Big Girl Pants

do you remember? - redub

in 2007 i ran this post - given the stupidness of what's happening now, i felt it appropriate to run it again today.  a few things in my post should be changed - our current student is mongolian and i'm living in cali and not kc and it's been eight years now instead of six; but that's about it.  i still work from home and i still cry at the thought of those planes.  hitting the towers.  hitting our pentagon.  going down at the hands of those aboard to spare further horror in that pennsylvania field.

for those whom this attack was personal in 2001, it still is, it always will be.  and because it was personal to some very close to me, it's personal for me too.  i believe it should be personal for all of us.  i hope my readers agree...

______________________________________________________________________________________

do you remember?

i do.  so do our braves sons and daughters standing in harm's way around the world.  and so do the terrorists.

sitting here, working from home, watching the memorial services and it's all so fresh.  from the first moment of silence at 08:46 (EDT) to the last one at 10:20 (EDT) the tears just flowed and i couldn't have done anything to stop them had i tried.

right now we have an exchange student from the czech republic.  he's getting a unique perspective that he could never have received in europe.  it's [probably] highly unlikely he'd get this same experience with any other host family here.  from his surprise that we fly the u.s. and federalist flags everyday, the flying of the flag at half-mast today, he's been just one question after another.

we have exchange students every year and it never ceases to amaze me how skewed is their concept of free.  i can't help but think that our founding fathers would find what passes for freedom in our current reality, here in the u.s., to be unacceptable.  and yet, we are still the most free country on the face of the earth.

six years ago today, i stepped out of the shower to the image of the first tower burning.  moments later i watched, live, as the second plane crashed into the second tower.  it was then that i realized the first tower hit wasn't an accident.  we were truly under attack.

at the time, we were living in houston about six miles from nasa.  when the plane hit the second tower, i left to get my children from school.  no matter how irrational, i just wanted my children with me.  my oldest daughter, katerina, was waiting for me.  seems she "knew" i'd be coming as soon as they made the announcement at her high school.  no idea how she knew, but i guess i've always been neurotic about the safety of my kids.  my other two children, jesse and tatiana, were younger; they really didn't understand why mom and dad were so upset.  i'm not sure they yet have any idea.  kat gets it.  she remembers.

but honestly, i don't think that most people remember.  certainly the msm doesn't remember.  sure they remember that it happened, but not the significance of it all.  they don't remember the pain of realizing our innocence, as a nation, was gone forever.  they don't remember the horror of not knowing who it was or why or if more was imminent.  do you?

we don't see those video images on the t.v. any more - seems the experts are worried that viewing the destruction will breed anger and hatred.  apparently they are correct as islamist terrorists are seemingly using the videos for recruiting more jihad.  they remember.  they don't want you to remember. 

they want you to believe the conspiracists.  they want you to belive the msm and george soros and his moveon organization.  they want you to believe the talking heads in the democrat party.  they want you to believe that the war in iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.

they know that if you believe the lies being passed off by these groups that you will be more likely to think we're safe here no matter what the "warmongerers" are telling you.  they know that if you believe you're safe that you'll be more likely to pressure washington to abandon iraq.  and maybe even afghanistan.  and maybe even ignore any dangers from iran, if it comes to that.

nearly 3000 people dead on our soil.  six years ago today.  nearly 5000 american service men and women dead in this war on terror since oif started more than 5 years ago.  many related terrorist plots foiled (worldwide) by our allies and our own country in the past six years. 

in the new tape released, today, obl says that the only way the u.s. will escape further wrath from the islamists is if we all convert to islam.  but don't look for this statement to change the dribble spewing forth from the defeatists.  don't look for them to admit that the terrorist hate us not because of our capitalism or any other reason than the fact that we are not an islamic state.  it doesn't fit their policy of cut and run, so look to even this statement being ignored. 

already, today, i am hearing claims that obl isn't the man in charge any more.  where before these same people were calling on the president to abandon iraq because the "real war" is wherever obl is, my guess is that these people will now start trying to make the case that there is no "real leader" and therefore we need to go back to treating the terrorists as criminals, not combatants.  this will be the new justification for abandoning iraq and not fighting any more.

i, for one, will never forget.  i will remember until the day i die that morning when my view of the world changed forever.  i will always remember the innocence of the world i grew up in, snatched from my childrens' hands before they even knew it.  i will remember, with pride, for as long as i live the brave souls on flight 93 who said "let's roll" and then did.  i will remember fear i felt wondering if my friend was safely out of the pentagon when flight 77 hit (thankfully she was late that day and parking as the plane came in). 

i will remember the horrors, the fear, the pain, the disbelief and the pride always and i will try to communicate that frequently to everyone i meet who does not remember.  will you?

do you remember?

i do.  so do our braves sons and daughters standing in harm's way around the world.  and so do the terrorists.

sitting here, working from home, watching the memorial services and it's all so fresh.  from the first moment of silence at 08:46 (EDT) to the last one at 10:20 (EDT) the tears just flowed and i couldn't have done anything to stop them had i tried.

right now we have an exchange student from the czech republic.  he's getting a unique perspective that he could never have received in europe.  it's [probably] highly unlikely he'd get this same experience with any other host family here.  from his surprise that we fly the u.s. and federalist flags everyday, the flying of the flag at half-mast today, he's been just one question after another.

we have exchange students every year and it never ceases to amaze me how skewed is their concept of free.  i can't help but think that our founding fathers would find what passes for freedom in our current reality, here in the u.s., to be unacceptable.  and yet, we are still the most free country on the face of the earth.

six years ago today, i stepped out of the shower to the image of the first tower burning.  moments later i watched, live, as the second plane crashed into the second tower.  it was then that i realized the first tower hit wasn't an accident.  we were truly under attack.

at the time, we were living in houston about six miles from nasa.  when the plane hit the second tower, i left to get my children from school.  no matter how irrational, i just wanted my children with me.  my oldest daughter, katerina, was waiting for me.  seems she "knew" i'd be coming as soon as they made the announcement at her high school.  no idea how she knew, but i guess i've always been neurotic about the safety of my kids.  my other two children, jesse and tatiana, were younger; they really didn't understand why mom and dad were so upset.  i'm not sure they yet have any idea.  kat gets it.  she remembers.

but honestly, i don't think that most people remember.  certainly the msm doesn't remember.  sure they remember that it happened, but not the significance of it all.  they don't remember the pain of realizing our innocence, as a nation, was gone forever.  they don't remember the horror of not knowing who it was or why or if more was imminent.  do you?

we don't see those video images on the t.v. any more - seems the experts are worried that viewing the destruction will breed anger and hatred.  apparently they are correct as islamist terrorists are seemingly using the videos for recruiting more jihad.  they remember.  they don't want you to remember. 

they want you to believe the conspiracists.  they want you to belive the msm and george soros and his moveon organization.  they want you to believe the talking heads in the democrat party.  they want you to believe that the war in iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.

they know that if you believe the lies being passed off by these groups that you will be more likely to think we're safe here no matter what the "warmongerers" are telling you.  they know that if you believe you're safe that you'll be more likely to pressure washington to abandon iraq.  and maybe even afghanistan.  and maybe even ignore any dangers from iran, if it comes to that.

nearly 3000 people dead on our soil.  six years ago today.  nearly 5000 american service men and women dead in this war on terror since oif started more than 5 years ago.  many related terrorist plots foiled (worldwide) by our allies and our own country in the past six years. 

in the new tape released, today, obl says that the only way the u.s. will escape further wrath from the islamists is if we all convert to islam.  but don't look for this statement to change the dribble spewing forth from the defeatists.  don't look for them to admit that the terrorist hate us not because of our capitalism or any other reason than the fact that we are not an islamic state.  it doesn't fit their policy of cut and run, so look to even this statement being ignored. 

already, today, i am hearing claims that obl isn't the man in charge any more.  where before these same people were calling on the president to abandon iraq because the "real war" is wherever obl is, my guess is that these people will now start trying to make the case that there is no "real leader" and therefore we need to go back to treating the terrorists as criminals, not combatants.  this will be the new justification for abandoning iraq and not fighting any more.

i, for one, will never forget.  i will remember until the day i die that morning when my view of the world changed forever.  i will always remember the innocence of the world i grew up in, snatched from my childrens' hands before they even knew it.  i will remember, with pride, for as long as i live the brave souls on flight 93 who said "let's roll" and then did.  i will remember fear i felt wondering if my friend was safely out of the pentagon when flight 77 hit (thankfully she was late that day and parking as the plane came in). 

i will remember the horrors, the fear, the pain, the disbelief and the pride always and i will try to communicate that frequently to everyone i meet who does not remember.  will you?

the inmates are running the asylum

or maybe it's more accurate to say there are gypsies in the palace (my apologies to jimmy buffet, although he probably LOVES the current administration).  barely four months into this administration and nearly everything that defined this country as different from all the other nations on the face of the earth has either been decimated or it is about to be.

apparently those who are currently in power in washington have never learned the things that the rest of us did in kindergarten.  things like "bullies do not respond in kind to people being nice to them, they back down only when confronted with a force that is equal to or greater than their own."  things like "there is no guarantee of "fairness" in this world, only the equal application of rules."  things like "people CHOOSE their feelings on any given day, but logic is always the same and testable."  things like "socialism, or redistribution of wealth (property, awards, etc.) has never been successful in all the history of the world, but the free market always succeeds."

apparently, because they have never learned these lessons, the rest of us are to be condemned to the hell they are busy creating for us.  the only good thing about it is that they will be living in that hell with us - but that's dang small consolation.

i have long been silent here because it seems like there is nothing but negativism.  i KNOW how i feel about things and it's all been so overwhelming.  that is what has been keeping me quiet, and that is what now compels me to make an offering of my blog once again. 

things i've noticed (and are driving me crazy) about the current crop of liberals in our country and especially those illustrious folks who make up the current administration:

1. they believe that if we just join hands and sing kum-bay-ah in the right key with those who would do grave harm to americans around the world that they will like us, but do not believe that anyone could find fault with any of the policies and beliefs they put forth.
   
   essentially, if someone expresses hatred or contempt for america or americans, we MUST pause and ask "what have we done to make him (or her or them) feel this way?", but if anyone expresses a like sentiment about what liberals are doing (or trying to do) to this country, then that person must be some combination of stupid, racist or truly evil.
2. 1. 2.  the democrats love to take credit for the balanced budget while bill clinton was cic (it was a republican congress), love(d) to denegrate george bush for his "out of control spending", but now that The One has been spending money faster than you can say "bob's your uncle", it's necessary in order for the country to recover.  huh?
      
      i can't be the only one who's noticed that obama's spending theatrics are nothing more than an extension of the spending that fdr engaged in in the 30's.  if this type of spending were truly a stimulus then why did the u.s. fall into a great depression while the rest of the world had a recession and recovered?  well, except for the weimar republic, but they were busy spending and preparing a way for the rise of adolf hitler.  the spending of neither country resulted in unprecedented prosperity - nor any real prosperity for that matter - but rather a great sharing of misery and lack of funds for even basic necessities across all classes.
       
3. in a recent posting from dick morris he comments on quotes from caroline glick (editor and op-ed writer for the jerusalem post) and comes to the very real conclusion that we may well be witnessing the death of israel.   ms. glick is well connected in netanyahu's government and she cites sources (most likely from within that same government) who say:
   
   "...we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the U.S. will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy."
   
   what's most concerning to me is that her sources also say that obama's administration is "desparate" to stop israel from attacking iran.  further noting that the u.s. administration has told netanyahu's government that anything that happens to any u.s. interests as a result of israel attacking nuclear sites in iran would be viewed "as israel's doing, not iran's."   so let me make certain i have this straight:
   
   a.) there are several u.n. resolutions and sanctions agains iran pertaining to nuclear weapons.
   b.) iran has promised to wipe israel off the map should they actually gain nuclear weapons.
   c.) obama has given a deadline of end-of-year 2009 for iran to engage in, and comply with, talks aimed at stopping iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. 
   d.) if israel does anything to thwart iran's progress in the realm of nuclear weapons, the jews are the bad guys.
   
   let's set aside the fact that obama has said there is no military action behind his threats - let's concentrate on his promise of more u.n. sanctions if they don't bend to the will of israel and the u.s. - uh yeah, because those have worked so well thus far.  and what of russia and china - does anyone really think they'll lift a finger to impose more sanctions against iran?  really?
   
   if iran gets the bomb, we are witnessing an end to israel.  and make no mistake, the end has been hastened on by those jews who voted FOR obama.  there  is no excuse.  these folks are no different than those jews who voted for adolf hitler (yes, there were some) - or anyone else who voted for hitler for that matter.  they are no different than the jews who championed fdr as the new messiah (sound familiar anyone?) and then did nothing to pressure fdr to DO SOMETHING - even to taking jewish refugees into the united states.
   
   mr. morris closes out his column with an analysis of which i cannot find any error:
   
   "...If we remain complacent, we will have the same anguish at watching the destruction of Israel that our forebears had in witnessing the Holocaust.
   
   Because one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb. And neither is Hillary Clinton.
   
   Obama may have held the first White House seder, but he's not planning to spend next year in Jerusalem."
   
4. for the past eight years, most of those on the left have been yelling "no litmus test for judges, no litmus test for judges."  today, obama nominated sonia sotomayer to the replace justice david souter on the highest court in the land.  for those of you who have been asleep for the past few weeks, he has been publicly announcing his criteria for his nomination: compassionate, empathetic, female, minority - can someone out there please explain how this criterion is NOT a litmus test?  my good friend z has more on this subject, but i wanted to add my two cents worth, too.
   
   while it IS true that sonia sotomayer's certification will NOT change the current make-up of the supremes, she should never have been considered a candidate for scotus.  the only thing i will offer in defense of my words is this video where sotomayer scoffs at the constitution, says judges make policies and posits that as a latina she's wiser than white males:

i'm so disgusted with what is happening.  it's demoralizing and damaging.  and wrong.  so now what?  all of this puts me in mind of some of the final words george washington spoke as president of this nation.  in his farewell address he said "Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."  a wise man he was to know that THEY would come.

the last country of freedom & possibility?

In 1970 a KGB operative from the USSR, an expert in Indian culture and languages, found himself disgusted with the Soviet system and made his way to the West.  His migration was at great personal risk, but he had decided he must be free and so he defected to the United States.

In 1984, G. Edward Griffin conducted an indepth interview of the ex-KGB operative, Yuri Bezmenov, which was essentially a study of comparison and contrast between the United States and the USSR.  A portion of that interview is in the video below.  It's important, as you watch this video, to remember that this interview is from 1984 - amazing how no one heeded his warnings and we are so much further down the path to total communism/socialism than we were then.

In 1984, Mr. Griffin billed Mr. Bezmenov as "one of the world’s outstanding experts on the subject of Soviet propaganda and disinformation and active measures." And while I've been unable to find anything on or from Mr. Bezmenov within the past few years - IF he is still alive, I have to believe that this moniker would still stand.

In November of last year, Useless Dissident transcribed a different part of this same interview.  It's a great read that gives you a little bit of Yuri's background and where he's coming from in making the statements he makes in the above mentioned interview.

Very early in that interview - remember this was 25 years ago - Mr. Griffin put forth the following question:

"In this country, at the university level primarily, we read and hear that the Soviet system is different from ours, but not that different. And that there is a convergence developing between all of the systems of the world, and that really it doesn’t make an awful lot of difference what system you live under because you have corruption and dishonesty and tyranny and all that sort of thing. From your personal experience, what is the difference between life under Communism and life in the United States?"

It's clear that, although few of us realized it at the time, we were already well down the path to the  one world 'convergence', let alone collectivism, that Mr. Griffin mentions in his question.  And today we're running down that road with the [uninformed] blessing of a good percentage of the population.

It's obvious that we never did heed bezmenov's recommendations for the proper, America-appreciating  education

of our youth and our citizens - So is it now too late for the U.S.? 

What of the "force" he speaks of?  Obama has been in office less than 30 days and we are further down the road to complete socialism than any could have thought would be possible after 30 months.

The constitution is worse than, as Thomas Jefferson warned, a 'mere thing of wax' in the hands of the Judiciary - It is now nothing even worse than that in the hands of the most horrible Congress in the history of our country.  The graceless bunglers making up this current Congress is working hard to reduce our country to a country of collectivism.

And if we don't stop it now, it will be too late.

the enigma who is barack hussein obama

We The People, in order to preserve a more balanced reality, are committed to learning the truth and uncovering the obscurity of a presidential candidate; a man long cloaked in a mysterious veil, and one that we presume hides the truth and distorts the true man who is Barack Obama. Our opposition to Mr. Obama is not a factor of race, ethnic identity, nor even his place of domicile (i.e., Chicago); it is rather about his past associations, his character, his judgment, and his vision for the future of the United States of America. We believe that these are valid questions and concerns, that the American press has failed to address them in an honest and forthright manner, and that the American people have the right to know the answers to several questions. Despite rhetoric designed to mislead and misinform the American voter, such as that Barack Obama is a political centrist; that he sincerely wants to change politics inside the beltway; and/or there is hope for a new day under an Obama administration, the issue of his past associations, statements, and activities demand greater scrutiny. We have learned that Mr. Obama’s associations have deep roots within the modern socialist movement, black separatist theology, known ties to anti-Jewish/Pro-Muslim persons, and Chicago-styled machine-politics. We believe that when combined these radical elements present a clear and present danger to American social tradition and every citizen’s quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “A” list of Mr. Obama’s associates includes (but is not limited to):

William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, who by his own admission assures us that he did not participate in enough acts of terror to advance his cause properly, has achieve national attention. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose vile condemnations of “white America” entertained Mr. Obama for twenty years. Rev. Louis Farrakhan (born: Louis Eugene Walcott) who, as the leader of the Nation of Islam is a racist, a black separatist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite. Barack Obama joined with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi supporting Raila Odinga in his bid to become president of Kenya. Odinga’s political defeat resulted in Muslim violence, burning churches, murdering 1,000 anti-Odinga voters, and renewed demands for the imposition of Shari’ah Law. Abongo (Roy) Obama, the brother of Barack, is a former Christian now radical Muslim convert, supporter of Cousin Raila Odinga. Roy Obama wants to institute Shari’ah law, wants Barack Obama to convert back to Islam and, as an American president, adopt anti-Israeli policies. Moussa Marzook is a member of Hamas and author of the Hamas Manifesto, first published in the Los Angeles Times and later reprinted and sold by Jeremiah Wright from the vestibule of Trinity United Church of Christ. Mr. Marzook was indicted by the United States government on issues relating to foreign terrorist activities inside the United States of America. Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for the American presidency in April 2008. Tony Rezko gave financial backing to Barack Obama early in his to-date short-lived political career. Even though Mr. Obama plays down the association with Mr. Rezko, it is difficult to ignore that the facts prove differently. (See also: Allison Davis, below) Nadhmi Auchi is linked to Barack Obama through Tony Rezko. He is an Iraqi born billionaire who the U. S. government claims operated as a bagman for Saddam Hussein. He is a London-based financier, one of the world’s richest men. In 2003, he was convicted of fraud involving the “Elf Affair,” Europe’s largest scandal since the end of World War II. Allison Davis, former employer of Barack Obama, who later closed his law firm and became a partner of Tony Rezko. Davis assigned Mr. Obama to legal work on behalf of Mr. Rezko. Rev. James T. Meeks, whom Barack Obama regularly sought for counseling, who served as an Obama delegate at the Democratic Convention and is a long-time political ally, who aided Obama as an influential black supporter, received funding from Tony Rezko. Meeks is known for anti-Jewish and homophobic rhetoric. Rashid Khalidi, along with William Ayers and Barack Obama, is a former professor at Chicago University. He directs the Palestine Press Agency in Beirut, is an agent of the Arab American Action Network, and according to a top official of former-President George H. W. Bush and a former CIA intelligence officer, former Weather Underground leader William Ayers funneled money to Khalidi, who maintains ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi also received $70,000 from the Woods Fund, and held fund-raising events in his home on behalf of Barack Obama. Barack Obama is a former director of The Woods Fund, a non-profit organization that, in addition to its interests in “giving a voice to less advantaged people,” helped funnel money to Rashid Khalidi for the Arab American Action Network, which presumably includes Palestinian interests within the United States. The Woods Fund also helps to finance “community organizing, and public policy.” Created in 1995 to help raise funds to reform Chicago public schools, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge involved William Ayers as a leading founder, who in turn appointed Barack Obama to its board of directors. Mr. Obama served on the board for six years. According to investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz, writing for the Wall Street Journal, reforming Chicago public schools is a bid misleading: it was a program designed to radicalize students more than it was to educate them. According to Ayers, “Teachers should be community organizers, dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.”

