A message from one angry mom

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ...

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

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

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

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

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, ...