Tuesday, May 29, 2007

John Kerry, The Cost Of Speaking Out



May 29, 2007

Received via email today is John Fraud Kerry’s latest whining email, title “The Cost Of Speaking Out On Iraq.” That this fraud has the unmitigated gall to complain about others “speaking out” just astonishes me. Kerry’s arrogance knows no bounds!

Says Kerry, “… at a time when direct talk is so vital, there is still an effort to marginalize those who speak out against the policy of the Bush White House and the GOP.”

Did he forget a small group of highly decorated Combat Viet Nam Veterans known as the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth? When asked about another run for president and facing the Swift vets again in September 2006, he replied, "I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other."

During Senate Hearings on the nomination of Sam Fox for Ambassador to Belgium, who was it that grilled Mr. Fox over campaign contributions to Kerry’s opposition, effectively ending his nomination? Why, it was Kerry!

What of Steve Gardner, the one who spent the most time with Kerry on his boat in Viet Nam, but opposed Kerry? Care to discuss him, Kerry? What price did he pay “speaking out” against you?

He adds, “The price of speaking out? General Batiste was fired from his job at CBS.”

This is the gist of email, whining about CBS asking retired left-wing activist General John Batiste, to step down from the position they hired him for, News Consultant.

Kerry fails to mention that Batiste appeared in an anti-Bush ad, in direct violation of CBS News standards. CBS News Vice President, Standards and Special Projects Linda Mason said, “we ask that people not be involved in advocacy,” adding, “We might still go to the general to ask about things, but not as a consultant to CBS News.”

To most of us, you break the rules, you pay the price. Apparently that is not to be in the liberal world of John Kerry (who served in Viet Nam).

He goes on to whine about the Dixie Chicks being ostracized by disgusted fans, Murtha’s moonbattiness being exposed and more.

Then, Kerry says, “I know from experience how hard it can be to speak out against a war when there are many powerful forces trying to silence you. But I also know how important speaking out can be -- especially when it comes from those who know what it means to wear the uniform of our country.

If he thinks that is difficult, try speaking out FOR this War to be won! Those of us who have also worn the uniform are ridiculed, called warmongers, spit at still (and I don’t give a damn what BS Jerry Lembcke says), reviled and subjected to harassment, as happened during and after the 2004 campaign, in which Kerry lost. Ask Carton Sherwood, producer of the video, Stolen Honor. Ask Sinclair Broadcasting, who was threatened with a federal probe for planning on airing the documentary in 2004, shortly before the election. Read about the lawsuits filed over this documentary and subsequent dropping, when Kerry’s co-horts found out they were give depositions under oath.

All of those mentioned also “wore the uniform of the country” and wore it with pride, unlike Kerry as he lied about Viet Nam and those of us who served there much longer than he did, before the Fulbright Commission on April 22, 1971. Perhaps he can also explain, since it is “so hard to speak out,” just why there was not one instance of testimony contrary to his? Why wasn’t John O’Neill allowed to give his testimony also?

Yes, in today’s world, as during the anti-war hysteria over Viet Nam, speaking out against is far easier than speaking for.

Most disturbing in this email, given that he speaks out against other advocacy groups and was opposed to 527 groups, is a link appearing twice in the email that says, “ Join MoveOn's effort to support a brave career military man who provides one of the most credible and courageous of those voices,” and “So join our friends at MoveOn.org in calling for the reinstatement of General John Batiste.”

John Kerry, you are one of the supreme hypocrites of all time!

Lew

The email in its entirety,

"John Kerry" {info@johnkerry.com}
To: lewwaters@I’llnevertell.com
Subject: The Cost of Speaking Out on Iraq
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:58:41 -0500

Hi Lew,
The events of last week demonstrate to all of us that we still have miles to go to win the struggle to force a new direction for our policy in Iraq.

Unfortunately, at a time when direct talk is so vital, there is still an effort to marginalize those who speak out against the policy of the Bush White House and the GOP.

Join MoveOn's effort to support a brave career military man who provides one of the most credible and courageous of those voices.

A few weeks ago, the very effective grassroots veterans organization VoteVets released a series of ads featuring retired military leaders speaking out about the broken policy in Iraq. One of them, General John Batiste, spoke forcefully about Bush's "failed strategy that is breaking our great Army."

The price of speaking out? General Batiste was fired from his job at CBS.

Now, there are other retired military members voicing support for the policy of George Bush, and none of them have been fired for it.

This is another in a long line of attempts to make speaking out costly to those who do it, from the Dixie Chicks being pulled from radio play lists to the savage attacks on Jack Murtha -- the smear of Matt Dowd after he spoke out against his old boss -- or the way in which retired military leaders who dared call for Don Rumsfeld's resignation were dismissed and even attacked as disloyal, painted as threats to civilian control of the armed forces. That is cheap and it is shameful.

At a time when the administration cannot let go of the myths and outright lies it broadcast in the rush to war in Iraq, those who know better must speak out.

I know from experience how hard it can be to speak out against a war when there are many powerful forces trying to silence you. But I also know how important speaking out can be -- especially when it comes from those who know what it means to wear the uniform of our country. We need more truth about Iraq, not silenced voices.

So join our friends at MoveOn.org in calling for the reinstatement of General John Batiste.

If we stand together and speak with many strong voices, all calling for a new direction in Iraq, we will bring change.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

Robert Mitchum in 1966

Well spoken words back then and they still apply today.



Where did real men as this from Hollywood go?

Monday, May 28, 2007

Edwards’s Memorial Day Protests


May 28, 2007

As posted before, the “Breck Girl,” Democrat former Senator and presidential hopeful, John Edwards, called on supporters to Support The Troops, End The War by displaying anti-war material at Memorial Day events today, on Memorial Day!

Several people, from both the right and left political spectrum condemned this call as a bad idea, knowing full well that, as often happens things go too far.

As expected, that is what happened this morning in Orcas Island, Washington, the second-largest member of the San Juan archipelago, a string of islands located at the northwest tip of the state. Best known for kayaking opportunities and whale watching, the string of Islands of less that 10,000 population is ordinarily a sleepy quiet community.

That wasn’t to be this morning when vandals not only took American Flags off of the graves of Veterans and burned them, but replaced them with hand drawn Swastikas both on Sunday and again on Monday, Memorial Day!



Oakdale Minnesota saw this also happen this morning when a woman there woke up to find one of her Flags in a pile of ashes on her lawn. She says she feels threatened and intimidated by this violation of her homeowner rights and freedom of expression.

I know the leftinistra will say there is no proof of this being Edwards Supporters and so far, that is true. Police are lifting fingerprints and seeking the vile scum that perpetrated this hate crime. But don't forget, it was Edwards who put out the call highjacking Memorial Day.

I’m sure Edwards will issue the obligatory condemnation, no matter how hollow, that he doesn’t support these acts, but Edwards did ask people to make their statements known today and to send him photos to display of their acts.

Now, I wonder if Edwards will display the fruits of his call for protest photos that he asked to be sent to him?

An Angry Lew









UPDATE: Not flag burning, but watch how the anti-war leftists here appreciate their words being filmed by others. Veterans For Peace

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Open Letter To Colonel David Hunt, Fox News Analyst

Reading the Fox News website last evening I came across the article written by Fox News Military Analyst, Col. David Hunt (ret).U.S. Military: Leaders Can't Lead

Taking exception to some of his claims, I sent the following in email;

Colonel Hunt, I am sorely disappointed with your assessment in the article "U.S. Military: Leaders Can't Lead."

Throughout our history, our Militaries have had poor leadership and great leadership. What made many battles won was the spirit of the fighting man in the trenches, not the Generals. The best a General can do is devise an overall plan and allow the Junior Officers, NCOs and enlisted the latitude to get it done. D-Day would be an excellent example of that as General Bradley was considering retreat of invading forces until those on the beaches decided to get off the beach.

Of course this current war hasn't been without mistakes, but what war wasn't? Leaders have been replaced, maybe not soon enough, but replaced just the same. You seem to lay all the blame at the feet of the administration and a good bit deserves to be laid there, agreed. However, since the onset of this war every little thing has been criticized, complained about and opposed. Our media gleefully reports each and every death of one of our Troops while rarely reporting any accomplishments. Missteps made are front page headlines while bravery, if reported at all, is buried on page 32. World War Two had the political parties come together and work together to defeat our enemies, not score political points to either retain or regain political power.