Astute Bloggers has illustrated additional past associations; it is a well-researched expose providing a clear view of what lays just beneath the surface of Obama’s deception. We understand why Mr. Obama would want to play down these associations; we do not understand why the American news media would assist him in doing so. Nevertheless, Astute Bloggers lifts the veil on two well-known groups: The New Party, and the Chicago Democrat Socialists of America. Let's take a closer look.

The New Party is an obscure, lesser-known political group. It practices a political strategy called electoral fusion, which entails placing a political candidate on several lines of the same ballot. An example of how electoral fusion works is located at this page; look for the lead “Vote your values,” two-thirds of the way down on the right-hand side of the page. Once a candidate receives the support of Democratic kingmakers, and if the New Party feels the candidate will serve their socialist cause, they will add the candidate's name more than once in order to gain votes that are more popular. From the above link:

The New Party is an umbrella organization for grassroots political groups working to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over our political process. Our current work and long-term strategy is to change states' election rules to allow fusion voting - a method of voting that allows minor parties to have their own ballot line with which they can either endorse their own candidates or endorse the candidates of other parties. Through fusion, minor parties don't have to always compete in the winner-take-all two party system and can avoid "spoiling" - throwing an election to the most conservative candidate by splitting the votes that might go to two more progressive candidates (ours and another party's).

Not surprisingly, “community organizing” is the bedrock of The New Party; socialist progressivism is their ideology. The Chicago chapter maintains a close relationship to the Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). According to this

1996 publication, Barack Obama is clearly affiliated with The New Party

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last spring and face off against Republican opponents on Election Day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate), and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). Note: Readers familiar with Chicago politics will recognize the names of former Chicago mayor Danny Davis on that list also.

From this evidence, we begin to understand the role electoral fusion played in Mr. Obama’s rapid rise to political power. Chicago Democrat Socialists of America pursues socio-political programs implied by the title of their organization, but even this organization is more than meets the eye. Cornel West, while serving as an Honorary Chair to Chicago DSA penned a remarkably revealing essay entitled Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism. Chicago DSA and Dr. West were particularly interested in Barack Obama because of his New Party affiliation, his success in running for State senator, and the strategies he employed, to wit: “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.” Well, so what if Barack Obama peaks the interest of the Chicago DSA? It is important because no one backs a dark-horse candidate unless there is a chance he will win, and/or there is a reasonable expectation for a return of political capital. In an article entitled, The End of Liberalism socialist author Daniel Cantor wrote, “A massive Times-Mirror poll registered 53% of the public in favor of a ‘major third party,’ so there's no doubt that the soil is fertile. Among the hopeful contenders is the ‘New Party,’ one of a handful of newly forming independent, progressive parties in the country. New Party chapters have backed 93 candidates in nine states over the last eighteen months and won 62 elections.” An index of New Party political propaganda is available, here. Daniel Cantor, of course, is the executive director of New York’s Working Families Party, another socialist group with chapters in Connecticut and Oregon. He urges socialists, “Vote Your Values.” This would appear to be good advice for everyone with values. John Nichols writes for The Nation, a politically progressive publication. Nichols is a well-established writer, perhaps best known for ad nausium demands for the impeachment of George W. Bush for war crimes and other frivolous reasons; so much for his credibility. Taken by themselves, none of these concerns will alter the course of human history. After all, as Americans, we encourage political and social discourse; we value the right of everyone to express an opinion, no matter how insane that opinion may be, and all of us have the right to associate with anyone we choose. Yet it is instructive to note that socialist radicals have completely infiltrated the Democratic Party, and we need no further proof than the inane rhetoric emanating from every Democrat in the House and Senate. The concern expressed in this essay is not that other ideas are unworthy of debate; it is rather that Barack Obama freely decided to associate with dangerously radical and disreputable influences and he now seeks to hide those associations. Why would he do that? Barack Obama wants to become our next president; he knows that most Americans repudiate Marxist/socialist ideology; he is aware that if most voters begin to see the real Barack Obama, John McCain will win the election. But we believe that Barack Obama has been dishonest with American voters who are capable of thinking. We believe he has taken advantage of Americans voters who are incapable of thinking. We believe that if Mr. Obama stepped up to a microphone and told us what he really believes, he would be lucky to win the post of an Animal Control Specialist. Honesty, truthfulness, clarity, judgment, motivation, patriotism, and common sense are all important attributes for the office of the President of the United States. We do not believe that Barack Obama has any of these qualities. And, if Mr. Barack Obama has been less than truthful about his associations, what makes anyone think we can trust his campaign promises, his vision for America? The fact is that every man is free to associate with whomever he pleases; but this does not protect any man from judgments about those associations. We believe that the sheer weight of Mr. Obama’s involvement with questionable individuals and organizations will lead a reasonable person to query both his judgment and motivation for nefarious associations. We the People of the United States, who are also a loose confederation of bloggers, categorically reject Barack Obama for president. He is a radical socialist, he is a black separatist, a racist, he harbors pro-Muslim/Anti-Jewish sentiments and associates, he identifies with homophobes, convicted swindlers, known terrorists, creative financiers, and he has already signaled his willingness to sacrifice National Security for a dialogue with Muslim fanatics. We cannot vote for this man. We urge you to join us in defeating Barack Obama. So say us one, so say us all.

CURRENT LINKS: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Cheese In My Shoe; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH

still blogging against an obamanation 2008

We cannot oppose Barack Obama without also opposing the party he represents, along with Republicans who enable socialist engineering. Barack Obama is not the only socialist who seeks elective office in November.

Why do we oppose Barack Obama? As comedian Jackie Mason recently reminded us, Barack Obama is popular because of the way he looks, the way he talks, and the way he presents himself – but remember that’s his field of expertise. His primary accomplishments include looking good, lying with a straight face, and associating himself with powerful radical activists. When you think about it, he is exactly who un-American liberals want living in the White House. Last week, we argued that Barack Obama is an empty suit. This week, we acknowledge that the suit isn’t completely empty … there are dangerous, anti-American forces at work within the Obama election infrastructure.

It is difficult to fathom the arrogance of someone who, after only 143 days in the U. S. Senate, announces he is ready to assume the mantle of the presidency. And what is it exactly that causes this egotism? It may be that Barack Obama has cleverly orchestrated a sophisticated behind-the-scenes mechanism designed to create conditions favorable to his election. It is a cooperative of followers of (anarchist) Saul Alinsky, busily implementing the so-called “The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis.” According to The Nation magazine (1966), “The ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy’ seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”

American Thinkerillustrates the workings of this scheme in the following graph; one that demonstrates a well-funded program centered around George Soros’ Open Society Institute, managed by former SDS member Aryeh Neler, and facilitated by the now infamous Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) (Note: Associations … plural). With 28 days to the National Elections, we do seem suddenly plagued with one financial catastrophe after another. Government bureaucracy is definitely overloaded, and society is being pushed into a sense of crisis. Fact, or fiction … the reader can decide for him or her self. But if it is only partially true, the implications present us with unsettling possibilities.

We are used to political organizations, such as the Democratic and Republican Party; but no one outside the radical left can be comfortable with an organization such as this. And if Barack Obama’s ego causes him to believe that he is brighter than most, and that he is ready to assume the mantle of the presidency … he could be correct – no one so far has been smart enough to figure out what is happening behind the scenes. Few mainstream journalists have seriously evaluated Obama’s connection to the anti-American, radical left; not the so-called conservative press, not the Republican Party, and none of the self-styled America-first organizations.

Barack Obama is dangerous for other reasons, too. On the one hand, it is possible to dismiss the junior senator as one of those people with advance degrees, lacking common sense. We can say that he is able to quote Marxist and anarchist rhetoric, but lacks a concomitant real world understanding of the implications of such radical ideas. But there is yet another possibility: Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing. He knows precisely where he wants to take this country. And no one who understands this man’s motivations can feel comfortable with that perspective.

Barack Obama’s radicalism, thinly disguised by his subtle move to the political center-left, clearly repudiates everything America stands for. Conservative Americans may find themselves baffled by a man who professes love for the United States, but who then seeks to institute radical Marxist changes in government, in our courts, and within society … but not if we are watching and listening carefully to the Obama rhetoric. If we have not already dismissed common sense concern for his radicalism, if we have not already accepted Obama’s mild protestations of innocence, then we can recall the words of Jeremiah Wright on the pulpit (“g-damn America”) and we can say, “There is the real Barack Obama.” If we can focus on the obvious, we can draw a direct line between Jeremiah Wright’s church and the Black Racist ideology of the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan – both of whom engage in the radicalization of the black community, then we know the real man behind the deceptively “empty suit.” The underlying, important question is, “Are Americans Paying Attention?”

By pursuing his radical, anti-American agenda, Barack Obama repudiates everything America stands for … and his rejection of our traditional values extends well beyond the sophomoric debate between capitalists and socialists, even if not altogether irrelevant. The United States is a great nation today because of our traditional values. Our forefathers rejected big government, and they were able to raise their families without having to rely on the mistaken notion that “Only a village can raise a child.” They avoided personal indebtedness, preferring to live within their means, and they denounced the idea that government is entitled to their hard-earned income. In the past, we celebrated entrepreneurial spirit; today we demean it. Today, encouraged by the poison of materialism and socialist entitlement programs, America is a nation of debtors; ever the opportunist, Barack Obama and his radical left organization is taking full advantage of our social and individual indolence.

Let us not forget that government largess feeds upon itself. Marxists use government to redistribute wealth; it is the great equalizer ensuring everyone is equally miserable. Obama is using Alinsky’s “community activism” to achieve that power, and socialist ideology to maintain it. We stand in opposition to Barack Obama and his machine politics because we reject Marxist/socialist government. It strips people of their individualism, their dignity, and their will to resist subjugation, but this is the goal of an Obama administration, gift wrapped with empty promises. In our view, Barack Obama is willing to do anything to achieve his objectives, legal or not. We categorically reject him as a new-age messiah, and we stand united against his anti-American programs and policies.

Our question to Obama supporters remains unanswered: “How is it possible to love America, and support Barack Obama?” The horror of radical left/Marxist ideology is Obama’s consistent and unfettered promise for America. It is why we oppose him. It is why we urge our readers to vote NO to Obama and NO to socialists in Congress.

nobama08! blogbursting against an obamanation!

An informed voter is not only a wise voter, he or she is probably also a good American. In this regard, the press has always been the cornerstone in the foundation of American democracy … that is, until the press became such an advocate of socialism and liberal politics that it can no longer be relied upon to convey “fair and balanced” information.

For this reason, big girl pants joins with several others in a Nobama08 blog burst each Tuesday of the week until Election Day. If we cannot obtain the truth about our politicians from an unencumbered press, then we’ll form a cooperative to distribute information independently.

Stanley Kurtz is a journalist and senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Mr. Kurtz’ article in the Wall Street Journal explains why Barack Obama is untrustworthy for the office of the President of the United States. He lacks integrity … and if it is one thing we do not need in the White House, it is yet another dishonest politician.

Mr. Kurtz writes:

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.

The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home.

The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I've recently spent days looking through them.

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago's public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation's other key body, the "Collaborative," which shaped education policy.

The CAC's basic functioning has long been known, because its annual reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda.

One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation? In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama's "recruitment" to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited   him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.

The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland's ghetto.

In works like "City Kids, City Teachers" and "Teaching the Personal and the Political," Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? "I'm a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist," Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk's, "Sixties Radicals," at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead, CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity, and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.

CAC also funded programs designed to promote "leadership" among parents. Ostensibly this was to enable parents to advocate on behalf of their children's education. In practice, it meant funding Mr. Obama's alma mater, the Developing Communities Project, to recruit parents to its overall political agenda. CAC records show that board member Arnold Weber was concerned that parents "organized" by community groups might be viewed by school principals "as a political threat." Mr. Obama arranged meetings with the Collaborative to smooth out Mr. Weber's objections.

The Daley documents show that Mr. Ayers sat as an ex-officio member of the board Mr. Obama chaired through CAC's first year. He also served on the board's governance committee with Mr. Obama, and worked with him to craft CAC bylaws. Mr. Ayers made presentations to board meetings chaired by Mr. Obama. Mr. Ayers spoke for the Collaborative before the board. Likewise, Mr. Obama periodically spoke for the board at meetings of the Collaborative.

The Obama campaign notes that Mr. Ayers attended only six board meetings, and stresses that the Collaborative lost its "operational role" at CAC after the first year. Yet the Collaborative was demoted to a strictly advisory role largely because of ethical concerns, since the projects of Collaborative members were receiving grants. CAC's own evaluators noted that project accountability was hampered by the board's reluctance to break away from grant decisions made in 1995. So even after Mr. Ayers's formal sway declined, the board largely adhered to the grant program he had put in place.

Mr. Ayers's defenders claim that he has redeemed himself with public-spirited education work. That claim is hard to swallow if you understand that he views his education work as an effort to stoke resistance to an oppressive American system. He likes to stress that he learned of his first teaching job while in jail for a draft-board sit-in. For Mr. Ayers, teaching and his 1960s radicalism are two sides of the same coin.

Mr. Ayers is the founder of the "small schools" movement (heavily funded by CAC), in which individual schools built around specific political themes push students to "confront issues of inequity, war, and violence." He believes teacher education programs should serve as "sites of resistance" to an oppressive system. (His teacher-training programs were also CAC funded.) The point, says Mr. Ayers in his "Teaching Toward Freedom," is to "teach against oppression," against America's history of evil and racism, thereby forcing social transformation.

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

To say Mr. Obama is not ready for the presidency is a gross understatement. It is not simply that he lacks experience … it is also that he repudiates traditional American values and culture by embracing Marxist ideology, has been an acolyte of black racist theology, cuddled up with the anarchist activism of Saul Alinski, and even worse … the man is simply and irrevocably dishonest. There is nothing about Barack Obama that may cause us to think he honors American tradition, or share with us our time-honored values.

If the American people elect this man to the presidency, he will certainly destroy the cultural and political fabric of the United States, and when he has finished his work, none of us will recognize what he has left behind: the People’s Socialist Republic of the United States.

helping to effect real change; we're, oh, so close now...

I am certain that most of you are already aware of this, but incase it slipped your mind, please go sign this petition: http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659

it is put out by newt gingrich, former speaker of the house and head of American Solutions and is being billed as “a real change campaign to lower your gas prices.”.  with congress sitting on their hands blaming everyone from Ronald Reagan to george bush to little green men from planet mars, the price of oil (and gas) continues to increase.  this know/do nothing congress thinks that they are somehow going to lower prices by taxing the oil companies more and mandating feasible alternative energy.

this petition is very simple – it says “drill here.  drill now.  pay less.”  the official language of the petition is thus:

We, therefore, the undersigned citizens of the United States, petition the U.S. Congress to act immediately to lower gasoline prices (and diesel and other fuel prices)* by authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries.

a recent cnn poll found that while none are too happy about higher prices at the pump, the bigger fear of the american populace is a shortage of gas:

A CNN/Opinion Research poll released Tuesday shows that 55% of those surveyed are more worried about long lines at gas stations and rationing than about the high prices that drivers have paid in recent months. The poll shows 40% of the respondents are more concerned about the high prices.

While gas rationing is not expected at this time, it was a hallmark of the 1970s-era energy crisis, when drivers lined up outside gas stations and sales of gas were limited to certain days of the week.

However, at that time, gas was in short supply, which is not the case today.

but gas is fixin' to be in short supply as more and more oil is REQUIRED by more and more .  and in terms of gas manufactured from oil in our country, it is in short supply already and has been for quite sometime.

we have not drilled a new well in this country since 1973.  we are the only country in the world with PROVEN oil deposits who is not allowed to go get the oil.  there are oil deposits available via adjacent drill sites in the likes of Montana that will provide us with oil in months not years and we can’t go get it.

meanwhile the esteemed [liberal] members of our current congress were just blocked by republican fillibuster from creating the very thing that most americans are afraid of.  the provisions of this bill are mind-boggling; how on earth can anyone believe that we can decrease our price at the pump by taxing the very people selling the product?  has no one in congress ever taken even econ 101?  or sat down with a pencil, some paper and a calculater for that matter.  the provisions of the bill:

The windfall profits bill would have imposed a 25 percent tax on profits over what would be determined "reasonable" when compared to profits several years ago. The oil companies could have avoided the tax if they invested the money in alternative energy projects or refinery expansion. It also would have rescinded oil company tax breaks — worth $17 billion over the next 10 years — with the revenue to be used for tax incentives to producers of wind, solar and other alternative energy sources as well as for energy conservation.

The legislation also would:

_Require traders to put up more collateral in the energy futures markets and open the way for federal regulation of traders who are based in the United States but use foreign trading platforms. The measures are designed to reduce market speculation.

_Make oil and gas price gouging a federal crime, with stiff penalties of up to $5 million during a presidentially declared energy emergency.

_Authorize the Justice Department to bring charges of price fixing against countries that belong to the OPEC oil cartel.

the republicans, who generally vie with the democrats for who has the least understanding economics get kudos for this, in my humble opinion.  and, btw, they successfully blocked a broad $50m tax measure that would have extended tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy development.  read the whole article here.

it's a real pity that republicans didn't take care of all of this when they had control of both houses of congress.  but this isn't really about republicans vs. democrats - if the republicans really believed that free markets were the best way to manufacture and sell gasoline, they would have made certain drilling had been legalized, refineries were expanded (or new ones created) and nuclear power plants would be in the process of being built.  however, looking for whatever silver lining i can find, i'm thankful they have recently discovered the evils of federal regulations of markets - at least in the oil markets... 

it may just be that the republicans are playing politics and getting lucky to be on the side of the what the majority of americans want.  or, it may be that the republican leadership across the nation has finally heard us and is going to reign themselves back in.  too soon to tell, but it is a step in the right direction.

while Obama and his ilk are positing that we need to end speculation, mccain and his cronies are beginning to grow a spine - at least where oil extraction and gasoline production are concerned. 

let's help them out and show them that the american people are no longer willing to let huge deposits of OUR oil go untapped.  show the republican leadership and the u.s. congress that the enivromental wackos do NOT speak for us and they do not have a louder voice than we reasonable, intelligent, conservatives.

what say ye?

he doesn't have a clue

listening to rush today i heard mark davis (from dallas, filling in for rush) talking about a video where obama comes right and says he's going to disarm our military.  i had actually seen this video before when a link to it was sent to me at the end of february - i guess i wasn't paying real good attention at that point in time.

watching the video again, and apparently being awake for it this time, really got me thinking about everything obama says in the video.  the video is actually nearly eight months old, but it's still something we shouldn't let slide by.  here is the video i am speaking of:

he starts by promising to "...end misguided defense policies" and "...fight[ing] special interests in washington".  what misguided defense policies? what special interests in washington?  hmm, not really clear on the specifics, but he does give us the list of things he's going to do:

1. stop spending $9b per month in iraq; [as the only major candidate who opposed the war from the beginning] end the war.
2. cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending
   1. cut investments in "unproven" missile defense systems; not weaponize space
   2. slow the development of future combat systems
   3. establish "independent board" to oversee defense spending so unnecessary money isn't spent on defense
3. set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons
   1.  u.s. will develop no new nuclear weapons
   2. seek a global ban on production of fissile material
   3. negotiate with russia to remove icbms from "hair trigger alert" and achieve "deep cuts" in our nuclear arsenals
4. we know where he stands
   1. fought for open, ethical and accountable government his "entire life"
   2. doesn't switch positions
   3. doesn't make promises that cannot be kept
   4. doesn't posture on defense policy
   5. doesn't take money from federal lobbyists for "powerful defense contractors"
5. as president his "sole priority for defense spending will be protecting the american people."

now don't you feel better?

let's examine his statements, shall we?

obama keeps claiming to be the only major candidate who opposed the war from the beginning, but so what?  unless i'm mistaken, he wasn't a u.s. senator on 22 october 2002 when the vote pertaining to the use of force was rendered in the senate.  you can verify this information here if you doubt me.   additionally, according to sourcewatch, while obama was running for the u.s. senate in 2004 (although he gave a public speech against the war a few days after the vote in 2002) he told the new york times that he "was not sure whether he would have voted against the resolution had he been in the [u.s.] senate."  how convenient that he forgets that waffling now.

obama is going to cut the wasteful spending of defense.  he's going to cut back on unproven missile defense spending, but advocate the spending of tax payers' dollars on unproven embryonic stem cell research.  apparently he hasn't considered that if we abandon our defense systems - whether yet proven or not - we are not going to be able to defend ourselves.  this includes obama's naivety (stupidness?) in deciding to slow our development of future combat systems and ties right into his goals about nuclear weapons.

has anyone pointed out to this chuckle head that just because we abandon defense mechanisms or slow our defense developments that the rest of the world is NOT going to follow suit?  despots and dictators are not going to say "hey, the new guy at the u.s. is stepping back from being able to defend his country, so we probably ought to abandon our pursuit of weapons advanced enough to attack them."

can't you just picture ahmadinajad and kim jung il and others saying "oh, obama is reducing his nuclear arsenal and doesn't want us to have fissile materials, so we'll stop now."  and can you picture putin from saying "yeah sure, barry, we'll dump some (most?) of our weapons and get rid of our hair trigger - we trust you to do the same, thanks for trusting us!"?

and his "independent" review board to ensure there is no unnecessary defense spending?  just how the heck is he going to pull that one off?  the only way to make it truly independent is to make certain that there are equal numbers of conservatives (not rinos) and liberals on it and to put it purely in an advisory position.  but you and i both know that if the recommendation doesn't match his beliefs he won't act on it.  and if his support of welfare, global health care and other items (including stem cell and abortion funding) he simply cannot be trusted with my tax dollars.

btw, i recall the common defense of the country being a constitutional item, but not medical research.

as for his final grouping, first and foremost, he has taken money from defense contractors in campaign donations - sure it's about 40% of the amount that mccain received, but nearly equal to what hillary received from the same group.  big whoop.  how about all the money he takes in pork for his constituents versus what mccain has taken?

in the 2008 FY obama grabbed $97.4m in pork spending for 53 projects.  projects like $1.6m for the shedd aquarium in chicago.  of course clinton was ranked much higher than obama's number 70 ranking, but mccain has zero projects and zero dollars in pork allocations for his constituents.

i'm also trying to figure out when, prior to running for the state senate in illinois, did obama have anything whatsoever to do with government.  let alone the continuous fighting for open, ethical and accountable government he speaks of in his advertisement.  we all know his infractions in judgment as to who are appropriate "friends" or "mentors".  given the duplicitnous of the individuals he has surrounded himself with his entire life is there anyone out there who believes he's for open, ethical or accountable ANYTHING??

long story short, i don't want his promises - we can't afford them from a financial standpoint.  from a defensive standpoint or from a moral standpoint.  we can't afford anything about obama.

i pledge allegience...

