August Max

Monsters Incorporated

2009-06-18T12:15:00.001-07:00

By Julian Krasta

“He is known for his zealous oratory and anti-Semitism. He is the chief architect of a 2-state plan, which historians will document was the commencement of Middle East violence, culminating in a second Holocaust with Israel as its victim.

“He earned his Ph.D. from ‘wherever,’ wrote doctoral theses, penned an autobiography, and worked on Wall Street. He came into contact and became friends with known fanatics, crooks, and America haters.

“He was elected a senator in Illinois where he put his propaganda to full use, combating the local conservative party with the help of William (Weather Underground) Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, and Rev. Jeremiah ‘Them Jews’ Wright.

“By 2005 he had risen in his party ranks to become one of its most prominent members.

“In that position he perfected an understanding of the “Big Lie” technique of propaganda, which is based on the principle that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated enough times, will be believed by the masses.”

* * * * *

The previous paragraphs fairly describe Barack Hussein Obama. But I’m admitting immediately, in order to make my point in this commentary, that I borrowed those passages almost verbatim from Wikipedia. They in fact point up a monstrous figure of history. I only changed the names, the locations, the tense, a few words here and there, and the date.

That monster was Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister…and Obama is a carbon copy.

Obama’s propaganda technique is explained best by Victor Davis Hanson in a recent piece entitled “Just Make Stuff Up.” In it, Hanson sets out comprehensively that Obama is prevailing over a system that appears in total order, but because of his nonstop fabrications that system can really only be disorganized and chaotic (e.g., the numerous Cabinet appointees who were vetted then booted on the basis of “mistakes.”)

Disorganization and chaos was Obama’s goal from the start. I watched him channel his hatred and anger into powerful speeches that pumped up his listeners but alienated Republicans, moderates, and clear-thinking Democrats. His uncompromising vocal tone successfully attracted drifters and malcontents who were easily programmed into believing that the time was never better for a revolution.

But there remains that one colossal catastrophe: those same itinerants and k’vetshers signed the contract without reading it. They had no idea what they agreed to revolt against, because their chosen one never once spelled out his true plans or aspirations. He only repeated—ad infinitum, ad nauseum—“hope” and “change” (in the manner in which Hitler incessantly shouted, “Deutschland!”).

Obama cleverly spoke in vague terms and left it to his snarling sycophants to fill in the miles-wide blanks, and they filled them with what they imagined he said or promised them. They see now that they had cast their lots for a bait n’ switch brute who had no intention of effecting the changes they expected (whatever those imaginary changes might’ve been).

When I first witnessed those orgasmic displays of affection for Obama, they appeared eerily similar to the way Germans thrust out their right hands in salute to the lunatic Bavarian paperhanger and his propaganda minister. Those images brought to mind this quote by Euripides: “When love is in excess, it brings a man no honor, nor worthiness.” It is especially significant since the excess love Obama appropriated has gone unrequited, and has been only used to step on heads and purloin the top executive position.

In my previous commentary I wrote that the people in Tehran would judge for themselves as to whether Obama’s proposal of friendship is popcorn propaganda. The millions protesting the (phony) election is the answer, which I believe is their way of saying they want nothing more to do with egocentric and immoral dictators (whether he be an Iranian or an American).

If the Iranian people had faith that Obama and Ahmadinejad could “get it on” they would have accepted the results of the election. But their outright anger against the incumbent’s manufactured victory speaks volumes: If they’ve had it up to there with Mahmoud and the threat of annihilation it would be unthinkable that they would want to cozy up with the guy who hijacked the U.S. presidency, whose only real accomplishment to date is he bagged a house fly.

The protests undoubtedly have thrown a monkey wrench into Obama’s nefarious plans to secure Iran as a nuclear hot zone and remain an ongoing threat to Israel. The Iranian people’s reaction proves, to me at least, that they think his rapier wit is not that rapier after all, particularly since Obama has mimicked Jimmy Carter by stating it would do not good for the U.S. to meddle with the issue. That statement alone brazenly contradicts his monosyllabic twitters of “hope … change … yes … we … can.” And never forget that it was Carter’s psychopathic mind-set that plowed the road for the Taliban to overthrow the Shah, which catapulted the virulent and bloodthirsty Islamic terrorism stampeding rampant today.

There will always be voracious dictators with whom we must contend, whether they wear uniforms of the military, desert robes, or pin-stripe suits. They are responsible for unspeakable destruction and unconscionable carnage. But not one of them has outlasted the peoples’ endurance, nor will any ever undermine the sacrifices human beings are willing to make for the precious gifts of liberty, democracy, and peace.

So let us acknowledge the courage of those Iranians who are saying NO to the “Big Lie,” and honor those who are being beaten and killed for demanding justice, freedom, and the truth. My heart and prayers go out to them and to their families, and to the millions of others in Iran and everywhere who are “holding the line” against the monsters.

Julian Krasta may be contacted at semperfieternal@aol.com.

Barack "Banzai!" Obama

2009-06-17T16:35:00.001-07:00

By Julian Krasta

He would’ve made one heck of a Kamikaze pilot. Just like those disillusioned and desperate souls who, beginning in October 1944, slammed their Model 52c Zeroes into U.S. and Ally naval vessels to cause as much death and destruction as possible, Obama is similarly caught up with the same target fixation. “Target fixation” is when a pilot becomes so fixed on his mark that he flies straight into it.

That underground nation known as his administration, including the MSM pit vipers, claim that the spiky focus and steely stare in Obama’s eyes is radiance and derring-do. Wrong. What emanates from those icy orbs is pathological pride and suicidal condescension.

The target now in his sites is Iran with whom he wants to “open a dialogue.” What he fails to accept is that they are not enchanted with his porous speeches, which are, at all times, top-heavy with artless sincerity. I’m pretty sure that the more he tries to sway Iranians to his bizarre thought processes, the more he is making a meal out of his own tongue.

Just for argument’s sake, let us, for a moment, pretend we’re looking at him from Iran’s point of view:

We see an interloper with no decision-making experience who lied, finagled, and bribed his way into the White House. He is self-possessed and closeted. His sophistication is synthetic. He belittles and badmouths America. He is leeching control of corporations (with union bosses catching the meaty scraps in their buckets). He has all but shredded the U.S. Constitution. He is taxing the American People down to their marrow, and is spending those tax dollars like a drunken yuppie. This gatecrasher is now inviting Muslims to join him in a daisy chain of comradeship.

Should Iranians trust Obama’s overture of friendship after witnessing the wholesale damage he is inflicting on his own country? I doubt it. The proof is that, with Obama in the cockpit at the controls, America’s favorable rating in Iran is five percentage points lower than when President George W. Bush held office.

I would add this speculation: Iran’s dwindling opinion of the U.S. also could be based on the fact that, while Obama is piloting America at full throttle to the left and eventually into a Marxist drop zone, Europe is pulling herself up by her bootstraps and is moving decidedly to the right as a result of overdosing on liberalism. Remember how Europeans were swooning and shouting praises and scrambling to touch Obama during the presidential campaign? They are now running, leaping, in the other direction, because they have accepted that liberal voters aren’t capable of picking a winner in a one-horse race.

Examples like these are not products of my imagination. They are a matter of public record, easily accessible on the Internet. If I can dig up this information, so can anyone in Tehran—and they can, and do, judge for themselves.

While I’m on the subject of digging, here briefly is another liberal lollapalooza: The Obama media have been crowing that Sonia Sotomayor would be “the first ever” Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. Wrong again. He was Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo, who served from 1932 to 1938. Justice Cardozo was a Sephardic Jew (Spanish ancestry). His father was New York Supreme Court Justice Albert Cardozo (who also was vice president and trustee of the Spanish-Portuguese synagogue, Congregation Shearith Israel, in New York City).

See what you can learn by seeking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? The MSM should, once and for all—or even once—, report hard facts instead of always dunking their donuts in the wrong trough. They should state it as it actually is, like Marilyn Monroe was dazzling, or Nancy Pelosi is overdue for her rabies vaccination. It’s easier than they think.

But I digress.

Obama is spearheading a pervasive conspiracy to fly his “Bogey” into and wipe out the foundation upon which this country was conceived and created. And filling his tanks with volatile support are the Democrats in Congress (who proved that the only thing they’re good at is double-parking their limousines) and the media rag pickers (who wink at lowlifes like Cindy Sheehan but snub the TEA parties).

The result of this troika’s conniving conceit is Americans are living in an atmosphere of crisis. Tensions are simmering throughout the nation. So, unless and until Congressional Republicans gain back control in 2010, no part of this country will go untainted by the present regime, which is turning out to be worse than any foreign invasion piercing our borders or our air space.

Obama is comfortable in his prickly flight suit, because it is a patchwork of his lack of love for, or devotion to, the U.S.A. Unfortunately for him, he actually believes he will replace our rights and liberties with a garroting social order. What he has woefully underestimated is the eventual counter-impact by the People on that order.

We, therefore, must take a stand and ensure that the balance of power swings back to us. It is up to the People to disenfranchise that motley few by voting in replacements who will help reestablish conservative values. Once balance is reinstated we can work on rebuilding what Obama has been trying to smash to dust. It’ll be a slow recovery, but it’s better than no recovery.

Begin today. Support the right men and women who are determined to fight for our rights, who will recharge our Constitutional protections, and who will say “NO” to higher taxes and the dismantling of our military strength.

Finally, send the message to those presently in power that, despite his efforts to blow this country sky high, Obama’s obsessive target fixation will, in the end, result with him slamming into and making an ash of himself.

Julian Krasta may be contacted at semperfieternal@aol.com.

Obama's Cult of Personality

2009-06-05T10:11:00.000-07:00

Cult of personality is “…when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships. A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders.”

In early 2008, the worldwide liberal media went on a blowout selling-binge hawking Barack Hussein Obama as a “heroic public image.”

The fragments of what remain of that media (more confined here in the states rather than planet-wide, anymore) are still attempting to plug that image (“The 55-minute speech was remarkable and historic not so much for the delivery or even the words, but for the context, the orator, the moment”), which was posted immediately after Obama’s 6,000-words speech in Cairo.

The article, written by Mike Allen at Politico.com, also describes a moment when Obama drew hushed gasps from the audience for a comment they perceived as audacious. But, all in all, it is portly with praise, despite discrepancies and to-be-expected contradictions, such as when he said, “The U.S. should not impose its values on the world…”—yet he is demanding that Israel concede on preposterous points. Isn’t that an imposition? And then in his Cairo speech: “America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.”

Dizzy yet? But wait, there’s more. According to Obama: We were…we are…we shouldn’t be…you’re okay, but we’re not…we’re crude…we’re not crude…we’re bad, bad, bad…we’re not that bad…the U.S. is “one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”

Which is it? What are we? I suppose it depends upon which lavish magical mystery tour Obama happens to be on.

The article by Allen is a classic representation of how Josef Stalin, for example, charily chiseled himself a heroic public image using pernicious propaganda to fabricate that hallucination. And the gulags and unmarked graves are crammed with those who dared to disagree.

Americans numbering in the millions swallowed whole the propagandists’ genetically produced persona of Obama, because those millions couldn’t tell the difference between a bagel and a brick.

Today they are suffering from a severe case of “What have I done?” acid reflux, the result of which is their arrogance has shriveled dramatically. They are realizing—too little, too late—that they were meshugeh ahf toit (that’s Yiddish for crazy as a loon) for betting the ranch, SUV, family jewels and college tuition on the MSM’s falsities, and that it is they, the loons, who perforce maneuvered us dangerously close to the deathtrap called totalitarianism.

And now for the bad news:

In his speech, Obama said, “The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as – it is as if he has killed all mankind.”

Sounds harmless, but…

Muslims who inure to the Koran—that it contains the final, unalterable and immutable words of Allah—would know he only paraphrased the actual passage, which is: “To murder a single human being is as evil as to murder all mankind, unless he be causing trouble (mischief) in the land.”

Islamic scholars know the meaning of “causing trouble in the land,” which is to “not live in accordance with the tenets of Islam.” Therefore, the passage Obama chose translates to “the murder of any non-Muslim is not evil.” (Thank you, C.H.)

The arresting difference between Islam and other religions is that all references in the Koran regarding human kindness (love, charity, mercy) count only when it is Muslim to Muslim. The religion unequivocally calls for the death of all infidels, and the enslavement of Christians and Jews.

The purpose of his Cairo speech was (supposedly) predicated on generating a new beginning between America and Muslims—and to build a heroic public image of himself.

Did he goof when he delivered an incomplete and misleading extract from the Koran? Or was he communicating a coded message to our enemies that it’s OK if all non-Muslims are eradicated?

Upon microscopic examination of all he has said and done in these past four months, particularly his choice of words for his Cairo speech, it is not inconceivable that Barack Hussein Obama could be generating the beginning of the end of the United States of America.

Hope, "Nope," and a Dope

2009-05-12T12:47:00.001-07:00

While waiting the other day for my tire to be fixed at Mike & Mike’s World of Tires (where the mechanics are Ernesto, Miguelito, and Mohammed), I flashed on some of the recent political news stories. One was in Newsweek—just another of their “ha-ha” articles in which they compared the characters (as politicians) in the films Star Trek and Star Wars.

I drove home, this time careful to swerve around the pothole on Sunset Boulevard that had caused me to be $55 poorer, and extracted my copy (or what was left of it) out from underneath my dog’s bedding. Ziggy Rottweiler loves tearing the guts out of liberal magazines and newspapers, and then burying them, never to be seen again. I’ve tried in vain to offer him the Washington Times and Townhall Magazine to mangle and inter but he only gives those a snout bump and huffs away. Dogs rule.

Anyway, here’s a précis of the Newsweek article:

Obama’s “Shining City of Hope on the Hill” Administration—that edifice of supreme power—is described thus: “seriousness of purpose,” “helping hand,” “cool, collected,” and “villainous aggressor.” Wait. That last one is for Rush Limbaugh.

Former President Bush’s Administration—them shaggy cave dwellers—, on the other hand, are “callow,” “manipulative,” “pitiless,” and “obsequious.”

Newsweek compares President Bush to arch villain Darth Vader (no surprise there, though Dubya misses by the distance from here to Pluto of ever sounding—“May the force be with ya”—as commanding as James Earl Jones) while Barack Hussein Obama—so pretty, so eloquent, so much better than conservatives deserve—is a hip problem fixer.

The hipster, clinging grimly to visions only he sees, has “fixed” a lot of things. An example is when some U.S. banks wanted to repay their TARP loans, and with interest, Obama shut them out from doing so. Doesn’t that come under the heading “Creeping Government Overreach”?

Or would the modern day Simon Legree actually be stating [cue creepy organ music]: “Nope. I now own you, your lock boxes, your stock, and your barrels of money … [sneer] heh, heh, heh”?

He is promising more fixes, such as to hold back California’s allotted stimulus monies if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger does not restore wage cuts to union workers (in an effort to balance the budget). Obama remains true blue to Labor in spite of the fact he knows full well that the Golden State is balancing on one toe, on top of a one inch-wide rail, less than a centimeter above bankruptcy quicksand.

This country’s most popular state is shriveling on the vine, but those unions must be saved first! It reminded me of the arc scene in Ridley Scott’s “Alien” when Science Officer Ash explained Special Order 937 to the remaining crewmembers about their chances of survival: “All other priorities are rescinded.”

Another fixer-upper on Obama’s list is the planned trip to Egypt where he will address the Muslim world. When this news broke my phone started ringing off the hook. They were mostly Lefties and liberals … I mean, “Progressives,” and all dear friends, who (finally) are starting to squawk about his compulsion to globetrot and draw passionate praise rather than stay home and work on deflating our ballooning domestic problems.

One guy even said, “How much validation does he need? He was elected, for crying out loud.” And that’s from a liberal who had mounted a 3’ x 5’ poster of Obama on his livingroom wall and swore he’d never take it down. It’s now gone. And, no, I didn’t ask.

While I’m on the subject of Obama’s wanderlust: in case no one has noticed, every time he is cleared for take-off (which does seem like every other day) the cost to taxpayers is enormous. Those jumbos burn tons of fuel; and there is the entourage to end all entourages, which includes an army of security and escort aircraft. They don’t work for free, and they all need to be fed and barracked. Or maybe they are laboring “off the cuff”: to be in the same rarified air with Barry might be payment and nutrition enough.

Speaking of Air Force “The One,” Obama can chalk up another resignation as a result of the presidential bird buzzing lower Manhattan for a photo op, which caused extreme panic. This is why the kiddies in this Administration should be marched to the White House woodshed from time to time, to remind them that they are representatives of the United States of America, not straw-chewin’ delinquents in a Sam Clemens novel.

It’s a given that, if this had occurred on President Bush’s watch, all hell would’ve broken loose from the Left for days, possibly weeks. But because the mainstream media are Obama’s fawning footmen, there was only a glimmer of this incident reported at prime time.

Then there was that emerald moment when Obama said “nope” to participating in National Prayer Day. That was a bare-face confirmation of his hard-about-the-mouth attitude regarding Israel, a stanch ally, and Christianity (Judeo-Christian laws and principles, after all, are the backbone of America).

Attendees of the prayer meeting typically are “selected Christian and Jewish leaders.” The dots connect themselves here, and Obama seems determined to sever those connections. And with what will he re-attach them, a fundamental re-ordering of our country based on socialist theory?