Officers that oppose the war are paraded as heroes while Officers, NCOs and Enlisted that see the dangers of three decades of not facing the Jihadists remain ignored. Politicians play "chicken" with the Troops lives while they cater to lobbyist groups opposed to the war. Some of these same Politicians loudly complain about the treatment of our returning Heroes and conditions at Walter Reed Hospital, yet they control the purse strings and were bragging about frequent visits to that same Hospital weeks and months before the expose' and either never saw this deplorable treatment, or ignored it.

We hear cries this time of "I support the troops, but not the War." Bring the Troops home to show support, with no regard to how the Troops themselves feel. However, those making that call somehow do not feel the need to withdraw the Police from high crime areas of many major American cities where Police face dangers and death. Are not their lives as precious?

Others demand Troops out of Iraq because it is now 'just a Civil War.' What is Afghanistan if not also another Civil War? Are not the current Afghani government and the deposed Taliban both Afghans too? And, what about those calling for Military intervention in Darfur? Why are they deserving of intervention and Military Actions in their "Civil War," and not the Iraqis as well? If Troops are transferred to that theater, how soon before these same Politicians are decrying our involvement there? And, wouldn't the "poor leadership" you mention still be in place?

To be sure, I agree. Poorly performing leaders should be identified and replaced. As you paint our Officer's Corps as inadequate, sir, need I remind you that once, you too were part of that same Officer's Corps.

Saturday, May 26, 2007

A British View Of the Jihadists

Explained as only a Brit can, with their command of the language.

The Trouble With Islam

Iraq Veterans Rebuke Edwards' Memorial Day Politicization

Iraq Veterans Rebuke Edwards Memorial Day Politicization
Friday, May 25, 2007

New York - Vets for Freedom, a veterans group dedicated to communicating America's strategy in Iraq, strongly denounced a media campaign led by former Senator John Edwards that uses Memorial Day to promote anti-war protests. Edwards arrogantly declared Memorial Day "exactly the right time" to protest the Iraq War, encouraging anti-war protestors to take to the streets.

VFF Executive Director, and Iraq war veteran, Pete Hegseth calls it "exactly the wrong time."

"It's unfortunate that a viable Democratic presidential candidate would use Memorial Day--the day America remembers her fallen heroes--to promote political statements," said Hegseth, who served in both Baghdad and Samarra, Iraq. "Americans are understandably divided on the Iraq War, but Memorial Day is a sacred space; a time to lay aside partisan politics and come together. This holiday is about remembering the fallen on the battlefield and passing their collective story to the next generation. These stories, and the men that bear them, are the backbone of this American experiment and must never be forgotten."

Vets for Freedom will close its doors for Memorial Day, joining the rest of America in remembering American GI's who fought--and died--for the cause of freedom. But Hegseth adds, "After Memorial Day weekend, I look forward to redoubling our efforts to communicate America's strategic objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Vets for Freedom boasts an ever-growing network of veterans who believe in the need to defeat radical Islamist insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Led by Al Qaeda, radical Islamists--waging a global insurgency--have declared war on America and now seem poised to declare victory in Iraq. Vets for Freedom will do everything it can to make sure this does not happen; mobilizing the voices of the vast "silent majority" of veterans who believe in the mission to be heard in Washington, DC and throughout America.


As for John Edwards' Memorial Day ploy, Hegseth submits, "I would be surprised if many people heed Edwards' call for action. The American people are sensible, and recognize a political stunt when they see one."

Vets For Freedom

Senator Obama, What Is Your Message To Al Qaeda?

May 26, 2007

First term Senator and presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, came out today defending his voting against the War Funding Bill that passed in the Senate yesterday and was signed by President Bush last evening.

He stated, "The way that we are going to show that we support the troops is by [starting to bring] some of them home. That's our message to George Bush. That's our message to John McCain. That's our message to Mitt Romney. That's our message to the Republicans in Congress.”

Senator, what is your message to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups? Is it one of surrender? That they may have free reign in Iraq and elsewhere because you feel it is too hard to fight them and keep us free?

Is it a message of surrender to our Troops who want to defeat these insurgents?

Is it a message of the sacrifice made by many was in vain, because you desire to be President? Just what are your qualifications to hold the highest office in the land, Senator? I see no record of leadership. I see no record of Military Service.

Senator Obama also said, "And what I know is that what our troops deserve is not just rhetoric. They deserve a new plan."

Tell us, Senator, on just what basis do you “know what our Troops deserve?” What is your “New Plan” besides the tired old Democrat ‘retreat,’ cut and run,’ and ‘redeploy?’

You hale from Chicago, Illinois, Senator. That city has a violent crime rate nearly twice that of other major cities. Many Police Officers have died in the line of duty there, Senator. What do they deserve? What is there ‘new plan?’ Why do you not advocate their removal from high crime areas of that city, Senator? Aren’t their lives equally as precious?

In January 2006, Senator, before you became a candidate for President and in a visit to Iraq, you expressed the thought that once U.S. forces start withdrawing from Iraq, civil war would follow, that insurgent car bombers and suicide attackers were trying to block the road to democracy in Iraq. Speaking with ABC’s Chuck Goudie you said, “… what we can do is give those Iraqis who are interested in setting up a peaceful accommodation that space, that room and that time in order to accomplish that."

On January 26, 2007, you voted for the confirmation of General Petraeus to Command in Iraq. He laid out a “new plan” that you must have approved of, since you voted ‘yea.’

Shortly before casting your vote for General Petraeus and his “new plan,” you announced opposition to the President’s Troop Reinforcement saying, “…rather than increasing troops, the government should be bringing them home in a phased withdrawal.” Then, you cast a ‘yea’ vote for General Petraeus knowing that is what he desires.

In April, when facing President Bush vetoing the funding bill with a withdrawal timeline, you were quoted, "My expectation is that we will continue to try to ratchet up the pressure on the president to change course… [no lawmaker] wants to play chicken with our troops. I don't think that we will see a majority of the Senate vote to cut off funding at this stage."

Yet, just yesterday, you, along with your fellow Democrat presidential hopefuls, Senators Clinton and Dodd, voted NO on a bill to fund the Troops through September, adding that President Bush should not get "a blank check to continue down this same, disastrous path."

Would that be that “same, disastrous path” you voted ‘yea’ on when you approved of the selection of General Petraeus, Senator? Do you consider it presidential to pander to the kook left fringe of your party, the DailyKOS, Moveon.org and George Soros funded arm, Senator? I fail to see a four month funding bill as a “blank check.”

At least one of the Democrat hopefuls sees the responsibility of the Senate. Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, voting ‘yea’ reluctantly, said, "As long as we have troops on the front lines, it is our shared responsibility to give them the equipment and protection they need."

Senator Obama also said, after the ‘NO’ vote, "We must fund our troops. But we owe them something more… " Yes, Senator Obama, we all owe them more. We owe them our respect and admiration and especially our thanks for placing themselves between our enemies and us. We do not owe them what you; Senators Clinton and Dodd gave them yesterday, playing “chicken” with them.

Is it any wonder that John Howard, PM of our ally, Australia, said back in February, "If I were running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."

You may give all the glib speeches and clichés you wish, Senator, but don’t you feel you should consider just what your message is to Al Qaeda and our Troops as well?

Lew

Friday, May 25, 2007

Memorial Day

May 25, 2007

Once again, we are embroiled in another war, a new kind of war in that we are not facing a standing Army as in past wars, but an insurgency that easily blends in with the crowd and comes out just to inflict terror on any and every one they can. Quite possibly this is the worst enemy we have faced as a nation.

To be sure, some of our Brave Troops will give their lives to keep the terrorists away from our shores and others will return home maimed and broken.

Since 1868, one day out of the entire year has been set aside just to remember these Brave Souls that gave everything they had and didn’t return. Sadly, to many of our citizens the day merely means a three-day weekend and barbecues today.

Memorial Day is so much more. Many have given their lives so that we may be free and enjoy the fruits of our labors. They lie in cold graves; some in desolate areas and cannot enjoy the freedom they gave us. Over 3,000 have joined their ranks in this current War on Terror, as have thousands before them. This time, unlike before, all were Volunteers.

While many women have died at the hands of our enemies, it has been mostly the men that went to war and gave their lives. This war is different in that more women are in combat areas and they too are sacrificing their lives to keep us free back here in America.

For those that believe in the Christian Bible, John 15:13 tells us “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Our fallen heroes have shown that ‘greater love,’ the least we can do is remember them one day out of an entire year.

Memorial Day isn’t a day to stump for politicians, make speech’s to garner support for whatever view we may have or to just barbecue in the backyard. It is a day we have set aside just to pay homage to those that sacrificed all they had to keep us free.