...to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

how many times have we heard those words?  how many of you have any question as to what the straightforward words mean?  how many of you have trained your sons and daughters as to the meaning of the words and how to give proper respect to our flag and our country?

i thought about posting on flag day and time simply got away from me - so consider this my belated flag day post.

yesterday, mr. j and i went to the new kansas city power and light district to see the new sights and grab a bite to eat.  we live in the city, only about three miles from downtown and the new sprint center but this is the first opportunity we've had to just go down and stroll around.

we parked nigel, my mini cooper, and began our walk.  as we rounded our first corner at 13th and walnut we could hear loud, driving music.  then we started noticing the hundreds of harleys and the wide assortment of tattooed and pierced people (mostly youngish guys) wandering around.

we weren't really sure what was going on with the music, but it was obviously a free concert in the square - turns our miller lite was sponsoring a group called "say anything".  it's not the worst music i've heard and mostly it's pretty inoffensive in terms of lyrics.

but this post isn't about them, it's about a t-shirt i saw out of the corner of my eye as we were walking.  i was shocked by what i thought it said and i had to stop and turn around just to be certain (and hoping against hope that i was wrong) i had seen what i thought i had seen.  i still didn't have time to read the whole thing, so this morning i googled it.  and unfortunatey, i found it.

it is apparently lyrics from another band called "nofx" fron their 1999 album "the decline" called "i pledge a grievance to the flag of the united states of A and the blah blah blah..."  let me tell you, these guys are just a real class act. i wasn't able to find all of the lyrics for the song (apparently it's 18 minutes long) but from the t-shirt:

I pledge a grievance to the flag
Of the United States of America
And to the republicans whom I can't stand
One nation under smog indispicable [sic]
WITH LIBERTY
FOR JUST US NOT ALL

and from what i found, this isn't the worst of their lyrics.  these guys in the band are all from san francisco - big shock there - and nearly all of their songs excoriate america and religion.  if you're looking for something to turn your stomach, i highly recommend heading over to youtube and searching out all 33 of the videos posted there.  it's a real hate fest.

anyway, during my research, i came across this story [for children] at the portland independent media center's site.  it's from portland oregon, not maine, but that matters little.  it is written by stephen devoy who lists a link to his webiste on that page but the link is invalid.  at reading this "story" everything in me wanted to explode - i swear, if this guy had been anywhere near me i may have felt the need to beat him senslessly.  but it probably wouldn't have done any good, he is so far gone.

Every morning Elizabeth joined her classmates in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. She never thought about what it meant, she just followed through with the other students repeating the words which came out like one very long run-on sentence. It was a mechanical exercise.

Today was different. A new girl, Amy, had transferred to her school from a school in another city. When the time came for the Pledge of Allegiance, she remained sitting, drawing on her notebook. No one ever gave much thought to the process before, until that day, but it was as if someone had scraped their fingernails on the chalkboard. Everyone felt very uncomfortable and they knew it was because one student was not reciting the pledge but they did not know why this bothered them.

The students began scanning each other, looking out the corners of their eyes, with an expression of incredulity. Never, in all their years, had they seen someone sit down and draw during the pledge. Amy seemed completely unaware of the tension and happily drew upon her notebook.

As they finished, the teacher looked over towards the class and was shocked to see Amy sitting there, drawing, rather than joining in the ritual.

"Amy!" said the teacher. "Why didn't you stand up with the rest of us and say the pledge?"

Amy's head raised up from the notebook. She looked at the teacher and said, "I don't say the Pledge of Allegiance. I never have and I never will."

"Amy, you are required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in this school," the teacher stressed sternly with an intense glare.

"Actually," said Amy, very calm and content, "this school is within the United States and I am not required to say anything."

Amy had done nothing. It was her doing nothing that was in question. Nevertheless, the teacher became angry and took Amy's true and sincere statement as a challenge to her authority.

"Amy, you will stay after school," she ordered.

This incident made Elizabeth feel very torn. On the one hand, Amy seemed disruptive by not saying the pledge but on the other hand, she had done nothing - literally. How could one be punished for doing nothing?

Elizabeth decided to wait in the playground after school. She wanted to talk with Amy when Amy got out of detention. She sat on a swing and recited the Pledge of Allegiance, only this time she took the time to notice what the words were and what they meant. She found the words strange and it left her with some questions.

At about 3:30, the side door of the school opened and Amy came walking out. She turned towards the road and continued walking, not noticing Elizabeth on the swings. Elizabeth ran to catch up to Amy. A few yards before reaching her, she slowed down and then stopped.

"Hi," she said. "I'm Elizabeth. I'm in your class."

Amy turned and smiled. "Hi, Elizabeth. I'm Amy. Did you wait here for me to come out of detention?"

Elizabeth blushed, "Well, um, yeah, I was, well I was wondering about, you know, the pledge and why you didn't say it."

Amy looked down and then raised her head to Elizabeth and replied, "I'm happy to meet you and everything, but really I don't think it is anyone's business why I choose not to say the Pledge of Allegiance. It's my own business and I don't need to explain it to anyone."

"You don't have to explain it to me," said Elizabeth. "I was just hoping you would because I never met anyone before who wouldn't say it. I don't even really understand the Pledge of Allegiance. I was hoping that talking with you about it would help me learn something."

The two were silent. They began walking down the street. It was fall and the leaves were turning gold and red. A dog started following them from a distance. No one knew who he belonged to, he just showed up now and then and tagged along.

"Elizabeth," said Amy. "Do you know what flags are for?"

"I haven't really thought about it," she answered, "but I was really hoping you'd tell me about the pledge."

"I am telling you about the pledge. The pledge is a pledge to a flag and that's where we should start, with the flag." Amy became animated. She was beginning to enjoy the idea of talking about it. Her reluctance was not caused by shame, it was caused by her belief that she, as an individual, has the right to make her own personal decisions without anyone having the right to demand an explanation. In this case, she saw that it would benefit Elizabeth. Since there was a reason other than a demand for an explanation, she didn't mind sharing her thoughts.

"Flags are about war," she continued. "Flags are about blindly rallying to the call of murder. My father blindly rallied to the call of murder, behind that very flag, and now he's dead. I won't let them program me in to following like a lemming over the cliff."

She was silent for a time.

Elizabeth thought about what Amy had said. She had thought she was pledging allegiance to her country, but now that she thought about the words "I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag," she could see that Amy was right.

"What about 'to the Republic for which It Stands'," asked Elizabeth.

"Whose republic?" replied Amy? Do you vote?

"No, I'm too young, but one day I will," said Elizabeth.

"Let talk about that," Amy said with a heated voice. "First of all, they are forcing you to pledge allegiance to a republic and they don't let you vote. That smacks of slavery. Later you will vote, but for whom will you vote? Two political parties have a lock on the electoral process and both represent the same class - the rich. Are you rich, Elizabeth?"

"Well, now, I'm not rich, but I'm not poor," she replied.

"The difference between you and the rich is much bigger than the difference between you and the poor, Elizabeth. The rich don't have to worry about working. The rich have complete access to the legal system. The rich can get away with things that you cannot get away with. The rich do not go off and die in wars to protect their republic, they send the poor and they send you."

Elizabeth thought about Amy's words. She was right. Her parents were always worried about their jobs. They were stressed. They feared becoming poor but they had no expectation of ever become rich. Amy was onto something.

Amy continued, "Look at the President. Are his daughters fighting in the war? Have you heard of the son or daughter of any wealthy corporate man that has died in the war? Have you seen any soldiers living well and enjoying the things the rich enjoy? You haven't because they are not rich. The republic belongs to the rich and it is paid for with the blood of the poor. It is not your republic and pledging allegiance to it is like a slave pledging allegiance to her master or a rape victim pledging allegiance to her rapist.

"Have you ever wondered why they make you repeat that pledge, every day? When someone takes an oath of office, they do it once. They don't do it every day. Pledges are meant to be taken once. When someone has you recite something, over and over, every day of your life, they seek to program you. I bet you never thought about the words of the Pledge of Allegiance before, have you?"

"No, I haven't. I say it like it's one long word..."

"Exactly. It is a program, not a pledge. The daily recital of that pledge is indoctrination. The Nazis used indoctrination. The Soviets used indoctrination. Cults use indoctrination. Do you want to be a robot, Elizabeth?"

"No, I don't want to be a robot," she replied.

"Then think about what you let them do to you. When the call to die for the republic of the rich goes out, do you want to march blindly off like a good little robot to die in the rich man's war or do you want to have the spine to stand up and say, 'No Way!'"?

A twig falling from a tree could have broken the silence, but none fell. The two walked in silence for twenty minutes. As they passed an apartment building Amy said, "This is where I get off. I'll see you tomorrow."

Elizabeth continued walking. She reached her housing track and looked at the rows of identical houses. Something had changed within her. She felt a sense of self.

The next day in class all of the children stood up to say the pledge, except for Elizabeth and Amy. The teacher glared at the two and said, "Do we have to go through this again?"

"Yes," Elizabeth replied, "I pledge allegiance to no one."

it is amazing to me, but the responses to this post are gushing over how wonderful this story is, but in my opinion it should be nothing more than fodder for the fireplace.  seriously folks, this is the kind of crap that the liberals in the education system are teaching our children. 

however, i'll let you (my gentle readers) decide what you think on your own.

observations from africa on the agent of change...

yesterday, while playing blog golf i came across this post from patrick.  patrick posted a few sections of the letter from africa and it got me thinking.  and searching.

for those of you who are frequent visitors you know that i have pretty much sworn off the politics of this year's presidential elections.  however, i have been watching, with no small degree of amazement, the circus going on between obama and clinton.

prior to this excercise in research that i have been engaged in since patrick's post got stuck in my craw, i was decidedly AGAINST voting for john mccain as potus.  however, based on the information i have unearthed, i have decided that i absolutely must change my position if it is barack hussein muhammed obama who is handed the nomination by the dnc.

i apologize, in advance, for the length of this post; but not the content.  quite simply this is information that we must get out there and we need to make this post go viral.  the letter mentioned above, in its entirety, is here:

Thanks for sending out an alert about Obama.

We are living and working in Kenya for almost twelve years now and know his family (tribe) well. They are the ones who were behind the recent Presidential election chaos here.

Thousands of people have been displaced by election violence (over 350,000) and I don’t know the last count of the dead.

Obama under “friends of Obama” gave almost a million dollars to the opposition campaign who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in East Germany. He has been trying to bring Kenya down for years and the last president threw him in prison for trying to subvert this country!

December 27th elections brought cries from ODM (Odinga Camp) of rigged election. Obama and Raila speak daily. As we watch Obama rise in the US we are sure that whatever happens, he will use the same tactic, crying rigged election if he doesn’t win and possibly cause a race war in America.

What we would like you to know is what the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a Muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fulfillment of the 911 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true Muslim way. We have been working with them for 20 years this July! He is not an American as we know it.

Please encourage your friends and associates not to be taken in by those that are promoting him. It is world wide jihad. All our friends in Europe are very disturbed by the Muslim infiltration into their countries. By the way. His true name is Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama. Won’t that sound sweet to our enemies as they swear him in on the Koran!

God Bless you.

Pray for us here in Kenya. We are still fighting for our nation to withstand the same kind of assault that every nation, including America, is fighting. Takeover from the outside to fit the new world order. As believers, this means we will be the first targets.

Here in Kenya, not one mosque was burned down, but hundreds of churches were burned down, some with people in them, burned alive.

Jesus Christ is our peace but the new world order of Globalism has infiltrated the church and confused believers into thinking that they can compromise and survive. It won’t be so. I will send you a newsletter we sent out in February documenting in a more cohesive manner what I’ve tried to say in a few paragraphs.

Celeste and Loren Davis

celeste and loren davis are, indeed, missionaries serving in the kenya area. you can  read about their missions here. in an email, mr. loren indicated to me that this was a personal email sent to a friend of theirs in response to some information sent to them on obama; they had no idea the information had begun to be disseminated to the world wide web.

yesterday i sent the following email to celeste and loren in attempting to verify the accuracy of the information in the posts.

recently there is a letter circulating the internet titled “a letter from africa” that is pertaining to barrack Obama and it is attributed to the two of you.  is this a legitimate letter?

please advise, as if it is, I will be blogging on it in the near future…

thanks so much!  and god bless you both in your endeavors.

heidianne jackson
blogging at http://biggirlpants.typepad.com

the response from mr. and mrs. davis was swift and informative:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: combineharvesting@hotmail.com
To: combineharvesting@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: see attachments and Washington Post/Obama
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:22:36 +0000

This was a personal e-mail sent to a friend . It was in response to an email we had received regarding Obama. We did not know it would hit the worldwide web.  Since it has, here is some more important information on Obama you won't find on the net.

ODM mentioned in the cartoon is the same party as Obama's cousin, Raila Odinga.  Raila had the 100% backing of the Muslims and should he win would make Islam the only recognized religion in Kenya.  This is an extension of the battle that is going on in Somalia, Sudan, Iraq and 9-11. 

It appears Obama is using the same strategy as his cousin Raila used in America.  We see the  same thing happening here.

See google: Raila Odinga Barak Obama cousins, Dick Morris Raila Odinga, Muslims Back Obama   

Loren and Celeste Davis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please see the following important ATTACHMENTS:

The MOU, “Memorandum of Understanding” between Raila Odinga and the Muslim leaders to make Kenya an Islamic nation. 

Download railas_agreement_with_muslims_page_1.jpg

Download railas_agreement_with_muslims_page_2.jpg

Download railas_agreement_with_muslims_page_3.jpg

The cartoon in Kenya’s Nation newspaper regarding Obama being the ODM’s candidate for president in the U.S.

The list of donors to Raila’s campaign.  Note the one underlined “friends of BO”.  This $1 million  gift is from the friends of Barak Obama.

Download obamas_gift_to_raila.jpg

July 3, 2006 Houston Chronicle, an article was published by Jim Hoagland, a Pulitzer prize winning syndicated columnist who writes for the Washington Post.

The article is headlined:  “THIS WORLD CAN’T TOLERATE MORE RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE”

Hoagland quotes Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into UNIVERSAL, rather than RELIGIOUS-SPECIFIC VALUES.  “NOW THIS IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FOR SOME WHO BELIEVE IN THE INERRANCY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES.  But in a PLURALISTIC DEMOCRACY, we have NO CHOICE.  Politics depends on our ability to persuade ea. Other of common aims based on a common reality…AT SOME FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, RELIGION. DOES NOT ALLOW FOR COMPROMISE.  It’s the art of the impossible.  To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a DANGEROUS THING.”

Hoagland says, “Obama’s words could easily be adopted as well as guidelines for all gov’s in the Middle East and elsewhere”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the information provided gave me the places to look to find even more pertinent information.  the article has a great deal of other "interesting" ideas but it seems it is no longer available at the houston chronicle unless i have an online subscription (i don't).  a link to it in its entirety is here.  the attachments referenced by mr. and mrs. davis are linked if you click on the title of each one above.

on 11 january 2008, this story ran in the u.k. telegraph.  some pertinent information from the article by mr. mike pflanz:

Kenya's defeated presidential challenger Raila Odinga has claimed to be a cousin of Barack Obama and said that they had discussed his country's post-election violence.

• Kibaki offers talks with Kenyan rival Odinga
• Obama senses victory as voting begins

Mr Odinga, 63, said that the US senator's father, from western Kenya's Luo tribe, was his maternal uncle.

"He has called me to talk about the destabilising constitutional crisis in this country, despite being in the middle of the very busy New Hampshire primary," Mr Odinga said yesterday.

Mr Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed that the senator spoke to  the Kenyan opposition leader on Monday afternoon for about five minutes before going into a rally in New Hampshire, according to Associated Press.

and then:

Mr Obama has not commented on the Kenyan opposition leader's claim to be a relative.

and finally:

Mr Obama's uncle, Said Obama, said that his village, Kogela, in western Kenya, had been spared the violence and expressed his excitement as his US relative led polls in New Hampshire's Democrat primaries.

"Ah, that's wonderful, but I don't want to jump just yet," Said Obama told AP.

listen to odinga making the claims with his own mouth.  too bad he didn't decide to follow in the footsteps of another of his relations - check it out here - it seems that the esteemed dick cheney and obama are distant relatives.

from another story in the u.k. telegraph is this tidbit:

It is said there is a bitter joke among Kenya's Luo community that the United States of America will elect a member of their tribe as president before the East African country does.

not very funny to me.  how about you?

writing for the conservative voice, michael gaynor had just a slew of interesting tidbits, a few of which are below:

• "--Raila Odinga is of the Luo tribe to which Obama's late African-Arab Muslim father belonged. Obama's older brother still lives there; Abongo 'Roy' Obama is a Luo activist and militant Muslim who argues that the black man must liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture. He urges his younger brother, Barack, to embrace his African heritage. Barack Obama has a Kenyan grandmother [gaynor's note: according to Kenyan usage, not a biological grandmother] and several African brothers and sisters as well.
• "--Odinga claimed the election was rigged when he lost, then there were riots and a sort of civil war, but it was the Christians who were getting killed by the Muslims. Christians were burned alive in churches and they were macheted in the streets. It is reported that 1,000 people were killed when all was said and done. Right now, Odinga is claiming the presidency and fighting to be sole president, and in a diplomatic effort, the powers that be allowed him to be co-president until the election is figured out.
• "--Odinga also had an interesting political strategist help with his campaign, an American, who used to be a campaign employee of Bill Clinton's. It is the first time that an American political strategist has worked on any Kenyan campaign. Recommended by Barack Obama?

• "--Raila Odinga's official presidential website is similar to Barack Obama's, and Odinga's main campaign message and slogan is: CHANGE. Vote for Change. Agent of Change. Look at his website: http://www.raila07.com/

there's so much more there and i encourage all of y'all to go read the whole thing.  but how about odinga and obama both being "agents of change?"  stop the aclu has a great post on this very thing, too.

a quick google search on 'muslims back obama' 827,000 items were returned in less than .19 seconds.  hmmm, looks like there is some readily available information out there. 

items like this article from the council on american-islamic relationship's (cair) website.  in highlighting a convert to islam's (julia shearson) thoughts, the article says:

CAIR is not endorsing specific candidates, but she sees the move towards Mr Obama, by the young in particular, as part of a wider awakening.

i also liked this article and all its links.  this article from the canada free press also got my attention and is well worth the read; one of the most salient nuggets is:

As a fledgling Christian, Obama didn't join just any church. He joined the United Church of Christ.