When grilled by the press why his boss would be a no show, Robert Gibbs answered with his usual vagueness, “He’ll pray as he does every day.” Reading the Holy Bible, or kneeling on his prayer rug facing Mecca? I believe the American People deserve a clear answer as to his true faith if, in fact, he follows one.

Finally, the “Dope” in my piece is Sen. Arlen Specter. He made front-page headlines recently when he jumped the fire line from the Republican Party over to the Democrats’ side of the Hill. We all know what happened there, so I needn’t present a vapid re-hash. So I’ll end this with a personal message to the new (disgraced and demoted) Congressional Democrat:

Senator, stupidity has the same shelf life as a Twinkie. So you’ll fit in perfectly with the other fruitcakes to the left of the aisle, in the section marked “Just Desserts.”

Change ... Chicago Style

2008-10-06T10:00:00.000-07:00

Body count: In the last six months 292 killed (murdered) in Chicago; 221 killed in Iraq.

U.S. Senators: Barack Obama and Dick Durbin

Representative: Jesse Jackson Jr.

Governor: Rod Blogojevich

House leader: Mike Madigan

Attorney General: Lisa Madigan (daughter of Mike)

Mayor: Richard M. Daley (son of former Mayor Richard J. Daley)

The leadership in Illinois: all Democrats

Chicago is a combat zone. Of course they're all blaming each other. Can't blame Republicans, because there aren’t any.

* State of Chicago pension fund is $44 Billion in debt - the worst in the country.

* Cook County (Chicago) sales tax 10.25% is the highest in the country. (Look it up, if you want).

* Chicago school system is one of the worst in country.

This is the political culture that Obama comes from.

And....he’s going to fix Washington politics?

READ ON .........................

A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE, THE CHICAGO WAY

John Kass - Chicago Tribune
October 5, 2008
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass-0510,0,7245642.column

Going into Tuesday's presidential debate, the campaign of Republican John McCain still suffers from the lousy economy and that Bush hanging ponderously from his neck.

With that going against him, he's running uphill, trying to remind Americans that he challenged his own party, and the Democrats, on corruption. Because of McCain's opposition to politicians who feed from the public trough, there is a road open to him Tuesday. It's the Chicago Way.

Obama definitely does not want to go there. It would be a forced march for him. Obama's gauzy references to Chicago involve baseball and where he met Michelle and those blissful hours he spent as a community organizer. What he doesn't want discussed is his evolution from independent Democrat to potential White House enabler of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine.

The Chicago Way is a road the Beltway media establishment dare not travel. It must frighten them. It conflicts with their fairy tale about Obama as reformer, and they're much too busy rummaging through garbage cans in Alaska to bother about Chicago's political alleys.

But any child in Illinois knows the Chicago Way leads through the most politically corrupt city in America, in a politically corrupt state, where muscle trumps reason, where Democratic warlords brazenly promote their offspring into public office, where even souls are offered up for sale.

The national media have never wanted to understand, much less expose, political corruption here, or examine how Obama prospered under the Daley machine's guidance. A trip down the Chicago Way would force them to re-examine their ridiculous narrative that sets Obama as a political reformer riding a white horse, or is that a winged unicorn?

A tour of the Chicago Way isn't without risks for McCain. Though his supporters would say it puts Obama in proper context, Democrats would certainly cry "guilt by association." Yet the national urgency to view Obama as a political life-form several evolutionary rungs above Chicago's common political hacks is not only a mistake, it's disingenuous. So on Tuesday night, McCain might ask:

How, for example, could change agent Obama endorse the boss of the Chicago machine, Mayor Richard Daley, after Daley's friends and drinking buddies, white guys with mob connections, received $100 million in city affirmative action contracts, a crime that sent one of them to federal prison?

The mayor said there is no such thing as a machine. Does Obama truly believe there is no machine that runs Chicago and Cook County? Then he should declare it. And, if so, then how does he explain the Daley hacks sitting in federal prison for rigging thousands of city jobs?

McCain could ask about the machine trolls Obama endorsed per Daley's direction. And what of Obama's own political mentor, the legendary city sewer inspector/Illinois Senate President Emil Jones (D-ComEd), who upon retirement will convert almost $600,000 in campaign cash and stuff it into his pockets, and begin cashing a fat public pension, as his son, Emil III, takes Daddy's place in the legislature, courtesy of the Democratic bosses.

Is this the change we've been waiting for?

McCain could ask about Obama's real estate fairy, the convicted influence peddler Tony Rezko, who is now apparently cooperating with federal investigators probing the dealings of Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who also campaigned as a reformer. Rezko is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 28. How was the Rezko-Obama real estate deal, the one that Obama himself described as "boneheaded," never made a subject of a Senate Ethics Committee investigation?

McCain also might offer up some straight talk about his own involvement in the Keating 5 scandal two decades ago -- and how he was dishonored by that, and whether the shame changed his views on political corruption.

Hillary Clinton tried to link Obama to Chicago's politics during her party's primaries, but she was shouted down. Back then, at a Tribune editorial board meeting, I asked Obama about his place in Chicago's corrupt history.

"I think that all of you have been following my career for some time," he said. "I think I have done a good job in rising in this environment without being entangled in some of the traditional problems of Chicago politics. I know there are those, like John Kass, who would like me to decry Chicago politics more frequently."

Just the corrupt parts, I said.

"I'll leave that to his editorial commentary," Obama continued, "but I think it's fair to say that I have conducted myself in my public office with great care and high ethical standards."

Is Obama corrupt, the way the caricature of Chicago-style corruption is often drawn, with some beefeater alderman reeking of gin, stuffing an envelope into his breast pocket? No, though he came close with Rezko in that smelly deal for the purchase of Obama's home.

But Obama looked the other way in order to prosper and assiduously avoided conflict with the machine to the point of embrace. In this, he offered Americans a glimpse at the real man inside that nice suit, the Chicago Way.

What Costs More Than The Iraq War?

2008-03-24T12:14:00.002-07:00

Be sure to read the 14 reasons at the bottom.

Social Security Change For 2008.

The United States Senate voted to extend Social Security Benefits to Illegal Aliens beginning in 2008. The following are the senators who voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits. They are grouped by home state. If a state is not listed, there was no voting representative.

VOTE THEM OUT NEXT TIME!

Alaska : Stevens (R)
Arkansas : Lincoln (D) Pryor (D)
California : Boxer (D) Feinstein (D)
Colorado : Salazar (D)
Connecticut : Dodd (D) Lieberman (D)
Delaware : Biden (D) Carper (D)
Florida : Martinez (R)
Hawaii : Akaka (D) Inouye (D)
Illinois : Durbin (D) Obama (D)
Indiana : Bayh (D) Lugar (R)
Iowa : Harkin (D)
Kansas : Brownback (R)
Louisiana : Landrieu (D)
Maryland : Mikulski (D) Sarbanes (D)
Massachusetts : Kennedy (D) Kerry (D)
Montana : Baucus (D)
Nebraska : Hagel (R)
Nevada : Reid (D)
New Jersey : Lautenberg (D) Menendez (D)
New Mexico : Bingaman (D)
New York : Clinton (D) Schumer (D)
North Dakota : Dorgan (D)
Ohio : DeWine (R) Voinovich(R)
Oregon : Wyden (D)
Pennsylvania : Specter (R)
Rhode Island : Chafee (R) Reed (D)
South Carolina : Graham (R)
South Dakota : Johnson (D)
Vermont : Jeffords (I) Leahy (D)
Washington : Cantwell (D) Murray (D)
West Virginia : Rockefeller (D), by Not Voting
Wisconsin : Feingold (D) Kohl (D)

VOTE THEM OUT NEXT TIME!

http://rense.com/general79/seniors.htm

I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have included the URL's for verification of the following facts:

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report. http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, "estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period." http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States ". http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

Total cost is a whooping $338.3 BILLION A YEAR

If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. On the other hand, if this information raises the hair on the back of your neck, then please send it on to others.

Snopes is provided for doubters:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/bankofamerica.asp

2008-03-24T12:14:00.001-07:00

The Damage Some Men's Dreams Can Do

2008-03-13T10:02:00.000-07:00

by Julian Krasta

With proper upbringing, a boy can grow into a strong, self-reliant and sensible man. If that grown man is also well adjusted and has self-respect, he will neutralize deficiencies in his character (e.g., hubris, and that brother bugaboo “machismo”) to defray misgivings and ridicule by family, co-workers and friends – even his enemies. If a man behaves or speaks idiotically, someone eventually will call him on it.

Generally, men are dreamers … like our Founding Fathers were dreamers. It was upon their collective vision that the foundation of this great country was conceived and created where we live in blessed freedom, to achieve as much as we can in the short time given us – to be as great as we wish to be. I am always happy when trying to explain this to my liberal friends; and, if I am lucky, they will still not understand it and I will have to explain all over again.

But I digress.

I dream, too – of owning one of those ultimate driving machines, turning my baseball cap front to back and pushing the pedal to the metal. Realistically, I dream of owning a handsome house in a neighborhood where I can walk, shop, socialize, sleep and just breathe without feeling afraid – where the fellow next door is not secretly buying thousands of Uzis to ship to Iran.

There are dreamers like Mahmoud Admadinejad who, along with other rogue tyrants, refers to the United States as the Great Satan. If this were true, it would be fair of me to say he is the reincarnation of Josef Stalin, only without the whimsy.

As millions of witless Americans parade in intoxicated revelry over the frenetic campaigning by the Democratic candidates (in my opinion, by the weakest field I can recall), Admadinejad skulks in shadow, waiting restlessly to dare the United States into a confrontation, possibly nuclear. He did it once, almost a year ago – to test our patience and gauge our potential firepower – when he ordered the abduction of British sailors. It was only after his advisors informed him that President George W. Bush ordered the deployment of the USS Nimitz strike group into the Persian Gulf, and with all possible speed, that Admadinijad backed down and released the prisoners to England. Our Commander in Chief had called his bluff, because his ace was, and is, the might of the United States military.

I do not need to know him personally to recognize that Admadinijad’s behavior is the product of a twisted twilight zone for the pathological and squirrelly, which pushed me to wonder: “What dreams does this man have?”

I began my research with the virgins in paradise myth. Its explanation is straightforward (according to Muslim legend): "The smallest reward for the people of heaven is an abode where there are eighty thousand servants and seventy two wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine and ruby … etc. …"

The wives referred to in this narrative are purported to be black-eyed, voluptuously beautiful virgins awaiting “the faithful” (i.e., martyrs). Who are the martyrs? They are the wretched dreamers who strap explosives to their bodies, pull the cord and destroy the lives of innocent human beings (men, women, children … babies) so that they can catapult to their heaven and luxuriate in the attention of obedient maidens.

This fantasy worries me a great deal, because I suspect Admadinejad’s dreams are loftier – that they exceed the 72-virgin limit. Why do I presume this? My wise dad once told me: “To know your enemy you must learn to think like him – to imagine every possible angle and move that runs through his mind, like a chess game.”

Armed with this counsel, I deduced the following:

If a couple of sticks of dynamite earns a murder-suicide bomber 72 chaste females, Mahmoud Admadinejad might believe (or is being led to believe by mullahs, or his own demons, or both) that he would be rewarded with a thousand, maybe a million, times the legal limit if he sets off a nuclear device. The incentive is there if he accepts as true his craven ideology’s party-line propaganda of being forever fondled by nubile nymphs.

He and others like him could avoid such razzle-dazzle if they instead bought a membership at the Emperor’s Club in New York, where Governor Eliot Spitzer found his paradise – several times, according to the latest reports. There a man does not have to be blown to bloody bits in order to attain nirvana.

I have a second, even greater worry. It is about the liberals and Democrats amongst us, whose foresight is, at best, fanciful. They dismiss the fact that it was daring and enlightened dreams that built America – that Admadinejad’s blasphemous trances could propel him and others to destroy it.

On the bright side, if Hillary Clinton becomes president her political party should split in about four months. On the down side, if Barack Obama succeeds to the Presidency this country could split in four weeks. We would then not need to concern ourselves over what aggressions Admadinejad might or might not attempt, because we (“we” includes every Barack-head who thinks he or she is exempt from being hit with taxes that will sustain Obama’s dream changes) will be drowning in the muck of his sausage factory, oxymoronic statements, such as:

“My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join me as we try to change it.”

That is the same as saying, “The Rolls Royce is the most beautifully appointed, masterfully built automobile in the world. Come on down and join in on its transformation. And bring your hammer, duct tape and can of spray paint.”

If the next President of the United States turns out to be either fantasist Democrat (both guaranteeing to fulfill a campaign pledge to leave the Middle East militarily unattended), we might as well draw a pentagram on the ground, face Mecca and join hands, and chant:

“The door is open. Do your worst.”

A Failure to Communicate

2008-02-14T12:48:00.000-08:00

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

Conscience will ever judge right when it is rightly informed, and speak the truth when it understands it. -John Leland

*********

How is the conservative media to be assessed during the recent chaotic Republican Primaries?

This is one question that, if it can be answered honestly, may come to haunt the conservative party throughout the term of the next administration.

We have to admire the mainstream media for their success in convincing voters to support the MSM’s chosen candidates, and in the precise order calculated: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, John Edwards, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney. No psychic could have done it better.

Adding to their efforts were full-throttle boosts by Oprah Winfrey and other Hollywood glitterati for both Clinton and Obama. Their momentum is unstoppable. As we write, the Obama Express has become the runaway bullet train right-wing punditry cannot derail – not because such punditry’s influence has been stopped in its tracks, as liberals would like to believe, but because they didn’t “pour on the steam” and charge full speed ahead with the right candidate when they had the opportunity.

A passionate division has always existed between the Left and the Right. However, in these past eight weeks the evident passion on the part of the liberal media was a 50-block inferno weighed against the conservatives’ weenie roast.

The eleventh-hour (or more specifically, 11:59th hour) support given by Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh and Newt “Johnny Come Never” Gingrich amounted to a minnow’s belch compared to their liberal counterparts’ lion’s roar. It is easier to blame the outcome on straying conservatives than to acknowledge “real” conservatives never strayed to begin with.

After twelve months – one solid year – of campaigning by aspirants of both parties, the best these pundits offered is that they weren’t ready to support anyone? They all, one-by-one, ultimately figured out that Mitt Romney was the best candidate for the job. Had they used their power of persuasion to educate and influence (as they do daily on a host of other topics), the voters would not need to “drag themselves to the polls” as one popular talk show host offered. Instead, there was equivocation, vacillation and just plain jelly-fishing their way through the campaign season. Now they want to blame it on voters. Informed voters did vote for Mitt Romney. If the talk show hosts do not influence thinking, what is the point of filling the airwaves with opinion?

No one, save for Hugh Hewitt of Townhall, William F. Buckley (The National Review) and Tammy Bruce of KABC Talk Radio, took the early plunge and wholly supported who they believed was the right man for the Oval Office. We were glad to hear they had made solid decisions and were not afraid to be wrong. But no matter how hard those particular three tried (and they tried very, very hard on behalf of their chosen contender, Mitt Romney), their enthusiasm was in no way matched by other high-profilers’ fence straddling -- whether it was for Romney or any Republican candidate. Each pundit who waited until it was too late has since proffered a limp explanation as to why he or she withheld support of the best candidate, generally, that none of them were ready to support anyone.

We’re not saying that the existence of the Republican Party or conservative ideals lies on the support of talk radio or cable shows – just as no candidate should rely only on them as a crutch or as their sole source of support. That would be absurd. What we are saying is this: Why was it necessary for them to wait for the realization that the wayward conservative they had worked diligently to demonize would actually end up being the conservative party's nominee? If they are all as clever as they purport to be, this fact – this end result – would have been as evident to them as the sun rising in the east each morning. All of the influence peddlers are now steering us in the direction of “McCain is better than Hillary or Obama.” Jack Kemp has even gone so far as to compare John McCain to Winston Churchill. Someone please give us a break. That’s like saying Lindsay Lohan is the new Garbo. The entire premise that McCain is better than Clinton or Obama is like saying pneumonia is better than malaria or cholera.

At the battle of Gettysburg, a Union officer, Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (a college professor from Maine), was ordered to lead his men up to and hold Little Round Top, a strategic hill on the outskirts of the town. After hours of brutal gunfire and casualties, his unit had exhausted their ammunition – and the Confederates were still closing in on them. Did Chamberlain wait for reinforcements? Did he wait for more ammunition? Did he cut and run? No. He ordered, against all odds, a full bayonet charge against the advancing Rebels. The result was an astonishing victory for him and his men. And for this Col. Chamberlain was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

If he had hesitated, if he had waited, the aftermath might have been disastrous. As it turned out, Chamberlain made the right split-second decision.

That is why we are confounded by the doubt-filled hesitation on the part of conservative media after, as we’ve pointed out, one year of massive amounts of information being literally thrown in our faces.

The fact of the matter is that most people in this country are simply not interested in politics. They passively watch shows like The O’Reilly Factor or listen to talk radio waiting for inspiration and guidance.

Republicans are motivated by logic and Democrats are motivated by emotion. This is evident as Democrats and Independents fall more and more rapidly and in even greater numbers under the spell of Obama’s oratorical but empty prowess – all of which is merrily aided 24/7/365 by the liberal mainstream media.

The final result of all the conservative hemming and hawing is clear and irreversible: We are left with John McCain and Mike Huckabee, a hot head and a preacher who are engaged in a spinster’s race for the altar.

