Saturday, June 30, 2007

Just Trying To Understand

1. We spend years making sure no illegal alien is left behind but it is perfectly alright to desert those who went to defend the country on a foreign shore to the gulag forever.

2. We have millions of illegals in our country and we feel obligated to accommodate them but when a legal migrant wishes to purchase guns so he may fight and return to his home country, we jail him.

3. The same people who spend days on a beach trying to coach a whale which beached itself, back to the ocean, also support assisted suicide for human beings.

4. We worry greatly about the treatment of enemy personnel who wore no uniform but we were able to capture. We want everyone from the President down held responsible if a Koran falls on the floor in Gitmo. Then we think Fidel is OK even though he sent his men to torture US POWS in Vietnam.

5. God is not allowed on public property but we must make way for the Satanist in all public places.

6. Wearing a Christian Cross or Star of David is banned or discouraged but a Muslim can show up in full regalia in the name of inclusiveness and diversity.

7. Americans took to the streets to demand we not bomb the communists in Cambodia but when they took over and murdered hundreds of thousands of their own people, it was our fault.

8. We think those who cannot read should pass in school anyway but those who were already educated and our allies should be put, by the communists, into re-education.

9. We could not support the Contras but Jimmy Carter could support the Sandinistas.

10. We spend months and years covering any miscue by Soldiers or Marines in the press but you cannot get the awarding of our highest medals for valor on the news.

11. You may vacuum a fully formed infant out of the mother but killing baby seals is off-limits.

12. A man can be arrested for walking into the ladies room but a female reporter must be given access to the men's locker-room.

13. All smoking should be banned except those smoking narcotics and that should be legalized.

14. We should raise taxes on those who work so those who don't won't have to.

15. Fat people are victims of Burger King and can sue but Burger King will be sued if they won't sell them a Whopper.

16. Murdering and robbing are understood but killing an intruder in your own home must be punished.

17. Soldiers in a war are considered murderers by some in our country but we must protect the rights of those who wish to murder them.

18. Missing dogs and children are pictured on lampposts and milk cartons but missing Soldiers are ignored.

19. John Kerry and Congressman Murtha are war heroes but Swift Boat veterans and POWS are bums, regardless what awards they received.

20. One Hollywood star can make common cause with the enemy in his camp but another star is pandering if he visits our wounded troops.


(Not my original work)

Veteran Confronts Chris Matthews

Don't expect to see or hear this on Nightly News.

Friday, June 29, 2007

Roseanne Barr, “A Big Idiot With A Big Mouth”

June 30, 2007

As one who felt that the ranting and raving of our irrational, ultra-wealthy, celeliberal crowd, who appear to hate themselves for their modicum of success and resulting wealth, couldn’t surprise me very much, along comes Roseanne Cherrie Barr Pentland Arnold Thomas, fresh off the ‘successful’ 14 week run of her one hour a day political commentary styled radio program (that apparently was missed by most of the nation and cancelled) at KCAA radio in San Bernardino, Calif.

With several adherents to her boorish, loud-mouthed insulting attempt at humor clamoring for her to be the replacement on ABC’s daily ‘Hen Party,’ “The View” for fellow boorish, loud-mouthed and humorless comedienne Rosie O’Donnell, Ms. Barr (I think that’s what she calls herself this week) has thrown her porcine poetic rants into the blogosphere by attacking not only the Bush administration and Congress, but every day average Americans, who may have once been fans of her vile and odious act.

From her own personal blog, Roseanne World under the heading IMPEACH, we read,


Bashing President Bush, bad mouthing Congress and pleading “Save Our Troops” isn’t anything new or exciting, it has been happening on a daily basis since he took office and stood up against terrorists. No, several people join with their fellow moonbats in that activity, siding instead with those that desires the destruction of our country, lifestyle and theirs too.

Labeling those of us who support the president in this fight as “TRAITORS” is over the top, though. In fact, the majority of the Troops she calls for being “saved” would fit into her definition of “TRAITORS” as they also support President Bush in this fight. Granted, we were disappointed in his recent stand on the failed immigration amnesty bill, but unlike Liberals, we are capable of disagreeing with him on one matter and supporting him in a more important matter, the War on Terror.

Barr, who once claimed to recover the Repressed Memory of childhood incest and abuse, prompting her parents and family to strongly deny and accuse her of lying to boost her TV ratings, is no stranger to controversy, as was displayed in her butchering of our National Anthem before a San Diego Padres game in 1990, where she screeched through it off-key and grabbed her crotch, spitting afterwards, in a failed attempt at her brand of shock humor, prompting then President George H.W. Bush to label it "disgusting" and "a disgrace."

When she is not bashing her fans, she might be seen bashing Gays, who she did apologize to on her blog, saying in part, "I love gays and I hate division. I am just a big idiot with a big mouth sometimes.”

Not being one to pass up an opportunity to bash another, her ‘apology’ included, "Call me up today and let me have it! I will apologise and try to make clear what I really meant to say... which was that everybody needs to unite right now, and step outside of their own neighbourhoods, groups, races and classes to stop Bush's war on our country and our people.” With her, even an apology must include denigrating someone else.

Born Jewish and growing up in heavily Mormon dominated Salt Lake City, Utah, Barr now claims to be part of the trendy Kabbalah Movement and follower of Jesus Christ. Of course, when in her Jew bashing mode she displayed no love of Jesus as she said, “I am sick of israel and I am sick of zionists. They are propped up by evangelical christians who cannot wait for the arabs to kill them so that their genocidal war god whom they misname jesus can come back.”

Now that she embraces Kabbalism, Jesus and Psychic Powers, she claims to have spoken to Jesus when she said in an interview, “I was talking to Jesus the other day, and he said every time he thinks about coming back he gets a little throw up in his mouth!” No doubt, if Bush weren’t president, in her mind, Jesus wouldn’t get nauseous when thinking of coming back. Then again, knowing Barr’s audacious sense of humor, she could have been performing, as she did for the National Anthem before.

Getting in a ‘dig’ at Bill Clinton when he was president, she even once complained of never being invited to the Clinton White House despite donating tons of money, calling it a disservice to her and her "constituents.” Knowing B.J. Clinton’s taste in women, I think we all can see why she was never invited. Of course, if Hillary steals, err, wins the White House in 2008, she may not be invited then either as just today, she placed on her blog, Sell Outs and Union Busters... claiming, “obama is a sell out, and hilary is a union buster...f&*k both of them!” Not very endearing, I’d say.

Trying to figure out just who she supports is equally as difficult as in the past she has bashed nearly everyone, as Michelle Malkin noted this past May.

Perhaps Elizabeth Edwards contacted the wrong person when she called Ann Coulter about “raising the level of Political Discourse” today. Maybe Liberals should look to their own backyard if they truly wish to raise the level of discourse in the country today.

As for those of us who support Bush and the ongoing fight being "Traitors," Ms. Barr, I'll gladly compare DD-214's with you any day!


Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Haircuts and Hatchet Jobs

June 26, 2007

In what I have to label as “silly season,” presidential candidates are jockeying around for positions for the next election, over a year away. They’re crying about whatever, presumably to gain support from voters and make some one else lose support. An example, I feel, would be John Edwards $400 haircut and all the attention it received. As silly as it might be, and more power to him if he can afford one, I have a difficult time accepting someone who lavishes himself with such as an advocate of the poverty stricken.

Let’s face it, of all the candidates from both party’s vying for their party’s nod, none are poor or even middle class. Bragging about humble beginnings has come to be expected, whether they really had such or not.

From an email received this week of the same title as above, from Jonathan Prince, Deputy Campaign Manager for Edwards makes the claim of “The whole Washington establishment wants [Edwards] campaign to go away,” adding, “Everyone who likes things just the way they are gets scared and goes on the attack. If they can't attack the substance, they'll create "scandals" any way they can.”

Presumably, we are afraid of John Edwards, also known as “the Breck Girl” for his fastidious attention to his hair. I wouldn’t call the attention given to his $400 haircut as a “scandal,” though, but more of a righteous ridicule.

If Mr. Prince thinks that was a “hatchet Job,” though, he better think again.

It was his candidate that requested Anti-war displays at Memorial Day events this year. It was his candidate that charged $55,000 for a speech to encouraging others to help the poor and who recently labeled the current War on Terror a bumper sticker slogan.