The United Church of Christ is very anti-Israel and supports divestment. It also sponsors speeches at its many functions by the Arab "Christian" pro-terror religious organization, Sabeel. Sabeel holds some of its biggest meetings in Chicago.

further

Is the "New Face" theory espoused in USA Today, New Face as in the "Portrait of Dorian Grey"?

What if Obama's into Pious Fraud Islam–Hudaibiyah treaty "kiss the hand of your enemy until you can cut it off"?.  Not Obama? Remember the pictures of the little kids bobbing their heads up and down at the madrassas? They are all of the age Obama would have been in back in Indonesia.

judi mcleod finishes her article with:

Meanwhile hype notwithstanding, "the new face of change and reform for the democratic party" is no Abe Lincoln, but could be the most upwardly mobile Muslim of the millennium.

debbie schlussel certainly furthers the argument that obama is a muslim or at the very least is viewed as a muslim by the muslims.  the good people over at frontpagemag.com agree with her.  here.  here.  and here.  but i think this is my favorite evidence that the muslims are supporting obama's run for potus.  this picture really does say it all.

folks, the evidence is overwhelming.  this is NOT a smear campaign.  this is fact.  and if you're not motivated to vote against obama by voting for mccain, then you are being just plain stubborn.  please do not take this as an all out endorsement for john mccain; in fact if obama doesn't get the democrat nomination i still probably won't vote for mccain.  but if he does, i'm voting for mccain.  i hope all of you will join me.

in the course of my research i have been introduced to whole new gang of bloggers and i am infinitely better for the finds.  i encourage all of you to check out the following links: the baltimore reporter, conservative thoughts, death by 1000 papercuts, and jaspar jottings.

i have diligently researched every statement and link within this post.  it is my intention to not only inform, but also to inflame and motivate others out there who may be where i was.

btw, angel is blogging on how the fight to stop islam invading our country is racist.  check out her post and let her know you were there.

part 3 of a much needed history lesson

sorry for the long break - my clients are just NOT cooperative with allowing me time to blog as i would like!  oh, goat, please let me know if the type is large enough for you now...

when last i wrote, we left off just prior to the last two paragraphs of section 3 article 1 of the u.s. constitution.  the second to the last paragraph reads as such:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

but what does it mean???

in federalist paper #65, alexander hamilton speaks about the dangers of an elected body determining the veracity of the charges against the official.  he says:

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

and then:

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

in other words, the members of the constitutional convention gave this task to the senate because the senate was not an elected body.  the members' appointment by the legislature of each state meant that this body was less likely to be beholden to whims of political factions and more likely to adhere to the guidelines of the law, deeming it "sufficiently independent":

Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused, and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

______________________________________________________________________________

sidebar

_____________________________________________________________

recently there is an email recently circulating titled "how long does the usa have?" and it basically says that because we were founded as a democracy we are bound to commit suicide as a nation soon.  i've seen other versions of it in the past, but here's the current incarnation of it:

Download how_long_does_the_usa_have.pdf

the whole premise of this argument is flawed in that we were not founded as a democracy as this whole series is pointing out.  but it is interesting in what it shows in the stats for the 2000 u.s. presidential elections.

___________________________________________________________

end sidebar

____________________________________________________________

you see, our founding fathers recognized the tinder box that could be ignited if there were a perceived (let alone actual) bias in the execution of the trial of impeachment.  for this reason alone, they wanted a large number of persons deciding the fate of the accused and they did not want this to fall to the supreme court with hamilton stating that "...the supreme court would have been an improper substitute for the senate, as a court of impeachments."

the last paragraph of section 3 is as follows:

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

huh? 

it's like this: the founding fathers KNEW the person who had been impeached would find him (or her) self ostracized for all eternity and so did not want to officially punish the impeached more than to remove him (or her) from office.  it is important to note that the impeached would still be punishable for the crime committed to be impeached and so if the judicial branch were to be involved it may prejudice the judges against the impeached.

mr. hamilton gives further explanation in federalist paper #66 and i certainly encourage all of you to read it for yourself.  however, other than to quote the following from the last paragraph:

So far as might concern the misbehavior of the Executive in perverting the instructions or contravening the views of the Senate, we need not be apprehensive of the want of a disposition in that body to punish the abuse of their confidence or to vindicate their own authority. We may thus far count upon their pride, if not upon their virtue.

too bad the senators responsible with the impeachment of bill clinton didn't know these thoughts...

section 4.  very succinct. 

essentially the state legislatures will determine the times and places for elections and appointments of senators and representatives.  the u.s. congress may at some point in time make a ruling as to the regulations of the elections, but not the appointing of senators.

further, congress must meet at least once per year on the first monday in december unless they appoint a different day by law. 

that's all for today's lesson.  lesson four will cover sections 5-7 and will be published before week's end (sunday).

please feel free to share your thoughts and questions.

don't bemoan the low taxes, pay more!!!

yesterday, representative john campbell (r, ca) introduced the "put your money where you mouth is" act.

a recognized fiscal leader in congress (and from california no less!) representative campbell says he introduced this legislation to allow individuals to make voluntary donations to the federal government over their taxes due by adding a line to the IRS tax form to more easily facilitate the making of donations.

recently when her and hubby's earnings came to light, hillary said "We didn't ask for George Bush's tax cuts. We didn't want them, and we didn't need them."  indeed. 

on monday the opinion pages of the wsj had this to say in response:

"With friends like Mr. Burkle, clearly they didn't. But her higher tax rates wouldn't merely hit those who make $109 million; they'd soak middle-class families that make $100,000 or $200,000 a year and hardly feel "rich." If the former first lady feels so strongly that she should pay more taxes, we suggest she lay off the middle class and instead write a personal check to the U.S. Treasury for the difference between the Clinton and Bush tax rates. She and her husband can afford it."

this proposed act seems to be the perfect solution, then, doesn't it?

today, in review and outlook the journal seems to agree.  in a small piece on the proposed legislation, they quote rep. campbell saying in regards to the likes of the clintons, babs and warren buffet (there is just NO funny name to call that guy that would be immediately recognizable) "It's a great injustice that citizens wishing to fulfill their dream of paying more taxes cannot simply check a box on their 1040 form to make a donation." 

so now the libs live guilt free AND help to pay down the national debt.  what a country!

the irs already accepts donations and yet last year the total take of donations was only 2.6 million dollars.  apparently these people only want to pay more if the goverment tells them they have to.  seems like even the leftards want to hold onto their own money rather than give it to the government.

in a press release from the council for citizens against government waste (ccagw), yesterday:

"According to a 2007 Harris Interactive survey conducted on behalf of the Tax Foundation, only 2 percent of respondents claimed the amount of federal income tax they pay is too low, compared 58 percent of respondents who said that their taxes were too high.

Citizens already have an opportunity to contribute to a fund within the Department of the Treasury to reduce the federal debt. According to the Treasury, the lowest amount sent to the government was $744,675.06 in 2004, and the most was last year, a whopping $2,624,862.42."

hey, maybe the line on the tax return that they just have to fill in will make it more enticing.  i mean with the current system they have to write out a whole separate check and take it to the post office and they probably won't have a stamp and the machine will be broken (or they won't have the change) and they'll have to stand in line.  sheesh!  i can understand why they don't donate now, it's just not convenient enough.  yeah, that's the ticket!

it would be interesting to me to see the breakdown of the donations given to the irs.  my guess is the vast majority of the money does not come from uber-rich liberals.

btw, i had some great photos for this post, but typepad's being retarded and won't let me insert any pictures.  meanies!

i love this guy's thought process.  put your money where your mouth is, indeed.

part 2 of the much needed history lesson

as we learned in my previous post, in 1788 the u.s. constitution, sans the bill of rights, became the law of the land.  nine of the 13 states had banded together to become the united states of america.  in november of 1789 north carolina joined the union with rhode island making it complete in may of 1790.

there had been much blood, sweat and tears shed to get to this point.  it was truly amazing that 13 states had VOLUNTARILY joined together to form this union.  i say voluntarily because that was the intention of the founders and the federalists - you know those people who were promoting the constitution?

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."

-- James Madison (Federalist No. 39, 1788)

so just what did our ancestors in those 13 states agree to with their ratification of the constitution?  let's look, shall we?

to prove the point (made by goat and jess and others) that the constitution is a support document for the declaration of independence, let's start there.  in the doi, jefferson penned (and it was unamimously adopted by the delegates):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

and then in closing in the doi:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

now look at the opening (preamble) to the constiution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

there are other things in the grievances list put forth in the doi that are borne out in the constitution as well.  i may or may not touch on those specifics as i go through the document.  but i hope that you can see that the preamble to the u.s. constitution addresses both the opening and closing of the doi.

article 1.  this article (through it's subsequent sections) sets up and organizes the legislative branch of our federal government.  in fact section 1 is pretty susinct:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

nothing to question there, but what are these people going to do?!?!?

section 2 is a little more involved.  it defines how the population of citizens shall be counted for purposes of manning the house of representatives as well as how "direct taxes" will be levied to the individual states.  it says that the electors (those who elect) for the u.s. congress must meet the minimum requirements for voting in the state's "most numerous branch of the state legislature" - essentially leaving it up to each state what the voting requirements were even for federal elections.

as an aside, this is also where the federal population count is mandated.  it is required to be done every 10 years, thus the reason it is called the "census".

it also defines the rules for a "person" becoming a representative.  one must be 25 years old by the time they take office, have been a citizen for seven years and be an inhabitant (doesn't state recognized citizen) of "the state in which he shall be chosen."  each state's executive will set special elections should vacancies arise outside of the normal election cycle.

additionally, the house of representatives is responsible for selecting its own speaker and other officers.  additionally it is stated in the last line of this section that the house of representatives "...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

section 3 pertains to the senate.  how many of you knew that u.s. senators were never intended to "run" for election?  it's true:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

it was meant to balance out the contest of the directly elected members of the house and to link the states' governments to the federal government.  it is explained by alexander hamiltn or james madison (we're not sure which) in federalist #62:

II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

this served to guard against democracy which is not a stable sort of government.  our founders had some pretty strong views on why they chose a representative republic rather than a democracy.  in federalist #10 (titled the same subject continued: the union as a safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection) madison wrote:

...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. ...politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

this is perhaps my most favorite federalist article, combined with #9, of course.  it gives a wonderful contrast and comparison between a democracy and a republic.  i highly recommend that everyone read it, if not all of the federalist papers.

but i digress...

section 3 of article 1 of the constitutions says that the senators will be appointed by the states' legislature and that each term will last six years.  each senator must be 30 years old and have been a u.s. citizen for at least 9 years when he takes office and he must be an inhabitant of the state for which  he is elected.

there are two more paragraphs in the third section than in the second section, but oh so much more to dissect.  i think we'll leave off here for today and i'll complete this section next.

questions?  comments?  please leave them all.

a much needed history lesson - part 1

approximately 220 years ago, our founders presented to the citizens of our infant nation perhaps the greatest man-written document ever created.  that's right, it was in 1787 that our ancestors read, for the first time, the united states constitution.

this document has been a rallying thought for people around the world in want of liberty and self-government.  it has also been a sore in the thumb of many who are indebted to us and who wish us ill.  much the same as our flag, eh?

our educational system (or socialist indoctrination process, as my hubby calls it) is in such a poor state that our children - and several of the past generations' children - have no clue as to what the document actually says.  cripes, they think we live in a democracy for pete's sake!

well, while i am no constitutional scholar, i can read and i have fairly good comprehension.  and besides, i believe justice scalia when he says that it means what it says and it's just not that difficult.  so this is my attempt to start a discussion pertaining to where we are and where the document give us permission to be...

in a comment to my previous post, my good friend goat makes a great point:

"The simplicity and depth of the words the Founders used in writing our Constitution should never be taken lightly or changed to fit the whims of an uninformed mob rule mentality or activist jurists. It however is not our defining document, The Declaration of Independence is and the Constitution just set down the rules and limits of governance."

goat is precisely right and it amazes me the number of people who try to discount the doi and say that it isn't what defines us.  and while it isn't the "law of the land", it is the basis for the law of the land.  further, if i'm not mistaken, when a legal decision is made, all supporting documentation for the law or contract is taken in to consideration.

in the case of the constitution, that would have to include the declaration of independence, the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers and, perhaps, even the articles of confederation.  so a i embark on this first lesson i will use all of these to support and contrast.

i'm starting with the proceedings of the constitutional convention and will (through additional parts) get through the writing of all of the amendments.  i truly hope to get people thinking and talking.

on 25 may 1787 george washington was elected president of the constitutional convention in philadelphia.  after the failures of the previous six years of governance under the articles of confederation, washington held out little hope that THIS convention would turn out anything of consequence.  36-year old james madison, hoped differently.

after receiving a letter from george washington, where washington had written "Wisdom and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm." james madison put forth the notion of a strong central government stating: "Let it be tried then, whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once support a due supremacy of the national authority," furthering that state power would be maintained only when "subordinately useful."  madison sought to establish a government in this mold.

in 1786 james madison and john tyler, both of virginia, made a proposal that the continental congress be giving authority over the the regulation of commerce throughout the confederation.  in september 1786 several states attended a convention in annapolis, md to discuss commercial problems.  at the end of this convention, james madison and alexander hamilton (new york) wrote a report on the convention and calling for delegates from all of the states to participate in a convention set upon "revising" the articles of confederation.  a decree from congress (although the decree was not favorably viewed by most citizens) made the proposal a reality. 

74 delegates were named to the convention; 55 attended.  there were delegates from every state except for rhode island; she refused to send any as the leaders of that state viewed the convention as a conspiracy to overthrow established government.  i should point out that rhode island was led by men who were in support of paper currency, low taxes and a popularly elected government - funny how things change, isn't it??

anyhow, although several "leaders" of the young country were not present - patrick henry refused to attend saying that he "smelt a rat" - the convention started with the 55 men who were there, including giants such as george washington, benjamin franklin, george mason and james wilson.  the proceedings were understated at times and quite vocal at other times, but in the end they were the beginning of this great experiment we call the united states of america.

put forth in this convention were three basic plans:  the virginia plan; the new jersey plan; the hamilton plan.  the descriptions i offer to you of each, here, come from the patriot post's historical documents resources:

The Virginia Plan

On Tuesday morning, May 29, Edmund Randolph, the tall, 34-year- old governor of Virginia, opened the debate with a long speech decrying the evils that had befallen the country under the Articles of Confederation and stressing the need for creating a strong national government. Randolph then outlined a broad plan that he and his Virginia compatriots had, through long sessions at the Indian Queen tavern, put together in the days preceding the convention. James Madison had such a plan on his mind for years. The proposed government had three branches--legislative, executive, and judicial--each branch structured to check the other. Highly centralized, the government would have veto power over laws enacted by state legislatures. The plan, Randolph confessed, "meant a strong consolidated union in which the idea of states should be nearly annihilated." This was, indeed, the rat so offensive to Patrick Henry.

The introduction of the so-called Virginia Plan at the beginning of the convention was a tactical coup. The Virginians had forced the debate into their own frame of reference and in their own terms.

For 10 days the members of the convention discussed the sweeping and, to many delegates, startling Virginia resolutions. The critical issue, described succinctly by Gouverneur Morris on May 30, was the distinction between a federation and a national government, the "former being a mere compact resting on the good faith of the parties; the latter having a compleat and compulsive operation." Morris favored the latter, a "supreme power" capable of exercising necessary authority not merely a shadow government, fragmented and hopelessly ineffective.

The New Jersey Plan

This nationalist position revolted many delegates who cringed at the vision of a central government swallowing state sovereignty. On June 13 delegates from smaller states rallied around proposals offered by New Jersey delegate William Paterson. Railing against efforts to throw the states into "hotchpot," Paterson proposed a "union of the States merely federal." The "New Jersey resolutions" called only for a revision of the articles to enable the Congress more easily to raise revenues and regulate commerce. It also provided that acts of Congress and ratified treaties be "the supreme law of the States."

For 3 days the convention debated Paterson's plan, finally voting for rejection. With the defeat of the New Jersey resolutions, the convention was moving toward creation of a new government, much to the dismay of many small-state delegates. The nationalists, led by Madison, appeared to have the proceedings in their grip. In addition, they were able to persuade the members that any new constitution should be ratified through conventions of the people and not by the Congress and the state legislatures- -another tactical coup. Madison and his allies believed that the constitution they had in mind would likely be scuttled in the legislatures, where many state political leaders stood to lose power. The nationalists wanted to bring the issue before "the people," where ratification was more likely.

Hamilton's Plan

On June 18 Alexander Hamilton presented his own ideal plan of government. Erudite and polished, the speech, nevertheless, failed to win a following. It went too far. Calling the British government "the best in the world," Hamilton proposed a model strikingly similar an executive to serve during good behavior or life with veto power over all laws; a senate with members serving during good behavior; the legislature to have power to pass "all laws whatsoever." Hamilton later wrote to Washington that the people were now willing to accept "something not very remote from that which they have lately quitted." What the people had "lately quitted," of course, was monarchy. Some members of the convention fully expected the country to turn in this direction. Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, a wealthy physician, declared that it was "pretty certain . . . that we should at some time or other have a king." Newspaper accounts appeared in the summer of 1787 alleging that a plot was under way to invite the second son of George III, Frederick, Duke of York, the secular bishop of Osnaburgh in Prussia, to become "king of the United States."

Strongly militating against any serious attempt to establish monarchy was the enmity so prevalent in the revolutionary period toward royalty and the privileged classes. Some state constitutions had even prohibited titles of nobility. In the same year as the Philadelphia convention, Royall Tyler, a revolutionary war veteran, in his play The Contract, gave his own jaundiced view of the upper classes:

Exult each patriot heart! this night is shewn
A piece, which we may fairly call our own;
Where the proud titles of "My Lord!" "Your Grace!"
To humble Mr. and plain Sir give place.

Most delegates were well aware that there were too many Royall Tylers in the country, with too many memories of British rule and too many ties to a recent bloody war, to accept a king. As the debate moved into the specifics of the new government, Alexander Hamilton and others of his persuasion would have to accept something less.

throughout the summer arguments were made and orators orated.  it appeared at times that no one would prevail with even a modicum of happiness.  washington was sad he was a part of it.  franklin called for prayer after prayer that the "Father of lights . . . illuminate our understandings."  and when, on 29 june 1787, the decision to establish state population as the basis for representation in the house of representatives all hell broke loose.  perhaps the mood of the moment of the small states is best summed up by the words of luther martin (delegate from maryland) "The States have a right to an equality of representation. This is secured to us by our present articles of confederation; we are in possession of this privilege."

there was more compromise to come, but finally, on 06 august of that same year came the first draft of our beloved constitution.  it was the article-by-article basis from which the final draft would come just a short five weeks later.  but the controversy was not yet over.

after much haggling about slavery, regulation of commerce, regulation of navigation and the like, on 31 august 1787 george mason wrote to his son that he "would sooner chop off his right hand than put it to the Constitution as it now stands."  further worrying about the lack of a personal "bill of rights" included in the constitution, mason called for a new convention to reconsider the whole notion of the formation of a new government.  he was voted down.

several more revisions, debates and compromises later, the document written, primarily, by governor morris the constitution was turned back over to the convention for a final round.  mason (joined by edmund randolph and elbridge gerry) called for amendments once again - soundly rebuffed, the vote on 15 september 1787 resulted in the return of an "aye" vote from every state in attendance.  by 4pm on 17 september 1787, all members of the convention had dutifully set their hand to the document. 

the matter was done - well sort of.

this when the fun really started.  the process of ratification.  i should note, that alexander hamilton thought there was a better than average chance that the document would NOT be ratified.

just 12 days after the convention ended, pennsylvania called for a ratifying convention for the state.  in the previous weeks, the writings of the federalists and anti-federalists of that state were reprinted in newspapers far and wide.  on the 29th, short by two of the count required to make a quorum for the ratify convention, a mob of citizens supporting the federalist viewpoint dragged two anti-federalist members from their homes and forced them to stay at the convention until the votes had been cast.  hows that for a participating citizenry?!?

throughout the fall the battle waged - in every state - with the anti-federalists denouncing the proposed  government and the federalists defending.  by and large the federalists were much more organized than the anti-federalists, even so, the af's made their presence - and their dissatisfaction - well known. 

it is at this time, in response to a series of essays by "cato", alexander hamilton and john jay wrote their 85 essays now known as the "federalist papers."  thomas jefferson later called this group of essays the "best commentary on the principles of government ever written." 

by 09 january 1788 only five of the require nine states had ratified the constitution - delaware, pennsylvania, new jersey, georgia, and connecticut.  the outcome in massachusetts, new york and virginia were pivotal and uncertain.  only after the state federalists agreed to recommend a list of amendments to be a "bill of rights" did massachusetts ratify the proposed document.  the recommendation was a huge victory for the anti-federalists and soon after six other states made similar recommendations

after ratification failed in new hampshire and then rhode island (10 to 1 against the ratification) all eyes turned to the ratification convention in maryland.  on 28 april 1788, with a vote of 63 to 11 the maryland convention accepted the tenets of the constitution.  in july of that same year new hampshire reconvened and ratified the constitution and the ratification in south carolina made it nine.

over the course of the next two months, new york and virginia ratified the document and a congressionally appointed committee was busy "putting the said constitution to work."  it is important to note that in most states, the margin for ratification was extremely close.  hamilton deduced that the majority of the PEOPLE in the country were probably opposed to the constitution and it was only the promise of a "bill of rights" that had ensured the federalists' victory

yes, that's right people, the constitution of the united states of america became the law of the land BEFORE the first ten amendments to the constitution had even been written.  we'll cover those later, but the limits of the government weren't delineated and excepted by a majority of states until 15 december 1791!

tomorrow, we'll begin to review the actual document.  any comments thus far?