General George S. Patton is credited with saying, "It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived." That is exactly why we hold Memorial Day each year, to pay homage to our dead from war and to thank God they stood up between our enemies and us.

As we take time from watching the races, barbecuing, shopping or just enjoying the first three-day weekend of the summer to honor these who sacrificed for us, remember too that many more stood alongside of those who were taken from us and came home. While we set the day aside to pay respects to our fallen, reach out to those that survived and came home, broken in body or spirit or whole. Not all performed heroic acts, but all are heroes for being there when needed.

Most all of us know a Veteran. Be it a father, brother, son, daughter, mother, aunt, uncle, cousin, niece, nephew or maybe the neighborhood grouch. Say a prayer, show respects at a cemetery, watch a parade or just take a moment of silence. Then, reach out to the Veterans you know and just say, “Thank You.” Don’t be surprised to see tears well up in their eyes or their voices crack with emotion.

Such a little thing in return for all they have given.

I hope you all enjoy the Memorial Day weekend, but please, make time to remember why we have it.

Lew

Appeals court bars Cheney foes from West Point

In my previous post, War Protesters Not Welcome, I mentioned a group of anti-war protesters being denied entry and permission to the grounds of West Point Military Academy, to counter a speech being given by vice-president Cheney this weekend. Undeterred, they took it to Federal Court for appeal.

I am happy to report that today, a three judge panel upheld the lower court ruling and the group, the Democratic Alliance of Orange County, are still denied permission to protest Cheney.

"Although the vice president is a political figure, he is also an incumbent official in the United States government," the court wrote. "As such, his mere presence on campus to address members of the United States military on their graduation day does not convert the West Point campus into a public forum, nor does it serve as an open invitation for 1,000 or more outsiders to engage in freewheeling and potentially distracting, if not disruptive, acts of political expression."

I originally said, "I cannot fathom a Federal Judge... ruling that members of the Military must be subjected to those who will denigrate and ridicule their chosen profession."

It does my heart good to be right and to see this Court state that the left doesn't have the run of our Military Bases as they think they do. I cannot imagine what our Troops would think if they had to be subjected to the constant drone of the moonbat left.

Read more at Appeals court bars Cheney foes from West Point

UPDATE 1: Vice President Cheney delivered his speech today unhindered by the moonbat leftists. Complete text of his speech can be read at Cheney Remarks at the United States Military Academy Commencement. Protesters rallied in the village of Highland Falls outside a gate to the post.

UPDATE 2: Wherever the leftist protesters appear, they are being met by counter protesters, mostly by the Gathering of Eagles. Eagles, doves clash at Academy protest

Amazing Thing About Liberals and Their Interpretations

May 25, 2007

Occasionally I leave a comment at Tom DeLay.com, the former Speaker of the House. Recently, in a post he put up about Michael Moore’s new film, Sicko, I left the following,

“Funny thing from Moore in his defense of this garbage. He said, "he was just trying to visit the U.S. Guantanamo Bay detention camp after learning that suspected al-Qaeda detainees had access to better health care than many Americans."”

”I thought all we did to detainees in Guantanamo was abuse, torture and mistreat them?”

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=45690180-4a04-4f4b-8657-684da7bde119

May 23, 2007 | LewWaters


Pretty cut, dired and simple, I thought. Of course, Liberals never see us that way. Immediately after my comment, one posted,

No Lew, Its lack of a fair trial is the main problem with Guantanimo. Remember innocent until PROVEN guilty. That does apply to "suspected" terrorists too. Prove they are terrorists instead of taxi drivers and farmers turned in for a reward, then put them away for life. But that would mean fallowing the Constitution, and you guys hate the Constitution.
May 23, 2007 | Bright Side



Followed by,

Bright....Our friend Lew is one of those guys who fears Liberty and Justice for ALL. He has no faith in our system.

What does that tell you?
May 23, 2007 | LeftCoast Tim


It just boggles my imagination how my posting about Moore commenting that medical care for detainees is superior to that everyday Americans receive is perceived in the manner these two moonbats do.

John Edwards is only partly right when he says there are two America’s. It is two entirely different worlds, one for Liberals and their twisted view of the world and the other for the rest of us that live in a real world.

For the life of me, I will never understand the Liberal mindset.

Lew

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Brian Baird, (D. Wa.) Just as Clueless

May 23, 2007

On a fairly regular basis I correspond with my Congressional and Senatorial Representatives, All Democrats. Baird, like many others today, was born too late to have served in Viet Nam, coming of age after the draft ended in 1973, about the time he would have turned 18. Although clueless about several matters, I do find Baird to be a sincere and decent man, unlike a few others within both parties.

Baird nearly always gives me the courtesy of a return email, mostly in disagreement with my position and I his. Maybe his holding a Ph.D. in clinical psychology has something to do with it, I don’t really know. Whatever the reason, he is always respectful.

That being said, I recently made my position known as to the funding bills before the House, with and without benchmarks, withdrawal dates and what not. He voted for them all and today, sent me his ideas for a “better course” in the War on Terror should be. As a side note perhaps he missed John Edwards call of there is no “Global War on Terror,” just a “Bumper Sticker Slogan.”

1. We must renew our focus on securing and rebuilding Afghanistan and increase both troop strength and financial investment in that nation along with our allied partners. The fight in Afghanistan was the real and most important fight against the terrorists of September 11 th. It was justified from the beginning and remains just today, and it has the support of the world. We cannot let the Taliban regroup and reinstate their reign of terror and extremism there and we still have a chance, though it is slipping fast, to help the Afghanis establish a successful, tolerant and secure nation.

With all due respect, even Al Qaeda sees Iraq as the ‘central front’ in the ongoing war. By the reasoning we always hear from the left, neither Afghanistan nor the Taliban ever attacked us. At worst, they refused to turn over Bin Laden and were horribly oppressive to the Afghani peoples. Where is that any different than what Saddam was doing? He was refusing to comply with U.N. resolutions and he too didn’t attack America, but he too was harboring terrorists and supportive of them.

Is there a reason Iraqis don’t merit help, but Afghani’s do? What good is it to abandon Iraq and displace NATO Troops currently fighting and securing the peace in Afghanistan when just last year, Mullah Mohammed Omar, elusive leader of the Taliban was told by Bin Laden’s lieutenants that “Al Qaeda would be diverting a large number of fighters from the anti-U.S. insurgency in Afghanistan to Iraq. Al Qaeda also planned to reduce by half its $3 million monthly contribution to Afghan jihadi outfits.”

Seems to me, Iraq is just as justified as Afghanistan is, the world be damned!

2 In Iraq, the Administration should meet confidentially with the Iraqi leaders and give them a timeline with key benchmarks by which our forces will withdraw. The timeline and benchmarks should be sufficient to ensure the safety or our forces and give the elected Iraqi government a reasonable time to train their forces and strengthen their political processes, but there must be a timeline so there is real pressure for real progress. The process of conveying this information and the timeline itself should be confidential. The elected Iraqi government should then announce that it is they who are asking us to begin withdrawal, thereby strengthening their credibility and leadership while giving our nation a graceful way to exit at their request. Frankly, this should have been done by the administration before the Iraq Study Group report and before this debate in Congress, but it is still not too late.


And why is this only good for Iraq? Why not Afghanistan as well? Personally, I’m for helping both as much as we can, but if we make such stringent demands on the Iraqis, why not Afghanistan as well?

3. While beginning a measured and strategic redeployment of our forces from Iraq , we should increase our support for infrastructure repair and shift increasing responsibility for that effort to Iraqi companies and workers and away from foreign contractors. We should, however, maintain close oversight of the spending to ensure the resources are being used as intended and we should link continued financial support to real political and security progress on the part of the Iraqis. Further, we should prevail upon wealthy neighbors in the region, notably the Saudi Arabians and others, to expend some of their own vast funds to enhance the infrastructure effort. We should also dramatically reduce the size of the embassy complex that is now under construction in Baghdad and we should pledge to no permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.

“Measured and Strategic Redeployment” is just another glib way of saying “retreat,” “cut and run.” “Foreign Contractors” obviously refers to the dreaded Halliburton, the same company that announced moving its operations out of the U.S. and to Dubai, drawing a lot of fire from the left that hates the company in the first place. Last I heard, Iraqis are already rebuilding their country and seeking more Iraqi’sto help.

Then again, why are these calls also not expected of Afghanistan by Democrats?