That being said, if they really wish to discuss ‘hatchet jobs,’ all we need do is look at the Democrat party since their loss in the 2000 election.

They have labeled George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice and nearly every other member of the Bush administration as incompetent, inept, stupid, greedy, diabolical, draft dodgers (even though they excused Bill Clinton’s actual draft dodging the previous 8 years) and many other names I don’t recall. It has been a steady drone of “Bush lied, men died.” Bush preconceived this war. Bush was behind the 9-11 attacks. He just wants the oil. You name it and they have said it, as long as it denigrates President Bush and his administration.

Al Gore, who Bush defeated fair and square, in spite of his attempts at stealing the 2000 election and years of sour grapes after, was heard screeching, "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place." No evidence of such was ever given, nor was any asked for by our media.

Even John Edwards has been heard saying, George Bush must be stopped!” From what, defending America, finally? No other administration from either party has stood up against the ever-rising tide of Jihadists to stop their push for world domination.

Even Hillary Clinton, who erroneously once claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the first human to reach the peak of Mt. Everest, even though his feat wasn’t accomplished until years after her birth, has said of Bush, "I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington.” Neuman, for that don’t know, is the cartoon character and main doofus from Mad Magazine.

Even current Republican candidates appear to be either opposing President Bush or distancing themselves from him in their quest for the party nod.

The Edwards campaign can cry about “hatchet jobs” against them all they wish, but anyone with any sense of fairness or love of our American system can see clearly that the real hatchet job has been against George W. Bush, even with all of his faults.

Prince says, “Enough is enough. Together, we can put substance above cynicism and beat back these desperate attacks.” He’s right enough is enough. We are in a fight for the survival of our country. George Bush did not start it or plan it; he was the one who was in office when the worst terrorist attack in history hit our shores. He is the first president to take the fight back to the enemy of freedom and for that, he is unmercifully attacked on a daily basis.

We cannot afford a new leader who will withdraw from the fight and give the Jihadists two countries to base out of next time. We cannot afford a leader from either party who will weaken our defenses and not secure our borders, something Bush has also failed at. We do not need a leader who will give glib speeches and ignore the pressing issues of the rising tide of global terrorism.

What America needs is a man like Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson taking over the reigns and continuing the fight to keep us free. For actual experience, my money goes to Hunter.

What we don’t need are whiners and pantywaists that ignore the growing dangers and threats of the Jihadists and who would allow the next 9/11 to happen. It is well past time Americans woke up and realized this fight is on, whether we want it or not. If we do not finish it now and just walk away again, as we have too many times in the past, we are just condemning our grandchildren to an even bloodier fight years from now.

Edwards’ campaign can whine about hatchet jobs all he wants. If we don’t defeat this rising threat of radical Islamic terrorists, the real hatchet job will soon follow and it won’t be words.


Democrats, Redeploy and Refocus, But To Where?

June 26, 2007

As we all know, members of the Democrat party have been disillusioned with the current War, primarily since the 2004 campaign season, in which they lost. Most have called for leaving the Iraq Theater of the War in favor of refocusing efforts in the Afghanistan theater, citing we need to find and eliminate Osama Bin Laden, who is believed to still be in the Afghanistan/Pakistan area.

After pushing Military experience as a basis for becoming President in three out of the last five campaign, 1988, 2000 and 2004, while saying it had no basis in 1992 and 1996, as they fronted Draft Dodger, B.J. Clinton for the office, it appears that few in the field from either party actually has much Military experience in which to base their Wartime strategies on.

That being said, Military Experience wasn’t the strong suit of some of our better Wartime Presidents before and as before, advisors will suggest strategies to whoever wins in 2008.

I am left wondering just who it is advising the candidates and other party members today, though.

It would appear that party members are splitting even on our efforts on Afghanistan as they cater to the far left anti-war crowds opposed to our defense and erroneously thinking that even radical Jihadists can be reasoned with. They can’t! As was stated in the documentary, Muslims Against Jihad, banned by PBS and shown last evening on Fox News, by one Muslim Imam in Europe, assumedly a radical Jihadist, “if you want to stop us, give up your Democracy.”

Radical Muslims have repeatedly stated they desire total world domination under their radical interpretation of the religion. As shown in the above mentioned documentary, the killing of women for falling in love with someone of a different sect or even desiring a divorce isn’t all that uncommon, even being called for in Europe. Honor killings are on the rise in Europe and don’t be too surprised when they start here in America.

I mention the above because I find the article in read in today’s ‘The Hill’ to not only be incredibly naïve in the part of the Democrat party, but extremely dangerous for freedom lovers worldwide.

The article, Out of Afghanistan rumblings on the Hill, contains comments and quotes from some very prominent Democrats currently in highly responsible positions that, if they get their desires, places us squarely in the sights of the radical Jihadists even more than we currently are.

It is no secret that Democrats desire and demand an end to fighting in Iraq and want our forces withdrawn. Not one front-runner in the 2008 campaign desires to win there, just withdraw. While most call for increased efforts in Afghanistan, a country whose terrain is even more inhospitable than Iraq’s by far, grumbling is starting on Capital Hill over even that fight.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), a senior defense authorizer, calls the Afghanistan fight “futile” in trying to effect political change in a country with a tangled history and desires our forces to immediately withdraw from there. He goes on to say, “We are finished there, militarily speaking. There is no useful purpose for our troops there. The military should withdraw now.”

Jack Murtha (D. Pa.) and loudmouthed anti-Bush activist says, “I have not made the recommendation yet on withdrawing the troops from Afghanistan,” saying commanders think we still have a chance there. I guess commanders from Iraq that say we still have a chance don’t get his ear, though.

By saying he hasn’t called for a withdrawal from Afghanistan “YET,” I assume the thought is building in his mind as well.

Diane Watson (D-Calif.), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and vocal critic of the Iraq fight says it is time for the U.S. military to start leaving Afghanistan and the Middle East altogether. She said, “We are not securing America by being there. The longer we are there, the more plots start growing in our country.” Even though she initially supported the fight in Afghanistan, she now calls for our military “to start leaving Afghanistan” and that we should allow Afghan officials to “formulate and run their own government.” In other words, return the world to September 10, 2001, even though radical Jihadists haven’t yet given up their desire to rule the world.

Dana Balicki, Code Pink spokescritter, says Code Pink would like to see our Troops withdrawn from Afghanistan and replaced by international peacekeeping forces, with the focus on “peace talks” with all groups that have power. Naïve? Irresponsible? You bet!

Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) says, “I’d like to get out of Iraq first and look at Afghanistan and if it does not work … we should be impatient.” Woolsey who supports a timeline for withdrawal of the Troops from Iraq, opposes such a timeline from Afghanistan saying, “There was a reason [for being] there, but now we really need to reassess what we are accomplishing. It depends on what our mission is in Afghanistan.”

Woolsey’s sentiments apparently are shared by Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). Kucinich adds, “Once we show that we can handle a successful resolution of withdrawing troops from Iraq, it will be easier to shift direction in Afghanistan. There is a sequence of events … get out of Iraq and then we must focus on getting out of Afghanistan.”

Attitudes and comments as this permeating from the majority party go well beyond naiveté. They are unmistakably dangerous! Terrorist attacks have been steadily increasing against American interests, mostly by radical Jihadists. They are going to fight us no matter what, seeing the United States as the main obstacle to their domination of the world.

With Democrats back in control and advocating surrender to terrorists, soon to be followed by a weakening of our defenses, again, how soon before the next major terrorist attack against us? Time only knows.

If we desire to keep our freedom and liberty, we cannot afford to keep these Democrats in control, especially over all 3 branches of government. Their naiveté is going to get a lot of people killed.

With their weak stance on this fight, a fight thrust upon us long ago and mostly ignored by our leaders, and all the negativity reported while ignoring any successes, it is little wonder that Military Recruitment amongst American Blacks, a predominantly Democrat voting segment of our society, is dropping, with Whites and other groups expected to soon follow.

As Democrats denigrate the efforts our Troops are making and further their cries of them just being hapless victims, who will they depend on to defend us when the radical Jihadists commence their final push for the destruction of America?


Saturday, June 23, 2007

THOSE “SIXTIES” HIPPIES (in 1860s Russia)

For some time I have been expressing similarities between today's liberal, progressive, socialist or communist movement and the actions taken during the Bolshevik Revolution that launched the USSR at the tail end of World War One.