Terror Threat From Pakistan Said to Expand

2008-02-11T10:15:00.000-08:00

By ELAINE SCIOLINO, New York Times
February 10, 2008

[Source]

This article was reported by Elaine Sciolino, Victoria Burnett and Eric Schmitt, and written by Ms. Sciolino.

BARCELONA, Spain - As the terrorism suspects congregated in the largely Pakistani neighborhood here over the past few months, they were joined by a young man who called himself Asim. He had come from the Pakistani borderlands where the leadership of Al Qaeda is said to have regrouped.

The suspects, he later told Spanish investigators, envisioned a wave of spectacular attacks: Coordinated suicide bombings would start in this city's vast subway system and then sweep through Portugal, Germany, France and Britain if certain demands were not met.

Asim had been sent to Spain to be a suicide bomber, but he also was an informant for French intelligence working in the no man's land of Waziristan in Pakistan. After he got word to his handlers of an impending attack, Spain's military police swooped into the neighborhood of Raval in the early hours of Jan. 19 and arrested 14 men. Now the officials unraveling the case say it demonstrates the growing threat of terrorist activities migrating to Continental Europe from Pakistan.

The largely Pakistani cell formed quickly in Barcelona with support, and perhaps direction, from the tribal areas of Pakistan, the authorities said. According to the arrest warrant in the case, three suicide bombing suspects arrived in Spain within the last four months and the bomb making suspect had recently spent five months in Pakistan.

With Spain preparing for elections next month, the suspected plot was an eerie echo of the March 11, 2004, Madrid transit bombings, which killed 191 people just days before the last election.

In the weeks since the arrests, Spanish officials have backed off their claim that an attack was imminent. They seized evidence like broken timing devices and small quantities of explosives. But they acknowledged that without more evidence of bomb making, they were relying heavily on the testimony of the informant to make their case, which had blown the cover of a rare intelligence source with access to Pakistan's tribal areas.

Even so, in interviews, Spanish, American and other European officials - most speaking on condition of anonymity because the inquiry is not over - said the plot was indicative of the terror threat from Pakistan.

"That these people were ready to go into action as terrorists in Spain - that came as a surprise," said Judge Baltasar Garzón, Spain's highest antiterrorism magistrate. "In my opinion, the jihadi threat from Pakistan is the biggest emerging threat we are facing in Europe. Pakistan is an ideological and training hotbed for jihadists, and they are being exported here."

That threat has been felt elsewhere. Two of four suicide bombers who attacked London's transit system in July 2005 had trained at a camp in Pakistan. Four of the five British men convicted last April in a plot to blow up targets in London using fertilizer bombs were of Pakistani origin and some had trained at a makeshift terrorist camp there.

Last September, when the German authorities broke up what they suspected was a plot to bomb an American Air Force base and the Frankfurt airport, they said three of the suspects, two of them German citizens, had trained at terrorist camps in Pakistan. Officials say the Barcelona case points to a more serious dynamic: Pakistanis with no apparent previous links to Europe who appear to have been sent there on a terrorist mission.

"We had 20 terrorists show up in Spain that had been trained in Pakistan that were going to be suicide bombers, fanning out over Europe," Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, told the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday. Although some of the suspects had in fact been living in Spain, Mr. McConnell's remarks underscored statements by the Spanish authorities that in addition to the 14 suspects who had been arrested, others had eluded arrest.

American officials acknowledged that they had monitored phone calls to Pakistan by some of the suspects, and Mr. McConnell cited the case as a reason that United States intelligence agencies needed to retain electronic surveillance authorities.

Interior Minister Alfredo Pérez Rubalcaba of Spain compared the plot to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, saying: "It looks as if there is an international connection. There appears to be a boss outside."

"Somebody sent this individual to Spain," he added, referring to the informant.

Spain Draws Pakistanis

Spain's Pakistani community has grown from a few thousand residents a decade ago to about 70,000 today, as immigrants have been drawn to Spain by easy entry and to Barcelona's Raval district by cheap rents. They have injected new life into the decrepit neighborhood, opening small businesses, but law enforcement officials say some have engaged in petty crimes like money laundering and credit card fraud. Pakistanis have also sent home millions of dollars through the informal system of money transfers, some of it financing extremist groups there, the officials add.

In late 2004, the police arrested 11 Pakistani men on suspicion of plotting to attack two landmark buildings in Barcelona, financing terrorism and drug trafficking, although only six were convicted, two for document forgery.

The Spanish authorities had long had some of the current Barcelona suspects under surveillance. The police were also monitoring the activities in the Tariq bin Ziad mosque and a small underground prayer room in the Raval neighborhood, both identified with the Tablighi Jamaat, a conservative missionary group that is suspected of being used as a recruiting ground for radicals.

The informant working for the French arrived in Barcelona by train from France on Jan. 16 to join the suspects in the plot, he told the police. Tipped off by French intelligence, Spanish intelligence operatives set Operation Cantata in motion.

The next day, French and Spanish agents, working together, spotted two suspects tossing a plastic bag into the garbage. Inside, the agents found wires, broken timing devices, latex gloves, wire cutters, computer connectors, lead ball bearings, tubes for firework rocket propellers and small traces of a black powder containing potassium perchlorate, an explosives component commonly found in fireworks.

On Jan. 18, as agents continued to watch, one of the men bought a wireless-equipped laptop computer and a camcorder, perhaps, the Spanish authorities assumed, to record suicide tapes or messages containing demands. The suspects prayed together for jihad and sacrifice; they phoned family members, perhaps to say goodbye, Western intelligence officials said.

In the evening, agents watched as the men left the mosque in groups of two. Carrying backpacks, they snaked through the streets of the Raval district as if to elude detection, then reunited at the prayer room.

The informant relayed a series of increasingly panicked messages to his handlers that the attack was getting closer, several Spanish officials said. "We found ourselves in a critical situation and decided to neutralize the threat," said a senior official in the Guardia Civil, Spain's military police. "The risk was so high - not only for Spain but for other countries."

In the early hours of Jan. 19, the police raided the mosque, the prayer room and three apartments, arresting 14 people.

In the prayer room, the police seized four timers, empty pyrotechnic cartridges, multicolored wires, latex and kitchen gloves, batteries of varying voltages, cables that could be used for detonators and a small amount of nitrocellulose, according to an inventory of the searches. But already, four of the men have been released.

"They asked me, 'What is your name? Where do you live? Are you into jihad? Did you see the bomb?'" said Mohamed Imran, a 30-year-old itinerant construction worker who was released after five days. "I said, 'No jihad. No bombs. This is all a lie.'"

Denials by the Accused

Of those still in custody, all are either Pakistani or of Pakistani origin, except for one Indian citizen. In questioning by prosecutors, all have denied being part of a terrorist conspiracy, the Spanish authorities said. Two other suspects are being tracked in Barcelona, and another is believed to be hiding in the Netherlands, Spanish officials said.

After the arrests, Judge Ismael Moreno, in his 72-page arrest order, and Attorney General Cándido Conde-Pumpido described the attack as imminent.

But Spanish law enforcement officials were clearly disappointed. There was no hard evidence of a bomb factory, no viable explosive devices or even enough explosive material to assemble bombs.

Investigators are struggling to understand the gap between the informant's version of events and the physical evidence they found.

The informant apparently had seen much more bomb-making material than was seized by the Spanish authorities, according to a Western official with direct knowledge of the case. The extra material had disappeared, apparently with one of the suspects who fled, the official added.

Guardia Civil investigators are operating under the assumption that the group may have been rehearsing an attack.

"We believe they were getting ready for an attack, but it wasn't as imminent as we initially were informed," said Mr. Rubalcaba. Without sufficient physical evidence, Spanish law enforcement officials apparently decided they had to turn France's informant into a protected witness for the prosecution. They gave him the code name "F1."

He told Spanish interrogators that the first bombing in Barcelona would be followed by demands from Al Qaeda through Baitullah Mehsud, a powerful militant commander in the South Waziristan tribal area along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. If the demands were not met, there would be a second strike and then a third in Barcelona, followed by attacks elsewhere in Europe.

One senior European official said the demand was to involve the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, although senior Spanish and American officials said they could not confirm that claim.

"If they didn't comply, there would be one in Germany," the informant said, according to a secret transcript of his statements, whose contents were verified by several people with access to the document. "If they didn't comply, France. If they didn't comply, Portugal. If they didn't comply, Britain. There are many people ready there."

While senior Western intelligence officials do not rule out the possibility that Mr. Mehsud or his organization supported the suspects, they are skeptical that he ordered the attack. And they are less certain that the suspects posed a real threat outside of Spain.

The arrest order identified two suspects as the ideological leaders: Maroof Ahmed Mirza, 38, a Pakistani national and legal resident of Spain, and Mohammad Ayub, 63, who is accused of taking part in at least one meeting with explosives experts. According to American intelligence officials, each man was trained in Pakistan's tribal areas.

Mr. Mirza, who teaches at the Tariq bin Ziad mosque and sometimes acted as the prayer leader, was known for his hate-filled sermons and calls for the faithful to join the fight in Iraq, according to the police, who monitored sermons there.

An Unusual Suspect

Mr. Ayub seemed like a strange fit for a suicide bomb plot. A grandfather with a score of grandchildren, he holds Spanish citizenship and had worked in Spain for 24 years as a dishwasher and as a cook before retiring 13 years ago. "We don't understand this big movie plot that they have created," said Mr. Ayub's son Naveed Ayub. "There are 20,000 Pakistanis in this neighborhood who'll tell you my father is innocent."

According to the arrest warrant, three suspects identified by the informant as would-be suicide bombers arrived through other European cities: one from Pakistan via Sweden in October, a second via Germany in November, a third via Portugal in December or January. Hafeez Ahmed, who was to be the bomb maker, spent five months in Pakistan last year, the warrant said.

For all the international intrigue surrounding the suspects, the case has caused diplomatic friction among investigators. Spain's handling of the French informant has enraged officials at France's intelligence agencies and eroded trust between the countries, French and other European officials said. The informant's value as a source was destroyed when he was made a prosecution witness and the contents of his statements were leaked to the news media.

Vicente González Mota, the prosecutor in the case, meanwhile acknowledged that the case may be difficult to prosecute with the current evidence.

"All the information will come out in court," Mr. Mota said, adding, "The problem is - is what we have enough?"

McCain ... Same as the Old Boss

2008-02-08T10:04:00.000-08:00

By John LeBoutillier, for Newsmax

Friday, February 8, 2008 8:10 AM

Here is how the Republican Party recently picks presidential nominees. The nominee must be the namesake son of a famous man; a spoiled child of privilege; someone who's never been told no; someone who always got away with terrible behavior because of his last name; and someone who always got what he wanted because no one wanted to anger his famous dad.

Then he becomes someone who always gets away with bad behavior(s) because of his last name; he becomes arrogant and condescending; and sees himself as better than anyone else.

It's “his way or the highway”; he treats people like dirt, with arrogance and condescension; he is against the GOP base and wants to give amnesty to illegals; he doesn't want a border fence; he wants to attack and invade countries who haven’t attacked the U.S.; and he has been part of a foreign policy that has ruined America’s reputation around the world.

He apparently can’t see the big picture: our invasion of Iraq has actually made (Shia’a) Iran stronger and destabilized the Middle East; his policy has made America a hated nation around the world; he wants more trade deals that ship American jobs overseas; he loves doing deals with Ted Kennedy; he is not smart but he thinks he is.

Who does this sound like?

This description fits two GOP presidential candidates. In fact, the last two GOP presidential candidates: George W. Bush and John McCain.

The similarities are startling and upsetting.

Because the damage Bush has done to the nation, the military and to the Republican Party will take decades to recover from.

And now the Republicans — barring a miracle between now and the September GOP convention in Minneapolis — have picked yet another candidate with the exact same qualities!

Bush has crippled the Republican Party. We have lost the House, the Senate and many state legislatures around the country.

McCain may finish it off.

Until the Republicans wake up and realize the mistakes they are repeatedly making, they are going to suffer loss after loss after loss.

Maybe a miracle will occur and in the next seven months people will wake up and stop McCain somehow and replace him with a new candidate.

If not, G.W. Bush and John McCain can together take the Republican Party over the cliff.

[Source]

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

The Weekly Slant's "Quotes From The Left"

2008-02-07T12:31:00.000-08:00

Go HERE for the source.

"Olbermann is just plain nuts!"

"The eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counterterrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat, the thwarting of which could hinge on an e-mail or a phone call that's going through room 641A at AT&T in San Francisco next week or next month. Because if there were, Mr. Bush, and you were to, by your own hand, veto an extension of this eavesdropping and some terrorist attack were to follow, you would not merely be guilty of siding with the terrorists, you would not merely be guilty of prioritizing the telecoms over the people, you would not merely be guilty of stupidity, you would not merely be guilty of treason, sir, but you would be personally and eternally responsible. And if there is one thing we know about you, Mr. Bush, one thing that you have proved time and time again under any and all circumstances, it is that you are never responsible. Good night and good luck."
–MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Bush’s threat to veto an eavesdropping bill Democrats saddled with liability exposure for telecoms in a “Special Comment” Thursday, Jan. 30 and reported by MRC’s Brad Wilmouth on NewsBusters Feb. 1

*************

DOCUMENTED PROOF: Liberal Media Loses Interest in Iraq when News isn’t All Bad

One of the nation’s biggest success stories of the decade is being virtually ignored by the liberal media -- the success of our troops in Iraq. Proving the point, MRC analysts tracked all coverage of the Iraq war on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from September 1 through January 31. "We documented a steady decline in TV coverage of Iraq that has coincided with the improving situation in Iraq. Back in September, the three evening newscasts together broadcast 178 stories about the war in Iraq; in January, that number fell to just 47, a nearly fourfold decrease.," they said.
–CyberAlert Feb. 4, Rich Noyes, was posted Friday, with a chart, on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters

**************

N.Y. Times Sees No Problem in Denying First Amendment Protection to Opponents of Illegal Immigration

An immigrant rights advocate demands an end to free-speech rights for critics of illegal immigration, and the New York Times can’t see a problem. Citing "vigilantes" like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs, the national head of "La Raza" told a National Press Club audience last week that their networks should kick them off the air for "hate speech." MRC’s Clay Waters termed the speech "shocking," and called out the NY Times and their reporter Ariel Alexovich for their seeming lack of concern about denying American journalists their free-speech rights. Quoting Alexovich – "Ms. Murguia argued that hate speech [note the absence of quotation marks around this loaded phrase] should not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights" – Waters wrote: "[MRC’s] Times Watch is unable to detect in Alexovich's posting a single raised eyebrow at the thought of [La Raza president] Murguia's frightening dismissal of free speech. It's a particularly bizarre omission coming from someone who works in journalism."

And last but not least:

Hillary Finally Tells Us 'Who She Is'

In what felt more like a love-in than an interview, on Nightline Jan. 30, ABC’s Cynthia McFadden asked Hillary Clinton, "When you lie awake at night...what worries you?" MRC then reported that Clinton’s long-winded answer ended with: "to whom much is given, much is required," Then: "McFadden approvingly remarked: ‘Good Methodist girl.’ In turn, Clinton accepted the compliment and asserted: ‘It is, indeed, who I am.’"
–CyberAlert Feb. 4

Get out the barf bucket...

Religion is Fire

2008-02-07T10:06:00.000-08:00

By Amil Imani

Fire, arguably, is important to life after air, water, and food. Fire, broadly defined, is energy. And energy runs the world. It fuels the body, operates the mind, heats homes, and runs endless machines and instruments.

When energy is put to good use, it is the boon of mankind. And when it is misused or abused it is the bane of humanity. Therefore, credit or blame rests with the user of energy.

Religion is a special case of energy in the same way that steam is a derivation of fire. Steam engines move mass in physical space. Religion, emotional energy, propels people’s mind in the metaphysical realm.

Civilized societies have rules and regulations, albeit many of them flawed and imperfect, which regulate energy use. The fire of religion must also be contained in such a manner to do whatever good it may be able to do and prevent it from becoming a consuming wildfire.

There are those who have no use for religion. These people have perhaps seen so much burning and scorching by religion that they have abandoned it or have even taken active positions fighting it.

There are also those who don’t seem to be able to make do without a religion of some sort, preferably a “divine” religion. These people value the warmth that the religious fire gives them, the assurance it provides that the cold earth is not their end, and the promise that there is an eternal life of bliss after death. It is only fair that the “fire” that keeps the religionist warm not set ablaze the home of the non-religious.

Some questions for religionists:

* A belief qualifies as “divine” religion because someone claims it is?

* A belief becomes religion because millions believe in it?

* Should religion and state interlace? Which religion? The religion of the majority in any given country?

* Should being a religionist confer the person preferential status over the non-religious?

* Should religionists have complete freedom to practice their belief, even when they infringe on the rights of others?

* Should religionists have the right to vilify as heathen the people of other persuasions and those of no religious belief?

* Should religionists have the right to force their belief on others?

* Should religionists actively engage in the subjugation or elimination of the non-religious?

In civilized societies, it is granted that what is good for one person must also be good for the next. This is egalitarianism. Egalitarianism levels the playing field, where every human being must abide by the same rules of fair play. No one has a claim to special privileges for himself and his group.

With respect to religion, it matters not that someone claims that he is the emissary of the Creator; that he is bringing binding teachings from the Lord. There is no objective way of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the claim. The claimant may be a charlatan, mentally disturbed, or indeed an emissary of the divine. What really matters is that the claimant and his claim serve the cause of the good for all of mankind and completely shun causing contention and strife among people.