4. To help fund the infrastructure and security activities within Iraq, and to give every Iraqi a stake in the success of their political process. An equitable means of distributing oil revenues should be created that ensures all Iraqis will benefit from the oil resources and, simultaneously, that all Iraqis will lose economically if insurgents damage those resources.

Is this ‘spread the wealth,’ or ‘spread the misery?’ Hard for me to tell. The oil revenue sharing is a good plan, but if you read the article linked, it has been in the works by Iraqis and is expected to be passed into law soon.

5. We should encourage the Iraqis to work more closely with moderate Arab neighbors, notably Jordan, Egypt and others in the region to help with the training of the security forces and with the reconstruction effort. This assistance has been offered since the beginning of the conflict but the Iraqis have not taken advantage of that offer to any real degree as of yet.

Nouri Maliki was just in Egypt seeking help. Of course, some of these wealthier nations forgiving Iraqi debt would help, but I don’t see Democrats calling for that.

Maybe Mr. Baird desires Iran’s offers of help in withdrawing our Troops to be replaced by radical Iranian’s?

6. Because the Iraq conflict has had a devastating and destabilizing economic, political and social impact on friendly and moderate nations such as Jordan, Egypt and others, we should provide additional financial aid to those nations, particularly to help them deal with the influx of refugees, the high costs of energy, reductions in trade and tourism, and other adverse impacts. We cannot leave our friends to suffer from this conflict, and we dare not let the instability spread to nations that have been models of change and moderation.

This is probably the most incredible call of all. Oil is bringing high dollars to the region. In fact, in a typical moonbat undertaking, his fellow Democrats have passed a bill so they may sue OPEC nations over the high price of oil and gas. How much help do you believe we will receive should they go through with that, not to mention receiving oil ourselves?

He also says, “ we dare not let the instability spread to nations that have been models of change and moderation.” Given that he also calls on these nations to be more involved in training Iraqi Military and Al Qaeda has vowed to attack anyone helping America in Iraq, his call guarantees the instability will spread more than it already has.

Mr. Baird too needs to heed the words of former Senator Bob Kerry (D. Ne.) when he wrote, “American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government,” and “Those who argue that radical Islamic terrorism has arrived in Iraq because of the U.S.-led invasion are right. But they are right because radical Islam opposes democracy in Iraq.”

7. We must also reach out once again to our traditional allies in Europe, Asia and elsewhere in the world, openly acknowledge past mistakes, spell out this new direction, and ask for their financial, diplomatic, and, if necessary, military help in making it succeed.

We have been, Mr. Baird. Since some of these “traditional European allies” have been implicated in the ‘Oil for Food’ scandal, their reluctance is understood.

With recent elections in France and Germany, they are the ones turning to us.

While supporting and working with friendly and moderate nations in the region and elsewhere, we should engage in direct discussions and negotiations with other nations in the region, notably Iran and Syria. We disagree profoundly with these nations on many issues, and we must not be naïve or overly optimistic, but it is in our best interests to at least engage in a dialogue and search for areas where we may find common ground. The Administration's refusal to do this, even through back channels, is misguided and counterproductive.

To what extent, Mr. Baird? Beg them to stop supplying the insurgents with weapons? Allow them a portion of Iraq? Adopt Sharia law in the U.S. somewhat? Just what should we offer them, Mr. Baird?

England’s Neville Chamberlain took this path back in 1938, to no avail. In spite of promises made, Hitler’s forces still over ran Europe until it was nearly too late. Maybe Mr. Baird knows how to translate Kumbaya into the language of the terrorists, no one else does.

9. It is dishonest to not include the full costs of this war and the associated increases in defense spending as part of the annual budget and deficit projections. We must at last fully account for the costs of this war and fully fund our commitment to veterans when they return. To pay for the financial costs, rather than passing debt onto our children, some of the President's tax cuts should be allowed to expire.

Last I heard, tax revenues are at an all time high with the Bush tax cuts. Why allow them to run out and revenues to fall backwards again? Maybe, instead, some entitlement spending should cease, especially to illegal immigrants.

10. Our focus on the Iraq situation should not cause us to lose sight, as it has for too long, of the real goal, which is promoting broad security, stability and moderation in the region for the sake of that region itself and in the interest of our own security. Even if we could fully secure Iraq with this surge of troops, which is highly doubtful, if we do not improve our overall image and relationships in the region and the world, and if we do not do more to support moderate and friendly nations, we will see continued and worsening threats from extremist groups and rogue nations. A key part of this effort will be playing a constructive role in working to resolve the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. We also have important and necessary work to do to improve our image and relationships within our own hemisphere and we must not ignore or neglect that work.

Please explain why it is our responsibility to intercede between Israel and Palestinians, but not to help the Iraqis? It is the same as those who demand we withdraw from Iraq and send Troops to Darfur.

Pull out of Iraq, abandon Iraq as we were forced to do with Viet Nam and America will have no image or respect from anyone. Middle Easterners may not agree with us and they may not like us, but they do admire strength and perceive anything else as weakness.

We had the respect of the world after World War Two because of our strengths, not our pussyfooting around. Democrats have been all too willing to weaken America and complain about lack of respect. No one has ever been attacked because they were too strong, but too weak.

If we really want world respect, then Support our Troops, give them what they need to achieve Victory and stand alongside of our President, help him achieve Victory in this fight and build a stable and free Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is what will earn America respect, Mr. Baird.

Lew

John Edwards Really Is Clueless

May 23, 2007

As all have heard by now, the ‘Breck Girl,’ John Edwards, failed former vice-presidential candidate, former Senator from North Carolina, aspiring presidential hopeful, wealthy beyond all means lawyer that charges $55,000 for a speech to encourage others to help the poor and anti-war kook who has never served a day in his life, now says that there is “no Global War on Terror,” it is just a “Bumper Sticker Slogan” Bush uses to justify abusing poor innocent terrorists.

Perhaps ‘Silky’ forgot that while he was still a U.S. Senator, in 2002, he voted to authorize this “Bumper Sticker Slogan” of Bush’s.

More importantly, did he somehow miss the events of September 11, 2001? Do not nearly 3,000 innocent civilians dead mean anything to him? Apparently not.

Edwards, if you recall, has put up a website John Edwards: Support The Troops, End The War asking all moonbats to converge on Memorial Day Parades and events to protest the “Bumper Sticker Slogan.” I find it quite odd that on his website he feels the necessity to include the following,

“On Memorial Day weekend, get your friends, kids, co-workers, neighbors, aunts, uncles, grandfathers, grandmothers, and anyone and everyone you know together to publicly support the troops and end the war. If you hold an event on Memorial Day itself, please make sure that everyone you gather knows it is a day for honoring the fallen only. Be sure to check with your local authority for any permits you need for public gatherings. Contact local media to publicize your event. Before you get started, please take a moment of silence to honor the fallen. And during your event, make sure you conduct yourself respectfully—both for those serving in Iraq and the memory of the brave servicemen and women that Memorial Day honors.”


Does he not trust his fellow moonbats? Why would he say the day “is a day for honoring the fallen only, yet he then calls for public protests at the very events held to honor those who have fallen giving us freedom? Is he that fearful of just a “Bumper Sticker Slogan?”

Edwards also vows to "restore the contract we have with those who proudly wear the uniform to defend our country and make the world a safe and better place."

The last two Democrat administrations, Carter and Clinton, both gutted the Military and had little or no support from the Troops themselves. To this day, rank and file Troops and the vast majority of Veterans have little good to say about either. And now, ‘Silky” wants us to believe that he will “renew the contract” with the Troops and “make the world a safe and better place?” Safe from what, ‘Silky,” a Bumper Sticker Slogan?

Edwards, in his guilling effort to pretend to be presidential, in between fixing his hair and $400.00 haircuts, should look around him. Al Qaeda and other loosely affiliated radical Islamo-nazi groups are regrouping, re-planning and rebuilding, while our Congress plays patty-cake and makes glib comments about the ongoing war.

Former Senator, Bob Kerrey (D. Ne) and Medal Honor recipient for actions in Viet Nam, had this to say to his fellow Democrats recently, “The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."”

The Left’s Iraq Muddle

Alan Keyes, a Conservative Black man and Statesman, summed it up very well when he said, “When dealing with terrorists, the first achievement is to force them to make war instead of practicing terror; to prevent them from using their hard violence against soft targets in our country. In Iraq and Afghanistan, we have achieved this. We have forced war upon them, compelling them to fight our armed forces in a theatre well away from the innocent unarmed American civilians they would prefer as targets.”