Many have balked and scoffed at me, thinking only liberalism will bring peace to the world and equal things out. In my reading and comparison of the Bolshevik Revloution, I did not study far enough back, as does columnist Curtis Dahlgren, in an article that up at Alan Keyes website, Renew America.

With keen interest I read the following article, excerpted here,

THOSE “SIXTIES” HIPPIES (in 1860s Russia): An eye-opener for you and me today!

Curtis Dahlgren
June 22, 2007

THEY CALL THEMSELVES "PROGRESSIVES." THEY CALL THEMSELVES SECULAR. They don't like to be called "social liberals" or even "economic Liberals. They don't like it when Bill O'Reilly describes them in their own terms either: "Secular Progressives" (wrong inflection in his voice, I guess, so they want to ban "talk radio").

So let's just call them what they ARE: "over-the-hill-hippies." And Nihilists. Communists.

They talk about "taking back the nation" (so that they can turn it over to "international law"). They talk about shutting down alternative news media (just like Hugo Chavez). They don't really mind having their patriotism questioned either; they're secretly PROUD of their anti-Americanism.

They don't really mind being the "vocal minority" either, because they know that under totalitarianism the minority rules (JUST LIKE THE NIHILISTS DID IN THE GOOD OL' USSR)!

I've alluded to this subject before, but a deeper look into the eyes of these aging hippies — who would have us be "more like Europe" and more like Castro's island-of-misery (and Hugo's coming Gulag on the north shore of the continent to our South) — is long overdue:

Continue Article

America needs to wake up and see that we conservatives are not the enemie's of America. We desire to see our greatness and freedoms continue. We are ever so gradually losing our liberties under the guise of Socialism which declares their restrictive rules "are only for the good of all."

I applaud Mr. Dahlgren for seeing through the smoke screen of the progressive, liberal, socialist communists now attempting to recreate the failed Soviet Union in America.


The “FINE” City of Portland, Oregon

June 23, 2007

Lest you think I mean “Fine” in the sense of “in good order,” think again. I mean ‘Fine” in the sense of City Government ripping people off, especially if from out of state or not a member of the correct minority.

Most people in the Pacific Northwest are familiar with the “FINE” city of Portland, Oregon and know that it is much like a separate country, a mirror of the failed Soviet Union in many ways. Anti-war sentiment is rampant as are anti-Christian phobias. Legitimate businesses that conduct their business contrary to the whims of leftist groups are not protected and are encouraged to either give in to these leftist groups, or leave. Ask the owners of Schumacher Furs how much support they received from the “FINE” City of Portland.

But, that is another matter being dealt with elsewhere. The purpose of my little rant is to expose the “FINE” City of Portland, Oregon in what I perceive as either racism or ‘selective fining’ imposed on drivers who dare bring their automobile into the “FINE” City of Portland to conduct business there.

The following is a true story as related to me by my wife, another ‘victim’ of the “FINE” City of Portland, Oregon.

My wife works for an Inventory Company that travels all over the Northwest under contract to inventory businesses. On the morning of June 18, 2007, she and another co-employee were sent to the “FINE” City of Portland, Oregon to conduct such an inventory at a store located on SW Jefferson Street. Arriving shortly after 7 AM, each in their respective vehicles, they sought a parking space, difficult in the “FINE” City of Portland.

Thinking they had gotten lucky and spying two open parking spaces along the street, they parked one behind the other. Exiting their vehicles to unload the inventory equipment, along comes a Meter Maid beside my wife’s vehicle, blocking her car in and informing them in a rude fashion that they were in a Truck Loading Zone and couldn’t park there. Fair enough, you might think, as they both said they didn’t realize it and didn’t see the signs and would move their vehicles immediately.

Be it to fulfill a quota, which all Police claim they don’t have when it comes to vehicle Citations or because the Meter Maid, a Ms. P. Harris (OFC number 46) is prejudiced against people with Hispanic features from Washington State, only one Parking Citation was issued, to my wife, who was trying to relocate her car but couldn’t at the moment because Ms. P. Harris blocked her in long enough to issue the citation and preventing her from relocating.

You may view this as acceptable and my rant is just sour grapes over a $60 Parking Citation, but you are only partially correct. If you note, I said there was only ONE citation issued that morning, only to my wife with the Washington State Plates and who is a Native Born American of one Hispanic parent.

The co-worker that was conducting inventory with her that morning, a White Male driving a vehicle with Oregon License Plates, did not receive a Parking Citation for $60 and was permitted to relocate his vehicle, which was parked immediately in front of my wife’s vehicle and in the exact same Truck Loading Zone.

Neither left their vehicles that morning as Ms. P. Harris descended upon them immediately when they parked where they did. So, the question is, why does a Native Born American woman with Hispanic features and Washington State License Plates receive a $60 Parking Citation for wrongfully pulling into a Truck Loading Zone and who said she would relocate her vehicle immediately, while a White Male driving a vehicle with Oregon License Plates, who also wrongfully parked in the same Truck Loading Zone and who also said he would relocate his vehicle immediately, was allowed to relocate without any Parking Citation issued?

My guess is that only Ms. P. Harris, of African descent, could answer that. But, appearances don’t bode well that it was due to anything other than prejudice on the part of Ms. P. Harris, against a woman of partial Hispanic Heritage and from out of state.

It may strike you as odd that I could assume a female of African descent working for the “FINE” City of Portland, Oregon could be prejudiced as well, but experience has shown me that the most ‘intolerant’ of all are the “tolerant leftists’ that gorge the “FINE” City of Portland, Oregon.

We will pay this fine without any trouble. As excessive as $60 is for wrongfully parking in a Truck Loading Zone for maybe two minutes, most of which was spent due to Ms. P. Harris blocking my wife’s car in and preventing her from relocating, it is a lesson for all of what to expect in the “FINE” City of Portland, Oregon.

My wife now understands why I have always expressed a strong dislike of the “FINE” City of Portland, Oregon and despise even driving through the City on my way elsewhere.

It is little wonder why many businesses and residents of the “FINE” City of Portland, Oregon are fed up with the Socialist Mecca and are leaving.


Thursday, June 21, 2007

Kerry Plays Sympathy Card for Failing Non-Amnesty Amnesty Bill

June 21, 2007

John ‘F’in Kerry (D. Ma.) failed 2004 presidential candidate (who also served in Viet Nam) came out today making a plea of compassion on behalf of the wife of one of the two missing Soldiers in Iraq, Specialist Alex Jimenez. His wife, Yaderlin Hiraldo, who entered the United States illegally in 2001 from the Dominican Republic, and married Jimenez in 2004, which brought her illegal status to the attention of ICE.

Prior to being deployed on his second tour, Specialist Jimenez appeared in immigrant court on April 29, 2006, where the judge granted the couple a temporary reprieve by placing any proceedings on hold until the return of Purple Heart recipient, Jimenez.

Jimenez is currently missing in action, being overcome in an ambush that left several others known dead and the whereabouts of Jimenez and Pvt. Byron Fouty unknown at this time.

Kerry and our lamestream media have apparently jumped on this heart rendering story as if she were currently handcuffed and being placed in an ICE van, to be immediately returned to the Dominican Republic. Said Kerry, in a letter to Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, “As Yaderlin waits to hear what has happened to her husband I ask that she be allowed to stay in our country, I believe this is a very real test of our government’s compassion for a military family which has already made enormous sacrifices for the United States.”

He went on to say, “My heart goes out to the family of Specialist Jimenez and I am determined to do everything in my power to make sure his wife is not deported from our country while our military is frantically searching for him.”

Senator, I believe the hearts of the entire country go out this Military wife, illegal or not. We are not a heartless nation, as you have tried to portray us for three decades now.

However, I must wonder why the hard push at this time, when public sentiment is so heavily against the proposed legislation. Is he playing the sympathy card in an effort to build support for this ill-conceived and disastrous bill?

To me, he must be because he ignores that any proceedings were placed on hold last year by immigrant court judge, Philip J. Montante.

After this “plea” of Kerry’s, ICE spokeswoman Jamie Zuieback stated that the case is in an inactive status in a New York immigration court. "There would have to be a proactive effort to reopen it, and that's not something that's been done in the last year and a half, and there are no plans to do so,” Zuieback went on to say.