The moment a religious founder begins claiming special privileges for himself and his followers, he launches a discriminating totalitarianism. This is indeed the case with Islam. Even a cursory glance at Islam’s past, as well as its present, establishes unequivocally its discriminating totalitarianism nature.

Islam is out of control fire and the jihadists are its arsonists. The generality of Muslims do their part by spreading throughout the world and setting up the conditions that would welcome the arsonists, feed and shelter them, and support them in igniting the Islamic fire.

This is exactly what is happening all over Europe where the naïve natives have deluded themselves into the fraud of multiculturalism. A generous social entitlement system in Europe, well-paying job opportunities, and higher standards of living are magnets to the horde of Muslims fleeing Islamic failed states. Ironically, these same Muslim expatriates quickly forget why they had to leave their miserable plights in their homelands and what the main cause of their misery is.

The culprit is the pathological nihilistic belief of never-mind-this-world and do Allah’s biding for gaining admission to his unimaginably magnificent pleasure paradise of the afterlife.

Islam believes in the rule of Islam, Caliphate to the Sunnis and Imamate to the Shias. Hence, to Muslims, all other forms of governments represent the handiwork of the Satan and the infidels. Therefore, one and all non-Islamic systems of government must be purified by the Islamic fire.

But marrying religion with government is stoking fire with explosive. In free democracies, governments are accountable to the people and serve at people’s pleasure. In Islamic theocracy, governments are accountable only to Allah and the people must serve at the pleasure of the government. And one can see the result of Islamic total or partial rule in eighteen or so countries, which rank among the highest nations of the world on every index of misery.

The Islamic fire fueled by immense oil income is raging in certain regions of the world, smoldering in others, and ready to ignite in yet other parts of the world. It is imperative for the free people of the world to abandon all illusions about Islam and put out its fire, once and for all. Multiculturalism, let-and-let live, is a delusion of kind-hearted naïve people. Islam, as fractured as it is, is a non-compromising mono-culture: a cruel culture of a primitive people handed down to Muhammad some 1400 years ago.

Secularists and most non-Muslim religious people respect the legitimate rights of the religionists, whereas Muslims recognize little or no rights for others. You can readily establish the validity of this assertion by looking at some eighteen or so Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and so on.

Warning to free men and women: remain a spectator at your own peril. It is imperative that you take a stand and do your part at falsifying the fraud of Islam and do all you can to prevent the Islamic fire from devouring our civilized democratic secular system.

Smash & Grab Politics

2008-02-06T09:49:00.000-08:00

John McCain and Mike Huckabee have struck what they think is a crushing blow to Mitt Romney.

They couldn’t be more wrong.

I do fear, however, that they have caused some serious damage with their smash & grab tactics (i.e., swinging undecided McCain votes in W. Virginia to Huckabee to effectively spoil Romney’s totals). But the damage I refer to is not to any one individual, certainly not to Mitt Romney, but to the core base, the core ideals, and the credibility of the conservative party.

McCain and Huckabee (hereafter “McHuck”), individually and collectively, are allowing their personal feelings, and now collusion, to get in the way of what is right and proper for the Republican Party, for conservatism and, most importantly, for the American people.

I, and I’m sure many other clear-thinking conservatives, have seen this type of conduct hundred or more times -- always beginning in the same place: the toilets at junior high school, where little alliances were built and schemes were hatched to “trip him” on the track, or “elbow the groin” on the court, or “throw a bean ball” from the mound.

The irony is, every one of those guys who got tripped and groined and beaned went on to win trophies in their respective sports -- some even named Player of the Game, because they refused to cave in to underhanded tactics or bend under the pressure of petty jealousies. They played sports with honor and dignity and never once knelt down to the rats in the rat clubs.

Speaking of rat clubs, where do you think these vermin are now? In politics – where else? Only the Senate building toilets are somewhat cleaner but less soundproof, and you have to tip the attendants.

I woke up this morning and went to Real Clear Politics for primary updates and found in the Readers Articles section an incredibly high volume of anti-Mitt oratories, so many that they outnumber the ton of spam for generic Viagra.

These orators (no doubt on loan from Moron.org), and mincing behind McHuck, are having a field day with their diatribes against another Republican – another human being. They, like McHuck, are still in that “toilet” mentality – playing at being in junior high school, hitting the exclamation mark key again and again and again.

Guys, you can bang it a hundred more times and you still won’t achieve penetration. The only thing coming across is just how intellectually impotent you are.

Also, you’re the type who, away from your keyboards, cannot and should not be taken seriously, because if you’re expressing yourself with such viciousness behind the curtain of the Internet in a political campaign, against a fellow party member, there is no way you’re any different in private life. Family, spouses, children, friends, co-workers, and especially superiors are probably also get greased, whacked and spit on in the very same way, maybe more so.

But who am I to say stop? Go ahead and spill your guts, be mean and nasty and bang away at that exclamation mark key. Just bear one thing in mind:

It will be all you Mitt haters who will be the first to whine and cry "SAVE US!" when McHuck opens the borders and there will be an infestation of even more millions of illegal aliens to plunder our city and state treasuries.

It will be your cries and shouts that will be the loudest and the longest after terrorists strike again and our economy hits the rocks -- and only then will you realize the only persons McHuck will care about saving is each other.

WARNING! WARNING !!

2008-02-05T12:55:00.000-08:00

From Mitt Romney's campaign manager Beth Myers:

"Unfortunately, this is what Senator McCain's inside Washington ways look like: he cut a backroom deal with the tax-and-spend candidate he thought could best stop Governor Romney's campaign of conservative change.

"Governor Romney had enough respect for the Republican voters of West Virginia to make an appeal to them about the future of the party based on issues. This is why he led on today's first ballot. Sadly, Senator McCain cut a Washington backroom deal in a way that once again underscores his legacy of working against Republicans who are interested in championing conservative policies and rebuilding the party."

Can't argue with that.

McCain and Huckabee share two things that has fused their campaigns together. First, is a desire for power. McCain and Huckabee have shown that for them the campaign is not about ideas or the interests of the nation, but is about themselves. They desire power over principle and thus the illicit collusion between them has resulted. They have seen that Romney can beat either of them individually and so have tag-teamed Romney at the expense of conservatism.

Second, both have a deeply misguided understanding of economic issues. The real loser in the Republican race is the economy. Huckabee would have actively pit the wage-payer against the wage-earner in a fight to establish a true poverty in this nation. McCain likewise would regulate the nation into poverty with notions like cap-and-trade. Both these candidates have colluded to make the economy the biggest loser in the Republican race.

I hope McCain (Nixon) and Huckabee (Carter) are happy as our economy returns to the 1970's era stagflation and stunted growth.

I'm reminded of what Tom McClintock (who ran against Schwarzenneger) said: "It has to get worse before it gets better."

If the Democrats get their trifecta (handed to them by the big-government Republicans), then the winds will shift once taxes are raised, the economy tanks and everyone is, once again, disgusted.

At least this time they can't blame Bush.

Don't complain later that you, the conservatives, were not fairly warned, that this may become another 1976 debacle resulting in four years of wilderness politics and our economy going over the cliff -- thanks to Jimmy Carter.

McCain Has Voted for Higher Taxes More Than 50 Times

2008-02-04T19:09:00.000-08:00

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA): "We Would Have Had A Much Bigger Tax Cut If It Was Not For John McCain." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "A Conservative Case Against McCain," National Review, article.nationalreview.com, 1/14/08, Accessed 1/18/08)

In His Twenty-Year Senate Career, John McCain Has Voted At Least Fifty-Two Times For Higher Taxes On The American People – That's More Than Twice A Year.*

McCain Was One Of Only Two Republican Senators To Vote Against President Bush's 2001 Tax Cuts And One Of Only Three Republican Senators To Vote Against President Bush's 2003 Tax Cuts. (H.R. 1836, Senate Vote #170, Conference Report Agreed To: 58-33: R 46-2, D 12-31, 5/26/01, McCain Voted Nay; Lori Nitschke and Wendy Boudreau, "Provisions Of The Tax Law," CQ Weekly, 6/9/01; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #179, Passed 51-49: R 48-3, D 3-45, I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #196, Conference Report Agreed To 51-50: R 48-3, D 2-46, I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay).

And McCain Questioned The "Economic Premises" Of The Bush Tax Cuts. "Nor does McCain spare the rod in rejecting Bush's tax cuts, especially the $1.37 trillion blockbuster Bush pushed through Congress in 2001, criticizing its economic premises and its likely impact. At best, it's a long-term economic stimulus, not the immediate boost the economy needs, McCain said. 'All the predicates for the 2001 tax cuts and all the predictions for its results were absolutely, completely wrong,' he said. And it will worsen the deficit before it ever helps the economy, he added." (John Farmer, Op-Ed, "Maverick McCain Maintains A National Constituency," Newhouse News Service, 2/24/03).

McCain Has Voted At Least Seven Times Against Repealing All Or Part Of Death Tax Through 2002. (H.R. 8, CQ Vote #195: Rejected 44-54: R 3-51; D 41-3, 7/14/00, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #124: Motion Rejected 43-56: R 2-47; D 41-9, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #135: Rejected 48-51: R 6-43; D 42-8, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #132: Motion Rejected 41-58: R 1-48; D 40-10, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #149: Motion Rejected 44-54: R 4-43; D 39-11; I 1-0, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 8, Senate Vote #151, Motion Rejected: 54-44, McCain Voted Nay, 6/12/02; S. 1730, Senate Vote 28, Amendment Agreed To: 56-42, McCain Voted Nay, 2/13/02).

McCain Has Voted Against Capital Gains And Dividends Tax Cuts At Least 5 Times. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #115: Motion Rejected 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43; 5/21/01, McCain Voted Nay; S. 476, CQ Vote #127: Motion Agreed To 62-38: R 14-37; D 47-1; I 1-0, 4/9/03, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1054, CQ Vote #171: Adopted 51-49: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1; With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #179, Passed 51-49: R 48-3, D 3-45, I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, Senate Vote #196, Conference Report Agreed To 51-50: R 48-3, D 2-46, I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay; Alan Ota And Martha Angle, "Senate Clears Tax Cut Package For Bush's Signature," CQ Today, 5/23/03).

McCain Sponsored And Voted For A Bill To Raise Cigarette Tax By $1.10 Per Pack. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #143: Motion Agreed To 72-26: R 27-26; D 45-0, 5/20/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 57-42: R 14-40; D 43-2, 6/17/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #162: Motion Rejected 53-46: R 11-43; D 42-3, 6/17/98, McCain Voted Yea; Senate Republican Policy Committee, "Tobacco Bill/Strike $755 Billion Payments," 5/20/98).

IN 2004, MCCAIN SAID HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT EXTENDING THE BUSH TAX CUTS

In 2004, McCain Said He Would Not Support Extending The Bush Tax Cuts. McCain: "I would have--I voted against the tax cuts because of the disproportionate amount that went to the wealthiest Americans. I would clearly support not extending those tax cuts in order to help address the deficit." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 4/11/04)

* (S. 1920, CQ Vote #403: Agreed To 53-41: R 21-24; D 32-17 12/10/87, McCain Voted Nay; S. 1630, CQ Vote #45: Agreed To 71-26: R 28-17; D 43-9, 3/28/90, McCain Voted Yea; S. 3209, CQ Vote #285: Rejected 49-51: R 12-33; D 37-18, 10/18/90, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 11, CQ Vote #235: Motion Agreed To 56-38: R 28-14; D 28-24, 9/24/92, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #224: Motion Agreed To 53-47: R 44-10; D 9-37, 5/25/95, McCain Voted Nay; S. 949, CQ Vote #137: Motion Rejected 41-58: R 12-42; D 29-16, 6/26/97, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #143: Motion Agreed To 72-26: R 27-26; D 45-0, 5/20/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 57-42: R 14-40; D 43-2, 6/17/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 1415, CQ Vote #162: Motion Rejected 53-46: R 11-43; D 42-3, 6/17/98, McCain Voted Yea; S. 442, CQ Vote #306: Motion Rejected 28-69: R 27-27; D 1-42, 10/07/98, McCain Voted Nay; S. 1429, CQ Vote #243: Motion Rejected 58-42: R 13-41; D 44-1; I 1-0, 7/30/99, McCain Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #55: Motion Agreed To 52-48: R 51-4; D 1-44, 4/05/00, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #68: Rejected 44-56: R 5-50; D 39-6, 4/07/00, McCain Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 101, CQ Vote #69: Adopted 51-49: R 6-49; D 45-0, 4/07/00, McCain Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 290, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 50-48: R 50-4; D 0-44, 4/13/00, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #195: Rejected 44-54: R 3-51; D 41-3, 7/14/00, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #194: Motion Rejected 14-84: R 11-43; D 3-41, 7/14/00, McCain Voted Nay; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #71: Rejected 47-52: R 1-49; D 46-3, 4/04/01, McCain Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #82: Adopted 54-46: R 5-45; D 49-1, 4/05/01, McCain Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 83, CQ Vote #84: Adopted 53-46: R 4-45; D 49-1, 4/06/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #112: Rejected 44-56: R 2-48; D 42-8, 5/17/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #115: Motion Rejected 47-51: R 40-8; D 7-43, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #117: Motion Rejected 48-51: R 3-46; D 45-5, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #124: Rejected 43-56: R 2-47; D 41-9, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #126: Rejected 49-49: R 5-44; D 44-5, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #127: Motion Rejected 43-56: R 1-48; D 42-8, 5/21/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #132: Motion Rejected 41-58: R 1-48; D 40-10, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #133: Rejected 46-53: R 2-47; D 44-6, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #135: Rejected 48-51: R 6-43; D 42-8, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #138: Rejected 46-53: R 2-47; D 44-6, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #149: Rejected 50-50: R 4-46; D 46-4, 5/22/01, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #161: Motion Rejected 49-51: R 49-1; D 0-50, 5/23/01, McCain Voted Nay; S. 1052, CQ Vote #214: Sustained 57-41: R 7-40; D 49-1; I 1-0, 6/29/01, McCain Voted Yea; S.1731, CQ Vote #28: Adopted 56-42: R 45-2; D 11-39; I 0-1, 2/13/02, McCain Voted Nay; S.1731, CQ Vote #28: Adopted 56-42: R 45-2; D 11-39; I 0-1, 2/13/02, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #151: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-41; I 0-1, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #149: Motion Rejected 44-54: R 4-43; D 39-11; I 1-0, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 8, CQ Vote #151: Motion Rejected 54-44: R 45-2; D 9-41; I 0-1, 6/12/02, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #62: Adopted 51-48: R 47-4; D 4-43; I 0-1, 3/20/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #68: Rejected 46-53: R 1-50; D 44-3; I 1-0, 3/21/03, McCain Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #106: Rejected 48-52: R 47-4; D 1-47; I 0-1, 3/26/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #108: Adopted 56-44: R 50-1; D 6-42; I 0-1, 3/26/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. 476, CQ Vote #127: Motion Agreed To 62-38: R 14-37; D 47-1; I 1-0, 4/09/03, McCain Voted Yea; H. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #134: Adopted 51-50: R 49-2; D 1-47; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 4/11/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. 1054, CQ Vote #171: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 51-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, With Vice President Cheney Casting A "Yea" Vote, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 95, CQ Vote #38: Adopted 51-48: R 4-47; D 46-1; I 1-0, 3/10/04, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170: Adopted 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31, 5/26/01, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 4520, CQ Vote #210: Motion Agreed To 66-14: R 41-3; D 24-11; I 1-0, 10/10/04, McCain Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 18, CQ Vote #53: Rejected 50-50: R 5-50; D 44-0; I 1-0, 3/16/05; S. 1932, CQ Vote #283: Motion Rejected 50-49: R 6-49; D 43-0; I 1-0, 11/3/05, McCain Voted Yea; S. 2020, CQ Vote #340: Motion Rejected 50-48: R 6-48; D 43-0; I 1-0, 11/17/05, McCain Voted Yea)

What Republicans Need to Know Before They Vote

2008-02-04T09:45:00.000-08:00

Dear Fellow Romney Supporters,

We have heard a lot of feedback from Romney supporters all over the country that feel like they are not getting the real picture about Governor Romney’s chances of winning the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Many people say that the information they do receive always paints a picture of Governor Romney as losing this race. You are entitled to know how Governor Romney is truly doing in this race.

The truth is this: Governor Romney can and should win the Republican nomination for President of the United States. This is a two-man race between Governor Romney and John McCain and Governor Romney is literally only a few points/delegates behind! Senator McCain would like everyone to believe that somehow Governor Romney is too far behind to ever catch up. That is NOT true. We need to rally behind Governor Romney, because only a slight increase in support among conservatives is all that’s needed to tip the scales in favor of Governor Romney and conservative change.

People shouldn’t think that McCain has this wrapped up, and need to understand the tremendous support that Governor Romney already has.

Consider the following:

1) Governor Romney has led for most of this race and is still positioned well to win the nomination. Until recently Governor Romney has handily led the delegate count. Though he is currently in second place in the delegate count since the Florida Primary, by CNN’s count Governor Romney has 6% of the support he needs to win and John McCain has only 8%.
Translation = Governor Romney is not trailing far behind; in reality, he is right on McCain’s heels and is well-positioned to succeed in the upcoming primaries because he is the true conservative.