Doesn’t sound like they see just a “Bumper Sticker Slogan” to me.

Don’t forget that Edwards is the same one who, in the 2003, had no clue as to who Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzak Rabin was. And now, we should trust him to run America after he states that there is no “Global War on Terror,” that it is all just a “Bumper Sticker Slogan?”

Edwards really hasn’t a clue. He should stick to channeling the thoughts of dead babies before a jury. That is where ‘slip and fall’ attorneys belong.

Lew

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Jimmuh, What Have You Done?

May 20, 2007

Jimmy Carter, in what I perceive as the former Presidents effort at deflecting the failures of his administration and subsequent labeling as our Worst President and Worst ex-President, lashed out at George W. Bush recently, labeling his administration as the “worst in history.”

Reflecting on the four years of the Carter Administration, my thoughts drifted back to the 1976 campaign. I was still in the U.S. Army, assigned to HHB XVIII Airborne Corps Artillery, Aviation Section at Simmons Army Airfield in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Being born a Southerner myself I kind of liked the idea of a “Georgia Boy,” a fellow Southerner, winning the Presidency. I recalled a TV spot during the campaign where the speaker stated words in support of Carter, “Will we let the North beat us again?”

Even his now infamous November 1976 Playboy magazine interview gave him the appearance of a ‘down to earth’ person the country could well use as we were coming out of the failure of Viet Nam and Watergate scandal.

Little did I realize just how misplaced my support was and how inept a President he was to be. In fact, his first official act as President, amnesty for Viet Nam draft dodgers, was the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’ for continuance of my Army career, after slightly more than eight years active duty.

Those of us old enough to remember can recall the double digit inflation, return of gas lines, 55 mph maximum speed limits everywhere, high interest rates charged, failed peace talks, Iranian hostage crisis for 444 days, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and even the start of the Iraq/Iran war.

Researching for old articles to help shake the cobwebs from my aging brain, I was to discover that what I thought was the ineptness of Carter would pale in comparison to steps he took that we didn’t know about. Steps that not only created more unrest in the Middle East than there already was, but that still haunt us today as we are fighting worldwide Terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, along with the possibility of Iran becoming embroiled in the fight.

It is no secret that Carter failed to support the Shah of Iran, leading to his downfall and the ascension to power of radical Shia clergyman, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Carter even encouraged some 150 of the Shah's top military commanders to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not to fight him. This act of Carter's human rights program and ‘appeasement’ cost all of them their lives as one of the Ayatollah’s first acts was to have them all murdered.

Against the advice of senior U.S. Embassy staff in Tehran, Carter decided to Admit the Shah into the U.S. sparking violent protests from Iranians that subsequently led to the storming of our Embassy in Tehran and the Iranian Hostage Crisis. An attempted rescue mission failed, resulting in the death of 8 of our Brave Military and the loss of 3 helicopters and one C-130 Cargo plane. The hostages would remain in captivity until moments after the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan, who handily defeated Carter in the November 1980 election.

Much lesser known, I came to discover while sifting through a site solidly opposed to President Bush’s inclusion of Iraq in the War on Terror, is that through the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Carter encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, which Saddam did in September 1980, leading to their bloody 8 year war.

Carter was lagging behind Reagan in the 1980 campaign due in large part to his ineffectiveness in freeing the hostages held in Iran. There were also unconfirmed rumors, subsequently ruled spurious by Congressional investigation, that the Reagan campaign was secretly negotiating with Iran on their own to release the hostages. A declassified 1981 report from Secretary of State, Alexander Haig to President Reagan, confirms that Carter gave the “green light” to Saddam through the Saudi’s for the invasion of Iran.

If this “green light” to Saddam Hussein isn’t enough to raise eyebrows, in October 1980, after the invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein’s forces, and with the full approval of Carter, his administration unfroze Iranian assets he earlier had frozen and gave approval to resume shipments of arms and spare parts for Military equipment originally sold to Iran under the Shah’s regime. Haig comments on this in the 1981 ‘report’ above as well.

What became known as the Iran Contra Affair, which the Democrat party used to try to undermine Reagan’s administration, was actually started under the Carter administration and continued by Reagan.

In 1998, Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview which appeared in the French publication, 'Le Nouvel Observateur' discussing U.S. involvement in the Soviet Afghanistan War, also starting in 1980. When asked about CIA involvement in Afghanistan prior to the Soviet Invasion, Brzezinski replied, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.”

Further asked about whether this was a provocation of the Soviets to invade Afghanistan, he answered, “We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

As we all know, the Mujahideen gave birth to the Taliban, a separate group of Afghani warlords and religious students who broke away to impose radical Islam as the ruling party in Afghani government. It was also the Taliban that harbored and gave sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden.

Expressing no regrets over Carter’s pre-Soviet involvement in Afghanistan, Brzezinski asserted, “That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War.”

Pressed further about regrets, Brzezinski stated, “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?”

While this isn’t Carter himself speaking, National Security Advisors do not operate independently of President’s. Robert Gates, current Secretary of Defense, former head of the CIA and then executive assistant to National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, confirms in a December 2004 BBC interview that “..early in 1979, the United States government began considering providing covert support to the potential opposition in the mujahideen in Afghanistan and, beginning in July, actually the president authorised that kind of support.”

In reading these accounts it struck me that none are pro-Bush or even supportive of the current ongoing war, which I have to call a culmination of efforts, policies and moves put into motion by the Carter Administration. More plainly, we are still mopping up the mess of Carter’s 4 years of ineptness in the Oval Office.

And now, Carter has the unmitigated gall to label George W. Bush’s administration, clearly not the greatest, as the “worst?”

Oh Jimmuh, What Have You Done?

Lew

UPDATE: Cominig under fire for the comments, Carter has taken the usual Democrat track, Carter says comments were ‘careless’. Also typical for the Democrat party, he explains his comments on the 'Today Show' as, "They were maybe careless or misinterpreted."

Friday, May 18, 2007

War Protesters Not Welcome

May 18, 2007

On this 27th anniversary of the eruption of Mount Saint Helens here in Washington State, slowly but surely another eruption seems to be brewing. Amid continuing protests against our fighting Radical Jihadists in Iraq and elsewhere, protesters are discovering they are not always welcome.

Those of us from the sixties era remember well the antics of that group of stinking hippies as they ‘marched’ everywhere chanting their infantile slogans and undermining the fight to keep the South Vietnamese people free. From where I stood it appeared they had carte blanche all over the country, save for the May 1970 Hard Hat Riot in New York City. There may have been other incidents of regular everyday Americans standing up to these misguided anti-war freaks, but I was out of the country with the U.S. Army and if there were any others, they did not garner the attention of that one point that America stood up to those who were slandering those of us serving in Viet Nam and elsewhere.

Fast forward to today and once again, we are embroiled in what the left has succeeded in making another unpopular war. No war is really popular, just necessary. But that is beside the point.

All over the country we see these aging hippies, their offspring and other cowards repeating what they felt was successful in bringing about the end of the war in Viet Nam, although in reality, they prolonged it at the cost of nearly 40,000 of the 58,000 American Service Members lost there. From coast to coast, sea to shining sea, we see reports of their cry of “peace and pacifism” and from what is reported in the lamestream media of today, they once again are receiving carte blanche in their quest.

Not so, my friends.

In February 2003 Anti-war protesters lost their bid to hold a march near the U.N. building. A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it could find no errors in a lower court judge's ruling earlier denying them permission to hold their march. U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones concluded the city's response was appropriate in "this time of heightened security."

As one would expect, the New York Civil Liberties Union cried, "This is a stunning blow to democracy, to the liberties we all thought we could rely on, even in times of hostility.” Donna Lieberman, representing the ACLU, called the ruling "an attack on the very values our country was built on and is supposed to be defending."

The earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones said, “the city's need to protect the public outweighs the right of demonstrators to proceed with plans to march past the U.N. or to march at all.”

Of course, we cannot forget the reception anti-war protesters received this past March 17 in Washington D.C. when they were outnumbered nearly three to one by Veterans and others countering their usual rudeness.

On May 5, 2007 the sleepy little Oregon Coastal city of Newport held their annual ‘Loyalty Day’ Parade. Invited to be in the parade by Lincoln County Democrats was a group from the fringe group, Veteran For Peace, who showed up with a large bus that had signs painted on it saying, Veterans For Peace, Stop the War and American Made Biodiesel Gets Zero Soldiers Per Mile.