Teddy Kennedy (D.Ma.) and co-sponsor of this flawed bill, chimed in with, "I'm very concerned about the situation facing Yaderlin Jimenez, and for millions of others, across the country. I've been in touch with the Department of Homeland Security on her behalf, and my office remains in touch with those assisting Ms. Jimenez and her family. I'm happy to assist her and Spec. Jimenez's family during this difficult time."

Vincent Morris, a spokesman for Senator Kerry, said the senator is also looking into whether this is a more widespread problem in the Army. Widespread problem, Senator? Does he think that our Troops line up to marry illegal immigrants? I think not.

Kerry also said, "Under no condition should our country ever deport the spouse of a soldier who is currently serving in uniform abroad."

Need I remind the junior Senator from Massachusetts that Jimenez’s wife isn’t facing deportation at this time?

Kennedy spokeswoman Melissa Wagoner revealed a glimmer of light of the motives behind their action when she said, "This is a good example of why the immigration system in this country needs to be fixed."

An immigration attorney, Charles Kuck, further revealed the motives behind this when he said, "When you're deporting the spouses of U.S. soldiers, I think the law's harsh enough. Essentially we're punishing U.S. Citizens. That's why it's so essential to have comprehensive immigration reform."

Also ignored as they tug at our heartstrings to build support for their legislation is an Army spokesman who said, "We are concerned about the welfare of the Jimenez family. ... When Mrs. Jimenez became an Army spouse, she joined a family that will never leave her." Army lawyers have also been in contact with the family lawyer to provide assistance, and a casualty assistance officer was assigned to Yaderlin Jimenez once her husband disappeared.

I also feel that American citizens, be they conservative or liberal, stand behind this lady and would support a waiver to her status. We don’t need to rush through flawed legislation granting amnesty to millions of other illegals and further neglecting our open borders.

If Kerry and Kennedy were honest, they would put through a special piece of legislation to expedite Hiraldo’s Green Card while she and the whole country awaits word of her missing husband.

What we don’t need are Senator Kerry’s sleazy tactics tugging at our heartstrings deceiving us into believing we are dishonoring our Brave Troops fighting in the War on Terror by deporting their wives while they are overseas.

Tacky, Senator, really tacky.


Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Pelosi Misses Her Own Epiphany

June 20, 2007

An article appearing in today’s The Hill, in which Nancy Pelosi, along with others, were booed and hissed by far left winged radical anti-war cretins, dissatisfied with the Democrat Party’s lack of forcing a surrender in the War on Terror, Iraq Theater, Pelosi stood her ground and fought back, sort of.

Pelosi called the war in Iraq a “tragedy” and a “grotesque mistake,” but appeasement wasn’t to be had by those advocating appeasement of terrorists.

John Murtha (D-Pa.), also present, attempted to defend Ms. Pelosi when he said, “She’s worked tirelessly to end this war,” drawing the response of one leftist female present, “No she hasn’t.”

Hillary Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) who spoke before Pelosi was met with boos for the second year in a row, eliciting shouts of “Get us out” and “Stop the war.” Clinton replied, “I see the signs [that read] ‘Get us out of Iraq now,’ that is what we are trying to do.” The anti-war kooks were to have none of that, either.

Most astounding in this verbal fracas was when Pelosi addressed the gather crowd of leftist moonbats with, “Instead of fighting with us, which is your right to do, let’s work together.”

Imagine, if you will, if instead of all the opposition and undermining of the Bush administration, after voting to authorize the war, Democrats like Pelosi had “worked together” with the President instead of “fighting with him.”

I can only imagine how much better things would be today, for the Iraqis, the Afghanis, for Americans and the entire world.

The irony of her comment totally escaped her and the rest of the Democrats present.

Too bad, it was an epiphany for her, and she missed it.


I Got Tagged

I Got Tagged by Hot Rodham Blog to answer questions delving into my not too secret secrets, LOL

Following Blog Protocol, I must comply. Maybe a welcome change from exposing more and more Democrat silliness I was tagged Here

Rules of being Tagged
Tagging is a child’s game that we grown-ups now play on the internet to occupy our time and divert ourselves from the hum drum existence we often have. In the Blogosphere it means that if you’ve been picked, you have to pick five to ten others, hopefully to irritate them as well. Here are some questions and answers. The questions in brackets can be changed when you “tag” some other blogger. Read the next section for the list of tagged Bloggers. If you’re tagged, answer the questions on your Blog, while moaning and groaning that you were tagged and feel you have much more important things to do. Above all, have fun!

1) Name your favorite band and singer. (The singer can’t be from the band)

Favorite band = Little River Band (among several others)

Favorite singer = Karen Carpenter, what a loss when she died.

2) Favorite historical politician (domestic)? (Historical = Dead)

Ronald Reagan

3) Favorite historical politician (International)?

Winston Churchill

4) You’re giving a Hollywood pitch (25 words or less) about your Blog — GO

Guaranteed no leftwing ramblings.

5) Other then where you live now, what city do you like?

Sydney Australia

6) Favorite modern politician? (In office now)

Duncan Hunter

7) Are you a Wilsonian Idealist or Nixonian Realist in foreign policy?


8) Favorite obscure movie?

The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)

9) What is your favorite restaurant?


10) Choose a music video on YouTube. Why that one?

The Carpenters, Rainy Days and Mondays. Why? How can you not appreciate this?

The original tagger here:

Now, to find 5 other bloggers that seem to be having too much fun


I choose,

Keepin’ It Real

The TYGRRRR Express

The Gentle Cricket

American Legends Blogspot

And, just to show I’m not prejudiced and must include a token Liberal to irritate also,

EFFin’ Unsound

John Edwards, The Breck Girl, Rebutted

Created by a reader, Josef, at, a video showing just how out of touch this Democrat candidate is with world conditions.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Pelosi At It Again, “Unconscionable”

June 19, 2007

In yet another email received from House Speakerette, Nancy Pelosi, trying desperately to seem significant and knowledgeable, the attacks on President Bush’s constitutional right to use his veto pen on bad legislation continues. From the email we read,

Tomorrow, with a single stroke of his cruel veto pen, President Bush will dash the hopes of millions of Americans seeking cures through the miracle of stem cell research.

By vetoing a bill that expands stem cell research, the President will say "No" to the more than 70 percent of Americans who support it, "No" to our Democratic Congress' fight for progress, and "No" to saving lives and to potential cures for diseases such as diabetes and Parkinson's. He will say "No" to hope.

To me, it appears the destruction of human embryos takes precedence over the safety of our country from terrorism with Ms. Pelosi. Articles and Studies show that Adult Stem Cell research shows much more promise than does Embryonic Stem Cell research. Yet, the left is hell-bent on ignoring the usefulness on Adult Stem Cells in favor of destruction of Human embryos for research, which has been unpromising to date.

So, why the big push? While I don’t know for certain, I can speculate. Pelosi, already known for her own unethical behavior over the years, advocates unlimited abortions. She also is a very wealthy person and apparently has no qualms as to how her wealth is obtained, as outlined in the book Caucus of Corruption by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan. Is this another push for her personal desire to see more and more babies killed while building her own wealth? I don’t know, but the push to fund embryonic stem cell research, something even private investors avoid due to unpromising results, must have a cause behind it.

Pelosi continues,

Unfortunately, this is an all-too-familiar pattern in Washington these days. Once again, Democrats are offering the American people hope and progress, while a stubborn President responds with roadblocks.

Does she mean unlike the roadblocks they have put up since Bush won the elections? Spending our tax dollars on unpromising research and expanding the number of abortions is hardly “hope and progress.” It’s just more tax and spend while life becomes cheaper and cheaper.

Most laughable from Pelosi’s email,

After just six months of a Democratic Congress, our country is more secure, we are fulfilling our promise to our veterans, hard-working Americans are earning a higher minimum wage, and the President is finally being held accountable.

We are to believe that the Democrats winning Congress last November made America safe? Did she miss that we are still fighting terrorists, while they, the Democrats, wave white flags? Did she miss that there hasn’t been a terrorist attack in America since September 11, 2001, five years before they grabbed Congress?

As a Veteran, I have yet to realize any “fulfilling of promises.”

Minimum wage is just a silly argument. The current level, enacted by the Democrats, still isn’t a living wage. So, what is she bragging about?

As far as accountability, when I see them hold Sandy Berger, former Clinton National Security Advisor who snuck countless classified documents out of the National Archives, accountable, then they can speak. Accountability is a two way street. When Harry Reid is held accountable for his undermining of our Troops by emboldening our enemies, as well as Speakerette Pelosi herself has done, then they can speak of accountability.