2) Governor Romney is the true conservative in this race. Governor Romney supported the Bush tax cuts and supports making them permanent. Governor Romney supports appointing conservative judges and justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Governor Romney will confront and defeat radical Islamic Jihad. Governor Romney can end our energy dependence on foreign oil, curb federal spending, and sustain traditional American values.
3) True conservative thinkers all support Governor Romney. For a small sampling, consider the following sources:

- Michael Reagan, son of President Ronal Reagan: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelReagan/2008/01/31/john_mccain_hates_me

- Mark Levin: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDEzMDYzZjBkMDNhYjk0ZjdhZmJlZWNkMWQ1NjI4MGI=

- Sean Hannity: "I'll tell you right now, and I've not announced this, but I will be voting for Mitt Romney in this campaign. It's the first time I've stated it publicly. I'll state it now." ("Sean Hannity Radio Show," 1/31/08.)

- Laura Ingraham: "All right, I'm going to see your endorsement and raise you an announcement: February 12th is the big D.C. primary, I'm pulling the lever for Mitt Romney. No doubt about it. No hesitation." ("The Laura Ingraham Show," 2/1/08)

- Lars Larson: "It's time for the GOP to pick a real Republican standard bearer. I've been keeping my powder dry on this question for months till I had the chance to talk to all of the potential nominees. I've done that now, and I'm left with only one conclusion. Governor Mitt Romney is the best choice for 2008." ("The Lars Larson Show," 2/1/08)

4) Governor Romney has national support: Listed at the bottom of this email are just some of the additional names of the endorsements of Governor Romney from elected officials, national figures and several publications and newspapers.

5) Governor Romney has tremendous financial support from people just like you. Not including any of his personal contributions to his campaign, Governor Romney’s campaign has raised more money than any candidate in the history of the Republican Party. He has raised roughly $20 million more than John McCain thus far. And that financial support remains strong; in fact, the day after placing second in the New Hampshire primary—what some were calling a “big loss” to McCain—Governor Romney held a fundraiser and raised $5 million in one day. By comparison, the democrat winner in NH, Hillary Clinton, also held a fundraiser that day and raised only $700,000. This relates directly to his ability to stay the course and beat the Democrat nominee in November.

6) Governor Romney is the most electable Republican, because he can fight the fight. I just mentioned monies raised. Money will mean a lot in the coming months. John McCain is currently spending as much money as he brings in and is $4.5 million in debt. The Democrats have raised hundreds of millions of dollars, and if Senator McCain becomes the nominee, he will have no money with which to compete with the Democrats. The Democrats will bury him with the sheer size of their war chests. He cannot compete with them financially.

7) Senator McCain cannot beat the Democrats by acting like a Democrat. John McCain has sided with the Democrats on issues from supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, attacking the First Amendment with campaign finance reform, opposing drilling for oil in ANWR to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and he voted, not once, but twice against the Bush tax cuts. John McCain was reported to have considered running as John Kerry’s running mate in 2004.

We need the man who talks as well as behaves like a true Republican leader. That man is clearly not John McCain -- it is Mitt Romney.

For those who believe in a strong military, a strong economy and strong family values, we need to unite now behind Governor Romney.

Best regards,

Trent Christensen
Romney for President, Inc.
(o) 857.288.6398
(f) 857.288.6588
tchristensen@mittromney.com

Governor Romney Endorsements:

Governor Matt Blunt (Mo.)
Lt. Gov. Jim Risch (Idaho)
Brig. Gen. Thomas R. Mikolajcik
Fmr. Governor Kenny Guinn (Nev.)
Fmr.Gov. Robert Ehrlich (Maine)
Gary Marx - Dir. Judicial Confirmation Network
James Bopp Jr. - Legal counsel for the National Right to Life Committee
Jay Sekulow - Chief Counsel American Center for Law and Justice
Joe Earle - Director of Outreach Iowa Christian Alliance
Attorney General John Suthers (Col.)
Rep. Ander Crenshaw (Fla.)
Rep. Bill Shuster (Pa.)
Rep. Brian Bilbray (Calif.)
Rep. Chris Cannon (Utah)
Rep. Connie Mack IV (Fla.)
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.)
Rep. Dave Camp (Mich.)
Rep. Dennis Hastert (Ill.)
Rep. Ed Whitfield (Ky.)
Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (Fla.)
Rep. Hal Rogers (Ky.)
Rep. Howard McKeon (Calif.)
Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.)
Rep. Jim McCrery (La.)
Rep. Joe Knollenberg (Mich.)
Rep. John Campbell (Calif.)
Rep. John Carter (Texas)
Rep. Kay Granger (Texas)
Rep. Lamar Smith (Texas)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.)
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.)
Rep. Mike Conaway (Texas)
Rep. Mike Rogers (Ala.)
Rep. Mike Simpson (Idaho)
Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.)
Rep. Phil Gingrey (Ga.)
Rep. Ralph Regula (Ohio)
Rep. Robert Aderholt (Ala.)
Rep. Rodney Alexander (La.)
Rep. Ron Lewis (Ky.)
Rep. Tom Feeney (Fla.)
Rep. Tom Petri (Wis.)
Rep. Tom Price (Ga.)
Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.)
Rep. Vernon Ehlers (Mich.)
Rep. Virginia Foxx (N.C.)
Rep. Wally Herger (Calif.)
Sen. Bob Bennett (Utah)
Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.)
Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.)
Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah)
Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Sen. Wayne Allard (Colo.)
Dorothy Bush Koch - sister of Jeb & President George Bush (Tex.)
Neil Bush - brother of the President
Dr. John Wilke - Chair Right to Life Committee
The National Review
The Daily Nonpareil (IA)
The Times-Republican (IA)
Sioux City Journal (IA)
The Grand Rapids Press (MI)
The Oakland Press (MI)
Las Vegas Review Journal (NV)
Reno Gazette-Journal (NV)
Elko Daily Free Press (NV)
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (GA)
Hartford Courant (CT)
Salt Lake Tribune (UT)
Trent Christensen (MA)

Stop! Before you pull the lever for McCain...

2008-02-01T10:00:00.000-08:00

Information accumulated and assembled by ANDRU BLONQUIST
Greenville, South Carolina

* * * * * *

Before you pull the lever for John McCain on Super Tuesday, please consider the following information first.

As a Mitt Romney supporter, I would prefer to convince people why they should vote for my candidate, rather than against John McCain. I’ve tried this approach for the past 18 months, but people haven’t been able to get past his religion or the false impression that he’s a flip-flopper. As governor, Romney never contradicted a position he campaigned for in 2002 and while he did change his stance on abortion, he upheld his campaign promises throughout the end of his term. You can trust that the stances he is taking for America (which are decidedly different than the needs of Massachusetts in 2002), will be consistently adhered to while he is in office.

McCain on the other hand consistently changes positions, or blatantly lies about his record. As accounts continue to surface about his private dealings with fellow legislators, staffers, and other private individuals, it is abundantly clear that John McCain is concerned about the one thing he’s always been concerned about—himself.

Perhaps you’ve resigned yourself to the “electability” argument, and believe that John McCain is the only Republican who could win in November. McCain will be the first one to tell you not to trust polls that come out 6 months before an election.

Additionally, you give the Democrats too much credit. As the economy and budget deficit worsens, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barak Obama have any credibility to solve this impending crisis. On this issue alone, John McCain would be much easier to beat since he can’t run effectively on the economy. If we nominate John McCain, it will be like nominating Bob Dole all over again.

For all you know, everything I have just said could simply be made up charges for political reasons. So I ask you to take a look at the whole picture of John McCain’s life and his accelerated advancement through the naval ranks—in spite of his poor record and actions unbecoming of a Naval officer. As you read the following story of McCain’s Naval record, compare this with Mitt Romney and answer the following questions:

Both had influential fathers, what did this give them in life?
Both were accepted to prestigious universities, what did they do with that opportunity?
Both had careers that ended in high-profile positions. How did they get there?
How do their personal and family lives compare?
What kind of people do they associate themselves with?
What have these two candidate shown that they are good at?

McCain Navy Record:

John Sidney McCain III entered the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland in 1954. Young McCain wanted to become an admiral. He planned to be the "first son and grandson of four star admirals" to achieve such a distinction. But that was not to be. McCain III possessed none of the innate character and discipline traits that helped mold his father and grandfather into great military leaders.

His father, John S. "Junior" McCain, and grandfather, John S. McCain, Sr., were famous four-star Admirals in the U.S. Navy. His father commanded U.S. forces in Europe before becoming commander of American forces fighting in Vietnam. His grandfather commanded naval aviation at the Battle of Okinawa in 1945. Both men became highly influential in U.S. Navy operations.

At the Academy, aside being known as a "rowdy, raunchy, underachiever" who resented authority, Cadet McCain became infamous as a leader among his fellow midshipmen for organizing "off-Yard activities" and hard drinking parties. Robert Timberg wrote in his book, The Nightingale's Song, that "being on liberty with John McCain was like being in a train wreck."

McCain's grades were "marginal." He drew so many demerits for breaking curfew and other discipline issues that he graduated fifth from the bottom of the class of 1958. Despite his low "class standing," and no doubt because of the influence of his family of famous Admirals, McCain was leap-frogged ahead of more qualified applicants and granted a coveted slot to be trained as a navy pilot.

Good Party Animal - Bad Pilot:

He spent the next two and a half years as a "naval aviator in training" at Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and Naval Air Station Corpus Christi in Texas, flying A-1 Skyraiders.

While a pilot trainee, McCain continued to party hard. He drove a Corvette and dated an exotic dancer named "Marie the Flame of Florida." Timberg wrote that McCain "learned to fly at Pensacola, though his performance was below par, at best good enough to get by. He liked flying, but didn't love it."

McCain Lost Five Military Aircraft:

McCain, the "below par" pilot, eventually lost 5 military aircraft, the first during a training flight in 1958 when he plunged into Corpus Christi Bay while trying to land. The Navy ignored the crash and graduated McCain in 1960.

While deployed in the Mediterranean, the hard partying McCain lost a second aircraft. Timberg described the crash: "Flying too low over the Iberian Peninsula, he took out some power lines which led to a spate of newspaper stories in which he was predictably identified as the son of an admiral."

Unscathed, McCain returned to Pensacola Station where he was promoted to flight instructor for Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi. The airfield at Meridian, McCain Field, was named in honor of McCain's grandfather.

In 1964 McCain became involved with Carol Shepp, a model from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, he had met at Annapolis. They were married in Philadelphia on July 3, 1965.

Flight instructor McCain lost a third aircraft while flying a Navy trainer solo to Philadelphia for an Army-Navy football game. Timberg wrote that McCain radioed, "I've got a flameout" before ejecting at one thousand feet. McCain parachuted onto a beach moments before his plane slammed into a clump of trees.

The Navy dismissed the crash as "unavoidable" and assigned McCain to the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal in December 1966, which was patrolling the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean. In Spring 1967, the Forrestal was assigned to join the Operation Rolling Thunder bombing campaign against North Vietnam.

McCain lost his fourth plane on board the Forrestal on July 29, 1967 when a rocket inadvertently slammed into his bomb laden jet. McCain escaped, but the explosions that followed killed 134 sailors. McCain was transferred from the badly damaged Forrestal to the USS Oriskany. Shortly afterwards, on Oct. 26, 1967, he was shot down and captured by the Vietnamese.

Post-POW Years: Political Ambition and a New, Young, Rich Wife:

Upon his release from North Vietnam and return to the United States in 1973, McCain reunited with his wife, Carol, who had been permanently crippled in a car accident while he was a POW.

Still yearning to become an admiral, McCain enrolled in the National War College at Fort McNair in Washington, D.C. and underwent physical therapy in order to fly again. The Navy excused his permanent disabilities and reinstated him to flight status, effectively positioning him for promotion.

Timberg described McCain's advancement: "in the fall of 1974, McCain was transferred to Jacksonville as the executive officer of Replacement Air Group 174, the long-sought flying billet at last a reality. A few months later, he assumed command of the RAG, which trained pilots and crews for carrier deployments. The assignment was controversial, some calling it favoritism, a sop to the famous son of a famous father and grandfather, since he had not first commanded a squadron, the usual career path."

While Executive Officer and later as Squadron Commander McCain used his authority to arrange frequent flights that allowed him to carouse with subordinates and "engage in extra-marital affairs."

This was a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice rules against adultery and fraternization with subordinates. But, as with all his other past behaviors, McCain was never penalized; instead he always got away with his transgressions.

Timberg wrote, "Off duty, usually on routine cross-country flights to Yuma and El Centro, John started carousing and running around with women. To make matters worse, some of the women with whom he was linked by rumor were subordinates . . . At the time the rumors were so widespread that, true or not, they became part of McCain's persona, impossible not to take note of."

In early 1977, Admiral Jim Holloway, Chief of Naval Operations promoted McCain to captain and transferred him from his command position "to Washington as the number-two man in the Navy's Senate liaison office. McCain was promptly given total control of the office. It wasn't long before the "fun loving and irreverent" McCain had turned the liaison office into a "late-afternoon gathering spot where senators and staffers, usually from the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, would drop in for a drink and the chance to unwind."

In 1979, while attending a military reception in Hawaii, McCain met and fell in love with Cindy Lou Hensley, 17 years his junior, who was the daughter of James W. Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor from Phoenix, Arizona. McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife in Florida on April 2, 1980 and promptly married Cindy on May 17, 1980.

He resigned from the Navy in 1981 and went to work for his father-in-law in Phoenix; where he used the opportunity to make powerful and wealthy friends in Arizona including banker Charles Keating and Duke Tully, the editor-in-chief of the Arizona Republic. Keating was later convicted of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy and Tully was disgraced for concocting a phony military record of combat in Korea and Vietnam including medals for heroism.

McCain ran for Arizona's First Congressional District in 1982. McCain won the congressional seat. In 1987 McCain was elected to the US Senate.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1961665/posts (see the comments section below)

Addtionally…

“… But there was one subject that was off-limits, a subject the Arizona senator almost never brings up and has never been open about -- his long-time opposition to releasing documents and information about American prisoners of war in Vietnam and the missing in action who have still not been accounted for. Since McCain himself, a downed Navy pilot, was a prisoner in Hanoi for 5 1/2 years, his staunch resistance to laying open the POW/MIA records has baffled colleagues and others who have followed his career. Critics say his anti-disclosure campaign, in close cooperation with the Pentagon and the intelligence community has been successful. Literally thousands of documents that would otherwise have been declassified long ago have been legislated into secrecy.“

*************

John McCain has a life-long record of bad decisions, with one good decision getting far too much weight. As a prisoner in Vietnam he was given the choice to get out due to the high-profile position his father held in the US Navy. John McCain decided to stay and follow the “first-in, first-out” rule for prisoner conduct. That was a good decision. It showed loyalty to his fellow servicemen—whether prisoners or not, and it has garnered him the title of hero. But doing heroic things doesn’t mean you have a heroic character. Did this decision change John McCain? Did he become a loyal, altruistic, and selfless person? No.

He was not loyal to his first wife
He has not been loyal to the Republican Party
He has not been loyal to conservative principles
He has not been loyal to constitutional principles
He has not been loyal to conservative voters

The traits that we associate with John McCain the war hero are not the traits that John McCain the person possesses. Please consider this when you vote on Super Tuesday. This is the last chance we have to salvage the conservative coalition by selecting a conservative to represent our party. And with the challenges we face as a country, we need a proven problem-solver and not a hero in name only.

If you consider yourself a conservative, forward this to at least 10 people. The clock is ticking.

John McCain Hates Me

2008-01-31T19:06:00.000-08:00

By Michael Reagan

January 31, 2008

Until last night, when I watched the Republican debate, I had no idea how much John McCain dislikes me and just about everybody else but Rudy Giuliani, who, if you believe The New York Times, is a pretty good hater himself.

As I watched McCain and Governor Romney go at it during the debate at the Reagan Library, I was struck by the huge gap that separates McCain -- whose contempt for his fellow humans is patently obvious -- and my dad, Ronald Reagan, who had nothing but the deepest affection and respect for the American people.

The feeling is mutual between McCain and me. I don't like the way he treats people. You get the impression that he thinks everybody is beneath him. He seems to be saying, "I was a war hero, and you had damn well better treat me as your superior."

He has contempt for conservatives who he thinks can be duped into thinking he's one of them, despite such blatantly anti-conservative actions as his support for amnesty for illegal immigrants, his opposition to the Bush tax cuts which got the economy rolling again, and his campaign finance bill which skewed the political process and attacked free speech.

I am appalled by his contempt for the intelligence of his listeners when he flat-out lies and expects them to believe what he says even when the truth is staring them in the face.

A prime example cited by columnist Robert Novak was McCain's denial that he had privately suggested that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative, insisting that he recalled saying no such thing, adding that Alito was a "magnificent" choice.

"In fact," wrote Novak, "multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago."

In last night's debate, McCain stubbornly defended his charge, false on the face of it, that Romney wanted a deadline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

"I have never, ever supported a specific timetable for withdrawing troops," Romney said, adding that McCain's accusation on the eve of Tuesday's primary "...sort of falls into the dirty tricks that I think Ronald Reagan would have found reprehensible."

What Romney said last April, was merely that U.S. and Iraqi leaders "have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about" in private, which in no way suggests he was in any sense talking about troop withdrawals.