Much to the chagrin of these lefty’s, parade officials denied them access to the parade with their bus, sparking outrage by the protesters and now calls for boycotts of the community of approximately 10,000 and their businesses, drawing about 400 signatures on their nationwide petition.

My thanks and congratulations to the community of Newport and rest assured, if 400 won’t ever return, a few thousand right-hearted Americans and Veterans will.

On a similar note, anti-war cretins were dealt another blow in Federal Courts today when District Judge Charles Brieant ruled West Point Can Ban Anti-War Protests on the grounds of the long established United States Army Academy.

Protesters had petitioned the garrison commander for permission to protest the graduation speech scheduled to be given by vice-president Dick Cheney on Saturday May 26, Memorial Day weekend. Protesters claim Cheney is likely to speak in support of the war in Iraq and they should be allowed to express an opposing view.

Uh, did I miss passage of the leftists ‘un’fairness doctrine somewhere?

Colonel Brian Crawford, garrison commander of West Point said, “protests had never been allowed on the grounds and could be inconsistent with the military mission and can detract from the good order, discipline, security, morale or loyalty of the soldiers."

The Democratic Alliance of Orange County spokesman, Michael Sussman says the ruling will be appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for arguments to be heard in Manhattan on Wednesday or Thursday.

Since West Point is an active Military Post, I cannot fathom a Federal Judge, other than maybe the excessively liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, ruling that members of the Military must be subjected to those who will denigrate and ridicule their chosen profession. If a judge rules in favor of the protesters against West Point, I can see a pandora’s box of protests on Military Posts across the nation and that cannot be tolerated. Of course, time will tell.

Since the time of our Civil War, those opposed to our country and it defending itself have been speaking out. For the most part they were ignored or silenced until the 1960’s when they effectively and with the aid of powers opposed to the United States turned public opinon against the war and those fighting it.

Four decades later they are doing it again, but it appears that honest hearted citizens and communities are slowly standing up against these miscreants and their deceit of pacifism.

Is it possible that finally, a slumbering giant is starting to stir awake? I certainly hope so!

Lew

Baghdad Rosie Equates Our Troops to Terrorists

See it for yourself on MSNBC's Scarborough Country

This woman continues to go too far. When will ABC and Barbara Walters can this piece of slime?

As long as Baghdad Rosie is on ABC, I will have nothing to do with that network!

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Bi-Partisan Sell-Out of Americans

May 17, 2007

Announced today, the latest non-amnesty amnesty deal is being surprisingly embraced by many on Capital Hill. That a majority of American citizens oppose it seems to go ignored by supporters in Washington D.C., including President Bush.

America passed a previous amnesty bill for illegal immigrants back in 1986, followed by a flood of additional illegal immigrants, primarily from Mexico. I hold no special animus against Mexican Nationals, knowing that many are very hard working and upstanding people. Most that fit that category come here legally and work to contribute to our society.

Those that break our laws to come here in the dead of night and undercut unskilled, low wage workers who are citizens, are the ones who will benefit from this proposed legislation, at the cost of the rest of us.

Several senators, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez negotiated behind closed doors to come up with this proposed legislation, which isn’t even public yet. Disturbing is to hear that pro illegal immigrant groups as National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the National Immigration Forum were heavily involved in these ‘negotiations’ with virtual veto power.

No representatives of the common American citizen were present, other than the ‘bi-partisan sell-out’ Senators.

Eric Gutierrez, lead lobbyist for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said, "There's a real sense that the Latino community is key to the solution in this debate, so now they are reaching out to us more than ever, neither party wants to make a misstep politically."

Señor Gutierrez, both parties just made a very major misstep!

According to this ‘proposal,’ illegal immigrants will be granted a new ‘Z Visa,’ allowing them legal residency for eight years. During the eight years, the head of an undocumented household would have to temporarily return to their home country to apply for permanent U.S. legal status for their family. Z Visa holders would then have to pay a fine, back taxes, undergo a criminal background check and begin to work toward citizenship.

Although enforcement is mentioned, nowhere is that enforcement listed. Even if it were, what leads us to believe that they really mean they would enforce the law …. this time? Government didn’t enforce immigration laws in the past and illegals didn’t follow the established law either. No, we are supposed to just accept that this one will be enforced?

I know, I know, they mean it this time!

Do we really need millions more unskilled low-income workers draining the system we are supposed to have to help citizens? Should those that broke our laws be rewarded by being given amnesty, oops, it’s not amnesty, and allowed to remain, given that many advocate reclamation of the West Coast to Mexico?

Even though this proposal would predominantly benefit Mexican’s in our country illegally, others would benefit as well that we wouldn’t want here. Three of the group now known as the Fort Dix Six were here illegally.

Not all think this non-amnesty amnesty deal is good. Former Senator, Fred Thompson said, “With this bill, the American people are going to think they are being sold the same bill of goods as before on border security. We should scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders or at least have made great headway.”

Representative Tom Tancredo says, “Senator McCain and his allies seem to think that they can dupe the American public into accepting a blanket amnesty if they just call it ‘comprehensive’ or ‘earned legalization’ or ‘regularization.’ Unfortunately for them, however, the American people know amnesty when they see it. The President is so desperate for a legacy and a domestic policy win that he is willing to sell out the American people and our national security.”

Senator Byron Dorgan, (D.ND), issued a statement saying he is opposed to the guest worker program, saying it would bring millions of new immigrants, taking jobs away from Americans workers, and "The last thing they need now is to have an inflow of millions of more immigrants competing for their jobs at substandard wages."

I’ll go Senator Dorgan one better. Why should we have a “Temporary worker” program while we pay millions of our tax dollars every year in unemployment benefits? I see no reason that our own unemployed cannot perform those jobs Americans won’t do part-time while drawing unemployment compensation and hopefully, seeking gainful employment.

Representative Duncan Hunter (D. Ca) responds on Chris Matthews Hardball. (You Tube video)

Others chimed in trying to camouflage the intent of this proposal, ignoring the very polls they use to justify other votes and stances on the War on Terror.

President Bush says of the deal, "This proposal delivers an immigration system that is secure, productive, orderly and fair." Really, Mr. Bush? Fair to whom? Surely not to those immigrants that followed our laws and worked very hard to get here to become U.S. Citizens. Surely not to those Citizens who voted you into office and stood by you as your poll numbers slipped lower and lower as opponents attacked you. Frankly, Mr. Bush, we are feeling put upon right about now.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D. Nv), has said he wants to complete a bill before Memorial Day, and President Bush says he wants to sign one by summer's end. Wouldn’t it be great if they were as intent as this on getting funding to our Troops fighting in the War on Terror?

Ted Kennedy (D. Ma), considered to be the driving force behind this capitulation, err, compromise, said, "I believe we owe it to the American people to stop talking about immigration and start acting." Senator, a good start might be to build the fence voted on and passed last year by many of the same Senators and start enforcing existing immigration laws.

Senator Arlen Specter (Rino Pa), says the bill "is not amnesty and will restore the rule of law." He adds, "When the objections are raised as to amnesty, the question is returned, what more can be done with these 12 million undocumented immigrants? What more hurdles can be placed to be sure that we do the maximum to avoid the charge of amnesty? And we are still open for suggestions. But the consequences of not moving to a solution on this issue is we have anarchy. We have uncontrolled borders."

Rewarding those “12 million illegal aliens” for violating our laws “restores the rule of law?” How? What more can be done, Senator? How about enforcing existing laws? Why should we trust that new laws will be enforced when historically, existing laws are not?

John Trasviña, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund said, "At least they are paying attention to us."

Yes, señor Trasviña, they are paying attention to you and your hoard of illegals. Too bad they aren’t listening to the American citizens that voted them into office.

Lew

UPDATE : If you desire to let your voice be heard over this and are not sure how to contact your Senators, Representatives and even President Bush, this link will help you find your Representatives. Congress.org

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Harry Reid Tries To Establish Iraq ‘Litmus Tests’

May 15, 2007

In yet another anti-war move by Democrat Senate leader, Harry Reid, comes the effort to set litmus tests by proposing and cosponsoring two Iraq redeployment amendments to the water-resources bill.

Says Reid, “As badly as we all recognize we need to get a bill to conference, we’ve not on this side of the aisle … lost sight of the fact that the American people have concluded the president’s Iraq policy has failed.”

Other than the slim margin of wins in last November’s election, what is this based on, surveys of 900 people? And they say Bush is in a bubble?

Democrats Feingold and Dodd are pushing for a vote on tougher withdrawal language as an amendment to the Senate’s next supplemental. Reid hopes to head that off. Why, I don’t know.