Pelosi also claims it will “ take more than six months to reverse the damage of six and a half years of the Bush Administration's failed policies.

I am left wondering just how long it will take to undo all the missteps, failures and selling out of America under Speakerette Pelosi’s tutelage?


Jimmuh, Working Hard To Remain the Worst President Ever

June 19, 2007

As I previously showed, Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States and one-termer, is undoubtedly the worst president we ever had to endure.

Right in a Left World: Jimmuh, What Have You Done?

Right in a Left World: Jimmy Carter, Still A Failure

Trying to out do himself in ineptness, Carter is now calling on the United States and the European Union to Stop favoring Fatah over Hamas!
Hamas, a known Palestinian terrorist group, responsible for many suicide bombings and advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, has waged open warfare on Fatah, another Palestinian group that sees the futility of constant warring with Israel and recognizes Israel’s right to exist.

By some quirk, Hamas gained elected control of the Palestinian Parliament last year, while the Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah, is trying desparately to end the fighting and attacks between Israel and Palestine, for the betterment of both peoples.

Amazingly enough, Abbas seems to get it as even the Leftist Liberals preach, just accept each other and co-exist. Liberal Jimmy Carter, however, seems to feel that funding the group desiring peace is abhorrent while funds should go to the terrorist group that desires to conquer not only the Palestinian People, but destroy Israel in the process.

Carter claims Hamas has “proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement.” Carter also said the American-Israeli-European consensus to reopen direct aid to the new government in the West Bank, but to deny the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, represented an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples."

No, Mr. Carter, it represents seeking to help those who desire peace in the middle East and defeat those who desire total destruction of the only Democratic Nation there, Israel.

Carter’s stance makes me wonder if he would have lobbied in favor of the nazi’s during the Battle of the Bulge because the German Army had “proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns.”

Jimmuh, we already know you are the worst president in American history. We see you working hard to prove you are also the worst ex-president in American history. You prove it to us every time you open your mouth.

But, even for you, advocating favoring a terrorist group over another group desiring to seek actual coexistence with a former enemy is unbelievable.

What next, Jimmuh, will you advocate we stop favoring the freely elected Iraqi government over Al Qaeda insurgents?

Stick to your peanuts, Jimmuh. Even you can’t screw up Peanut Butter as bad as you did the country.


Monday, June 18, 2007

Stand Up For Our Freedom of Speech

June 18, 2007

Ever so slowly now, we are losing our First Admendment right of Freedom of Speech. Offensive words are being banned based upon someone's perceived sense of being offended.

Political Correctness has entered the language where we now must insinuate what certain words may be by listing them as the "X" word.

Hate Speech charges are leveled upon some while others may spew what they desire with impunity.

Campaigning for our candidates is restricted within a certain time period of elections due to faulty and misguided legislation.

And now, once again, Radio Programming is under fire because Talk Radio Hosts speeak freely to inform the populace of what is actually going on. Especially egregious is hearing a Conservative jump on the band wagon opposing free speech.

Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, jumped on that band wagon last week, June 5, when he said of those of us opposing this proposed ill conceived immigration legislation, “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

Tell us, Senator Lott, just how do you propose "dealing with the problem" of Amricans listening to and exercising their right to free speech? Why is it so important to you that we do not know just what is in this proposed legislation?

It's difficult for me to accept that someone with a conservative background like Lott said this, but he did. Any advocacy of limiting free speech must be opposed. Be it the 'un'Fairness Doctrine, McCain/Feingold Campaign reform or what.

If Lott truly sees Talk Radio as such a Problem, perhaps it is he who is out of step with us, the American Voter. After all, we listen to various Talk Radio hosts, not to be told what to do, but because these various hosts agree with us and for the most part, share our values.

America, it is time we took back our country. By attitudes shown from elected representatives, they no longer feel like they are our 'representatives,' but have assumed the role of our 'Ruling Class.'


Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Apprehended Illegal Immigrants Receive Mayors Compassion

June 12, 2007

In a long overdue raid in Portland, Oregon, this morning, ICE agents rounded up and detained about 165 illegal immigrant workers from two offices of American Staffing Resources and a Fresh Del Monte Produce plant.
Arrested in the raid were Jose de Jesus Zarazua-Lopez, accused of re-entering the United States illegally after being convicted of heroin charges and deported to Mexico; Jose Dejesus Buenrostro, accused of encouraging an illegal immigrant; and Margarita Amezcua-Salvador, accused of possessing counterfeit alien registration documents, identity theft, selling a Social Security card, and encouraging an illegal immigrant.

Workers without proper identification were supplied false identification and counterfeit Resident Alien cards by an employee from the plant. ICE agents said about 90% of the workers in the plants had false identification.

In what may sound shocking to those not familiar with Portland, Oregon’s Mayor, Tom Potter, but known all too well to those of us living nearby Portland, the raid angered Potter. It not only angered Dictator Potter, but he refused to allow any Police Officers from the Portland Police Department to participate in the raid.

In a statement released from his office, Potter said,

"I am angered by this morning's arrest by federal officers of approximately 150 Portland residents who were working at a local produce company.

I certainly understand why federal officials executed criminal warrants against three individuals who stole and sold Social Security numbers. But to go after local workers who are here to support their families while filling the demands of local businesses for their labor is bad policy. It also serves as a reminder of the failure of our national leaders to deliver an immigration policy that is both fair and humane to families and acknowledges the economic realities of our country.

Our nation would be better served if this kind of energy was focused on creating a comprehensive approach to immigration reform that provides a path to citizenship; addresses the immigration backlog that keeps families apart; and provides a safe and legal way for workers to enter our country and be productive workers and taxpayers. Immigrants provide more than mere labor in our community.

They have long enriched our history, our culture and our city. My heart goes out to families dealing with the aftermath of this morning.

In this morning's raid, no Portland police officers participated, and our Crisis Response Team was activated to help families affected

Apparently to Potter, their illegal status is meaningless, they were just residents. And, activating the city’s “Crisis Response Team?”

Tom Potter is also known as the mayor that withdrew the city’s cooperation with the Joint Terrorism Task Force. That his City hosted the infamous Portland 7 must have slipped his mind, if he has one.

He also stood by as Schumacher’s Furs, a long time establishment and tax paying business in Portland, was harassed and protested out of business, spurring the now defunct business to file a lawsuit against protesters and the city of Portland for lost revenue.

Back in March 2007, a group broke away from a “peace protest” in his city and burned a soldier in effigy and one defecated on a burning American Flag. Mayor Potter has yet to issue a statement against this action.

But, let a large group of criminals in violation of our immigration laws be apprehended and Potter not only speaks out against the raid, but sends a “Crisis Response Team” to care for the families. Makes me wonder who he would send out to sympathize with murderers, pedophiles and bank robbers.

I can only say I am so happy to not be a resident of Portland, Oregon. Living just across the Columbia River, though, still allows the stench of Portland to drift over.


UPDATE: Both the Archbishop of Portland and the President of the Portland AFL/CIO have issued statements on yesterdays illegal immigrant raid.

Said the Archbishop, [the raid is] "an affront to a nation whose tradition has always welcomed the stranger in search of the security and livelihood which he cannot find in the country of his origin."

The President of the AFL/CIO said, "The ICE raid on working men and women is a shameful illustration of what's wrong with our nation's trade and immigration laws."


June 12, 2007

Back in February 2004, as the campaign was starting to heat up, former Vice President, Al Gore blasted President Bush in a speech in which he screeched into the microphone, "And the reason I'm recalling those feelings now is because those are the feelings that were betrayed by this president! He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America, he took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure that was preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!" Gore closed with his father's line from 1970: "And so I say to you in closing my friends, in the year of 2004, the truth shall rise again!"

A few months later in another speech, Gore said, “…as the tide of battle was shifting decisively in our favor, the commander in chief made a controversial decision to divert a major portion of our army to invade another country that, according to the best evidence compiled in a new, exhaustive, bi-partisan study, posed no imminent threat to us and had nothing to do with the attack against us.”

He added, “A little over a year ago, when we launched the war against this second country, Iraq, President Bush repeatedly gave our people the clear impression that Iraq was an ally and partner to the terrorist group that attacked us, al Qaeda, and not only provided a geographic base for them but was also close to providing them weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs.” Shortly after he said, “As a result, President Bush is now intentionally misleading the American people by continuing to aggressively and brazenly assert a linkage between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.”