Despite the evidence, McCain charged that "of course he said he wanted a timetable" for a withdrawal, even though he had never said any such thing. It was McCain daring to ask us if we wanted to believe our lying eyes or his demonstrably false allegation.

McCain must think conservatives are dumb enough to allow him to get away with claiming he's one of them. This is from a man who opposed drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and who twice voted against President Bush's tax cuts and sponsored the campaign-finance reform legislation that Romney claimed "took a whack at the First Amendment."

In John McCain's eyes, conservatives are the Viet Cong of this generation, and he treats us as such. It's either his way or no way.

I despise his habit of talking down to us, like a wise father to an idiot son. He's just at a loss to understand why everybody doesn't grovel at his feet and accept his every word as wisdom handed down from his lofty perch atop Mt. Olympus.

I can't help it. I know in my heart he hates me, and every conservative. If he gets the nomination. the only way he could win against Hillary or Barack Obama would be to be part of a McCain-Limbaugh ticket.

Bob Novak Confirm's McCain's Alito Comment

2008-01-31T10:56:00.000-08:00

By Kyle Hampton

Robert Novak confirms what John Fund said last week: McCain has serious reservations about conservative jurists like Justice Alito. Novak writes:

I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund's source, and neither knew I was talking to the other.

As I said last week in response to Fund’s assertion:

As for the judges, this is truly disturbing. Alito is no Ann Coulter, a provacative figure that takes pleasure in deriding McCain's friends across the aisle. He is a thoughtful and intelligent jurist whose measured approach has been a model of restraint. To say that Alito wears his conservatism on his sleeve is just patently false. If Alito's conservatism is worn on his sleave, there are few conservatives that do not.Moreover, this issue gets at the question of McCain's ability to judge the judicial philosophy of judicial nominees. If Alito's conservatism is too provacative, principled jurists like Scalia and Thomas would certainly be excluded. We have had many Republican presidents who have been unable to distinguish between conservative and liberal jurists. President Eisenhower nominated two of the most liberal judges (Warren and Brennan) the court has ever had. Gerald Ford nominated Justice Stevens. Bush 41 famously got "Soutered" by one of his picks to the Supreme Court. All of these misteps have further entrenched liberal ideology and seriously hindered true conservative change.

Ed Morrissey over at Captain's Quarters says this:

This actually makes it slightly worse. The Fund quote implied that McCain wouldn't appoint an Alito because he thought Alito was too overtly conservative. Novak's report shows that it wasn't Alito's overtness, but his conservatism that McCain found unattractive. That won't help convince conservatives to trust McCain on judicial nominations.

--Posted By Kyle to My Man Mitt at 1/31/2008 10:22:00 AM

The Encyclopedia Mittanica

2008-01-31T10:26:00.000-08:00

Two Mistakes Made by the Florida Voters

2008-01-30T19:18:00.000-08:00

By Kyle Hampton

From the results of the Florida primary, there appears to be two distinct mistakes being made by supporters of John McCain:

The first mistake is that voters have mistaken McCain for General Petraeus. McCain is correct in identifying himself as one of the chief advocates for a change in military strategy. It is one thing, though, to have been an advocate for change and the actual accomplishment of it.

It is not McCain that has been implementing strategic and tactical decisions. That post has been occupied by David Petraeus. To equate or conflate the two is to seriously misunderstand McCain’s role in the success in Iraq. McCain was an important voice, but that is all we can credit him for. McCain would have us not distinguish between the advisory role that he has played for the last 25 years in the Senate and the executives (Petraeus, Reagan, etc.) who have actually brought about the real changes McCain has only talked about.

The second mistake being made is the diminution of the role that the economy plays in our individual and national liberty. The principle and lasting accomplishment of Reagan’s tenure was a rethinking of the economy. Through the reorientation of the economy, Reagan was able to not only end the stagflation of the 1970’s, but was able to win the Cold War.

It was through economic dominance that the United States beat the Soviets. It was not the result of superior battle strategies (given that there weren't any military engagements as such), but through prosperity brought about through a strong economy.

Likewise, today our ability to defeat our foes (i.e., al Qaeda) abroad and compete with rivals (i.e., China) depends on the health of our economy. Reagan’s use of the economy to defeat the Soviets is one of the underappreciated truths of our time.

Milton Friedman’s book, Capitalism and Freedom, notes the relationship between a free and prosperous economy and individual freedom:

On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

The first of these roles of economic freedom needs special emphasis because intellectuals in particular have a strong bias against regarding this aspect of freedom as important. They tend to express contempt for what they regard as material aspects of life, and to regard their own pursuit of allegedly higher values as on a different plane of significance and as deserving of special attention. For most citizens of the country, however, if not for the intellectual, the direct importance of economic freedom is at least comparable in significance to the indirect importance of economic freedom as a means to political freedom.

A citizen of the United States who under the laws of various states is not free to follow the occupation of his own choosing unless he can get a license for it, is likewise being deprived of an essential part of his freedom. So is the man who would like to exchange some of his goods with, say, a Swiss for a watch but is prevented from doing so by a quota. So also is the Californian who was thrown into jail for selling Alka Seltzer at a price below that set by the manufacturer under so-called "fair trade" laws. So also is the farmer who cannot grow the amount of wheat he wants. And so on.

Clearly, economic freedom, in and of itself, is an extremely important part of total freedom.

Viewed as a means to the end of political freedom, economic arrangements are important because of their effect on the concentration or dispersion of power. The kind of economic organization that provides economic freedom directly, namely, competitive capitalism, also promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way enables the one to offset the other.

Thus, our economic freedom has a close relationship to our political freedom. Increasing regulation of our economic freedoms (McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman) are essentially assaults on our political freedom. Our tax burden (votes against the Bush tax cuts) likewise limits our political freedom.

These are not old positions that McCain has learned from, but are currently held positions where McCain seeks to limit our freedom. By doing so he diminishes our political freedom and our ability, as discussed above, to fight our foes and compete with our rivals.

--Posted By Kyle to My Man Mitt at 1/30/2008 07:03:00 PM

A McCain Monarchy? Heaven Forbid.

2008-01-29T20:29:00.000-08:00

The facts and stats are simple and straight: according to CNN's Election Center 2008, McCain did not win amongst Republicans -- and that loss was by a wide margin.

Despite the urgency of certain issues affecting our country, particularly the present delicateness of our economy, moderates and liberals persist in helping McCain win delegates.

Non-Republicans once again took the win away from Mitt Romney (the only candidate of either party capable of harnessing and controlling our economic instabilities, as well as standing nose to nose to our enemies) and handed it to John McCain, who has little or no experience in the financial arena (proven by his evasive answers to clear and direct questions asked of him at the January 24, 2008 debate in Boca Raton on how he would -- or could -- provide a list, or at least suggestions, of practical remedies and/or solutions).

In a January 30, 2008 Time article, writer Michael Scherer makes clear: "McCain, Huckabee and a nation of disconcerted Republican voters now threaten to reformulate that coalition. Romney is certainly not a lifelong member of the old conservative movement. But as it stands, he may be the only thing left to hold it together. " And this is from a liberal mainstream journalist.

As we all know, Florida is a take-all state with open voting. Fred Thompson dropped out in the middle after absentees were sent out and the Florida governor (who loves McCain's immigration stance) was behind McCain.

Despite all the shmoozy liberal media coverage given to him, McCain still did not get a majority of the state ... and the "conservatives in the know" are betting they were not the majority of conservative votes.

In "McCain: Shifting American Politics to the Left -- MSM Loving It!", the author provides serious information and irrefutable points of view. This is a must read for conservatives who consider McCain's candidacy only fanciful -- and that kind of thinking will only serve to sink the Republican Party.

Which leads me to ask: Are conservatives deaf, dumb and blind? Don't they see what is happening? Yes, McCain is the "chosen" darling of the liberal media (as are all of the other Democrat candidates). But if McCain gets the nomination -- with the help, of course, of the mainstream media -- then the only candidates left standing will be two liberal Democrats (Clinton, Obama) and one liberal Republican (McCain). And then it wouldn't matter which of those three would succeed to the Presidency, because their dynamics would shift the entire United States of America to the left, away from conservatism, possibly for the next 20 years.

Columnists such as John LeBoutillier and Ronald Kessler are in agreement about John McCain, and are unafraid to state the truth, that McCain is not the man best able to control the White House on the basis that he is psychologically unsound. Think about this: Remember the Iranian speed boats confronting our naval task force? If it were President McCain in that moment, he, with his uncontrollable temper, probably would've given our Navy commanders the order to shred the speed boats and hence initiate World War III. And then the U.S. economy would take a death dive (as it nearly did directly after 9/11, from which we're still trying to recover).

Florida's gift to McCain is a hard pill to swallow, but remember: the RNC still has a large number of votes that they pulled back from states that moved their primaries -- and McCain has ticked off many members of the RNC.

Mitt Romney is still in this race, and he's made it clear he won't quit. In light of his determination, no true conservative should rest his or her efforts on Mitt's behalf, because, as Yogi Berra said: "It ain't over 'til it's over."

Thereafter, the new conservative motto will be: "It ain't over 'til WE say it's over."

McCain to Kerry: "I want to join the 2004 Democratic Ticket"

2008-01-29T14:53:00.000-08:00

If you thought you knew the real John McCain -- foul mouth and all -- then you're mistaken.

Back in the 2004 Presidential race, McCain approached John Kerry and told him he wanted to cross over to the Democrats, because he wanted the Vice Presidency.

If you doubt this, here is the interview, print and audio.

THIS IS NOT ALTERNATE HISTORY:

John Kerry: McCain Approached Me About Joining Dem Ticket in 2004

by Jonathan Singer

Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:30:45 AM EST

Note: You can now read the rest of the interview with Senator Kerry here.

On Monday afternoon I had the chance to speak with Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic Party's nominee for President in 2004. During the interview, which covers a range of topics and which I will be posting later this afternoon, an item of particular interest jumped out at me: According to Sen. Kerry, it was John McCain's staff who approached his campaign about potentially filling the Vice President slot on the Democratic ticket in 2004. Take a listen to and a look at the interchange...

If you're having trouble with the Odeo player you can download the .mp3 file here.

Jonathan Singer: There's a story in The Hill, I think on Tuesday, by Bob Cusack on the front page of the paper talking about how John McCain's people -- John Weaver -- had approached Tom Daschle and a New York Congressman, I don't remember his name, about switching parties. And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your discussions were with him in 2004, how far it went, who approached whom... if there was any "there" there.

John Kerry: I don't know all the details of it. I know that Tom, from a conversation with him, was in conversation with a number of Republicans back then. It doesn't surprise me completely because his people similarly approached me to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President. So his people were active -- let's put it that way.

Singer: Okay. And just to confirm, you said it, but this is something they approached you rather than...

Kerry: Absolutely correct. John Weaver of his shop... [JK aswers phone]

As you might know from reading my posts in the past, I don't usually addend my own thoughts to my interviews. I like to think they speak for themselves. But in light of the fact that I have written about a closely-related subject and I think this item is particularly newsworthy, if you'll oblige me I'd like to write a few words here.

For many Republicans, it has been bad enough that John McCain has voted and worked with Democrats against the majority of Republican Senators on a number of occasions in recent years. For Republicans, I would imagine that reports that he approached the Democrats about leaving the Senate GOP caucus in 2001 represent a borderline unpardonable offense.

But it seems that reaching out to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to talk about running on that party's ticket would be tantamount to the highest form of political treason to Republicans.

Certainly, I would assume that McCain's campaign will deny Kerry's account of their interactions. In fact I would be surprised if they didn't push back on this story, as they did to the story in The Hill last week. (A call for comment to the McCain campaign was not returned before the time this story was published.)

That said, at least from my vantage this story could hardly come at a worse time for McCain, whose campaign for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination is already noticeably foundering.

McCain's Desperate Dishonesty

2008-01-28T11:04:00.000-08:00

Originally posted by Kyle Hampton at http://www.mymanmitt.com/:

There's a lot out today about McCain's continued dishonest portrayal of Romney's Iraq position and I thought I would do a run down:

Paul Mirengoff: In doing so, he relies on a statement, which cannot fairly be construed as advocating withdrawal. This is the conclusion of virtually everyone who has looked at the issue, except for some of McCain’s supporters. McCain, in short, has smeared Romney.

Quin Hillyer: John McCain today flat-out lied about Gov. Romney's position on the troop "surge," etc. This is no surprise. McCain's "straight talk express" has been anything but straight for quite some time now. He has been making false claims about what his position on immigration was just last summer. He has been making false claims about why he opposed Bush's tax cuts. He has been making false claims about Romney's stance on "torture." He has made misleading (not exactly false, but certainly misleading) representations about Giuliani's position on the line item veto. He has misrepresented his helpfulness on judicial nominations. And I know I am forgetting some of the other things he has not been exactly straight about.

Mark Levin: Since McCain and his surrogates insist on making this a big issue, let's engage them. They are dissembling about what Romney said. I have provided quotes below. We have now heard from Woolsey, who is repeating the disinformation. And we have now viewed the video-tape, which clears Romney of the allegation, i.e., he did not call for a specific time to withdraw our troops. Now, if this is the big bombshell the McCain campaign is using in the days before the Florida vote (albeit people are casting votes throughout via absentee ballots), it's pretty disgraceful stuff.

Allahpundit: Yeah, pretty egregious. He never said he “wanted” to withdraw or that he wanted a date set, and it’s patently clear he doesn’t want any timetables publicly announced.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: It’s a reminder — like the McCain campaign’s dishonest line of attack this weekend — that as admirable McCain is as both a hero and a politician, he is not irreproachable even on national-security issues. McCain is fond of saying he’d rather lose a political campaign than a war; he now seems to be swimming close to using the war to win a political campaign in the most dishonest of ways. It’s conduct unbecoming a man we all respect.

Marc Ambinder: Then he was asked to justify his contention that Romney once supported a withdrawal timetable for Iraq . (I wrote this morning that McCain "stretched" history with the remark, and a few moments before this particular question received a stern talking to by two McCain aides and one reporter.)

Ed Morrissey: This is a fundamentally dishonest attack. One of the reasons why some Republicans who have opposed McCain over issues like the BCRA and immigration have tried to keep a civil tongue in discussing McCain is because of the respect he has earned as a stalwart on the war. He deserves that respect; he has been an indispensable voice for the effort and has the right to hold himself up as that. However, he should be showing that respect to others who have supported the war and the troops.

David Freddoso: McCain’s unfair stab at Romney this weekend may not cost him anything. The endorsement from Florida ’s popular governor, Charles Crist, came at just the right time to bury the item in the local news. And if he does win the nomination, this moment may not even be remembered. Unfortunately, the truth is always too complicated for a quick explanation.

Additionally:

John Fund says that John McCain didn't like the nomination of Justice Alito:

“Mr. McCain bruised his standing with conservatives on the issue when in 2005 he became a key player in the so-called gang of 14, which derailed an effort to end Democratic filibusters of Bush judicial nominees. More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because "he wore his conservatism on his sleeve."”

Therein lies the problem that many conservatives have with John McCain. It is the nagging feeling that after all of his years of chummily bonding with liberal reporters and garnering favorable media coverage from them that the Arizona senator is embarrassed to be seen as too much of a conservative.”

Couldn't have said it better myself. McCain should just come out and say it "I'm a moderate." For all his "straight talk" McCain has left out the most important piece of the puzzle: humself. If McCain were being honest with himself he would come out and tell the world that he is no conservative.

As for the judges, this is truly disturbing. Alito is no Ann Coulter, a provocative figure that takes pleasure in deriding McCain's friends across the isle. He is a thoughtful and intelligent jurist whose measured approach has been a model of restraint. To say that Alito wears his conservatism on his sleeve is just patently false. If Alito's conservatism is worn on his sleave, there are few conservatives that do not.

Moreover, this issue gets at the question of McCain's ability to judge the judicial philosophy of judicial nominees. If Alito's conservatism is too provacative, principled jurists like Scalia and Thomas would certainly be excluded. We have had many Republican presidents who have been unable to distinguish between conservative and liberal jurists. President Eisenhower nominated two of the most liberal judges (Warren and Brennan) the court has ever had. Gerald Ford nominated Justice Stevens. Bush 41 famously got "Soutered" by one of his picks to the Supreme Court. All of these misteps have further entrenched liberal ideology and seriously hindered true conservative change.

John McCain, whose conservatism begins and ends with the War in Iraq, would be an absolute disaster for America domestically and especially with the courts. His disdain for "agents of intollerance" and other advocates on issues of life, gay marriage, and other social issues is barely contained. He has tried at every point to undermine their ability to advocate (i.e. McCain-Feingold) and now would avoid nominating judges who supposedly wear their conservatism on their sleeves. The contempt for social conservatives could hardly be more.

The Media's Calculated Contrivances

2008-01-22T09:32:00.000-08:00

We're all familiar with the fact that the mainstream media makes a pig's breakfast out of Presidential Primaries. They deliberately pick and choose which candidate or candidates should be favored over others when it comes to press coverage.

Searching Google News for the winner of each primary or caucus, we used the following specific terms to gather data:

The first number inside the parentheses is the approximate number of results found. For comparison, the second figure is the number of delegates won by the candidate (according to CNN).

Huckabee won in Iowa (2,365 - 17)

Romney won in Wyoming (270 - 8)

McCain won in New Hampshire (5,145 - 7)

Romney won in Michigan (1,239 - 24)

Romney won in Nevada (1,173 - 18)

McCain won in South Carolina (3,806 - 19)

Of the three states he was declared the winner, Mitt Romney received the most coverage for his win in Michigan, about 1,239 stories, where he earned 24 delegates.

