration, right from the start.

Cries of how Bush “stole the election” spread across the country as the left in America adopted names as “shrub,” “chimpy,” “Commander in thief,” “Dumbya” and so many more hateful and erroneous names were continually applied to the President, both in and out of the press and politics.

In fact, I cannot recall a single instance in the past 8 years when President George W. Bush has received credit for a single thing, not even for protecting America from more terrorist attacks after the horrific events of September 11, 2001. Members of the left and Clinton’s Liberal/Socialist/Progressive/Communist blame America first crowd of malcontents have blamed even that event, terrible as it was, on President Bush.

From Al Gore to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, virtually every powerful Democrat in government, not one has a really kind word to say about President Bush or conservatives, even outside of election year rhetoric.

The left in America has gone out of their way to separate and divide America over Global Warming claims, Tax Cuts that benefited all, but somehow were only given to the wealthy, the response to the worst terrorist attack in the world’s history and even Hurricane Katrina, all blamed on George W. Bush, while Democrat involvement is given a pass.

Merciless attacks have been leveled against former Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, the first Black woman in history to be appointed to that office, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the first Hispanic to be appointed to that office, not to mention conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who was subjected to an attack by pie throwers during a College Speech she was giving.

In the meantime, although neither party is adequately addressing ILLEGAL immigration nor securing our borders, Democrats portray conservatives who demand secure borders and our immigration laws are followed as “racists” and “hate-mongers.”

Those who don’t buy into the farce of Global Warming, or Global Climate Change since we had one of the colder winters on record recently, have been compared to slave owners by Democrat, Robert Kennedy Jr. in a recent speech he gave.

Words like Patriotism are being redefined somehow as being against your country while Democrats lambast Heroic and Highly Decorated Combat Veterans and some RINO’s as “dishonest and dishonorable.”

Clinton mentions the first viable Black candidate for President with no mention of any real experience in foreign affairs or governing or only having served 143 days in the Senate.

B.J. concludes his speech by letting us know we are facing problems that “are similar to problems President Teddy Roosevelt grappled with a century ago.”

In an expression of total hypocrisy, listed in those “problems” are “inequality among rich and poor, immigration and energy policy.”

Even in warning about “polarization” he can’t resist throwing in rhetoric that further divides us.

Clinton tells us,

“If those issues are dealt with, We’re about to go into the most exciting period of human history. If we don’t, in the words of President Roosevelt, dark will be the future. I’m betting on light, I hope you are, too.”

Plunging the country into the darkness of Socialism that enslaved the former Soviet Union, Cuba, China, Viet Nam, North Korea or the radical Islamic Jihadism enslaving Iran and that once enslaved Afghanistan is hardly what I would call light.

The audacity of the most divisive politicians in our history warning us of polarization is just appalling.

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

George W Bush - buffoon or great leader?

A Brit from the UK Telegraph has written a thought provoking article, complete with video, that is actually complimentary to President Bush. Sameh El-Shahat argues that George W. Bush has been the most under-rated president... ever.

We have had fun criticizing Bush, deservedly so most of the time. Yet, the vitriol directed at the man has been the worst leveled against a president in my life-time.

I view him as the most hated president in modern times, possibly in all of America's history.

His communication skills are sorely lacking, but he is man of convictions and he stands by his values, placing what he believes to the good of America and world over any legacy he may leave. Unlike previous presidents, he is not poll driven or wishy washy, just a down home, shoot from the hip cowboy who had the gumption to do what a previous president should have done three decades ago, stand up to radical Islamists.

He'll be gone soon, but that won't stop his detractors as they will write their version of history defaming the man for all they can.

But, decades from now, when most of us are long gone, historians will take a look back and see that George W. Bush, despite critical reviews and the plethora of prevarications about the man, was a visionary who saw what needed done, and commenced to doing it.

As Mr. Shalat says in his article,

"Mr Bush has had to take some very tough decisions and the world needs people who can not only talk but also act tough and admit mistakes."

He also sees a big problem with the left around the globe,
"Hating George W. Bush is not only dull and unoriginal, but it shows a complete lack of understanding of the world in which we live in.
You want liberty but you don’t want to defend it... right

As the cartoon above depicts, the man is kicked endlessly for keeping America safe.