“If he is not lying, if they genuinely believe that, that makes them unfit in battle with al Qaeda. If they believe these flimsy scraps, then who would want them in charge? Are they too dishonest or too gullible? Take your pick.”

Yes, Al Gore said Bush was lying. Lying about the dangers of Saddam, his WMD’s and even his nuclear ambitions. Listening to Al Gore and other Democrats of late it is a clear message they are sending out that Saddam was an angel, he never hurt anyone and had no intention of doing so.

Echoing his closing words from his February 2004 screech, “the truth shall rise,” videos of a speech he made back in 1992, blasting Bush 41 for not acting decisively against Saddam and Iraq then were found on C-Span. Hear for yourself his words then compared to now.

Gore 1992-campaign speech on Bush 41

Compare that speech to comments he made on CNN’s The Larry King Show in 2004.

Gore on Larry King 2004

Yes, Mr. Gore, the truth shall rise again and we have it.

Now, perhaps he or another Democrat will explain how Saddam was such a dire threat during the previous 8 years, but ceased to be any threat when Bush 43 reinitiated hostilities with Saddam’s Iraq to ensure the WMD’s did not fall into terrorist hands and to depose Saddam.

Some day, voters have to open their eyes and see the Democrat party is filled with opportunists that will say anything to get a vote, whether they actually believe it or not.

It is up to you voters to call these charlatans on their lies and hopefully, get behind our Troops and support them before Iraq falls in the hands of terrorists as a base to operate from, even closer to our shores.


Monday, June 11, 2007

Make Love, Not War

June 11, 2007

Having stumbled across articles on this, had the US Air Force not confirmed the reports, I would have to think someone was pulling my leg. Imagine, a non-lethal weapon that would not only win wars for us on the battlefield, but fill our bathhouses too. What is this miracle weapon, you ask? Nothing short of the Gay Bomb, that’s what.

After you stop laughing, let me assure you this was actually considered at the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio in 1994. Money was actually sought to experiment and attempt to develop a “Gay Bomb.”

The intent was to release an aphrodisiac chemical that would provoke widespread homosexual behavior among troops, causing what the military called a "distasteful but completely non-lethal" blow to morale by turning enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

My apologies to any gays reading this, but my visions of this can’t be helped. Consider the homophobic nature of our current enemy, Islamofascists. Their belief calls for death to homosexuals. Turn them into little desert bound fudge packers and they are honor bound to kill each other, we won’t have to do it.

No more suicide bombers because they wouldn’t be interested in any 72 virgins waiting in heaven for them. They would be much too busy building bathhouses in the desert oasis’s instead of constructing bombs. Even funnier, imagine little Mahmoud Ahmadinejad bent over a camel somewhere as Moqtada al-Sadr’s bitch.

I also imagine cities like San Francisco, California; Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington would nearly be empty as our gays headed to the desert in search of ‘new horizons.’

Of course, the ACLU and Democrat party would instantly move to classify terrorists now as just another “alternative lifestyle” embracing them even more than they now do.

Osama Bin Laden, in hiding somewhere, would most likely not be affected by the “Gay Bomb” and would undoubtedly be forced to institute a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for Al Qaeda. Then, if enough bombs were released, they would have to rename themselves ‘Al Gayda.’

Of course, we might have had to face an even deadlier threat had the bomb ever been developed and deployed, Muslim Women! There would be no men for them and I’m sure that would make them really cranky. If they were cranky enough and on their periods, our Troops would face an enemy hell bent on revenge and fierce. You know about ‘hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.’

Other bombs considered that could have been used in conjunction with the “Gay Bomb,” were the ‘halitosis’ bomb. This could have left the enemy really frustrated as they would be irresistably attracted to each other, but unable to be near each other due to severe bad breath.

They also considered what they dubbed as the "Who? Me?" bomb. This one was to simulate flatulence (farting, for those of you in Rio Linda), but I imagine that wouldn’t really disturb the Terrorists much, smelling that way already.

The possibilities, ramifications and yes, jokes, are endless.

Think about how ridiculous that at one time, in 1994, $7.5 million was actually asked for to develop such a bomb.

Since this was considered during the Clinton administration and knowing now the stance they took on sexual matters, perhaps this is the secret weapon in Hillary’s war chest she intends to use to win the White House. We better watch out for those Black helicopters now.


Sunday, June 10, 2007

Studies Show The Death Penalty Really Does Deter Crime

June 10, 2007

Much to the chagrin and embarrassment of Death Penalty Opponents, an article appearing on Fox News and elsewhere cites Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver Studies: Death Penalty Discourages Crime.

Professor Mocan, also an opponent to the Death Penalty, says, “There is no question about it, the conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."

Citing a 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, Professor Mocan stated, "The results are robust, they don't really go away. I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters), what am I going to do, hide them?"

As can be expected, challenges will be strong from critics. Professor Mocan can expect to be deluged with name-calling and charges of quackery from his fellow Death Penalty Opposers that don’t share his honesty. His data and research will be faulted mercilessly.

For me personally, I don’t need the studies or scientists to lead my thoughts on the Death Penalty, when warranted. In fact, it is very simple.

A dead legally executed murderer cannot kill again!


Dennis Miller Goes Nuclear on Harry Reid (D. Nv)

Click on the link and view this evenings Dennis Miller segment, The Buck Starts Here, from Fox News's The 1/2 Hour News Hour show. Dennis Miller Goes Nuclear on Harry Reid.

Long overdue that someone of some National Prominence called this Senator on his defeatist hateful rhetoric that is emboldening our enemies.

While at HotAir viewing the video, be sure to click on their link above the video to see Rasmussen's polls place Reids approval rating at a dismal 19%.

Saturday, June 09, 2007

End The War or Win The War?

June 9, 2007

In April 2007 Joe Biden (D. De) says, "Mr. President, you got to start moving combat troops out of harm's way now." In October 2002 Mr. Biden said, "We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after."

In April 2007 Hillary Clinton (D. NY) says, “This is not America's war to win or lose. We have given the Iraqi people the chance to have freedom, to have their own country. It is up to them to decide whether or not they're going to take that chance.” In March 2007 she said, “I hope that the president will extricate us from Iraq before he leaves office. But let me assure you, if you doesn't, when I'm president, I will.” In September 2002 she said, "I can support the President, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security ..." In October 2002 she said, “…I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.”

In May 2007 Chris Dodd (D. Ct) said, “There is only one way to end this war responsibly. Congress must exercise its Constitutional responsibility to do what needs to be done to bring an end to our involvement in this civil war.” In March 2003 he said, “The current military action may only last a few days or a few weeks. But in the end, I have no doubt that our American service men and women will prevail in this conflict.” He added, “The United States is not the only nation that has a stake in rebuilding Iraq. The entire world has a huge stake in getting this right.”

In April 2007 former senator and failed vice-presidential candidate John Edwards (D. NC) said, “The withdrawal of all combat troops should be completed in about a year.” In February 2007 he said, “We need to be leaving Iraq. We need to start leaving now.” In February 2002 he said, “I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.” In October 2002 he said, “It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner, & such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.”

In April 2007 Barack Obama (D. Il) said, “…because of the distraction of Iraq, we have not finished the job in terms of making certain that we are driving back the Taliban, stabilizing the Karzai government, capturing bin Laden and making sure that we've rooted out terrorism in that region.” In October 2004 he said, “The War on Terror has to be vigorously fought… we have a deep national security interest in making certain that Iraq is stable. If not, not only are we going to have a humanitarian crisis, we are also going to have a huge national security problem on our hands…”

And on and on they go. One after another, every Democrat hopeful wishing to be president calls for an “end to the war,” even after speaking boldly on it at the outset of it, up until the 2004 campaign of failed hopeful, John ‘F’in Kerry (D. Ma) who is said to have served in Viet Nam.

Of the “don’t have a prayer” Democrat candidates, most all seem to have been solidly opposed and committed to their pacifist views then as now. Mike gavel, Democrat and former Alaska Senator said in February 2007, “… he [President Bush] can continue to believe in God or he can turn around and end the war.” Dennis Kucinich (D. Oh) said in April 2007, “We're in Iraq for oil. We're looking at attacking Iran for oil.”