By contrast, John McCain earned only 7 delegates in his New Hampshire win but enjoyed the publicity from 5,145 news stories.

To look at this another way, the most stories written about any of Romney's three wins was 1,239 for Michigan while the fewest stories written about any of his opponents' wins was 2,365 for Huckabee's win in Iowa.

If Mitt Romney, who has gained more delegates than any other Republican candidate, were to receive the same coverage for his primary/caucus wins, it's reasonable to believe he might be enjoying the frontrunner status that too many in the myopic mainstream press are giving to McCain today.

This is just another example of the MSM reporting only what they want "We, the People" to see, hear, and know.

What's worse, if voters accept everything the press delivers and swallow it whole and elect the wrong man, the People will end up choking on it ... and by that time it will be too late.

We should pity people like these ... or not

2008-01-18T14:12:00.001-08:00

Chinese Navy Confronted USS Kitty Hawk

2008-01-18T10:30:00.000-08:00

Newsmax.com

Chinese Navy Confronted USS Kitty Hawk Wednesday
January 16, 2008 9:07 AM
By: Newsmax Staff

A Chinese attack submarine and destroyer confronted the U.S. carrier Kitty Hawk and its battle group in the Taiwan Strait, sparking a tense 28-hour standoff that brought both sides to a battle-ready position.

The American ships were heading to Japan following China’s sudden cancellation of a scheduled Thanksgiving port call in Hong Kong when they encountered the Chinese vessels, according to the Navy Times, which cited a report in a Chinese-language newspaper in Taiwan.

The Times reported that the encounter caused the carrier group “to halt and ready for battle, as the Chinese vessels also stopped amid the 28-hour confrontation.”

The encounter ended without incident, however, and the U.S. ships continued on to Japan. The two Chinese vessels were also headed for a port call in Japan.

The Chinese destroyer, Shenzhen, is armed with anti-ship missiles, while the Song-class attack sub is equipped with anti-ship missiles and a variety of torpedoes.

China has expressed “grave concern” to the U.S. over the Kitty Hawk’s transit through the Taiwan Strait, the Times notes. Beijing claims Taiwan is Chinese territory.

But Admiral Timothy Keating, head of the U.S. Pacific Command, told reporters Tuesday: “We don’t need China’s permission to go through the Taiwan Strait. We will exercise our free right of passage whenever and wherever we choose.”

Shortly before the Kitty Hawk battle group was denied entry to Hong Kong, China had refused safe harbor for two U.S. Navy minesweepers seeking refuge from a storm.

As Newsmax has reported, some U.S. politicians have rung alarm bells about China's increased military spending and technological revamping of its armed forces.

China’s military budget had an average annual growth rate of nearly 16 percent from 1994 to 2004, and China's reported 2006 military budget is about $35 billion, according to Beijing.
But Pentagon sources have said these numbers fail to demonstrate the true scope of the growth, and the real 2006 figure could be as much as $105 billion.

In recent years China has upgraded its nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles; bought state-of-the-art warships, fighter planes and submarines from Russia; and begun development of a number of so-called "asymmetrical" weapons, including informational warfare and anti-satellite systems.

In November, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda warned that China’s continuing military buildup could eventually pose a “major threat” if the Chinese government decides to exercise its power.

A message from one angry mom

2007-12-17T11:42:00.000-08:00

This has been going around for a while, but it's worth repeating.

*******************

By "Anonymous"

"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I’m supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the holy bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for chopping off nick berg's head while berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their first amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the united states constitution's bill of rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." well, jimmy crack corn and-you guessed it: I don't care!!

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country! And may I add:

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the marines don't have that problem" -- Ronald Reagan

I have another quote that I would like to add and I hope you forward all this.

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" – Also by Ronald Reagan.

One last thought for the day:

In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he said:

"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in, and how many want out."

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ.

2. The American G.I.

One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

You might want to pass this on, as many seem to forget both.

And God Bless America!!

Guess Who's Writing The Ballot Argument Against Villaraigosa's Tax Hike Proposition?

2007-11-07T12:44:00.000-08:00

By Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles, http://www.waltermooreformayor.com/

Mayor Villaraigosa hopes to dupe voters into approving an unnecessary tax hike in a special election in February 2008. That's the bad news.

The good news is that your favorite candidate for mayor was officially selected yesterday to write the ballot argument against the proposed tax hike, which will be called "Proposition S."

This is terrific news, because it means our fellow voters will receive up to 300 words of truth about Proposition S. It should also translate into some great publicity for my campaign, insofar as I will be the "point man" for the opposition to Villaraigosa's tax hike. Plus, if we can stop Villaraigosa's well-funded political machine from passing this tax hike in February 2008, it will be that much easier to win the Mayoral election in March 2009.

Villaraigosa calls his tax hike, "The REDUCTION of Tax Rate and Modernization of Communications Users Tax ballot measure." In fact, however, Proposition S would INCREASE our taxes two ways:

First, Proposition S would restore an illegal phone tax hike the City imposed in 2003. The Superior Court struck down that tax hike in 2005 because the City imposed it without getting voters' approval, which is required under the State Constitution. Rather than comply with the law and the Superior Court's order, Villaraigosa kept collecting the illegal tax and spending the proceeds, and appealed the ruling. In May 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's decision. Voting "yes" would thus restore the illegal tax hike that the courts struck down.

Second, Proposition S would impose NEW taxes on Internet usage, wireless communications and any other telecommunications not already taxed. That's what they mean by "modernization:" tax you for using the Internet. So when you "fire up" that laptop at Starbucks, or you download that file from your work computer to your home computer, get out your checkbook, because Villaraigosa wants you to pay him for the privilege.

The City, by the way, does not need the money. Revenues have skyrocketed for each of the past several years. We don't need a new tax. We need a new mayor -- one who won't squander your money. More about that later.

For now, we can chalk this up as a big victory. Without having to spend a dime of your generous contributions, we will be able to reach every single registered voter in the City of Los Angeles. That almost -- but doesn't quite -- make up for Villaraigosa's having spent $5 million of your tax money to add Proposition S to the special presidential primary election in February, rather than waiting for the next regular election in November.

"Liberal" Animal Control

2007-06-28T10:59:00.000-07:00

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

They are now coming after our four-legged companions.

Blue state after blue state is now engaged in mandating forced neutering and spaying of our pets -- and with a Dr. Strangelove fanaticism that should instead be directed at improving school systems or providing clinics with the necessary means for lessons on birth control for illegal aliens and unwed pregnant teenagers.

It began quietly in 1990 in San Mateo County, in Northern California. The Board of Supervisors approved the nation’s first law requiring all pets in that region ‘go under the knife.’

“We took a first step toward solving the animal overpopulation problem,” said Supervisor Tom Nolan, the instigator of the San Mateo ordinance. It grants authority to impose a $500 fine on violators who fail to neuter and spay their dogs.

Similar laws passed in New York, New Hampshire and Washington State. While the majority of states fund spay/neuter clinics through license fees, the blue states make it “mandatory” for dog and cat owners to neuter their pets. Nowhere in these proposals are there substantial fines or misdemeanors solely for irresponsible pet owners.

The most recent proposal blossomed the week of April 9, 2007 in Southern California: the “California Healthy Pets Act” (AB1634), which is a thin disguise to exterminate pets. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- the illegal alien’s best friend and leader of the largest Sanctuary City in the country -- has, to no one’s surprise, jumped like a bean with both feet into the fray as a partner to the legislation. He is the new king of finding ways to increase revenues without calling it a tax.

Proponents claim that this ordinance will raise proceeds via license/registration fees and fines to defray the cost of euthanasia, including other animal control services. The only accomplishment this new law will offer is the halving of registration and licensing compliance by pet owners who will go underground to protect their natural rights.

Doctors of Veterinary Medicine are not held to the same doctor/patient confidentiality agreements with a dog or cat, as is the ruling with human beings. Under AB1634, however, DVMs will be placed in the unappealing position of informant: to turn in pet owners whose un-neutered or un-spayed pet has been brought in for treatment.

How is this different from Hitler’s Eisantzgruppen? Will physicians become the states’ Gestapo-like task enforcers so that man’s best friends can be sterilized against their owners’ will (and ultimately vanish ‘for the greater good’)? Will this be the ‘Final Solution’ for some of God’s perfect creations whose only crime is that they were not born human?

On the one hand, curbing the birthrate of cats and dogs to 50% or less is, in and of itself, not a bad idea (unless you own shares in companies like Friskies, Science Diet, or Alpo). On the other hand, demanding without recourse that conscientious pet owners have their pets mutilated, particularly expensive purebred dogs and cats, is another example of the outrageous ideas that bounce up like a Pop Tart from the Liberal Think Tank toaster, such as with their exploitation of late-term abortions as a “progressive” idea.

Like so many other ideas that begin with seeds of sensibility, this one has grown into a morass of liberal logic. The people who dream up these foolish ideas are the same mindless obstructionists who don’t lose a minute’s sleep over the insurmountable problems imposed on society by, as a salient example, illegal immigrants: They overcrowd our hospitals giving birth to anchor babies; their offspring crowd our schools and run roughshod in gangs. They represent an inordinate number of the prison population, and too many, of late, have been caught driving drunk, without a license or documentation, after they killed innocent men, women and children. One of these illegals has been deported 17 times. How many animals are captured and set free 17 times?

We digress to make a specific point, which follows in a side-by-side comparison that shows what is sensible and what is preposterous:

Dogs and cats are not, and were never, a threat to our social infrastructure.

Illegal aliens are a problem that is straining to the breaking point American taxpayer resources, our legal system, our safety and our patience.

Dogs and cats do not purposefully cross state lines to steal, maim or kill for pleasure or gain.

Criminal illegal immigrants commit these offenses every hour of every day.

Dogs and cats expect nothing except a good rub behind the ears, a $3 toy, and one square meal a day.

Arrogant illegal immigrants demand immediate amnesty and equal rights of legal citizens, and offer nothing in return except a cheaper Big Mac.

Dogs and cats don’t roam avenues and boulevards in packs numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

Illegal immigrants force the lock-down of city streets to protest en masse American policies while waving their home countries’ flags, or American flags in faux patriotism at the behest of Spanish talking heads.

Dogs and cats are loyal and trustworthy.

Non-English speaking, rule-busting and intoxicated illegal immigrants are neither willing nor capable of being either.

Dogs and cats provide joy and unconditional love.

Self-seeking illegal immigrants bleed the American taxpayer unconditionally, and without conscience.

So, why are liberal politicians persistently pressing forward like Rommel’s panzer divisions to force pet owners to bring in their canines and felines to be anesthetized and sterilized, and at no later than four months of age? It’s a question that demands sober, logical, and credible answers. It presents the slippery slope of a liberal agenda that has quietly infiltrated American thought via educators and the media.

In the end, as always, the real victims are those who cannot speak for or defend themselves. They are being threatened with arbitrary rules composed by out-of-control liberals and their equally uncontrollable agendas. Clearly it seems that the ‘unborn’ are a menace to liberals: human fetuses and late-term babies allowed to be aborted with impunity, and now the attempt to eliminate conception amongst dogs and cats -- to wipe them out.

The Lefties of the 60s that scared everyone with the idea of over-population are still at it. It is not enough that we are faced with an extremist foreign agenda whose aim is to exterminate westerners. We are systematically being reduced in number, both human and animal inside our own borders. Imagine if the whole of America was placed into the efficient hands of the liberals: In less than two generations there would be no one remaining, except, of course, illegal aliens.

The question is, who will get there to finish the job first?

"A Time to Reap," by William Rivers Pitt

2007-06-20T12:39:00.000-07:00

William Rivers Pitt writes:

"There is something happening today in America. With the right kind of ears, you can hear it in the sound of millions of brows slowly furrowing in anger and disgust..."

Read the full article at the link, below.

Be amazed. Be a proud American.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062007A.shtml

I am Loyal Democrat

2007-03-28T11:21:00.000-07:00

I went to Townhall.com this morning to read Michelle Malkin's superb commentary, titled "I am John Doe."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2007/03/28/the_john_doe_manifesto

In the comments section, the first one came from an unknown individual, who I hope will forgive my posting their response here.

This is not my writing, so I take no credit whatsoever for it.

* * * * * * *

I am Loyal Democrat.

I will take the side of any entity that declares itself to be an enemy of the United States. I will consider any action taken by my government to be improper, and defend the position of any nation that opposes my own. I will not stand by while the concepts of freedom and liberty are allowed to infect the thoughts of repressed peoples. Rather, I will combat such efforts and convince the slaves of dictatorships that they have it better than anyone else.

I am Loyal Democrat.

I will tell all Americans that they had 9/11 coming as retribution for all of our evil deeds inflicted upon members of the most peaceful religion on earth. I will work to undermine any effort to destroy the Islamic tidal wave of terror that has vowed to wash onto our beaches. I will strive to weaken our military as it attempts to carry out its mission overseas. I shall encourage total surrender to any foe that threatens us.

I am Loyal Democrat.

I shall stir up domestic unrest by separating my fellow citizens into groups, and then I will encourage each group to distrust the next, and convince each that I am their one true friend. Through this magnificent deception, I will rule them all. I will convince minorities that they are inferior, and that they need my special help to succeed in life. Once I have them suspicious of others and fully demoralized, I will keep them down, and make their every gain dependent on what I decide to let them do. I shall oppress minorites worse than any avowed racist could ever hope to.

I am Loyal Democrat.

I will make every effort to criticize people that achieve, to hinder those that aspire, and ridicule those that display self-worth. In spite of my lack of personal merit, I will elevate myself in the eyes of others by bringing people with actual character down. I will prey on people's envy of others' success, and I will gain undeserved power as a result. I will take from those that earn until they lose the motivation to build up mankind any longer.

I am Loyal Democrat.

I will promote the tyranny of socialism, and crush the only economic system that has advanced mankind. And when we are all financially destitute and controlled by an omnipotent government, I shall laugh at the destruction I have wrought, for I truly hate mankind.

I am Loyal Democrat.

Give the Iraqi Police a Chance

2007-02-07T14:16:00.000-08:00

By Tim Kilbride
Special to American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2007 - Despite ongoing violence and intimidation around the country, Iraq's police forces are steadily growing in numbers and professionalism, the U.S. Army general who oversees Iraqi police training said today.

U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Kenneth Hunzeker, who previously served on the Joint Staff and commanded the 1st Infantry Division as it returned to the United States from Germany, assumed control of Multinational Security Transition Command Iraq's Civilian Police Assistance Training Team in October.

During a telephone question-and-answer session with bloggers and online journalists today, Hunzeker explained that his organization is working to help the Iraqi government, specifically the Ministry of Interior, assume sole control of the Iraqi National Police, the Department of Border Enforcement, and the chiefs of police and forces of Iraq's 18 provinces.

"We've trained and equipped them, and now we're trying to go to the next level with different training programs and different initiatives," Hunzeker said. "What I see on a daily basis is great leaders, great 'shertas' (police officers), putting their lives on the line and truly becoming a more professional force."

Recruitment figures among police forces have climbed throughout most of the country, Hunzeker said. In a televised briefing earlier in the day he noted, "We have trained more than 200,000 policemen and women, more than 19,000 above our target goal." However, he said, the effort is affected by underlying stability in each province.

"In the troubled areas -- it's those six provinces you hear about all the time where there's a lot of violence and the like -- that's truly your challenge as you go through this. Recruiting there is not at the numbers we would like," he told the online journalists, but, he noted, "we're still fairly successful."

Recruitment numbers in Anbar province have jumped recently, a change Hunzeker credited to increased rallying efforts by Marine expeditionary forces in the region and provincial sheiks, whose attitudes by way of insurgent violence he described as "I'm not going to take it any more."

Hunzeker said coalition forces are working with Anbar police chiefs to rapidly build the capacity to support and utilize the new strength, with results quickly becoming manifest.

"I think you're seeing the effects of it on the ground," he said. "I think we have turned the corner in al Anbar in many ways."

In Iraq's 12 mostly peaceful provinces, the general pointed to steady progress in institutionalizing law and order. "We're beginning to establish the rule of law, and the prisons and the courts are catching up, and the policemen are the action arm there," he said.

Enabling an effective, loyal and independent police force at the provincial level is essential to standing up the national government, Hunzeker explained.

"When you talk about the 18 different provinces and the 18 different police chiefs that exist out there, ... they clearly are in charge," he said. "They sit as the police chiefs for those provinces based upon the provincial councils that exist, so they have the ability to hire and fire out there. And it becomes their province and their police, which is so powerful when you talk about a unity government and the 18 different provincial governments underneath it."

Hunzeker extended his support for the Iraqi police in his description of Iraqi Interior Minister Jawad Bolani.

"He clearly gets it, and he's part of the solution, and he is the future of Iraq when it comes to what we're doing for Iraqi security forces," Hunzeker said. "He's dedicated; he's honest; and he doesn't take any nonsense when it comes to misbehavior."

Relaying a statement from Bolani about the forces under him, Hunzeker said, "Every day they make sacrifices for their country, where they are on duty serving and protecting their citizens despite all the challenges facing them."

Responding to allegations of militia infiltration within Iraqi police forces, Hunzeker framed the problem more as one of "intimidation" than infiltration, calling it a "gray area." He explained the difference in the Iraqis' perspective between "good militia and the bad militia."