"i'm here to talk about constitutional law...

"...and it's not a difficult subject"

and with those words justice antonin scalia opened his speech (lecture?) at the university of central missouri last night.  already some 1200+ miles away (in the atlanta airport waiting for the flight that will take me to my friend in new jersey) and the wisdom he imparted is still with me...

justice scalia has long been on my 'most favorite people' list - i rank him right up there with james madison, thomas jefferson, teddy roosevelt, ronald reagan and william buckley (just to name a few).  when president reagan appointed him to the federal appeals court is when scalia first popped on my radar. 

i was still [mostly] in southern maryland at that point in my life and was well in tune to the happenings in d.c. long before anything [other than the presidential elections] on the national scene caught my attention.  heck, it was 1982 and i hadn't even voted in a presidential election yet!

any how, back to last night.  through a contact of dee's she was able to get highly unavailable tickets for herself, two personal friends of her and me.  her first take on the whole evening is posted here and i'll try real hard to not rehash what she has written - or will write tomorrow - or the next day.

nearly 72 years on this earth (and nearly 50 years of marriage to the same woman) have shaped justice scalia into what he presented last night.  i wonder, when he came from what most would think to be the most liberal of liberal areas (new york city) in this country, why he became known as one of the most conservative judges to make up the supremes.

there doesn't seem to be anything really 'telling' in his background that i can see.  he has started life as the son of an immigrant who attended a jesuit high school in queens, went on to georgetown university, switzerland's university of fribourg, and ending his education with the magna cum laude graduation from harvard law school in the spring of 1960.

from there he went on to work as a practicing attorney in ohio and a law professor at another of the seven sisters (university of virginia) before entering public service during the nixon administration.  after ford and until reagan he went back to teaching law - at the university of chicago, georgetown and stanford.

justice antonin scalia is a constitutional constructionist - or an originalist as he refers to himself.  i have long maintained that one of that ilk (of which i count myself one) is neither conservative nor liberal as a matter of course and i was thrilled to hear justice scalia give voice to that same sentiment.  another thing i have in common with the esteemed justice is that we are both social conservatives - i know, who would have believed that?!?!

but let's go back to the why of it, shall we?

currently EVERYONE discusses activist judges and EVERYONE believes that they are the bane of our society.  only thing is, both sides have a differing viewpoint as to what and activist judge is.

those who believe in a "living constitution" think that originalists are the activist judges because they want to interpret the constitution in a fashion limited by what it says - or the dead constitution, as justice scalia called it.  originalists believe that anyone who rules on constitutional issues with the idea that constitution means whatever they want it to mean today rather than on what it (and the supporting documentation for the constitution) SAYS is an activist judge.

seems to me that the latter, rather than the former, definition is more accurate.  how can you be an activist if you are using the constitution as written.  how can you be an activist if you're NOT trying to change anything in the constitution?!?  how can you be an activist if you're not trying to legislate from the bench but rather only rule on those things that apply to the constitution (or is it to which the constitution applies?)?

during the course of his speech, scalia said that when he was coming up through the system, growing up and even before, the norm was that most everyone was a constructionist.  he stated that it wasn't until the warren led supremes (1953-1969) when the tide started turning and the supremes started down the merry path of creating the living constitution.  and based on what i know about u.s. history, i'd have to say that his viewpoint is an accurate one - big shocker there!!!

in talking with my friends on the left they often comment that the u.s. constitution MUST be a living document in order to make it flexible to the changes that happen as mankind evolves.  i have long wrestled with an appropriate response to that argument and, thankfully, justice scalia handed one to those of us in attendance last night.

he put for the the notion that the u.s. constitution, as written, offers our citizens the MOST flexible of scenarios imaginable.  further, he reminded all of us that it is the final word on what is to be the "law of the land".  further, that no matter how stupid somethings are, they just aren't in the province of the constitution (he even joked that he wanted a stamp & ink pad that says "STUPID BUT CONSTITUTIONAL").

as for being flexible he offered the following arguments:

you think abortion should be legal?  then get all of your fellow state citizens to agree with you and pass a law to ensure that it's legal.  don't think it should be legal and it is?  convince your fellow state citizens to agree with you and repeal the law in place.  same thing goes for the death penalty - the supremes have no business ruling on either of these items; i agree.

james staab wrote a great book, The Political Thought of Justice Antonin Scalia: A Hamiltonian on the Supreme Court that i recently read.  it's a great read even if i'm not sure i agree with all of staab's conclusions - to me scalia is more like thomas jefferson in that he believes in social conservatism (or liberalism in jefferson's day) so long as it "doesn't contradict the words the words in the constitution."

often times, justice scalia has gone with the side that is thought of as the "liberal reading" of the constitution; he hasn't gone "liberal" he is simply acting in concert with the words of the constitution.  he has angered social conservatives with some of his votes - he mentioned flag burning (he vote it was allowed under the first amendment), for the confrontation clause (under the 4th amendment) and some others, that i can't remember right now.

all in all, i sit in awe of this man who thinks so fast on his feet, but makes no decisions without considering the full weight of the constitution and the tradition and history that surround the original words.  i think the most important thing he said last night (and i paraphrase here) was that it is important to remember that those who believe in the living constitution seek not only to ADD rights but in some cases to remove them as well...

our brave new party?

my good friend, defiant infidel, pointed out that some may have missed the chart  i so painstakingly put together.  so i have posted each of the three pages in image form or you may download the actual pdf to make for easier reading.  Download romney_vs_mccain.pdf. 

   

don't get me wrong, i realize that it's not the most exhaustive of comparisons, but it does show those things that should be of most concern to we conservatives.  please note that i did not say "neo-conservatives" as in my opinion that term is oxymoronic at best.

as g-man noted as his place, there are several of us blogging to stop this runaway train that mccain is riding - notice i said riding - he is NOT the one who's driving this train it's the msm!  rush is speaking the loudest and, per usual, making a great amount of sense - and besides, he's finally joined up with what i've been saying for months and months - glad he's finally seen the light :)

anyway, it's important to understand that republican party unity is NOT the most important thing at this time.  adhering to the conservative principles of our founders is the most important thing - and mcvain just is NOT the guy that can do it.

did you catch the segment with david frum on tucker carlson last friday?  click here to watch the whole video from newsbusters.  the pertinent part of the exchange (imho) is this:

TUCKER CARLSON: ...John McCain is way more liberal than I am on a lot of things, and very annoying about it, often, from my point of view. But as a man, name another candidate who you'd like your son to grow up to be. Name one -- ever.

FRUM: You're right, he's an impressive guy; he's an impressive guy.

CARLSON: So what is this about? Other conservatives do not seem to feel the way I feel.

FRUM: People tend not to love those who don't love them back.

CARLSON: That's very . . . deep and true.

FRUM: John McCain has made it very clear over the last half-dozen years: he does not love the Republican party. He'll put up with it. He'll tolerate it. If they will follow him he will consent to lead them. But he does not love this party, and the party knows it. Plus there are the substantive issues, of which immigration is far and away the most important; it is a hugely important issue.

And a bit later . . .

FRUM: McCain doesn't just try to explain to the party why he disagrees. His method is to explain to the party why not only does he disagree, but they are racist and wrong and stupid for thinking the way they do, and people never like that.

And yet a bit later . . .

FRUM: He's not interested in the project of saving conservatism in the Republican party. He is really trying to build a personal movement with the Republican party as its vehicle.

mark finkelstein is dead-on in identifying how arrogant and nasty mccain behaves towards the conservative base.  then i received my "rush in a hurry" email and read this (well i heard it too, but easier to cut & paste and i'm basically pretty lazy) from rush:

"When a "maverick" is on our side denouncing our side, running against Republicans, the Drive-By Media loves him. Do we let the NY Times and Washington Post pick our candidate? The maverick is not a maverick. The maverick is with the majority, and he's swimming very easily with the tide. "

i also heard a soundbite from some woman on rush's show (can't remember who it was and i can't find it on his site yet) who said something to the effect that she was amazed that mccain thought he could win this thing.  that he had so far captured some moderate dems and independents, but unless he captured the conservative base he didn't stand a chance.  she's absolutely correct - and he's not really trying to capture we conservatives - he just seems to think we're going to line up behind him because of party unity.  fat chance.

look, i'm not denigrating john mccain.  i just don't understand all the people jumping on the mccain bandwagon.  he's not a conservative, folks - not by any stretch of the imagination.

the good (and i use that in the least unflattering manner) senator lied about mitt romney having a timetable for withdrawal.  it was proven to be a lie and even acknowledged to be inaccurate by most of the msm and yet STILL mccain persists in saying it.  he has also been lying about why he opposed the bush tax cuts.  he clearly thinks we are stupid and that we should just shut up and kiss him.

romney won the caucuses in maine due to a huge turn out of conservatives that no one predicted.  he garnered 53% of the vote there while mcvain got only 21%.  and while i realize that this straw poll will not have any real bearing until the spring, it does show that people are not simply willing to accept mccain as the inevitable nominee.  we're not going to take this one lying down.

so if you're in a super tuesday state, get out there and vote against mccain.  make certain to make your voice heard.  me, i'll be wearing my favorite shirt and talking to everyone i see and reminding them that a vote for mccain is just a vote against the constitution; same as voting for a democrat would be - no difference.

did you catch this ad on fox news channel last thursday?  neither did i - mainly because i'm not watching any news outlets because they all sicken me - but this is a great, accurate ad.  of course, mccain - in the best clinton mode he can muster - will cry foul because [apparently] even if it's the truth it's bashing if you're talking about john mccain.

one last thing - also in my "rush in a hurry" email was a couple of great quotes.  this one from ronald reagan from 1975 seems especially apropos:

"I'm impatient with those Republicans who -- after the last election -- rushed into print saying we must broaden the base of our party, when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents."

hey, i'm still hoping for a brokered convention, but for now, i'm with mitt!

i now return you to your regularly scheduled denial - updated

the people in this country don't want to believe that we are on a precipice between dhimmitude and our freedoms.  there has been an islamic jihad declared against the west in general, and especially here in america.  you can find the call to this jihad in site after site after site.

so many in our society say "it's only the radical muslims who buy into this crap".  really?  so where are all the moderate muslims speaking out against the jihad?  where are all the moderates denouncing the world-wide dhimmification of non-muslims?  where are all the moderates standing up for the christians in the community?  where are all the moderates denouncing the fanatics among them who are honor killing their women, who are mutilating the genitals of their daughters?

islam was born in arabia, in the two cities of mecca and medina, where the prophet Muhammad, its founder, lived between 570 and 632.  it is here that muhammad received his "revelation".  after he died, his predication was given its final form in the book called the koran (or qur'an).  in the three centuries that followed his death, muslim theologians and jurists elaborated the corpus of islamic jurisprudence on two main pillars, the koran and the hadiths.  the hadiths being the acts and sayings (sunna) attributed to muhammad.  the jurists used myriad interpretative principles to establish shari'a, the islamic law, to make it conform to allah's will expressed to muhammad in the koran and the hadiths.

according to dhimmitude.org, dhimmitude can only be understood from pov of jihad because jihad is the origination of dhimmitude.  apparently, the way it works is like this:  if you submit without fighting the islamic jihadists, you are given "a pledge of security" and essentially you are protected from the jihad laws against the infidels:

"...the jihad laws against infidels which command killing, slavery, ransom or deportation for the enemies. Peace and security for non-Muslims are recognised only after their submission. Protection status is provided through the Islamization of conquered lands."

yeah, yeah, we all know this.  so what already.  be patient!  this stuff is important if we are to understand what we're up against.

all over the world, the islmaic jihadists are using our own freedoms against us to further their goal of subjugating we infidels.  striking at the heart of ourselves, in the country that spawned us, the government is going after a blogger who's only crime is to have spoken the truth against what the islamists are doing to his community, his country.  lionheart is currently in the u.s. and in order to avoid arrest in britain, he will be staying here awhile. 

also in the u.k. authors and publishers are being sued for slander!  this includes authors and publishers in the states if someone happens to be able to buy a copy of the publication and have it shipped to them in a foreign nation.  and our courts are upholding the preposterous notion that the u.k. has jurisdiction over this matter.  this is madness!

cair, that [supposedly] moderate islamic rights organization is an unindicted co-conspirator in the hamas funding trial.  and still the current administration (and its accomplices in congress) treat cair as if they have some legitimate function in realizing peace between muslims and infidels.

now we have come to a point in this election cycle where we, the [supposed] conservatives, basically have a choice between a clinton-lite candidate and a wanna be reagan candidate.  of course, we could also decide to vote for an actual clinton, or a former muslim.  while i'm not wholly fond of any of my remaining choices, mitt seems to stink least of the options and i'm [sort of] supporting him.  i will be voting for him on tuesday in lieu of forfeiting my right to bitch about the choice i have come november.

we are in a fight for our country, our liberties, our very way of life.  the liberals around us call for greater and greater capitulation to the forces around us: amnesty for illegal aliens, appeasing the terrorists (and potential terrorists), u.n. control of the earth's seas, "free" healthcare for everyone, closing gitmo so as not to offend any more muslims and/or sensitive socialists, surrendering of our ability to defend ourselves, destroying our economy to appease the global warming wanks, the expansion of abortion on demand, the appointment of activist judges, and the list goes on (and on and on and on...)

of those items above, how do those things fall in line with the actions, words and history of our two remaining candidates?  this pdf (Download romney_vs_mccain.pdf) gives you a pretty good idea - please feel free to distribute it to all whom you know.  it appears there isn't much difference between the two of them, there is enough difference to make mccain squarely out of touch with who we are and where we should be heading.

but, although the differences are not huge, i find myself compelled to vote for romney come super tuesday.  a few of the reasons:  He did not actively campaign against republicans and republican positions  - i also like that he has not given voice to a lot of kowtowing to islamists.  not much i know, but this has come down to an election cycle of degrees.

maybe mitt will appoint constitutional constructionists.  maybe john boy will support the people's right to bear arms.  who knows.  right now, i trust mitt more if for no other reason then he has a shorter history of screwing his constituents.

i believe he will keep gitmo open and allow "enhanced interrogation techniques" that will keep us and our servicemen and women in harm's way safer.  i also think, because of this commitment, he will be less likely to bend over and give away our freedoms to the islamo-fascists then mr. mccain.

however, as i told goat tonight - it is my most sincere hope that the "republicans" lose this time around.  maybe next time we'll be able to elect a grown up...

UPDATE: people across the conservative spectrum are coming out of the woodworks to denounce mccain.  check out these links:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/02/01/mccains_straight_lies

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2008/02/01/mccain,_the_anti-conservative

http://www.newsmax.com/reagan/?s=al&promo_code=443D-1

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Dobson_vote_McCain/2008/02/01/69333.html

http://www.newsmax.com/ruddy/john_mccain/2008/01/31/69000.html

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/a4a633c6-f24c-416b-bc24-b5ed8ec8ff57

we should note that mccain finished up the 4th quarter 2007 with $4.5m in campaign debt and a total number of donors somewhere around 110,000.  this is a train that can be stopped as it's not moving too quickly - regardless of what the lsm is trying to tell us.

mccain is NOT potus yet and there is nothing saying he has to be so.  so climb on board and start pulling the emergency brakes to derail this thing.  as defiant infidel has rightly noted, we did it with harriet miers, we did it with shamnesty and we can do it again.  we must.

one more thing i have trackedback this article to angel's weekend post that ties right into this one.  i heartily recommend you pop over and give her a read!

tide's coming in and fred may be surging...

this morning, glenn over at instapundit posted this:

THE NEW YORK TIMES reports that Fred Thompson is surging in South Carolina. And I just got an email from a journalist who says that crowds at Thompson events are suddenly over-capacity. Is it a tipping point for Thompson, or just a blip? Stay tuned.

everyone in the msm seems to be truly dumbfounded that fred is making an impact - especially since they have all worked so hard to make it impossible for that to happen.  even now, with a solid debate win last thursday, many in the msm are STILL looking for ways to write-off fred.  for instance, from the 'surging in south carolina' link above, paul vitello (who titles his piece "a combative thompson..."), after describing a couple who had realized the wonder that is fred while watching the debates and deciding "he is the one", spins it like this:

Whether this was a new Fred Thompson, or just a sign of mirage-inducing campaign fatigue among voters, many people attending Mr. Thompson’s campaign rallies here on the day after the debate reported having similar revelations.

and then:

Mr. Thompson, who remarked Friday that he had “always been laid back — laid back when I became a U.S. prosecutor at 28, laid back when I became staff counsel to the Watergate committee at 30, laid back when I ran and won election twice to the United States Senate” — was clearly more combative on Thursday night than he had been in past debates.

and yet when others weren't scoring major points, but the infotainment news media decided they were the winners, the others out there got wonderful, rave reviews.  no bias here, right?

i believe that fred has a real chance to continue this way and surf into the nomination on the surge tide that's forming.  my husband thinks this was part of his plan all along.  either way, things are really looking up for team thompson!

on friday 04 january 2008, after taking 3rd place in iowa, fred08 challenged supporters to raise $539,492.00 by friday 11 january 2008.  through thursday afternoon, contributions were going along at a pretty nice clip ($512,000 on thursday afternoon) and then something magical happened.

the latest republican debate was held in south carolina and fred dazzled them.  and us.  and then the contributions started to skyrocket.  by friday morning, when the $539,492 had long been met a new challenge was issued to reach $750,000 by midnight that night. 

then when THAT goal was surpassed still another goal was issued: $1,000,000.00 by midnight monday 14 january 2008.  as of 21:32, today, donations stood at $910,584.00.  that cool million doesn't look so out of reach as did the $539,492 just a week ago...

we gave when he was in iowa, and we gave again this week. who among you will join us?

screaming from the rooftops for all to hear!

my good friend, defiant infidel, says he's for fred, but he's afraid that not enough other people are supporting fred - mostly because he's listing to the lame stream media and believing the pollaganda message.  for anyone not wholly familiar, mark alexander and his crew at the patriot post use the federalist dictionary to define it as thus:

Pollaganda -- n. 1. Media polling used to manipulate public opinion and advance a particular bias. This is primarily accomplished by television networks, on which most people rely for daily news. (Those who rely on print media for information are less likely to be subjected to extreme bias, and more inclined to discriminate between balanced and biased reporting.)

Pollagandize -- v. 1. To engage in pollaganda. 2. The systematic propagation of television media polls to manipulate public opinion by: first, saturating viewers with "reporting" which reflects a doctrinal bias; second, designing and conducting public opinion surveys which reflect that bias; and third, further proselytizing viewers by treating media poll results as "news." 3. Using pollaganda to induce "bandwagon psychology" (the human tendency to aspire to the side perceived to be in the majority), thus driving public opinion toward the original media bias.

this is exactly what has been happening throughout this campaign and others before it.  remember 2000 when every poll (including the "exit interviews") showed al gore would win the election?  same in 2004 with john kerry.  and some times, as in the case of "news" anchor, dan rather they just flat out lie to put forth their position.

mark goes to further explain in this essay how it's applied in today's political cycle:

Pollaganda -- Outcome-based polling; instruments designed to generate a preferential outcome, which can be used to manipulate public opinion by advancing the perception that a particular issue or candidate has majority support. Pollagandize -- To utilize instruments of pollaganda, or selective poll reporting (reporting mostly favorable polls), to advance a particular bias.