If Democrats are so convinced how wrong the war is and that we need to withdraw, they have the constitutional power and responsibility to just vote to cut off funds for it, forcing their desired effect and taking all responsibility for what happens after.

That is what they don’t want to do, accept any responsibility for the outcome. The goal is to make a shambles of the war and point fingers at Bush and Republicans for failure.

To power mad Democrats, it is always about their next election and grabbing power, the good of the country is secondary to them.

This can be seen in former Senator John Edwards recent call for anti-war displays at Memorial Day Events.

In the meantime, our Troops in Harm’s Way are starting to feel the pinch as they are not receiving needed funds for neither materials nor Congressional Support they so desperately deserve.

Playing political football with our Troops as they plead for support from Congress is just wrong.

Democrats, fund the Troops or pull them out now, accepting the consequences! Stop playing with their lives as you jockey for power!

Lew

House Democrats Challenge The Pope

May 15, 2007

Apparently feeling their power and inflated egos, a group of House Democrats have come forward to repudiate the Popes abortion remarks made recently.

Pope Benedict XVI indicated he would support Mexican bishops if they were to excommunicate Mexican legislators who voted last month to legalize abortion in Mexico City.

American Democrats have come forward to claim that the suggested penalty “offend[s] the very nature of the American experiment and do[es] a great disservice to the centuries of good work the church has done.”

The First Amendment to the Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Since 1947, the “Separation of Church and State” has been continually used to deny religion any say in our government. Candidates have been belittled for their religion and claims made that religion steers sitting Presidents (only Republicans).

Now, it appears that Democrats have decided they will direct the Church, if not by legislation, by pressure.

I am not a Catholic, but I know of the importance of the position of the Pope to that religion. If Catholic legislators, or any others, find themselves in strong disagreement of their spiritual teachings and beliefs, it is not up to the religion to change to suit them. It is up to them to either change their contrary views or find another religion.

It’s just one more move by power mad Democrats in establishing their ‘Socialist Utopia’ to oppress citizens and convert the country to the Union of Socialist States of America.

Lew

UPDATE : Amy Proctor gives an excellent commentary on her view: Bottom Line Up Front, Pope Accused Of Influencing US Politics

Monday, May 14, 2007

Heard It On The Radio

A Songwriter in Arizona was listening to his SUV radio on the way home from work. While switching stations he picked up a broadcast of Folks calling in to talk about the Troops overseas.

He listened until the show ended and over the next several months, began to write a song about the experience. He later put together a slide show / video to go along with the song.

This is that Song and Video.

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Saturday, May 12, 2007

John Edwards: Support The Troops, End The War

May 12, 2007

In yet another attempt at seeing to Support the Troops while undermining them, Democrat party hopeful and former failed vice-presidential candidate, ‘silky’ John Edwards, better known as the “Breck Girl,” has launched a new web site, Support the troops. End the war.

Edwards, before he was elected to the Senate to represent North Carolina, was known as a pretty slick lawyer well practiced in glib speech. His talent of misleading juries into awarding clients, and him self, huge multi-million dollar judgments is put into practice on his new venture as he skillfully blends a feigned Support for the Troops with his anti-war message.

In a large bold block, titled “Reclaiming Patriotism,” he enunciates,

“Throughout our history, military men and women and their families have sacrificed for America. The troops in Iraq and their families continue to sacrifice today. So this Memorial Day Weekend, John Edwards is asking the American people to give some part of their weekend in return—to honor and remember all those who have gone before in service to our country, and to let our government know we want to honor our troops by ending the war and bringing them home.”

“This Memorial Day weekend, John Edwards is asking that we all take responsibility for the country we love and the brave men and women who protect us. As citizens, let’s volunteer in support of our troops, and offer our service to honor theirs. As Americans, let’s take a moment to join in prayer for our troops. And as patriots, let’s gather together this weekend and make our voices heard. It’s up to us. If we are loud enough, and clear enough, we can end this war. Because it really is possible to stop a president who believes he can do no wrong—it just takes people with the courage to do what’s right.”


In what we have come to expect from the Democrat party as they strive to ruin the country and reform it into a rebirth of the failed Soviet Union, nowhere is there any mention of Supporting our Troops on to Victory, as was largely seen throughout World War Two by both major party’s.

In a shameless show of obfuscation, he posts links to real and honest Troop Supporters Anysoldier.com, Operation Gratitude and Troopcarepackage.com.

I also notice a definite lack of acknowledgement for Appeal for Courage, a growing number of our Brave Troops calling on Congress to Support their Mission.

Under his “10 things to do this memorial Day Weekend” is;

Pray. Organize a prayer vigil for our troops at your house of worship. Tell us about it.”


Did he suspend “separation of Church and State” for his campaign?

While in the Senate, Edwards Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999), Voted YES on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999), Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002) and Voted NO on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003). On The Issues, John Edwards

Most shameful is his call to,

Get vocal. Buy a bunch of poster-board and markers. At a picnic or with family and friends, make signs that say “SUPPORT THE TROOPS - END THE WAR.” Bring them to your local Memorial Day parade. Then take a digital photo of yourself and your family or friends holding up the poster and tell us about it. We’ll include it in a “Democracy Photo Album” on our site.”


He is actually calling for anti-war displays at Memorial Day Activities! How dishonorable is that to our Veterans who have sacrificed much to keep America free? And, send his photos so he can post them? Photos of anti-war displays dishonoring American Veterans who paid the ultimate sacrifice? Can a politician sink any lower?

Most telling in the Democrat party’s anti-America stance is that with all their calls for withdrawing the Troops (only from Iraq, mind you) is that nowhere do we hear or see them calling for our nations Police Forces to withdraw from high crime areas of our own major cities. Of course, there is no political gain in making that call.

Using the Troops for a campaign stunt as this goes well beyond wrong. Don’t forget, it was the Democrat party that demanded no mention of 9/11 be made during the 2004 campaign, complained endlessly about President Bush appearing in a flight suit after flying out to the USS Abraham Lincoln who failed to garner a majority Veteran support while running a ‘self proclaimed phony war hero.’

Playing political football with the funding for our Troops while in harm’s way and now using honest support sites to gather material for his campaign shows just how low the Democrat party has slid today.

If they honestly were that concerned over the Troops and this war, they would pass a bill defunding the war immediately, in effect surrendering to terrorism and force the Troops home. Of course, that places the failure square on their shoulders.

Don’t fall for a slick lawyers ploy. Support for the Troops is secondary to his desire for campaign material and adding to his personal fortune, at our expense.

Lew

UPDATE 1: I am not the only one outraged over this. Keepin’ It Real has expressed outrage as well.

UPDATE 2: Today's Washington Post reports on this despicable act by Edwards. While the article itself seems neutral, the headline says it all. "Edwards Campaigns To Make Memorial Day An Antiwar Statement"

UPDATE 3: For any desiring to express their outrage to Edwards about this shameless disrespect of Memorial Day, he can be contacted at Edwards Campaign Contact Form

UPDATE 4: A friend of mine from 911 Neocons and felow conservative has written an excellent account of his feelings about this. Stop by his blog and read, A Spark, An Ember, A Tiny Flame, A Conflagration

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Caucus Of Corruption, The Truth About The New Democratic Majority


Is now out!

The long awaited book by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan, of Blogs For Bush and GOP Bloggers is just released and available from Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble or the Conservative Book Club.

Learn what our lamestream media won't report and the Democrat party ignores. See for yourself that the Corruption in Washington D.C. isn't so one-sided as claimed during the 2006 campaign.

Monday, May 07, 2007

That Pesky Eisenhower Speech

May 07, 2007

Reading nearly any right winged blog or listening to right winged talk radio, sooner or later a leftist will drop by and lay off what has become known today as Eisenhower’s Military Industrial Complex Speech. In actuality, it was his farewell address given on TV and radio on January 17, 1961.

The left seems to have suddenly grown fond of Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower as they lift a single sentence out of a much larger speech, insinuating Eisenhower supported their ani-war views.

What they quote:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex."

It is typical that they rely on snippets posted somewhere instead of actually seeing just what else is in the same speech. From that same Farewell Address, we find:

"We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment."

*snip*

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction."

"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea."

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations."

Instead of speaking against wars, as insinuated by the leftists, he encourages balance in arms while recognizing the great responsibility America has as a Super Power and Guardian of Freedom, since at that time, Communism under the strong arm of the ever expanding Soviet Union was being held at bay.