Looking at the two jokers currently running for his replacement, I'd vote for Bush a third time in a heartbeat.

God helps us, whichever of the two panderers replace him.

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Lesbian Activist Gives Birth! This Is News?

Thomas Beatie, aka Tracy LaGondino, the Hawaiian Lesbian Activist who created a stir by claiming to be a “Pregnant Man” has reportedly given birth to a baby girl Thursday.

Delivery was by Caesarian Section, mother and baby are reported to be doing fine.

Beatie created a stir earlier in the year by announcing he was pregnant and revealing he is actually a she, but claims to be “legally” male by court decree. She underwent breast removal and took testosterone before becoming pregnant by artificial insemination, but retain all of her female reproductive organs, leading honest people to proclaim reports of a “pregnant man” a hoax.

That this became such a news worthy item is in itself a travesty. One does not become male by court decree alone. That is only a smokescreen for some unannounced agenda of Tracy’s. Females, heterosexual or lesbian, becoming pregnant is not an unusual occurrence. But, claiming to be male landed her on the Oprah Winfrey Show and brought International Headlines.

Had Tracy decided to become male and had all of her female reproductive organs removed and created an artificial male organ, perhaps she might be more accepted as a man, but she would not have been able to become pregnant or make such headlines.

On the Oprah Winfrey Show, she said, “I feel it’s not a male or female desire to have a child. It’s a human need. I’m a person and I have the right to have a biological child.”

Yes, Tracy, you do have a “right to have a biological child,” but to try to pass yourself off as a man is another matter. Legal decree does not change your DNA or Chromosomal make-up. Retaining female reproductive organs intact leaves one a female, even with breast removal.

To my skeptical mind, I see this move as using an innocent child to further break down barriers society erected long ago. Nature erected her own barriers and rules and all the legal decrees in the land won’t change that.

God created man, male and female, for a reason. No human being can counter that by trying to fool the public into believing you are a different gender than you are.

It is hoped this innocent baby girl will grow up surrounded by love and compassion and see the world through a normal persons eyes, not those of a Gay Activist who was willing to mutilate her body and create a false impression of a man becoming pregnant.

In March, Tracy/Thomas said of the pregnancy, “I will be my daughter’s father and Nancy will be her mother. We will be a family.”

No, Tracy, two Mom’s will raise your daughter. She will miss out on the male input necessary for balanced children in a loving two-parent home.

She is only fooling herself, evidenced by checking into the hospital under an assumed name.

So, I ask again, what is newsworthy about a woman, even though a lesbian, getting pregnant and giving birth?

How sick of our society that many actually go along with this charade of a “pregnant man.”

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

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

“McCain Watch” Slams Medal of Honor Recipient and the Huffington Post have teamed together and launched the McCain Watch citing, “It’ll be fair, clear, and tough-the way news is supposed to be.”

Neither the Huffington Post nor are noted for “fairness,” but their intent is always “clear,” as was shown in the infamous General Betrayus ad, showing their disdain for Military Veterans and Heroes.

Launching their new “exposé” site, they continue exhibiting their hate of the Military by attacking former Prisoner of War and recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, Colonel George ‘Bud’ Day because he joined together with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in opposing the candidacy of John ‘F’in Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) in the 2004 election.

Colonel Day is one of America’s highest decorated Combat Veterans, displaying courage and heroism in three wars fought by American Forces. He was imprisoned in a North Vietnamese Communist Prisoner of War Camp from 1967 to 1973. He is the only American POW to have escaped from one of their camps, although he was recaptured.
If anybody has a right to criticize candidates for higher office, it is he, who bore the brunt of Combat for America’s Freedom much more than most did.

Apparently, and the Huffington Post don’t agree that real War Heroes have that right, only opportunists such as John ‘F’in Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) and silky failures like former General Wesley Clark, who remains the only Four-Star General ever to be fired by the only Draft Dodger ever elected to the presidency.

Clark made news this week by denigrating the Military Service of John McCain, the presumptive GOP candidate and also former Prisoner of War. Many assume it was a coordinated attack launched by the Obama campaign, as Senator Obama came out later saying how he will not question any one’s patriotism, not will he allow questions of his. Clark stands by his attacks and has been joined in now by other former officers who have been disgraced and and the Huffington Post.