"It's clearly a challenge," he added.

Hunzeker said that militias historically stand up to fill a security void. "Once the security forces are up and the numbers, and they have the faith and confidence of the electorate and the people of Iraq, then those militias will go away," he predicted.

The general admitted the pace in Iraq can be frustrating, likening it to "turning the aircraft carrier into the wind a little bit in some cases," but added, "Change is taking place."

Hunzeker explained that Iraq does not have a culture of immediacy and that the police force is standing up against a history of corruption and neglect under Saddam Hussein. However, he cautioned, "If it's going to be an Iraqi solution, it's got to be their way, and it's got to be their solution."

In spite of the challenges, Hunzeker expressed optimism that the Iraqi police will continue to grow in strength and professionalism.

"They are absolutely so positive, so incredibly upbeat, recognizing that, you know, they are the future of Iraq," he said. "They get it, so we better get it."

(Tim Kilbride is assigned to American Forces Information Service.)

[Web Version: http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=2969]

2007 Beer Study

2007-01-03T12:15:00.000-08:00

Sad news about beer.

You have to hope that this study is flawed, but the evidence seems irrefutable.

Yesterday, scientists suggested that the results of a recent analysis revealed the presence of female hormones in beer, and suggested that men should take a look at their beer consumption.

The theory is that drinking beer makes men turn into women.

To test the theory, 100 men were each fed 6 pints of beer within a one-hour period. It was then observed that 100% of the men:

a. Gained weight.
b. Talked excessively without making sense.
c. Became overly emotional.
d. Couldn't drive.
e. Failed to think rationally.
f. Argued over nothing.
g. Had to sit down while urinating.
h. Showed no interest in sex.
i. Refused to apologize when wrong.

No further testing is planned.

The Age of Reason Revisited

2006-12-26T12:27:00.000-08:00

By Lewis Napper from Mississippi (cir. 1993)

"We, the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid any more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt-ridden, deluded, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim that they require a Bill of No Rights."

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone ? not just you! You may leave the room, change the channel, or express a different opinion, but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful. Do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. It would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You don't have the right to demand that our children risk their lives in foreign wars to soothe your aching conscience. We hate oppressive governments and won't lift a finger to stop you from going to fight if you'd like. However, we do not enjoy parenting the entire world and do not want to spend so much of our time battling each and every little tyrant with a military uniform and a funny hat.

ARTICLE IX: You don't have the right to a job. Sure, all of us want all of you to have one, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE X: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to pursue happiness - which, by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an overabundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

If you agree, we strongly urge you to forward this to as many people as you can. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you should you not forward it. We just think it is about time common sense is allowed to flourish - call it: "The Age of Reason Revisited."

'Twas the Night Before Christmas - Legal Version

2006-12-22T14:53:00.000-08:00

Author Unknown

Whereas, on or about the night prior to Christmas, there did occur at a certain improved piece of real property (hereinafter "the House") a general lack of stirring by all creatures therein, including, but not limited to a mouse.

A variety of foot apparel, e.g. stocking, socks, etc., had been affixed by and around the chimney in said House in the hope and/or belief that St. Nick a/k/a/ St. Nicholas a/k/a/ Santa Claus (hereinafter "Claus") would arrive at sometime thereafter.

The minor residents, i.e. the children, of the aforementioned House, were located in their individual beds and were engaged in nocturnal hallucinations, i.e. dreams, wherein vision of confectionery treats, including, but not limited to, candies, nuts and/or sugar plums, did dance, cavort and otherwise appear in said dreams.

Whereupon the party of the first part (sometimes hereinafter referred to as "I"), being the joint-owner in fee simple of the House with the party of the second part (hereinafter "Mamma"), and said Mamma had retired for a sustained period of sleep. (At such time, the parties were clad in various forms of headgear, e.g. kerchief and cap.)

Suddenly, and without prior notice or warning, there did occur upon the unimproved real property adjacent and appurtent to said House, i.e. the lawn, a certain disruption of unknown nature, cause and/or circumstance. The party of the first part did immediately rush to a window in the House to investigate the cause of such disturbance.

At that time, the party of the first part did observe, with some degree of wonder and/or disbelief, a miniature sleigh (hereinafter the "Vehicle") being pulled and/or drawn very rapidly through the air by approximately eight (8) reindeer. The driver of the Vehicle appeared to be and in fact was, the previously referenced Claus.

Said Claus was providing specific direction, instruction and guidance to the approximately eight (8) reindeer and specifically identified the animal co-conspirators by name: Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donder and Blitzen (hereinafter the "Deer"). (Upon information and belief, it is further asserted that an additional co-conspirator named Rudolph may have been involved.)

The party of the first part witnessed Claus, the Vehicle and the Deer intentionally and willfully trespass upon the roofs of several residences located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the House, and noted that the Vehicle was heavily laden with packages, toys and other items of unknown origin or nature. Suddenly, without prior invitation or permission, either express or implied, the Vehicle arrived at the House, and Claus entered said House via the chimney.

Said Claus was clad in a red fur suit, which was partially covered with residue from the chimney, and he carried a large sack containing a portion of the aforementioned packages, toys, and other unknown items. He was smoking what appeared to be tobacco in a small pipe in blatant violation of local ordinances and health regulations.

Claus did not speak, but immediately began to fill the stockings of the minor children, which hung adjacent to the chimney, with toys and other small gifts. (Said items did not, however, constitute "gifts" to said minor pursuant to the applicable provisions of the U.S. Tax Code.) Upon completion of such task, Claus touched the side of his nose and flew, rose and/or ascended up the chimney of the House to the roof where the Vehicle and Deer waited and/or served as "lookouts." Claus immediately departed for an unknown destination.

However, prior to the departure of the Vehicle, Deer and Claus from said House, the party of the first part did hear Claus state and/or exclaim: "Merry Christmas to all and to all a good night!" Or words to that effect.

Respectfully Submitted,
s./ The Grinch

For My Democratic Friends ...

2006-11-30T16:10:00.000-08:00

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishes.

By accepting these greetings you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for him or her, or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

For My Republican Friends:

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

[Author Unknown]

Teen Brother and Sister Raise $1 Million For Our Soldiers

2006-10-20T10:26:00.000-07:00

By John D. Banusiewicz
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20, 2006 - A brother-and-sister team that has raised more than $1 million to provide pre-paid calling cards for deployed servicemembers shared the spotlight in Baltimore Oct. 17 with fellow recipients of the 2006 National Caring Awards, sponsored by the Caring Institute.

Brittany Bergquist, 15, and her brother, Robbie, 14, were honored for "Cell Phones for Soldiers," an effort they've spearheaded for the last two and a half years from their family's home in Norwell, Mass.

The Caring Institute is a nonprofit organization that promotes the values of caring, integrity, and public service, according to the organization's Web site. Among this year's other National Caring Award winners are the Rev. Billy Graham and baseball great Cal Ripken Jr.

Though the honor is gratifying, Brittany said, the attention it's bringing to Cell Phones for Soldiers is what's really important.

"The fact that we were able to be there at all -- around so many influential people and able to hear the stories of the other recipients -- was just incredible," she said. "It's great to be recognized for what we do, but when that happens, it means more people know about Cell Phones for Soldiers, and that's what matters the most. As more people know about the program, more people donate, and that means more calling cards for the soldiers."

The teenagers said they received a great deal of attention at the gala - Ripken even made a special trip to their table to express his admiration for their work - but they were most surprised at the attention they received the next day as they made their way through Baltimore-Washington International Airport for their flight home.

"We must have been recognized by at least 15 people," Brittany said. "They'd stop and ask us if we were the Cell Phones for Soldiers kids they'd seen at the dinner, and they'd say how much they admire what we do."

Robbie said he's thankful that he and his sister received the National Caring Award, and he echoed Brittany's hope that the honor will mean more deployed servicemembers will be able to receive pre-paid calling cards through their program.

"It was great to be up there getting an award that has gone to so many great people doing such important things," he said. "And it was nice to hear so many people telling us that what we're doing is important."

Cell Phones for Soldiers began in April 2004, when Brittany and Robbie saw a television news story about a deployed soldier who had run up a huge cell phone bill calling his family from Iraq. They pooled their own money, sought donations from friends, and started an account at a local bank, hoping to raise enough money to pay the soldier's phone bill. The bank even kicked in a donation, and the word spread.

Meanwhile, the cell phone company forgave the soldier's bill, so the teenagers decided to keep up the effort and help as many deployed servicemembers as possible stay in touch with their families and friends at home.

With help from their schoolteacher parents, Bob and Gail, and their sister, Courtney, the siblings have built a network of sponsors and partners both large and small, and have distributed more than 80,000 pre-paid calling cards. They fund the program through direct donations and by collecting and recycling used cell phones, other electronic devices and printer cartridges. They've lined up drop-off centers all over the country, which are listed on the program's Web site.

As successful as their program has been, the siblings want to do more. They're working now with military family support organizations to create a spin-off program called Cell Phones for Returning Heroes. The idea is to provide pre-loaded disposable cell phones to the family groups, which in turn would distribute the phones at airports to servicemembers returning from deployment.

"The troops do so much for all of us," Robbie said. "It shouldn't cost them anything to call home."

The teenagers' selection for the National Caring Award comes with induction into the Hall of Fame for Caring Americans at the Frederick Douglass Museum here.

Cell Phones for Soldiers is a member of the Defense Department's America Supports You program, which highlights efforts by the American people and the nation's corporate sector to support the nation's men and women in uniform.

[Web Version: http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=1714]

Margaret Thatcher gives her "A-OK" to Mitt Romney, the next President of the United States

2006-10-17T12:49:00.000-07:00

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Sunday, Oct. 15, 2006 10:48 p.m. EDT
Romney Gets Nod From Margaret Thatcher

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney met Baroness Margaret Thatcher at a Washington think tank last month, a visit that the Times of London is describing as "an unmistakable sign to conservatives that he was 'one of us.'"

"Can you imagine? It was such an extraordinary honour to be able to sit down with her person-to-person," Romney said in his first interview with a British newspaper. "We talked about the condition of the world and I said, "I'm optimistic that we'll overcome these problems," and she paused and said, "We always have."

Thatcher, who was Britain's prime minister during President Reagan's time in office, developed a strong and warm relationship with Reagan and was an important ally of America. Romney is hoping the similarities he shares with Reagan as a popular governor with movie-star good looks, the ability to lead as a conservative in a liberal state, and as an appealing candidate to swing voters, will help him connect with conservatives. His meeting with Thatcher is likely to give him momentum in the right direction.

Romney, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, is generating enormous buzz as the conservative with the best chance of beating Sen. John McCain for the 2008 Republican nomination. When his term in office expires in January, Romney is expected to throw himself helter-skelter into the presidential race.

According to the Times, Romney will have to take more risks to lift his candidacy out of the ordinary. Just as the Democrats are searching for a credible alternative to Clinton, so the Republicans want a candidate who can square up to the heavyweight McCain "an "American hero," in Romney's words, who is certainly "one of the leading contenders."

Romney's ascension will be evident if England's Tories invite him to address next year's party conference McCain attended this year's gathering in Bournemouth.

"I'd love to speak to my conservative colleagues in the mother country," Romney laughed.

President Bush Talks About Protecting America

2006-10-13T13:42:00.000-07:00

By Gerry J. Gilmore
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Oct. 13, 2006 - The most solemn responsibility of the federal government is to protect the American people, and the U.S. government has taken many steps to better protect its people since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush said here today.

"Protecting our homeland also requires protecting our seaports," Bush said just before he signed the SAFE Port Act at a Capitol Hill ceremony.

America's seaports are vitally important to the nation's economic health, Bush observed, noting they are the gateways to worldwide trade and commerce.

"Our ports could also be a target of a terrorist attack, and we're determined to protect them," he said.

The new law leverages technology to enhance security at U.S. ports, Bush said. For example, customs inspectors can employ high-tech devices to look inside shipping containers without opening them. The bill also authorizes the use of radiation-detection equipment at 22 of America's busiest ports by the end of 2007, Bush said.

"America has the best technology in the world," Bush said. "And, with this bill, we'll apply that technology to make our ports the safest in the world."

The new legislation also codifies the Container Security Initiative implemented in 2002. That program deploys U.S. customs inspectors to dozens of foreign ports where they screen ship's cargo before it departs for American destinations.

The bill also codified the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, a joint private/public sector initiative designed to bolster cargo security, Bush said. The program requires private shippers to improve their security measures. Participants receive benefits, such as faster clearance through U.S. ports, in return, Bush said.

In addition, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, which guards against terrorists smuggling a nuclear device into America, gets added authority under the new law, the president said.

"All these efforts are smart; they're working; and with this bill, they're here to stay," Bush said.

The SAFE Port Act also tasks the Department of Homeland Security to develop a plan to accelerate the resumption of trade in the event of an attack on U.S. ports or waterways.

"This bill makes clear that the federal government has the authority to clear waterways, identify clean-up equipment, and reestablish the flow of commerce following a terrorist attack," Bush explained. "We'll do everything we can to prevent an attack, but if the terrorists succeed in launching an attack, we'll be ready to respond."

The U.S. government has more than tripled spending on homeland security since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Bush said. The Department of Homeland Security was established in November 2002, and hundreds of thousands of emergency first responders have been fielded across the country. Security at airports and aboard commercial airliners has been improved. Security at the U.S. borders has been bolstered, Bush noted, and there's added security for bridges, tunnels and other critical infrastructure across America.

"We have a responsibility to protect the homeland, and we're meeting that responsibility," he said.

[Web Version: http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=1601]

The Constitution is a Bucket of Chicken

2006-09-25T10:40:00.000-07:00

By Mistral Rouge, with contributions from Red Writer

Look at and listen to any news story -- print or otherwise -- and the word "right" or "rights" come up a dozen times, whether quoted by a first grade teacher changing the lyrics to "Silent Night, Holy Night," or a pundit yammering about the issue du jour, a politician about the debate du jour, or a Hollywood actor taking front stage at the U.N. for a camera op about any cause that is not American.

The only time I seem to never see these words are in articles, commentaries and interviews with or about the likes of Hugo Chavez, and Alma ... Ahmad ... ah, heck, the Iranian midget trying to pass himself off as a world leader (because he can't pass the height test for rides at Disneyland).

If, by now, you do not know to whom I am referring, please click away from here and go back to either Telemundo or Agence France Presse and read or watch to your heart's delight how "Pass the Buck" Bill Clinton swears that, throughout his administration, he and his goon squad "...had no idea al Qaeda even existed." Of course he had no idea; he was too busy having his ears waxed and his engine lubed by a certain Ms. M. L. Bubba, when are you going to wise up that the American people are not stupid.

I momentarily dirtied my hands mentioning thugs such as Hugo and the midget, because in their respective countries human rights have ceased to exist. [I'm now soaking my digits in alcohol.]

Back in the states, things sometimes don't seem to be any better, thanks to Liberals and their swizzle-stick interpretations of "right" and "rights." There are the rights of terrorists, the rights of alleged perpetrators ("You have the right to remain silent..."), the right to display pornography on the Internet, but not the Ten Commandments on state or federal property (yet, next time you visit the Capitol Building in Washington D.C., please note all ten of the Commandments are chiseled in marble and stone everywhere you look).

I hear about the rights of illegal aliens to march on American soil waving flags that have no connection to me or our Stars & Stripes and demanding the same rights that my ancestors worked for and earned legally to live, eat, and breathe freely as U.S. Citizens. My ancestors did not demand American citizenship. They didn't dare. They had to work for it, and mighty hard at that. Today, cretins from all points of the globe have the unmitigated gall to plant themselves in our terra firma and issue demands for complete amnesty and citizenship after they entered this country illegally. And, thanks again to myopic Liberals, they're going to get it! Amazing, and sad.

I hear the word "rights" in debates, arguments and complaints issued by the ACLU in court when standing in defense of the bad guys, or defending the tearing down of a monument to the Ten Commandments, or eradicating a mini cross (maybe half the size of my thumb) on the state seal of the State of California.

The ACLU are so good at wronging so many rights in the Constitution -- shape-shifting these sacred laws to correspond to their dirty work. They seem to have no conscience when it comes to rending specific laws and articles, like watching a carload of Chavez supporters tearing into a bucket of hot wings, so that only a brittle mainframe remains of what was once a great and majestic ship -- our Constitution -- which was constructed to protect us, which shielded us, and which saved us from treacherous men, ideas and wars.

Today, friends and family acknowledge that they understand my meaning when, about two years ago, I referred to the ACLU as the new millennium Brown Shirts (the Sturmabteilung, the hoodlum Nazi stormtroopers who assisted Adolf Hitler ascend to his reptilian power).

You know where I don't hear the word "rights"? It's not even whispered in connection with the sanctity of the burials of our soldiers. The only visuals that come through clearly are the sordid hordes of protesting marchers waving anti-war banners. These are brazen acts committed by shameless people who are setting rotten examples for their children, and their children's children, and anyone else's children who happen to be looking in that direction.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was quoted saying, "A simple way to take measure of a country [America] is to look at how many want in ... and how many want out."

To all you brazen, shameless freeloaders, if you don't like it here in America, if you don't like the way the home of the free and the land of the brave is governed, I suggest you all hop a freighter and head down to Venezuela, or over to Iran, where the likes of you will be welcomed with open arms -- then shackles, chains, cattle prods, ...