Add to this the speech given just 3 days later by incoming Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, when he said in his Inaugural Address;

"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

"This much we pledge—and more."

A little further in the address, he stated, "We dare not tempt them [adversarial nations] with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed."

Further still, as we all have heard several times over the years, "And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country."

"My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

Don’t let the left buffalo you with an out of context quote from Eisenhower. Recall what real leaders stand for. Compare that to today’s Democrat party leadership who declare the current war “already lost” while we still have brave men and women in uniform facing the most monstrous enemy we have ever had to face.

It is high time we invoke the words of another great President, also hated by the leftists, when he simply said, “We win, They Lose.”


Support our Troops and their mission and they will deliver for us all.

Lew

Global Defense Group's Reaction To Baghdad Reid

A very interesting video found on the blog "Wake Up Americans" by Spree, a very knowledgeable lady. Drop by and see it.


Global Defense Group's Reaction To Baghdad Reid

I Thought The USA Was Despised With Bush Leading Us

May 7, 2007

We have all heard the rhetoric coming from the left. America is more isolated and despised than it ever has been. All since George W. Bush was elected. In January 2007, in Davos Switzerland, John ‘F’in Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) said, “I've never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today.”

Just last year Ted (hic) Kennedy said, “America has gone from leading the world to being despised by the world.”

Pat Buchanan (A RINO opportunist) said in April 2007, “America is severed from old allies and despised around the world.”

Jack Murtha quoted an article saying, “we're more dangerous to world peace than North Korea or Iran.”

Ever since we invaded Iraq, with several Democrats voting their approval, it has been non-stop rhetoric about how hated we are under Bush and how the entire world despises us. Hardly a day has gone by that we haven’t been reminded by someone from the Democrat party of how hated President Bush has made us.

If not members of the Democrat party, we have the leftist crowd from Hollyweird constantly droning on about how Bush has made America so hated.

In one more exmaple of just how wrong they all are, look at yesterday’s election results in France.

Nicolas Sarkozy, a French immigrant and conservative, handlily won the election over Socialist Segolene Royal. Sarkozy is accused of being more American than French and ran on a ticket of closer ties to America.

No, this does not mean he intends to send Troops to Iraq, but it does mean that he won’t be openly objecting to and trying to block every move made by America as did outgoing President of France, Jacques Chirac. What it may mean is that we now have another ally in opposing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. He describes Iranian leaders as "extremely dangerous."

With a voter turnout of about 85%, 53% voted for Sarkozy knowing they will be closer aligned to the USA.

Lest you think this is just a fluke, or that Karl Rove somehow made it to France to rig the elections there, the May 2, 2007 issue of Germany’s ‘Der Spiegel’ ran an article about their leader, Angela Merkel, “The Road to America,” Merkel’s Crowning Achievement. Even though the article leans towards how she is leading America, the first paragraph says it all, “Germans accustomed to Angela Merkel's domestic track record are hard-pressed to recognize the chancellor as she re-orients German foreign policy and takes it back toward its rightful place: at America's side. Thank goodness!”

As wrong as the Democrats consistently are, it should be no surprise that their assessment of just how despised the USA is around the world is just as wrong.

While these two examples won’t lead to their countries committing their Troops to Iraq, it does signal an end to a lot of the opposition we have faced in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and decimating Al Qaeda and other loosely affiliated Jihadist groups of radical Muslims.

If nothing else, it does show that Europeans seem to like the idea of being more closely aligned to the USA under George W. Bush.

Maybe the time has come for our liberal prima donna celebrities that stated they would leave America, should Bush be elected, to keep their promise. And, take some liberal socialist politicians with you, please.

They may have trouble relocating to France, though. It seem the citizens of France may have had enough of the liberal Socialism that has robbed them of their dignity, wealth and courage.

Lew

Thursday, May 03, 2007

After Veto, Democrats Still Pitching Defeat and Surrender

May 3, 2007

After telling Democrats for months that any bill for funding our Troops containing an artificial deadline would be swiftly vetoed, President Bush did just that.

As if taken by surprise, Democrat party leaders acted surprised and even though they had previously said they desired to negotiate with Republicans, they are lined up with new plans for surrender and defeat in the War on Terror after failing to garner enough votes to override the veto.

Harry Reid (D. Nv), infamous now for his “the war is lost” gaffe, says, "No one wants out of Iraq more than I do," adding, "There is nothing off the table -- including timetables, benchmarks, waivers from the president, waivers from the secretary of defense. ... Nothing." Reid continues to insist on a Troop pullout.

Dick Durbin, (D.Ill), famous for the labeling of our Troops as Nazis, Soviets and other repressive regime fame (since apologized for) says, "If we're not going to hold the overall administration accountable, let's at least hold the Iraqis accountable."

Nancy Pelosi (D. Ca.), newly coronated Queen of the House, said, "The goal is obviously to strengthen our military, to support our troops, to honor our promises to our veterans, to hold the Iraqis accountable so that we can end this war, to bring stability to the region, to turn our attention to the War on Terror."

HELLO, Ms. Pelosi, Iraq is the War on Terror. It is but one battle in the over all war and we can expect many more before we crush this radical Jihadist movement threatening world peace. We can expect them especially considering the Democrat party’s irresponsible comments and actions that embolden our enemies by telegraphing a date certain our Troops will be forced to cut and run

John Edwards (D. NC), who would not acknowledge there actually is a War on Terror by raising his hand in response to a question posed to participants in the recent Democrat debates, proposes a unique method of ending any stalemate and funding our Troops now in Harm’s Way. His proposal: “They ought to do another bill, funding the troops, with a timetable for withdrawal and send it back. If he vetoes that one, then they ought to do it again.”

That’s right. Edwards wants to just keep sending the same thing back time and time again!

Even before President Bush vetoed the excessively flawed bill, Jack Murtha (D. Pa) of Marines killed Haditha civilians in cold blood fame and House Defense Appropriations Chairman advocates funding the Troops two months at a time. House Defense appropriator Jim Moran (D. Va.) said a two-month bill is intended to keep troops funded without giving the president too much latitude.

That’s right, tie everybody’s hands behind their backs while fighting for our freedom and facing the most gruesome enemy they have ever had to face.

John Kerry (D. Ma) of "You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq" fame says, "By vetoing this bill, the President is ignoring the majority in both the House and Senate who voted to end the disastrous open-ended Bush policy by setting a sensible deadline for the redeployment of troops," adding, “No matter how many times the President vetoes this plan, we will continue to fight for a new policy."

There is no “new policy,” just the same old cut and run, retreat and surrender he advocated during Viet Nam, helping to bring about the disastrous result the world saw there.

Hillary Clinton (D. NY) of ‘vast right winged conspiracy’ fame teams up with Robert Byrd (D. WV) of World War Two Ku Klux Klan heroism fame, jointly are proposing legislation requiring the president to seek a reauthorization from Congress to extend the military effort in Iraq beyond October 11, 2007, the fifth anniversary of the resolution granting authority to reengage Iraq. Says Clinton, "If the president will not bring himself to accept reality, it is time for Congress to bring reality to him."

Obviously, she has forgotten when she said, “I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security,” on NBC's "Meet The Press," September 15, 2002.

Patty Murray (D. Wa) of ‘Osama bin Laden is popular in poor countries because he helped pay for schools, roads and even day care centers’ chimed in with, “I thought that we had given the president an opportunity to have a very strong tool to go back to Iraq and say, ‘You need to stand up and take responsibility for your country.’”

Has she missed the deaths to Iraqis who succumb to suicide bombers outside of Police and Army recruitment offices in Iraq? And yet, they keep coming to sign up. Perhaps she missed the Sunni Muslim sheikhs joining the US in fighting Al Qaeda.

Most telling in all this defeatist rhetoric we have come to see from the Democrat party is Neil Abercrombie (D. Hi), chairman of the Air and Land Forces Armed Services subcommittee recommendation of cutting $867 million from the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. Abercrombie said, “The Army is in trouble. This situation requires dramatic action to prevent further decay … over the next two years.”

Somehow, I just fail to grasp the logic of cutting funds for combat systems to prevent further decay of the Army during war.

Lew

UPDATE 1: AS Democrats pitch surrender and defeat, Iraqis align themselves with President Bush. Bottom Line Upfront, Amy Proctors Blog: Iraq Opposes Troop Withdrawal; Parliament Will Not Recess

UPDATE 2: AKI, ADNKRONOSinternational reports IRAQ: NEW CARTEL JOINS ANTI AL-QAEDA FRONT
Tell us again, Senator Reid, how we have lost the war!