Pollaganda Cycle -- The intentional propagation of a particular bias by Leftmedia mainstream television and print outlets to manipulate public opinion by first saturating viewers with "reporting" that reflects a particular bias; second, conducting public opinion polls in concert with like-minded organizations or campaigns, which will reflect that bias; third, further proselytizing viewers by treating these poll results as "news"; and fourth, using pollaganda to induce "bandwagon psychology" (the human tendency of those who do not have a strong ideological foundation to aspire to the side perceived to be in the majority), thus driving public opinion toward the original media bias.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos, a key strategist in Bill Clinton's campaigns and one of many Leftists who have repeatedly passed through the looking glass between political camps and their news fronts, noted that political scientists "talk about the bandwagon effect, that once a candidate gets in the zone, all of the coverage is good, almost no matter what happens...."

Indeed, Leftmedia pollagandizing of the electorate is an intentional undermining of the democratic process. Pollaganda not only creates a targeted constituency; at the same time it can discourage voter turnout, turning the electoral process into a spectator sport.

sound familiar to anyone out there besides me?

to be fair, now-a-days, this system is used for more than just selecting political candidates.  polls are used to try to effect nearly every part of our political and legislative process.  why, just this year, it's been used to put forth the msm's views on social security, schip, gun control, foreign policy, war strategy and illegal immigration control.

with the mccain/kennedy immigration reform bill the pollaganda actually failed - but that is definitely NOT the norm.  finally, we the people, stood up and said "NO!" and regardless of what the "polls" showed, congress [and president bush] had to back down or risk all out revolt.  personally, i was hoping for a revolution, but apparently we're just not far enough in the trash for enough others to join with me yet...

anyway, whilst di and i were chatting he lamented that he's not seeing from fred what he hoped to be seeing from fred by now.  not getting any airplay, not seeming to have any "fire in his belly", not being aggressive enough.  all perceptions based on what he "doesn't" see in the mainstream media or even on faux news channel.  and that's an especially unfortunate example of how pollaganda and the execution thereof subverts the political process in this country - well probably in other countries as well, but i'm concerned only about here for this post.

i attempted to give di encouragement of what the history of the iowa caucuses is - pertaining to polls and the proper prediction of who will  place in the top three - but he remained saddened.  then i began telling him that so many stories are coming out about people who are switching their support to fred and i began to see a glimmer of hope that this man - the best man for the job in my and di's (and many other's) opinion has a shot.

so then i told him "fred's not being lazy or quite - he's just not playing the sound bite game."  i went on further, saying, think back to 1980 and bush, the elder, was "the man" and no way would reagan get the nomination because heck even hollywood wasn't supporting him.  the press and [supposedly] "everyone" was saying "he's too lazy."  "he's too old."  "he's not being aggressive enough." in short he was too too.

reagan finished second in iowa when every poll showed him to be in fourth or maybe even fifth.  then he went on to take new hampshire.  and the rest is history.

funny thing about those iowa voters - they don't pay much attention to polls - how else do you explain that over and over, at least as long as anyone has been paying attention to iowa, the top three in iowa don't line up with what the polls predicted ahead of time?

di said that the reagan scenario is history that needs to be repeated with fred thompson for 2008 and i replied: "we can and we will if only everyone who 'likes fred but doesn't know if everyone else does' would just start screaming his name from the rooftops."  and i believe it to be true.

in an article for the weekly standard stephen f. hayes tells a story of thompson stopping in waterloo [iowa] and asks if he is napoleon or wellington - it's a great article and there are few personal notes in there - just a start of some stories to warm our hearts:

Brad Gade, an insurance representative from nearby Cedar Falls, asked Thompson to autograph a "Days of Thunder" DVD box, and "Big John" obliges. Gade says he is a conservative Republican who recently decided to caucus for Thompson on January 3. He says Thompson seems "down to earth and easy to relate to." That's something he hasn't found in other candidates. "I looked a lot at Huckabee--but that recent stuff that's come out. . . " What stuff? "He's so heavily into religion," says Gade, wrinkling his nose. "Not my cup of tea."

Later, I spoke to Scott and Chelle Adkins, a young couple from Waterloo. Chelle is the secretary of the Blackhawk County Republican party, and Scott has had a leadership position with the party, too. Like Brad Gade, they have considered other candidates. "Mitt Romney came close for me," says Scott. "But there was just something missing. Huckabee appeals because of social issues, but I'm not so sure about fiscal issues."

Chelle jumps in. "A month ago, Huckabee looked like he might be a great candidate. But the more I research his positions, the less comfortable I become." I asked her for specifics. "Two things--illegal immigration and the taxes. I'd seen lots of advertising on how he raised taxes, how he was for a cigarette tax. I was really turned off on illegal immigration, too."

"You can't trust what you get from the media," Scott said, as I furiously took notes. "So we researched it."

imagine that.  research.  not what the average voter does, i know, but it seems to be what the average  voter in iowa does.  i'm certain this is why no one, from either party, gets the nomination unless they finish in the top three in iowa.

some more stories for you.  jon of we swear tells of this encounter over at say uncle:

"I visited friends & family this weekend.
One man is a very conservative business owner with no time for politics at this point and really doesn’t know who Fred?! is. But he knows this; “My liberal inlaws say the only Republican candidate that scares them is Fred. Therefore, I support Fred.” He then asked; “You know this stuff, is he any good?”

My reply; “Everyone in the traditional media hates him. He will not be manipulated and is not playing by their rules. Yeah, he’s good.”

Something about; ‘The enemy of my enemy….’ "

and still another one.  just yesterday "whiterabbits" posted in response to a thread over at powerline calling people to switch to huckabee:

"Huckabee is a good man, a solid man.  However, I’ve come to realize he is out of his element.  Look at the gaffs his staff makes on a daily basis.  Pick someone else. 

Might I offer Uncle Fred.  Yes, he’s about as exciting as cottage cheese, but his policy positions look good and very conservative and his campaign staff seem to be at the very least, competent.  He’s honest, as far as I can tell from all I’ve read.  That may be a drawback initially, but Uncle Fred will catch on.  It’s OK to spin once in awhile.  Uncle Fred and put it to bed!"

now i don't hold with whiterabbits' characterization of huckabee, but the rest of the sentiment is spot on.

there are so many more stories out there about people who are supporting fred.  i found this link through patrick (born again redneck) and decided to include it here.  fred wrote in to set the story straight about what really happened in burlington iowa.  in his piece he alludes to what i've been discussing here.

Every once in a while I am more thankful than ever for today’s technology which allows me to talk to you directly instead of having to go through the filter of the main stream media.

Some of them are intent on making the outcome of the campaign dependent upon their pre-conceived notions. Every once in a while their incomplete and slanted coverage makes this clear.

Today I had this story written about me regarding what I said at a Town Hall event in Burlington, Iowa by a reporter who wasn’t even at the event. Incidentally, I declined to be interviewed by this particular reporter yesterday for reasons which will soon be apparent.

In referring to me, she reported “he doesn’t like modern campaigning, isn’t interested in running for President, and will not be devastated” if he doesn’t win.

Below is a transcript of what I actually said in response to a question by a local Burlington resident which was the basis of the reporter’s story.

over at patrick's site, he lists several comments in response to fred's post over at redstate and you can go there to check out his faves, and i love every single one he did and more - it was a hard choice, but here is my favorite of all:

"The comments I have read above are all true about you. It is so very difficult to add any more without being duplicative. What I do want to say comes straight from my heart. I had given up on politics and politicians for quite some time. The surreal atmosphere of blarney was just too much to consume. I had to spend too much time overcoming health problems like Pancreatic Cancer to think of things around me; my country, my citizenry, our future as a nation. You, dear Senator have opened my eyes and my heart once again. You have made me feel like an American, a proud American who can hold my head high and give NO EXCUSE FOR OUR COUNTRY. Thank you for what you have already given to me. Thank you for what you have done and what you will do for this great Nation."

one final thing - check out this from channel 3000 (wisctv) which finds fred leading in the republican field in wisconsin.  i know, i know - wisconsin's primary isn't until 19 february 2008 - long after more than 30 states will have already voted - including super tuesday on 5 february 2008.  but it could be a portend of things to come...

blogbursting for fred thompson

tuesday, fred at right wing nut house proposed that those of us who support fred make a concerted effort to help raise funds for fred's campaign in iowa.  you can read the whole post, above, but in part he said:

don’t think any of us believe that our endorsement of Thompson alone means that much in the long run. But working together, uniting for one day and speaking with one voice, I think we could make a significant impact on Fred’s chances in Iowa. After all, when the candidate you support rolls the dice as Fred has, the least we can do is back his play to the best of our ability.

then, today, i received this email from fred's campaign - seems like fred was prescient...

The first leg of our Iowa bus tour last week was phenomenal. We visited with voters in 21 cities and towns and did 21 events all across the state. Everywhere we went we were greeted by enthusiastic crowds of Iowans who are looking for a consistent conservative leader who will tell it like it is.

It's working: Just last Friday a new Strategic Vision poll showed me moving into a strong third at 16%.

We are poised for the great showing we want!

Just last week I picked u p the endorsement of Congressman Steve King. He has been a champion in the fight to end illegal immigration, and I am pleased that he has joined our team. He's been with me on the bus and the great reception we've received on the tour has really put a jolt into this race.

This is where you come in.

I have a terrific new TV spot. You can see it now at Fred08.com. Take a look, and forward this message on to 10 of your friends.

I need your help to put it on the air. We need to put $248,846 in the bank before 6 PM EST on Friday, December 28th to do it.

Can you help me by making a contribution today? I know I've asked a lot, and you've done a lot, but this is critical to our success. Help me make history.

The Clear Conservative Choice: Hands Down bus tour will run from today to caucus day. We have a terrific ground game in place.

All we need is air cover--which the spot on our website will provide.

This ad will help me let the people of Iowa know that my plans for this country are the best that have been presented. It will help me make the case that not only am I the only reliable, consistent conservative in this race, but that I have the experience and the vision to lead our Party and our nation through difficult times.

I've always shot straight with you, now's no different. I need your help. Can I count on you?

if any of you out there like fred but are waiting to see what happens in the primaries, you're waiting too long.  support him now so that he has a strong showing in iowa and he will be the nominee for the gop.

so this is my effort for the cause.  i gave today and i will give again tomorrow.  who among you will join me?

words mean something - or at least they used to.

in my [way] old webster's dictionary at home - published well before 1950 - i looked up the word 'racism' and found this:

rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm) n. the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.

that's it - one line and it's pretty straightforward.  as near as i can tell, it doesn't differentiate between "white racism" or "christian racism" or "homophobic racism".  notably, neither does it say anything about "black racism" or "muslim racism" or "jewish racism" or "asian racism" and so on and so forth.  presumably they are all the same and one is not worse than another.

but here in america, it seems that whites - read that as heterosexual, conservative, fanatics - are held accountable for all manner of things that have "stricken" those who are not the same as we.  we're white america, we're awful and we deserve to be castigated.

after all, slavery was our invention, right?  well no.  but ok, we were the slave traders of note - we captured the slaves and sent them back here, right?  well, no again.  ok ok, but whites were the only ones who owned slaves in america, right?  well, not quite.  ok, but america was the only country that ever allowed enslavement, that one's true, right?  um, no.  but slavery was allowed for a longer period of time in america than any where else, wasn't it?  nope.  well, conservatives are against welfare which is the only way to help the poor ignorant blacks out of poverty (which in and of itself is another form of slavery), everybody knows that.  wrong again bozo.

let's pick apart these arguments, shall we?

slavery has existed for as long as man has had civilizations.  people of all races have been subjugated to the realm of slaves.  and in some parts of the world, it still exists today.  according to wikipedia (yes i know not the greatest source, but it jives with my hard paper encyclopedias and it's easier than retyping everything):

The evidence for slavery predates written records. It can be found in almost all cultures and continents. Slavery can be traced to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi in Mesopotamia (~1800 BCE.), which refers to slavery as an already established institution. The forced labor of women in some ancient and modern cultures may also be identified as slavery. Slavery, in this case, includes sexual services.

Historically, most slaves were captured in wars or kidnapped in isolated raids, but some persons were sold into slavery by their parents as a means of surviving extreme conditions. Most slaves were born into that status, to parents who were enslaved. Ancient Warfare often resulted in slavery for prisoners and their families, who were either killed, ransomed or sold as slaves. Captives were often considered the property of those who captured them and were looked upon as a prize of war. Slavery may originally have been more humane than simply executing those who would return to fight if they were freed, but the effect led to widespread enslavement of particular groups of people. Those captured sometimes differed in ethnicity, nationality, religion, or race from their enslavers, but often were the same as the captors. The dominant group in an area might take captives and turn them into slaves with little fear of suffering the like fate. The possibility always existed of reversals of fortune, as when Seneca warned, at the height of the Roman Empire, when powerful nations fought among themselves, anyone might find himself enslaved.

Brief sporadic raids or kidnapping could mean enslavement of persons otherwise not at war. St. Patrick recounted in his Confession having been kidnapped by pirates. In the Genesis, Joseph was sold into slavery by brothers who were jealous of him.

that effectively rules out the argument that slavery is a white on black phenomenon in general and specifically that it was a heinous act perpetrated by american whites against african blacks.  that's not to say that white americans didn't own black slaves, however, it does show that we didn't start the process.  nor were we the last ones to practice it, that would be the muslims who are still practicing the art of slavery today.

while it is true that white european males were the primary transporters of slaves (and other goods) from africa, it is NOT true that white european males were responsible for the capture of the peoples being enslaved.  according to bill warner, director of the center for the study of political islam (cspi) and spokesman for politicalislam.com, white european (and 'american') males were purchasing their slaves for resale from muslim slave traders.  from part two of a two part interview with jamie glazov of front page magazine, bill warner has this to say:

"History records around 11,000,000 Africans being sent to the Americas and about 13,000,000 being sent to Islamic countries for a total of 24,000,000 African slaves. To get one slave, many others have to be killed for the tribe to surrender to enslavement. The old, sick and children are left behind to starve. These collateral deaths are conservatively estimated to about 5 to 1. So that implies that over 1400 years, 120,000,000 million Africans have been killed to furnish Islam with its profits.

The accepted history of race in the U.S. is that white men captured Africans, brought them to the U.S. and sold them as slaves. This is wrong. When the white slavers showed up on the west coast of Africa, they didn’t capture Africans. They looked them over in the pens, gave the Muslim slave traders their money, took their bills of sale, and loaded their purchases into their boats.

The Muslims had been plying the trade of war, capture, enslavement, and sale for a thousand years. Mohammed was a slave trader. Long after the white slave traders quit, the Muslims continued their African slave trade. It still exists today.

And to put a fine point on it, many African slaves were castrated by removing both testicles and penis. Castrated slaves brought more on the slave block. Castrated blacks were the traditional keepers of Mohammed's mosque in Medina."

isn't it ironic, then, that black people who convert to islam do so with the belief that islam is the religion for blacks while christianity is the religion of the whites?  muhammed considered himself white and he was a huge proponent of slavery.  did you know that the arabic word for black slave and black person are the same "abd"; the word for white and asian slaves is "mamluk" - just something i found interesting.  but that's a whole other blog post in and of itself.  muslims take slaves now and they did then.

black people point the finger at white people, to this day, attributing to all whites all manner of evil for having owned slaves.  i don't know about all of you reading this, but unless you're a muslim i can't believe that anyone reading this post is a proponent of slavery - black, child or other.  personally, i believe that it is wrong and it saddens me that anyone in the human race would ever engage in the perpetration of it - including black people.

in the sudan and nigeria and mauritania - all of which have predominantly black populations - are still practicing slavery today.  i won't include egypt and saudi arabia and the other muslim countries where it's still going on because the arabs consider themselves white so it's not necessarily a valid argument.  but let's contain ourselves to the question of the united states, shall we? 

a google search of "black slave holders" returns approximately 148,000 results - click on darn ear any one of them and you're welcomed into a world that you were never taught existed - at least not in the public school systems in america.  i chose a few that i found interesting to share here.

back in 2001 the fine folks at free republic reposted a 1997 barnes review article by robert m. grooves.  mr. grooms is a freelance writer of the highest caliber.  in the article he sites several references to support his writings.  an excerpt from the article is here:

The leftists who predominate in the mass media and the world of academe have refashioned the by gone world of slavery and black life in the Old South. Their agenda does not allow for a balanced view of a world they never knew.

In a society molded by highly skewed and agenda-selective presentations of history, the tightest censorship involves the fact that large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

in point of fact, slavery in america was founded by a black man named "anthony johnson".  anthony johnson was one of the first 20 blacks to arrive on the continent - as an indentured servant not a slave.  check out this excerpt the 'virginia, guide to the old dominion, wpa writers' program' published by the oxford university press in 1940:

"In 1650 there were only 300 negroes in Virginia, about one percent of the population. They weren't slaves any more than the approximately 4,000 white indentured servants working out their loans for passage money to Virginia, and who were granted 50 acres each when freed from their indentures, so they could raise their own tobacco.

Slavery was established in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, Northampton County, convinced the court that he was entitled to the lifetime services of John Casor, a negro. This was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

But who was Anthony Johnson, winner of this epoch-making decision? Anthony Johnson was a negro himself, one of the original 20 brought to Jamestown (1619) and 'sold' to the colonists. By 1623 he had earned his freedom and by 1651, was prosperous enough to import five 'servants' of his own, for which he received a grant of 250 acres as 'headrights.'