I guess the thought of a rogue despotic regime as Iran with nuclear weapons is of no concern to Representative Kucinich. I also don’t think he has had to buy any gas in the past 30 years if he thinks all we are after is Middle East Oil. At the same time, he opposes our drilling our own oil in ANWR Alaska as well as he desires price controls on electricity and gas. Maybe he thinks the long gas lines of the 1970’s weren’t long enough.

Governor Bill Richardson (D NM) in May 2007 said, “…when we went into Iraq, I wanted to support the troops. But after incompetency, deceitfulness by this administration, the fact that there's no WMD, the link to al-Qaeda was enormously suspect--there is no basis for us to be there.” This is the same Bill Richardson who, 18 months earlier, wrote in his book, “At this point we must see this mission through [until] the Iraqis have achieved control over their own internal security. We owe them the opportunity to make their democracy work. We must not undermine their efforts now.”

Since the 2004 campaign season, the Democrat party, true to form, has stood for failure in Iraq and subsequently, whether they want to admit it or not, in the overall War on Terror. Not one ever mentions anything about winning the war, just ending it.

In some manner or another nearly all advocate a diplomatic ending. Negotiate with the insurgents. Does not diplomacy and negotiation entail compromise, give and take? Just what are they prepared to compromise on, to give up to a group of people that have no qualms high jacking passenger aircraft and flying them into occupied buildings? What possible middle ground could be found with people that slowly saw off a person’s head on video as they scream in pain and agony? What negotiations could be held with people that would line the walls of a school with explosives to blow up in the future, hoping to kill all the children inside just to instill fear in citizens of the area? What peace could Democrats possibly hope to find with such evil people as this?

With few exceptions, Republican hopefuls seem to see the dangers of decades of ignoring this growing problem of Islamofascists and their terror tactics around the globe. Even John McCain, (R.Az) who doesn’t enjoy the support of Republicans as much as he thinks he does, said in May 2007, “We have to continue because it's not just the Iraqi vital national security interests that are at stake here, it's America's vital national security interests. If we fail in Iraq, we will see Iraq become a center for al Qaeda, chaos, genocide in the region, & they'll follow us home.”

Rudy Guliani, former mayor of New York City, in May 2007 said, in response to his calling the Democrats timetable for withdrawal fundamentally irresponsible, “I was talking about the timetable for retreat that the Democrats passed, in which they did something I've never heard of in the history of war, which is to give your enemy a schedule of how a retreating army is going to retreat.”

Former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney in May 2007 said, “It is critical for us to remember that Iraq has to be considered in the context of what's happening in the Middle East and throughout the world. There is a global Jihadist effort. Violent, radical Jihadists want to replace all the governments of the moderate Islamic states, replace them with a caliphate. And to do that, they also want to bring down the West, in particular us.”

Tom Tancredo (R. Co), even though opposed to the troop reinforcements, said in May 2007, “…whether or not we were in the Iraq war or not, they would be trying to kill us because it's a dictate of their religion, at least a part of it, and we have to defend ourselves.”

Arkansas’s Republican governor, Mike Huckabee, in May 2007 said, “Those generals told us, early on, it would take 300,000 troops to successfully go in and stabilize Iraq. Instead we gave them a limited number of troops and a budget and said, you have to do it with this. I think that's something, now, we understand was a mistake. But rather than simply walking away and leaving the Middle East in a complete disastrous chaos that will spread to the region and to the rest of the world, it's important that we finish the job, that we do it right, rather than have to go back and some day do it over.”

Sam Brownback (R Ks) said in May 2007, “We've got to pull together here to win over there, and I think it is a way for us to pull forward. We've got far too many divisions in this government here. We will win if we can pull together, and we can win the war. It's difficult for us to win with one party for the war and one party against the war.”

An embarrassment is Libertarian, masquerading as Republican from Texas, Ron Paul, for suggesting in May 2007, “They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” And, “If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there.”

As he says, “I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us…” perhaps he too should listen to what the terrorists keep saying. In 1996, Terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden said of the withdrawal from Somalia in 1993, “You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear.” “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”

At that time, bin Laden also said, “We have seen in the last decade the decline of American power and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars, but unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut in 1983 when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia.”

In May 2006, Iranian president Ahmadinejad sent a letter to president Bush that many saw as an invitation to join their radical interpretation of Islam or else.

Yes, Representative Paul, we listen to those who have been attacking us for three decades now. The question is, do you?

So far, of all candidates with their hats in the ring, one stands out as being the most consistent, Duncan Hunter (R Ca). He says, “At this critical point, the members of Congress who are engaging in political posturing, while our soldiers are carrying out their mission, are doing a real disservice to the troops.” Congressman Hunter, after a meeting with General Petraeus, said, “One thing that he reminded us of, is that this war is a test of wills; and he admonished us that what we say to the world, to our adversaries and our allies, is also listened to by the other side.”

Congressman Hunter, a decorated Viet Nam Veteran with a son who is a decorated Marine Officer currently having served multiple tours in Iraq, has a unique credibility on the war other candidates don’t share. Even this far out from the primaries, it is clear who advocates just “ending the war” and who desires to “win the war.”

America, you need to make a choice. Do we live in fear for more decades hoping the terrorists leave us alone? Or, do we finally confront them, destroying them and giving the oppressed Muslims that do not desire the oppression practiced by the bin Laden’s and Ahmadinejad’s a chance to step into the 21st century?

I’ve made my choice.


Thursday, June 07, 2007

A Special Messasge To the Anti-War Left

For all of you that demand we immediately withdraw from Iraq, most likely from those that forced us to abandon South Viet Nam and our other allies back in 1973 and 1975, take a view of this 2004 video, Hmong Hunted and tortured -merciless! (WARNING! Graphic Video)

Hmong worked with and cooperated with us back then. We abandoned them too when you got your way and forced us to just 'walk away.' Today, three decades later, they are still being hunted down like animals, slaughtered, raped, tortured, left alive with their entrails protruding from their bodies and mistreated like no human being should ever be.

You complain that we Americans "torture" by placing womens panties on someone's head, but you never utter a word about what these people you supported still do to innocent women and children.

The graphic scenes in the video are your legacy. This is what all the verses of 'Kumbaya' brings to bear. This is what we fight to stop and prevent, both then and now.

One day you will answer for your sins against these people. The sins of silence and not desiring to support freedom, but supporting Communsim then and terrorists today. Like all, you too will face your maker one day and when you do, I only hope he has more mercey for you than I do.


Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Roosevelt’s D-Day Prayer

June 6, 2007

What a difference between Democrats and Americans, then and now.

Roosevelt’s D-Day Prayer

On this 63rd anniversary of the beginning of the liberation of Europe from the throes of Nazism, it is tragic that we need reminders that today, we have men and women just as brave, courageous and determined to protect freedom and fighting to keep another people free in another far away land, but they receive so little support and backing from the American people, politicians and especially our media.

If President Bush made a similar speech/prayer today, how long do you feel it would be before the ACLU would file injunctions and suits against him, with the full backing of the Democrat party?

It is really tragic that the “cut and run” Democrats don’t listen to their own anti-war “experts.”

General Anthony C. Zinni, a retired four-star general and staunch critic of the war, "When we are in Iraq we are in many ways containing the violence," he said. "If we back off we give it more room to breathe, and it may metastasize in some way and become a regional problem. We don't have to be there at the same force level, but it is a five- to seven-year process to get any reasonable stability in Iraq."

Strife foreseen in Iraq exit

Take time out today to remember these brave men who stormed the beaches and faced with insurmountable odds, a Commanding General who thought the invasion was a disaster and was considering a withdrawal as well as a well dug in enemy, took the initiative and fought their way off those bloody beaches. Pray we keep producing people of such courage and bravery and then consider, What if D-Day had failed?

Then ask yourself, what if we fail in the Global War on Terror?


Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Saturday, June 02, 2007

LaGrange Missouri Stands Up

A must see web site, LaGrange Stands Up.

As I have said many times, it is Small Town America that is our greatest strength and the true backbone of America. In LaGrange, Missouri, a Small Town of about 1,000 dating back to 1832, residents woke up to the dis-repair of its monuments and lack of notice towards Veterans buried in the town cemetery, through the outstanding efforts of Pat Livingston, a female Viet Nam Veteran and resident in the community.