That Col. Day would stand by a fellow honorable Veteran and POW should come as no surprise to anyone, but you would think the so-called “McCain Watch” is grievously offended that anybody would stand by honest Veterans as they stated,

“That Day would politicize Vietnam in his defense of McCain is not surprising. During the 2004 campaign, he said of Kerry: "My view is he basically will go down in history sometime as the Benedict Arnold of 1971." And after appearing in a national advertisement for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, Day formed the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, an extension of the Swift Boat effort.”

Col. Day has indeed launched a site known as the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, but not as an “extension of the Swift Boat effort,” but rather as
“an organization created to better educate and inform the public about the Vietnam War, its events, its history, and the men and women who sacrificed to serve their country.”

If anybody “politicized” Viet Nam, it was John Kerry in 2004 and Wesley Clark in 2008.
Attempting to draw a comparison to the revelations against Kerry in 2004, “McCain Watch” says,
“Asked to compare the attacks he helped launched against Kerry in 2004 to those being waged at McCain today, Day said the defining issue was truthfulness,” and “The irony of it all is that McCain publicly deplored the Swift Boat ads back in 2004, saying they were reminiscent of the smear campaigns launched against him during his initial White House run in 2000.”

McCain did indeed defend his Senatorial friend, John Kerry in 2004 by calling the initial ad by the Swift Vets “dishonest and dishonorable.” Of that statement in 2004, Col. Day said,
“I have a different take on the Swiftboat tape and disagree with my good friend John [McCain].”

The statement also drew the ire of several Veterans, a contributing factor in the less than glowing support Senator McCain receives today from many.

In return for the defense, John Kerry today says,
“Colonel Day’s comments today only further highlight the McCain campaign’s disregard for a new kind of politics. John McCain condemned these kinds of attacks in 2004 when he called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 'dishonest and dishonorable.' Senator McCain should condemn these remarks and cut ties with the Colonel and anyone else connected to SBVT. Day’s comments only serve to disparage all those who served on swift boats in Vietnam.”

Does Kerry not think that his own words "disparage" not only Brave Swift Boat Sailors, but all Viet Nam Veterans when he said,
"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war…."

"The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence….."

"there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America…..?"

Does he not think he "disparages" today's Brave Troops when he said,
"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs,"

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq. ...?"

Earlier in June, Kerry said of McCain’s comments,
“It is unbelievably out of touch and inconsistent with the needs of Americans and particularly the families of troops who are over there. To them it’s the most important thing in the world when they come home. It’s a policy for staying in Iraq.”

Obviously, the friendship stops at the campaign trail, when it comes to Liberal Democrats.

Neither Kerry, or the Huffington Post speaks against Wesley Clark for slamming McCain’s Service Record, but chooses instead to denigrate one of the most heroic Veterans America has still living. Supporters of Senator Obama claim he “rejects the statement of Wesley Clark,” but I have not seen an actual quote from Obama.

Missed by “McCain Watch,” “” and “the Huffington Post” is that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were comprised of Honorable and Decorated Combat Veterans of all political persuasion who banded together to oppose John ‘F’in Kerry for President due to his slanderous statements and testimony against those of us who served there back in 1971. The left would have you believe it was only his scant 4 months in Viet Nam we opposed, but nothing could be further from the truth, even though Kerry’s “awards” do raise questions that have yet to be answered publicly.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth “stood down” shortly after Kerry’s defeat in 2004 and just recently announced formally disbanding. Yet, they left such an indelible mark upon the political scene, a true grassroots effort unlike before that was very effective, that the left still fears them and uses their name as a denigration of Honorable Veterans.

“McCain Watch” has been launched on lies and denigration of a Heroes Service. You can expect more of the same as we approach this next presidential election.
You can also expect Veterans like yours truly to be there exposing their lies and standing up Honorable veterans and true War heroes like Colonel George ‘Bud’ Day.

We owe men like him our very freedoms. We will stand against the slander and denigration of Veterans. We owe despotic websites like and McCain Watch nothing!!