Anthony Johnson ought to be in a 'Book of Firsts.' As the most ambitious of the first 20, he could have been the first negro to set foot on Virginia soil. He was Virginia's first free negro and first to establish a negro community, first negro landowner, first negro slave owner and as the first, white or black, to secure slave status for a servant, he was actually the founder of slavery in Virginia. A remarkable man." (emphasis is mine)

and it is true that conservatives are against welfare but at least it's because they want to end all forms of slavery. the dems know that welfare and other such entitlement programs don't do anything for the plight of the poor - black or otherwise. even hillary knows it - but don't take my word for it read what she wrote in her college senior thesis.  the whole story behind the thesis and its being hidden from view is an interesting read in and of itself, but in this excerpt is hillary's acknowledgment that she KNOWS what she's doing with her social programs support: 

In her paper, she accepted Alinsky's view that the problem of the poor isn't so much a lack of money as a lack of power, as well as his view of federal anti-poverty programs as ineffective. (To Alinsky, the War on Poverty was a “prize piece of political pornography,” even though some of its funds flowed through his organizations.) “A cycle of dependency has been created,” she wrote, “which ensnares its victims into resignation and apathy.”

i know this has been a particularly long post, but i couldn't figure out where to cut it.  perhaps i need to hire an editor or something.  this is information that everyone in this country should know.  i'm positive that the reverends jesse and al know it.  i'm certain that most of the leaders of the naacp and the aclu know it too.  lord knows the muslims know it - well the bulk of it any way.

in parting, just a couple more questions that i am unable to divine the answer to: why is that we aren't teaching our children actual history but rather some fairytale that does nothing if not inflame the hatred of america even here at home.  when did white americans of european descent become the be all, end all of racism and hatred?

does anyone out there know?

infringe on the liberals' right to lie, not my right to bear arms.

my good friend, defiant infidel, put this up the other day and i haven't been able to stop thinking about it ever since.

john stossel is great; he's a true anomaly at abc.  i don't always agree with him, but more often than not the point of view presented is mainstream american and not loonietoons leftist.  and he always gives some insite into the other side and that's really where i'm going with this post.

the bill of rights, comprised of the first ten amendments to the u.s. constitution, grants rights to individuals and excplicitly limits the powers of the federal government.  the second amendment reads:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

it's pretty clear cut and we've all heard it before.  those who advocate for "gun control" - better called "second amendment nullification" - posit that our founding fathers didn't really mean what they wrote.  or maybe that because guns are "bigger and better" now, we need to limit ownership and perhaps manufacturing or something else they'll come up with later.

there are myriad shades of gray in the arguments for 2nd amendment nullification, and every one of them that i've heard is way convoluted.  seems like the argument is always something like "well yes, it does say 'shall not be infringed' but i'm not proposing that we put fringe on the guns before they're sold - only after.  it is of course  what we need to do to reduce crime and make us all safer."  um, i don't think so.

trust me, i am all for a reduction of crime and making us all safer.  however, making me register my firearms, or telling me what kind of gun or how many guns i can purchase is altogether the wrong way of accomplishing the stated goal.

registering a firearm only makes easier to target gun owners - whether the goal is harrassment or confiscation, the result is the same:  my right has been infringed.  one of my favorite wisemen, walter williams, said

“For individual freedom to be viable, it must be a part of the shared values of a society and there must be an institutional framework to preserve it against encroachments by majoritarian or government will.”

and that's the crux of things, as i see it.  the lame stream media keeps putting forth the myth that gun control makes us safer.  that criminals wouldn't see a 'need' for guns if the citizens weren't allowed to own them.  that criminals are simply getting guns IN CASE whomever they're after has one.  and so the lemmings who read and believe (make that nearly everyon in at least this country) the lame stream media, think that we need greater and greater assults on the 2nd amendment to protect us.  yeah, sure.

it's a trite statement and basically just an updated version of what thomas jefferson said, but seriously folks - if guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.  i myself have even posited on the slope we are barreling down with all these assults on the 2nd amendment:

"you know it occurs to me that if we are to believe in the church of evolution and survival of the species is dependent upon survival of the fittest - think of who the fittest are in our society. by government diktat, the fittest are the thugs and criminals."

about three years ago, the national academy of sciences released a 328-page report that is referenced in the video above.  unfortunately, when the results of their study didn't pan out as the majority of the panel had hoped, they simply said the subject needs further study.  what the study ACTUALLY revealed is that 2nd amendment nullification laws, which are [by default] levied against law abiding citizens, are not capable of reducing crime.  world net daily wrote a great article on it and there are several links in there to follow through, as well.  to me, the most pertinent paragraph in the article is this:

The study noted the number of criminals who obtained guns from retail outlets was dwarfed by the number of those who picked up their arms through means other than legal purchases. The report was the result of interviews with more than 18,000 state and federal inmates conducted nationwide. It found that nearly 80 percent of those interviewed got their guns from friends or family members, or on the street through illegal purchases.

kind of telling isn't it?

read the study for yourself - if you can stand the dry, boring nature of the thing.  otherwise, do some studying here. i haven't quite figured out who's who on this site, but it's a great one for information on what the policies and laws have actually done for [to?] this country.

i am of the opinion that the good people of kennesaw, georgia have it figured out. i agree that all households should have at least one gun. and not one that's locked up - how are you supposed to defend yourself if you have to unlock the darn gun, first?!? "uh, please wait right there mr. robber while i go get my gun out of its lockbox." sure, that'll work. "but, heidianne, what about the safety of our children and ourselves?" easy peasy, jimbob - teach your child to have respect for and knowledge of the firearms in your house. that's what my parents did. that's what i did. a child should KNOW what a gun can do (like knowing the stove is hot and the knife is sharp); they should know it's a tool and a weapon and they should know how to use as soon as they are able to grasp the safety issues. 'nuff said.

and finally, just because i like the story, there is this from mark steyn:

"I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in part because it has a high rate of gun ownership. We do have the occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told ‘em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased ‘em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where’s the nearest place around here where you’re most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish... it signals to everyone that you’re not in the real world."

anyone have anything to add?

have a heart? or is a brain more important?

someone once told me that if you're not a liberal when you're young then you have no heart and that if you're still a liberal when you're an adult than you have no brain.  sage words, these.  but do they really apply in the here and now?

now-a-days all the kids are talking about this guy being a "moderate republican" that guy being a "compassionate conservative".  excuse me?  conservatism, by its very nature is compassionate and what does it mean to be a "moderate" republican.  seems to me that's just liberal-lite.

i believe that there are four major components to being a conservative:  fiscal, security, social and constitutional constructionism (is that a word?).  it is not a pick one from column a and one from column b chinese dinner.  it is an all or nothing proposition.  without all of these qualities represented, what is the real difference between the republicans and the democrats?

i am a red state conservative.  i make no apologies for it and i certainly don't make any excuses for it.  i believe that the constitution means what it says.  if i have a question as to the intent, i believe that i can find the answers in the federalist papers and sometimes even in the anti-federalist papers.

that said, as far as the 2008 republican race goes, this is the way i see things taking shape:

mitt romney may win iowa and/or new hampshire.  he's been spending all of his capital (and then some) to make that happen.  however, he currently has nearly double the amount of campaign debt as cash and so for all intents and purposes his campaign is about bankrupt.  if it weren't for his use of his personal funds thus far, his race would already be in the "also ran" category.

john mccain is done and has been nearly since the time of his declaration of intent to run.  he's nearly bankrupt and completely out of sync with the americans he claims to represent.  his status as hugely unpopular can be traced to his insane views on immigration, the gang of 14 on judges confirmation, and even campaign finance reform.  his refusal to aggressively interrogate terrorists isn't helping him any, either.

mike huckabee has small pockets of supporters who would like to see a baptist minister elected, period.  as near as i can tell, he is conservative only in his pro-life stance and his support of one man + one woman = marriage.  even if he somehow wins iowa, he won't go any further.

ron paul may be just a tad touched in the head.  at the very least he's an isolationist who doesn't understand that we live in a global economy.  and while ronald reagan did say "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.", that hardly makes me feel better where mr. paul is concerned.  additionally, his ties to white supremacists and anti-semitics are starting to surface - all of which means there is no way he will ever be a serious contender for the republican nomination.

duncan hunter and tom tancredo are both awesome men.  either of them could represent the country and the party quite well.  however, for whatever reason, neither of them has been able to capture the attention of conservative voters nationwide and so make it unlikely that either one of them could get voters to unite behind him.  i do hope that they each find a position in any republican administration that is formed as a result of the 2008 election.  it will be very interesting to see which candidate each endorses - i really wish they'd concede already and allow people to start uniting under one of the others.

that leaves two players really left standing after super tuesday 2008 - fred thompson and rudy giuliani.  fred is the only one i see who is able to reconcile all four points of conservatism that i listed above.  he is the only one who seems to truly understand how our government is supposed to work as laid out by our founding fathers and ratified by our ancestors in each of the states.

rudy is trying to move to the right on the issues that are of concern, but i don't think it will work.  there are just too many holes.  i know people who say he's great except for the abortion thing but that he says he'll appoint conservative judges so that's good enough.  but is it?

rudy has also said he's going to leave the second amendment question up to the states and it's where that question belongs.  nothing could be farther from the truth.  the second amendment is specifically mentioned and protected by the constitution and so is not a states' rights issue.  he doesn't want to  answer questions on this because he doesn't believe the second amendment should be left to stand.  one need only look at his history of dealing with guns (and the ownership and manufacturing thereof) to see that.

according to university of pennsylvania's factcheck.org only 14 of the 23 tax cuts that rudy giuliani has been claiming can actually be credited to him.  they further say:

In fact, he strongly opposed one of the largest cuts for which he claims credit, reversing himself only after a five-month standoff with the city council. In addition, the ad's claim that Giuliani turned the budget deficit he inherited into a surplus, while true enough, ignores the fact that he also left a multibillion-dollar deficit for his successor, not including costs associated with 9/11.

from the campaign spot at national review i got some further insight on this issue:

FACT: Mayor Giuliani Not Only Wanted To Keep The Tax, He Wanted To Raise It:

Mayor Giuliani Said That The Commuter Tax Should Be Increased Rather Than Eliminated. "Earlier today, Mr. Giuliani assailed the Legislature for seeking to end the commuter tax, saying that if anything, it should be higher." (Clifford J. Levy, "Leaders In Albany Plan To Eliminate Tax On Commuters," The New York Times, 5/13/99)

Mayor Giuliani Threatened Politicians Who Considered Voting For The Tax Cut. "At the City Hall event, Giuliani also warned Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (D-Manhattan) and any other city-elected backers of the tax cut: 'Voting against the interests of the city, somehow, some way, you will pay for it.'" (Dan Janison, "Former Foes United," [New York] Newsday, 5/17/99)

in august of 1996, on the charlie rose show, rudy stated that he didn't fully agree with tax cuts proposed by bob dole, but thought that it was a good political ploy to get people focused on bob dole.  so is rudy using it as a political ploy now?  makes me wonder.

also, when questioned about how he was justifying his claim of being responsible for all 23 tax cuts the exchange went like this:

The former mayor summed up his position in this exchange:.

Saltonstall: All you have to do is say, ‘I support it,’ and you get credit for it?
Giuliani: Of course. That’s exactly right. Of course.

i disagree with this statement, as do tax experts quoted by the Daily News.

rudy ran new york as a sanctuary city but says he didn't.  his stated stance was that it is up to the federal government to deal with illegal aliens.  rudy says that he supports a tamper-proof id and such, but how would he enforce it?  the cities and states MUST work with the federal government, not against it, to enforce anything having to do with immigration - illegal or otherwise - else the problem will simply continue to grow.  sounds like he agrees with kansas's stance which is just plain ridiculous.  it's like saying "yes, it's illegal to rob the bank, but once you have the money it's yours."  whatever.

his spending was nothing to write home about either.  while he claims to have had a surplus when he left office, that's not quite the truth.  when rudy took the reigns for nyc from dinkins, the city had a $1.4 billion budget shortfall.  when he left, the after math of 9/11 not withstanding, the city had a $3.5 billion budget shortfall - more than twice the amount as when he took over.  if you factor in the damages from 9/11 (which i don't think it fair to do) the budget shortfall is greater than $5 billion.

we have had nearly eight years of "compassionate conservatism" and what has it gotten us?  don't get me wrong.  i am NOT bashing bush for the sake of bashing him, but while he has been steadfast in his effort to appoint conservative judges and executing the war on terror, he has been an excessive spender as well.  we can't afford another "compassionate conservative" or "moderate republican". 

there are other issues as well, too numerous to list in this post, but he is not the conservative he is claiming to be.  the long and the short of it is that middle america or texas or anywhere else outside of new york, really, is not new york.  by and large, red state conservatives will not vote or unite behind a new york republican.  this means that if rudy gets the nod from the rnc, we are very likely looking at the democrats winning the white house.  can you say "madame president"?

so do the words from the start of the post apply to the here and now?  in my mind yes.  if the republican party is not the party of conservatives then what is the point of having the republican party?  if the alternative to the secular, anti-american liberals is the pro-american, secular "moderate" republicans then, again, what's the point?

fridays at the pentagon

something good from media matters - and it's nothing, if not humbling.  a friend of mine, who has been a party to this "parade" says that "it is a truly unique and humbling experience."  i'll take his word for it.  this seems, to me, like a good sentiment to post on this day before thanksgiving.

i am thankful that these people are willing to stand in harm's way for our country and for the promotion and support of freedom worldwide.  i am thankful that i am free to have this blog and that i have so many friends out in the blogosphere to swap ideas and debate with.  thank you all for continuing to support me and allow me to support you.

Friday Mornings at the Pentagon

By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
McClatchy Newspapers

Over the last 12 months, 1,042 soldiers, Marines, sailors and Air Force personnel have given their lives in the terrible duty that is war.
Thousands more have come home on stretchers, horribly wounded and facing months or years in military hospitals.

This week, I'm turning my space over to a good friend and former roommate, Army Lt. Col. Robert Bateman , who recently completed a yearlong tour of duty in Iraq and is now back at the Pentagon.

Here's Lt. Col. Bateman's account of a little-known ceremony that fills the halls of the Army corridor of the Pentagon with cheers, applause and many tears every Friday morning. It first appeared on May 17 on the Weblog of media critic and pundit Eric Alterman at the Media Matters for America Website.

"It is 110 yards from the "E" ring to the "A" ring of the Pentagon. This section of the Pentagon is newly renovated; the floors shine, the hallway is broad, and the lighting is bright. At this instant the entire length of the corridor is packed with officers, a few sergeants and some civilians, all crammed tightly three and four deep against the walls.
There are thousands here.

This hallway, more than any other, is the `Army' hallway. The G3 offices line one side, G2 the other, G8 is around the corner. All Army. Moderate conversations flow in a low buzz. Friends who may not have seen each other for a few weeks, or a few years, spot each other, cross the way and renew.

Everyone shifts to ensure an open path remains down the center. The air conditioning system was not designed for this press of bodies in this area.

The temperature is rising already. Nobody cares. "10:36 hours: The clapping starts at the E-Ring. That is the outermost of the five rings of the Pentagon and it is closest to the entrance to the building. This clapping is low, sustained, hearty. It is applause with a deep emotion behind it as it moves forward in a wave down the length of the hallway.

"A steady rolling wave of sound it is, moving at the pace of the soldier in the wheelchair who marks the forward edge with his presence. He is the first. He is missing the greater part of one leg, and some of his wounds are still suppurating. By his age I expect that he is a private, or perhaps a private first class.

"Captains, majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels meet his gaze and nod as they applaud, soldier to soldier. Three years ago when I described one of these events, those lining the hallways were somewhat different. The applause a little wilder, perhaps in private guilt for not having shared in the burden ... yet.

"Now almost everyone lining the hallway is, like the man in the wheelchair, also a combat veteran. This steadies the applause, but I think deepens the sentiment. We have all been there now. The soldier's chair is pushed by, I believe, a full colonel.

"Behind him, and stretching the length from Rings E to A, come more of his peers, each private, corporal, or sergeant assisted as need be by a field grade officer.

"11:00 hours: Twenty-four minutes of steady applause. My hands hurt, and I laugh to myself at how stupid that sounds in my own head. My hands hurt. Please! Shut up and clap. For twenty-four minutes, soldier after soldier has come down this hallway - 20, 25, 30. Fifty-three legs come with them, and perhaps only 52 hands or arms, but down this hall came 30 solid hearts.

They pass down this corridor of officers and applause, and then meet for a private lunch, at which t hey are the guests of honor, hosted by the generals. Some are wheeled along. Some insist upon getting out of their chairs, to march as best they can with their chin held up, down this hallway, through this most unique audience. Some are catching handshakes and smiling like a politician at a Fourth of July parade. More than a couple of them seem amazed and are smiling shyly.

"There are families with them as well: the 18-year-old war-bride pushing her 19-year-old husband's wheelchair and not quite understanding why her husband is so affected by this, the boy she grew up with, now a man, who had never shed a tear is crying; the older immigrant Latino parents who have, perhaps more than their wounded mid-20s son, an appreciation for the emotion given on their son's behalf. No man in that hallway, walking or clapping, is ashamed by the silent tears on more than a few cheeks.
An Airborne Ranger wipes his eyes only to better see. A couple of the officers in this crowd have themselves been a part of this parade in the past.

These are our men, broken in body they may be, but they are our brothers, and we welcome them home. This parade has gone on, every single Friday, all year long, for more than four years.

Did you know that?  The media hasn't told the story.

national right to life committee endorses fred...

today, the national right to life committee endorsed fred thompson's presidential bid for 2008.  this is big, big news.

this is not an endorsement by pat robertson or al franken or barney the purple dinosaur.  this is a pac that has more than 3000 chapters in all 50 states.  this is the largest pro-life group of voters in our country.  and they are backing fred.

from the nrlc press release earlier today:

WASHINGTON – Marking the first major endorsement by a national grassroots organization in the Republican presidential contest, National Right to Life, the nation’s largest pro-life organization representing pro-lifers in fifty state affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, today announced its endorsement of former Senator Fred Thompson for President of the United States.

"As the first major grassroots organization to enter the Republican presidential race, National Right to Life is proud to endorse Fred Thompson,"

In making its endorsement, National Right to Life considered the position of candidates on the life issues, their records on the life issues and their ability to win.

Fred Thompson has had a strong, consistent pro-life record throughout his political career. Thompson opposes abortion and believes the 1973 abortion on demand Supreme Court decision was wrongly decided and must be reversed. During his eight years in the United States Senate, he always opposed using tax dollars to promote or pay for abortion and supported the many pro-life measures such as parental notice and consent.

stated Wanda Franz, Ph.D., president of National Right to Life. "Our endorsement is a testament to Senator Thompson’s long-standing pro-life record, his commitment to unborn children, and our belief in his ability to win."

the emphasis is theirs. fred's response?

"I'm deeply appreciative for the past support by the National Right to Life Committee-PAC in my Senate campaigns, and today I am blessed and grateful to have received their endorsement for President of the United States.

"In supporting me, those who have worked tirelessly to defend life are supporting a consistent conservative who has stood with them yesterday, who stands with them today, and will stand with them tomorrow."

i say again, that this is big, big news.

the msm and other candidates have been very busy trying to throw fred under the bus and say that he has also had flip flop issues on abortion.  he hasn't.  he has been consistent.

he doesn't support a constitutional amendment.  neither do i.  he doesn't support a federal law to deal with abortion.  neither do i.  this is a states' rights issue, folks. 

i'm quite certain that the majority of states will ban it because that is what the majority of constituents want. the only people who benefit with a national law are those in favor of abortion.  with roe v. wade they have been able to override the opinion of the majority by claiming a constitutional diktat.  over turning roe v. wade means it's back to the states.  this would be a good thing.

that's it.  fred has been in second place to rudy since he made his announcement.  i believe that this is about to change.  and boy does that ever make me happy.

let's get behind him.  not just say "i will if he gets the nomination".  with that type of response he won't get it.  if we back him and say, "he's my man", he will be.  let's support rudy only IF he gets the nomination.  make him the fall back candidate.

fred's the man for me.  he's the man who can win.  he's got my vote.

speak now or forever live in fear...

debbie over at right truth brought this whole thing to my attention.  truth be told, tantor let me know about the mosque in his post from 10 sept 2007 titled "the london markaz" but i had no idea that people were speaking out against in london.  sorry for not grasping the whole situation, tantor - great work for bringing this to light, deb.

worried about the security impact of the mega-mosque, councillor alan craig spoke out against it's being built.  the good folks over at god tube posted this:

the death threat video mentioned in deb's post is no longer available at you tube - i think this is the same one, but i'm not certain.  i wonder why.  perhaps they are worried that it will present the followers of islam, the religion of peace, in a bad light....

back in february the u.k. telegraph reported that the mosque would be blocked by the government.  from the article written by ben leapman and jonathan wynne-jones:

"A senior security source said that he was concerned about the proposed mosque, and expected ministers to use their powers to call in, and turn down, the planning application.

The move was confirmed by a senior Government source, who said there were fears that the giant mosque could damage community relations in the area, and added: "We are going to stop it."

There are clear planning grounds on which the development could be turned down. It is so close to the main Olympic venues that it may interfere with preparations for the Games."

and further:

"Tablighi Jamaat has hired a lobbying firm with a track record of supporting controversial planning applications, in an attempt to build political support for the project.

Indigo Public Affairs says that a formal planning application for the mosque will be submitted in the autumn, possibly with the size scaled back to meet some of the objections. A spokesman said: "Our client utterly refutes any links to terrorism. It is a predominantly apolitical organisation seeking to go about its faith in a peaceful way."

Tablighi Jamaat is a conservative and ultra-orthodox group with close links with the Wahhabi form of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia. Hundreds of British Muslims are sent by Tablighi Jamaat to madrassas in Pakistan every year, raising fears that some may be brainwashed. A leaked FBI memo alleged that al-Qaeda was using the organisation "as cover... to network with other extremists".

Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, two of the July 7 suicide bombers, are believed to have visited the organisation's European headquarters, a mosque in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. Supporters of Tablighi Jamaat point out that even if this were the case, the mosque would not necessarily be the place where the pair were brainwashed.

Muslims living near the site, in West Ham, have raised more than 3,000 signatures on a petition calling for the project to be halted. They want any new mosque to draw in all strands of Islam."

wow.  so at that point even muslims were trying to stop the building of the mosque - if for, albeit, different reasons than mr. craig.

fast forward about six months.  alan craig becomes more vocal in his opposition to the building of this mega-mosque.  two months ago the telegraph ran a new article about the situation just after the death threat video aired.  at that time, mr. craig did respond.  from the article:

"Mr Craig, a councillor for Canning Town South ward in Newham borough, has upset some Muslim residents in the area with his resistance to plans for a 12,000 capacity "mega-mosque" at Abbey Mills, near West Ham tube station.

It is being proposed by the ultra-orthodox group Tablighi Jamaat, whose previous adherents include Glasgow airport bomber Kafeel Ahmed, shoe bomber Richard Reid and the July 7 bombers Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer.

Until yesterday there was a web link from the Abbey Mills mosque website to abdullah1425's YouTube mini website, where he identifies himself as Muhammad, 23, from Stevenage, Herts. Yesterday Mr Craig said he refused to be intimidated by the clip, which he described as "an open invitation to take me out".

He said: "It's either a sick joke or it's worse. Even if I don't worry about myself, to put my wife and two young children on there is particularly sick."

Mr Craig said he had no problem with Muslims, but did object to Tablighi Jamaat's plan on the grounds of its alleged terror links."

although never officially sanctioned or censured, this group is 'on the list', so to speak.  also from the article:

"In 2003 Michael Heimbach, the deputy chief of the FBI's international terrorism section, was quoted in the New York Times as saying: "We found that al-Qa'eda used them for recruiting, now and in the past."

A French counter-terrorism official has also called it the "antechamber of fundamentalism", claiming it acted as a stepping stone to more extremist action."

of course the group denies any link to terrorism claiming they are a "peaceful, apolitical movement..."  whatever.

this great video, if you can understand his cockney accent, is a great support for councillor craig.  unfortunately, some others in the newham council can't scramble to appease the muslims fast enough.  clearly they have no idea that they are going straight to dhimmi-hood on the fast train.  to hell in a handbasket as it were.

i wonder, what sort of muslim participates in the olympics.  surely no women - they can't possibly be able to participate in sports in a burka.  sort of like other jobs they can't reasonably handle - ht to angel over at 'woman honor thyself' and be observant.  i can see it now: iran represented in gymnastics by wht's no-ah in a stylish, black, burka.  sheesh.

it saddens me that the uk is becoming completely and totally dhimmified.  i will someday, possibly sooner rather than later, miss my trips across the pond to london town.  i know it will come to that because i will NEVER wear a headscarf and i will never submit.

we need more people like councillor craig who are willing to speak out against the dark energy that is engulfing our planet.  as i said over at right truth's post: "my prayers and heart go out to these people. we need to do whatever we can to promote their courage."

this is my contribution to spreading the word.  won't you join me?

the art of the [political] sell

everyone keeps saying that rudy giuliani is the inevitable winner of the 2008 rnc nomination.  why?  because "he can beat hillary?"  i disagree.  he's not inspiring in real life, but he sure does great in the soundbites!  let's examine the real mr. giuliani a bit, shall we?

some are pointing to the fact that he's been married more than twice as an issue.  that's just fluff - actually, i think the msm is saying that the marriage thing is an issue for conservatives because they assume it is and they found a couple of people to agree so we all must think so too.

no, i'm more concerned about the things he did as mayor giuliani than as mr. giuliani.  i'm also concerned with what he is saying now to try to change who he has been - and i believe that we all need to be so.

in a recent column, pat buchanan posits that rudy is "...represents a return to liberal Republicanism that would strip the GOP of its hard-won progress on moral, social and cultural issues..."  he further says:

A Giuliani presidency would represent the return and final triumph of the Republicanism that conservatives went into politics to purge from power. A Giuliani presidency would represent repudiation by the party of the moral, social and cultural content that, with anti-communism, once separated it from liberal Democrats and defined it as an institution.

i believe this to be dead on accurate.  this video says so much about him while rudy's have a grand ol' time:

so after a public lifetime of being pro-abortion, anti-gun rights, pro-affirmative action, etc. and being in march after march in the gay rights parade in new york, we are now to believe that he's a conservative?  sorry, i'm not buying it.

in april of 2006 joseph farah wrote in his column 'between the lines' for world net daily this about mr. giuliani:

"...the smart money has long suggested that Giuliani is incapable of winning the Republican nomination for the presidency because of his hideous positions on homosexuality and abortion. But it appears Giuliani is aware of this weakness and is attempting to hoodwink American evangelicals the way Bill Clinton did.

As Andrew Sullivan put it, "If Rudy is talking Jesus, he's going to run."

And, boy, is he ever talking the talk.

Rudy Giuliani in drag

Now, before I tell you what he said, and to whom he said it, let me first introduce to you the real Rudy Giuliani.

Is America really ready for a drag-queen president?

Can America survive another obnoxious phony baloney masquerading as one thing and governing as another?

Will Republicans be fooled again and nominate a candidate who favors unrestricted abortion on demand?

Should we expect the Grand Old Party to become the Gay Old Party in 2008 and put its stamp of approval on a guy 100 percent committed to the homosexual activist agenda?

and look where we are with rudy. 

for instance, with rudy giuliani we get the same view on abortion that president clinton had (and will have): personally against it, but believes a woman has a right to choose.  and then he says he supports constitutional constructionists for judges.  forgive my blondness, but aren't these two viewpoints just a tad contradictory?

it would be different if he said "i personally am opposed to abortion, and i believe that with a court comprised of constitutional constructionists roe v. wade would be overturned and the rule on abortion would be handed back to the states (where it belongs) and then i would fight at the state level to protect a woman's right to choose."  but that's not what he has said.  at least i have been unable to find any thing to indicate that this is what he believes.

the people over at the jewish task force break it down even further, calling rudy the 2008 election disaster.  much of the article is no longer timely (john mc cain and condoleeza are both mentioned as possible winners) but the information on rudy is still valid, if a trifle harsh...  in the article (that was originally published in 2005) they say:

Giuliani is completely pro-abortion, and even supports the barbaric practice known as partial birth abortion.

But that is just the beginning of his extreme left-wing positions: Giuliani is pro-Sodomite, pro-Third World immigration and anti-Second Amendment.

Every year as New York's mayor, Giuliani marched in the Sodomite parade down Fifth Avenue with all of the transvestites, the sadomasochistic freaks wearing Nazi helmets, and the child molesters of the National Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

Giuliani himself dressed in "drag" - he wore a dress, a wig, makeup and lipstick - on more than one occasion.

Giuliani's sexual escapades are as bad as those of Bill Clinton.

Giuliani married his first cousin and then pulled all types of strings to get the marriage annulled by the Catholic Church. (Catholics are not allowed to divorce, and so "annulment" of a marriage is sometimes used to end an unwanted union.)

Giuliani then married his second wife, Donna Hanover, who starred in the evil pornographic and child-molesting play, The Vagina Monologues. In the play, a grown woman has a lesbian, child-molesting relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

An uncaring mother and a cheating husband made for tabloid fodder during the messy Giuliani-Hanover divorce - Television personality Donna Hanover starred in The Vagina Monologues, a play about lesbian pedophilia, and played Jimmy Carter's sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton, in The People vs. Larry Flynt, a loving cinematic tribute to the infamous porn king, depicted in the film as a “free speech” crusader 

Giuliani then openly cheated on his second wife, parading around the city with his adulterous mate, Judith Nathan. Giuliani even wanted to bring his adulterous mate into the Mayor's official residence in Gracie Mansion to openly live with him. He did not care that his young son Andrew was living there and would have seen his father together with his adulterous partner every day.

Finally, Giuliani sought to divorce his second wife. This time, he did not seek an "annulment," he openly sought a divorce.

When the Giuliani's separated, he moved into the apartment of an AIDS-infected homosexual "couple" whom he had befriended.

How can Republicans who so bitterly condemned the terrible moral example set by Bill Clinton now support for President the equally slimy Rudy Giuliani?

back in june william burnett references a piece in the village voice denouncing rudy's catholicness.  in so far as i could care less what religion potus is (provided it's not islam or the like) this does have some implications.  if he's not really catholic, based on his actions and his life, then how can we expect him to behave in a conservative manner at any level?  any way, in the burnett piece he says:

On abortion, the article goes point-by-point in Giuliani's public career to demonstrate a man embracing the so-called right to abortion much more than politically necessary to get elected into office. In fact, as a matter of policy, Giuliani continued Mayor Ed Koch's practice of having the city fund abortions at city hospitals for women who could not afford it -- no questions asked. According to the article...

One of [Giuliani's] prime claims to the presidency, emphasized on the stump, is his slashing of the city's welfare rolls. But even as he found brutal new ways to cut the poor off the dole, he was using millions in city funds to subsidize abortions for women whose incomes were too high to meet [Federal subsidy] eligibility standards.

this does not sound like a man who is "personally against abortion" to me.  does it to you?

possibly more informative is this information from john hawkins over at human events.  he lays it out so well, i can't think any more should be necessary as a reason to vote against this guy in the primaries.  mr. hawkins posits that rudy is not really against gay marriages, is anti-second amendment, pro-abortion, and he is pro-illegal immigration.  in fact mr. hawkins says:

If you agree with the way that Nancy Pelosi and Company deal with illegal immigration, then you'll find the way that Rudy Giuliani tackles the issue to be right down your alley.

there is more, but it goes on and on and on.  none of it good.  call him charismatic.  call him personable.  call him a great salesman.  just don't call him a conservative, because he isn't.

personally, i think that rudy was very positive and public in the aftermath of 9/11.  however, i also recognize that 9/11 saved rudy politically.  does this make him a good fit to be potus?  i don't think so.  but make no mistake: IF rudy gets the nomination (because a lot of people are too idiotic to vote for an actual conservative) i will support his bid for the presidency.  i just don't want it to come down to that....

and yet another brilliant idea from pelosi's house.

this was brought to my attention by a client of mine who happens to be a mortgage broker.  you may not have heard, but a bill has been introduced in the house (hr 3915) that will effectively eliminate mortgage brokers.

baton online processing has a really in-depth article, and explains how it is ostensibly needed to control predatory lending and why that's not true for the industry.  i'm going to try to give you just a little more human interest information.  proprietor nation tells his own story - maybe between the two of us we can show you what it means to you and me in the real world...

the two main components of this bill are the elimination of stated income loans and the elimination of yield spread premiums (ysp).  the elimination of ysp's would be only for brokers, banks would be exempt from this legislation just as they already are from disclosing ysp information.  mortgage brokers must disclose to the consumer that they are being charged a ysp, banks do not.

what is a ysp, you say?  according to my client a ysp comes into play in the following scenario:

"If there is not enough room to collect lender and any other 3rd party fees from the borrower in the form of closing costs on a refinance or purchase on the front end of the transaction we have the ability to charge the customer a higher than market rate so we get paid for our services by the end investor.  Just another way for us to earn our fee and the customer is given the choice of a higher rate with minimal fees or a lower rate with normal fees.  Something that doesn’t need to be legislated as the market will always allow the consumer to shop and determine what is best for their particular situation."

oh, i see the problem now.  we can't have people determining what is best for themselves now, can we? 

if only banks are allowed to offer a "no cost loan" which requires a ysp option, how competitive do you think the loans will be?  not very.  will consumers be better served by having fewer choices?  i think not.  will the economy be better served if a large segment of the industry simply vanishes because they have been put out of business by this legislation?  of course not.

this is just pure politics and it does nothing but hurt the consumer.

the second major provision in the bill eliminates stated income loans.  but wait, you say, aren't the stated income loans the reason we're in this situation with the home loan crisis???  no, of course not, but that's what the msm wants you to believe.  stated income loans have been around for a very long time and they are only used for a very narrow set of qualifications.  from my client:

We do loans for people with high credit scores, lots of verified assets, low loan to value, etc.. without verifying income through traditional means (i.e. tax returns, W2’s and pay stubs) since it a perceived as a low risk transaction.  It has been done this way forever for high net worth people that don’t want to hassle with all the paperwork, self employed people that don’t necessarily report all their income on their tax return, real estate investors, service industry people that have a lot of unreported cash income, etc…

as someone who is self-employed, i can tell you that if it weren't for stated income loans i wouldn't own a house.  we've used this type of loan a number of times over the years and it's never easy or fast, but it beats the alternative of renting.  this type of loan is not given to someone without verifiable assets.  you don't just walk in and say "i make $100k a year and i want to buy this house but i don't have proof of what i make" and then they give you a mortgage.  it just doesn't work that way.  but unless i go get a "j-o-b" and this things passes, i will never be able to buy another house.  oh joy.

i think this letter, from a resident of rohnert park, ca, sent to reps lynn woolsey, dianne feinstein and barbara boxer says it best:

To:
President George Bush
Rep. Lynn Woolsey
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Sen. Barbara Boxer

November 4, 2007

The Vote on H.R. 3915 is on November 6, 2007 that proposes to eliminate YSP(rebate). Please vote NO on this bill. My industry faces extinction if this bill passes. This bill is also about our rights as individuals to determine our own financial destiny and independence. Who is to say that the government can pass legislation to force us, as homeowners, to take a par rate and possibly pay up-front origination costs? Each individual has their own unique financial plan and tax goal. One year it may be better to take a par rate and pay origination, and another year it may be better to take a higher rate and not pay up-front costs or even somewhere in between. Isn't that why we have financial planners, CPAs, and mortgage brokers? We need loan options tailored made for an individual. That's why we need all sorts of loan options and mortgage brokers to work individually with each unique homeowner in the United States. Let's get real, we were not all created equally in credit status, tax brackets, or finances. If the federal government believes they can cookie cut the perfect loan for everyone, then we have truly lost what America is about Financial Freedom.

Rohnert Park , CA

please join me in signing the petition to halt this legislation.  but don't stop there.  also call the authors of the bill:

barney frank
(202) 225-5931

brad miller
(202) 225-3032

mel watt
(202) 225-1510

and then call your congressional representatives - all of them.

both houses of our congress sure are up to stupid stuff lately.  once again we need to remind them who they work for.  the vote is tomorrow so we don't have much time.

thanks, in advance, for your cooperation.

scuttle their efforts before our sovereignty is LOST!

so i turned on my blackjack this morning and began checking my email.  this letter was emailed to me from the 'center for individual freedom' - www.cfif.org and it ties in with a previous post of mine.  when i published that original post on 17 october 2007, the senate foreign relations committee had not yet voted to present the law of [the] sea treaty - LOST - to the greater senate.  now they have. 

last week the senate foreign relations committee voted 17-4 to send the all-encompassing international treaty that controls every aspect of maritime law on the high seas - from ocean shipping to deep-sea mining to military maneuvers - to the full senate.  it requires a 2/3s affirmation by the senate to ratify the treaty.  this means that we need 34 votes to block the ratification.

it is imperative that we block this ratification.  call your senators.  use this link to join a blastfax campaign to voice your concerns. if this treaty is ratified, it becomes law for us here in the u.s. and at that point our sovereignty is gone forever.

in the wall street journal online, today, they ran this article titled 'arctic thaw defrosts a sea treaty' and it has some interesting information.  it appears that the author of the article is for us ratifying this treaty, but for the life of me i cannot understand why.  but since i can't understand why anyone, in our country, would want us to hand over such a large chunk of our sovereignty, that's really no surprise, is it?

i love how the msm is spinning this thing to make it sound like it's a no brainer that we should ratify it.  for instance, the article says:

Oil and mining companies support the treaty because it could grant the U.S. access to an additional 291,000 square miles of seabed in the Gulf of Mexico, North Atlantic, Bering Sea and Arctic Ocean. Recent estimates suggest more than 400 billion barrels of oil and gas could be located in the Arctic, along with deep-sea deposits of precious metals.

Taxes are another point of contention. Companies must pay 1% of revenue to an international body on any resources extracted beyond the 200-mile limit after five years of production, with rates rising by 1% annually to a maximum of 7%. Critics object to such payments.

what he isn't telling you is that the u.n. has formed the "international seabed authority (ISA)" which appears to be an organization designed to shake-down united states' mining and maritime companies.  the isa requires that companies pay a $500,000 (yes 500k) application fee to gain permission to operate on the ocean.  additionally there is an annual fee of $1,000,000 per company - call it a license fee, i guess.  and mr. timiraos forgot to mention the companies will be required to share their mining and navigational technology with the ISA and other treaty signatores.

there is so much more in the article and so many more things that he leaves out of his article.  we simply MUST stop this treaty from being ratified.

president bush says "Joining will serve the national security interests of the United States. …And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted."  big deal.  we will have one vote against myriad votes against us.  yeah, that will be helpful.

please take the time to act on this today.  please cross post this to help spread the word.

if you are of a different opinion on this, i'd love to hear it.  if you're in agreement, i'd love to know that too.  thanks!

also, take a visit at angel's place and read her latest, http://www.womanhonorthyself.com/?p=4418,  there is always something great going on there and this open-trackback of hers always has some wonderful links for a good read!

will the real conservative please stand up...

i watched the debate last night.  and then i watched it again this morning.  and then again at lunch time.

i really like watching these things on the computer, after the fact, so that i can pause and reflect and pause and replay, etc..  in addition i read the live blogging from fred's campaign page to get his people's viewpoint and it's a must read in my opinion.

i also, purposely, didn't watch the "post debate action" until after i was satisfied that i had gleaned all that i could from the debate.  i also didn't watch the "post debate action" until i had visited the blogs of a few of my favorite bloggers including conservatism with heart, blogs for fred thompson, hot air, goat's barnyard and michelle malkin.  i have great respect for each of these blogs and like that they always challenge me (and themselves) with great questions.

having said that, i'd like to give my point of view and hope to spark some good conversations here, and elsewhere.

dee's view, over at conservatism with heart is that rudy won the debate and that fred was down the list with a "b" rating.  she says:

Fred Thompson--B
I hate to admit it but Thompson was some what of a disappointment last night. He had some good answers on things but he didn't do anything to inspire passion. I liked his answer on Education and vouchers, his line referring to the Haditha marines and he had a great response to the lazy question but otherwise not a big night for him.

it's really rare, but i have to respectfully disagree with dee (sorry, but i still love you).  he's a slow speaker, but that shouldn't be mistaken for lack of interest.  i listened to his words, i watched his face, i think he was brilliant. 

fred addressed the questions put to him honestly and forthrightly (is that a word) regardless of the "fall out".  i thought fred had great passion - when he spoke about beating hillary and reminding us what the party stands for:  "...let's don't get diverted onto some single individual, whoever their nominee is, they're going to lead us down the road to a comfortable mediocrity and that's not the united states of america that i grew up in."  when he spoke of integrity in saying what he said that needs to happen with social security - he stood by what others have quoted him as saying, saying: "...it's based on the notion that there's no reason to run for the presidency of the united states if you can't tell the truth..."

i'd love to see a thompson/hunter ticket for 2008.  i believe the two of them to be the most consistent, conservative and electable on the stage last night.

i heard some other things that i liked from some others. 

i used to like mccain.  then he started veering left in the 2000 cycle to appeal to the libs.  then he pulled his "gang of 14" gig.  then the immigration issues.  and the list goes on and on.  but aside from the woodstock comment that garnered him a standing 'o', he also said "...he's going to force us to setup a league of democracies..." in regards to putin and russia.  however, we can't setup a league of anything if we sign onto the law of the sea treaty which mccain isn't speaking out against at this point.

i've never been a big fan of mike huckabee.  i know that many like him, but he just seems like a lib in rino clothing to me.  not at the debate, but still one of my favorite stories ever:

congratulations are in order for Keith Richards, lead guitarist for the Rolling Stones. The man has been promised a pardon for a traffic offense — from 1975 — courtesy of a fan, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Richards was fined $162.20 for reckless driving more than three decades ago after being stopped in a tiny town 70 miles south of Little Rock, between shows in Memphis and Dallas, reports Reuters. Richards paid the fine by mail.

Huckabee said he talked to the possible future father of Capt. Jack Sparrow backstage at a Stones concert in March, and, after Richards joked about his past, the governor (and bass player in an amateur band) suggested the rocker apply for a pardon.

i like that story because my husband plays bass in an amateur band too. :)  but seriously folks.  i have to give kudos to mr. huckabee for having the best line of the debate when he said "there's nothing funny about hillary being president."  how right he is, how right he is.  but still not enough for to want him on the ticket....

i'm not going to comment too much on mitt or rudy.  i would vote for either of them if they made it on the ticket, but i won't be voting to put them there.  i just don't like them very much.  i think mitt likes to make too many deals with the libs in order to say he did something, anything.  and i think rudy likes big government and likes being a part of big government.

any how, all in all i think fred was the most impressive.  i think fred was the only one on the stage who deserved to invoke ronny.  i think i like fred more and more as time passes...

definitely NOT green with envy...

did you know that we've painted the empire state building green!?!?  well not paint, really, but it appears to be green to honor the end of ramadhan.  angel has a great post and great imagery here and both defiant infidel and debbie over at right truth add to angel's information.

i have placed a call to their pr department - specifically a ms. melanie marsh - and left a message that i am appalled at the idiocy of honoring a group especially in new york where we should all still have such a violent recollection of what the muslim terrorists did to our nation.  i am not going to hold my breath waiting for a return call.

the empire sate building's official internet site has an entire page devoted to the history of the lighting of the building and another for the upcoming schedule.  it's important to note that several people are saying that this is the first time the building will be completely green, but clearly this isn't the case:

October 09, 2007

Green/Green/Green*

New York Restoration Project and NYC Parks Department - Million Trees NYC

wow, i wonder if they did it that way because they wanted to be able to say it wasn't the only thing that warranted an all green e.s.b.?!?!

please join us in calling and registering your dissatisfaction over this horrendous act of political correctness.  i wonder what color they light the building to commemorate easter or jewish passover?  perhaps the other jewish holidays?

anyone?