Through her prodding, stumping and outright begging, LaGrange's Monuments have been refurbished and residents have gained a whole new appreciation for our Nation's Fallen heroes. I hope reading her story encourages others Small Town America's to stand up with Pat and return America to the greatness lurking within us.

LaGrange Stands Up

Friday, June 01, 2007

Dem Hopeful Biden, Enough Is Enough

June 1, 2007

As reported in today’s The Hill, Democrat hopeful, Joseph E. Biden, has declared the Troop Reinforcement (aka Surge) “a failure.”

Said Biden, “The surge has not worked and will not work because its basic premise — to give time for a strong central government to take hold — is fatally flawed.”

This, in spite of report after report from Officers directly involved in the reinforcement that some successes are being seen. On top of that, it was only this week that the last of the reinforcements arrived in Iraq. In non-military parlance, he declares it a failure before it is even fully instituted.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, U.S. commander for daily operations in Iraq, announced that the surge would need to continue until spring of 2008 to succeed, igniting the outburst from Biden. Odierno, in comparing past efforts at rushing matters in Iraq, as was done in 2005 and 2006 with very poor results.

“We’ve been here before,” General Odierno said in the interview, referring to the decisions that are coming up on how quickly to hand over authority to Iraqi units. “We’ve rushed the transition and soon lost many areas that we had before. This time it’s about having enough combat power to stay.”

In other words, he desires this time, to let the Military work the battlefield and transitions, not politicians sitting thousands of miles away back in Washington D.C.

Biden says, “Enough is enough. After misleading the American people that the troop surge would be temporary, limited in number and limited in duration, the administration is finally acknowledging the truth — the ‘surge’ is really an escalation with no end in sight.”

Yet, in Biden’s own Plan For Iraq, he calls for “It would call on the U.S. military to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008, with a residual force to take on terrorists and train Iraqis.” Isn’t that more or less what Lt. General Odierno is asking for, Troops until 2008?

Biden’s stance, obviously playing to the far left kooks running the Democrat party now, does come across rather insincere as just a matter of days ago, he was advocating Sending US Troops to Darfur! Calling conditions in that country “a genocide,” he said, "I would impose a no-fly zone immediately and I would commit (U.S.) forces to stop the Janjaweed now.”

And, just what does he think will happen in Iraq if our Armed Forces withdrew too soon?

Prior to initiating the Iraq phase of the Global War on Terror, Biden said, "This is a guy [Saddam] who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction." August 2002. Clearly, he agreed with the removal of Saddam Hussein by force.

Shortly after the removal of Saddam, in a speech generally opposing President Bush’s leadership in the War, he said, ““We need a better understanding of what it would take to secure Iraq and rebuild it economically and politically. It would be a tragedy if we removed a tyrant in Iraq, only to leave chaos in his wake.”

In the same speech, Senator Biden claimed, “They [Iraqi’s] want us to stay as long as it takes to get them back on their feet. Much of the country beyond Baghdad is relatively calm – hospitals and schools are open; the newly formed Iraqi Governing Council is encouraging; and so are the local councils, one of which we visited.”

He also said, “Imagine if we lost Iraq. In a worst case scenario, there’d be chaos and the threat of Iranian and fundamentalist domination of the country. The Middle East peace process would likely be derailed. Iraq would become a failed state and a source of instability. We’ll have jeopardized our credibility in the world. And we’ll be far less secure than when we went in.”

In expressing options, Biden said, “We can pull out, and lose Iraq. That’s a bad option.” So, the alternative? Biden says his plan isn’t “partitioning,” but it sounds an awful lot like it to me. Then again, of his own plan, in a op-ed written to the Delaware Online on April 13, 2007, he said, “I cannot guarantee that my plan for Iraq will work.”

Senator, no one’s plan can work when faced with constant criticism with no viable input for alternatives, with constant undermining and politicalization by the opposing party and exposure of every tool used in secret to undermine our enemies.

How much better might the Iraq phase of the Global War on Terror be had you and your fellow Democrats stuck to your original stance on Iraq and the one you held during the Clinton administration?


Move America Forward Wishes To Erect Monument In Crawford, Texas

Cindy Sheehan, in announcing her “retirement” from he anti-war movement and Democrat party, also announced “Camp Casey has served its purpose. It’s for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford, Texas?”

She purchased the five acres during the height of her anti-war ramblings.

In an email received this evening, from Melanie Morgan of Move America Forward, an effort has been launched to acquire the 5-acres of land in Crawford, Texas that Cindy Sheehan once used for anti-war protests. As part of the plan, they intend to erect a "Monument to America's Heroes" that will honor the men and women who served in the war on terrorism - including those who made the ultimate sacrifice, such as Casey Sheehan (Cindy Sheehan's son).

Artist's renditions of the proposed monument may be seen by clicking the MAF link about.

I cannot think of a better way to cleanse the land that was intended for such a dishonorable use as Sheehan had.


UPDATE 1: The Reno Gazette Journal is reporting Sheehan won’t sell land for war memorial.

From the article, “It’ll be a cold day in hell before she sells it to them,” her sister, Dede Miller, told The Associated Press. “She’ll sell it to them for $5 million.”

Miller said, "[Sheehan] plans to sell the land on eBay as early as next week with a starting bid of $80,000." She paid $52,500, citing improvements to the land, "putting in gravel roads, clearing brush and planting gardens."

UPDATE 2: True to her worthless word, Sheehan has announced sale of the land to radio left winged host, Bree Walker, for preservation as a "Peace Memorial." I guess the thought of a Memorial honoring brave men and women who sacrificed their lives for our freedom, including the very Son she claims to have loved so much, was abhorrent to her.

Compromise on Immigration Compromise

June 1, 2007

By now, most all of us have heard of the Immigration Compromise bill currently being hawked by politicians and bitterly opposed by several citizens across the land.

Senator McCain and President Bush have both shown very poor leadership in hawking this flawed legislation, in my estimation. Opposition to this bill is gaining and supporters are worried of its failure.

Teddy Kennedy, chief Democrat architect of the legislation says, "Our plan is a compromise. It involved give-and-take in the best traditions of the United States Senate,” adding, “No one believes this is a perfect bill." Queen Pelosi is signaling that any immigration bill clearing the chamber this summer is likely to look considerably different from a Senate bill designed to attract Republican votes.

Arlen Specter, a lead negotiator and RINO extraordinaire claims, "The grand bargainers will hold together, but there are not 51 of us," indicating the mounting opposition and bitter divide across the country over this proposal.

Instead of further dividing an already divided country, may I suggest a “compromise” of my own?

We know that the left wishes to bring illegal immigrants into the country en masse for working on jobs that supposedly, ‘Americans will not do.’ Even some Republicans desire this with no regard to what the effect on our economy will be as they add these millions of unskilled workers to the roles of welfare, Health Care, food stamps and social security funds. Both seem to think they will gain the Illegal Immigrant Vote, supposedly already illegal as well. For whatever reason they have, Washington D.C. politicians are lining up in support and opposition to this proposal.

Several on the left have been telling us for sometime now that we need to emulate Socialist Utopia’s like Venezuela and Cuba. They hawk their grand schemes of government supplying what they deem is appropriate, free socialized health care and of course, absolutely no right wing rhetoric allowed. Actor Danny Glover and filmmaker Michael Moore are among the most notable and outspoken proponents of this.

We realize the difficulty of rounding up some estimated 12 million illegals, but why not gradually round up who we can? Instead of deporting them back to their homeland, we can cut a deal with Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro to help defray costs and simply ship the illegals to them in Venezuela and Cuba, to replace those citizens in both countries that desire freedom or that may soon just disappear as they demonstrate against Chavez’s clampdown on those ingrates opposing his Socialist Utopia.

Those crossing our borders wouldn’t have to worry about not speaking the language or poverty. The left tells us how much better off we would be under such a rule, so it really should benefit those sneaking over the border in the dead of night seeking what already is available in Venezuela and Cuba. Both benevolent dictators should welcome them with open arms to work their fields and show the world how much better they are at caring for immigrants and giving them all the freebies we have to pay for, right?

Who knows, maybe several of the socialist left celeliberals that cried they would have to leave America should Bush be elected will also have a Utopian Socialist paradise to move to. Of course, they may lose their massive wealth they enjoy here, but isn’t that what socialism is all about? Isn’t that what Hillary Clinton, looking rather smart in her Chairman Mao suit, is currently hawking, shared responsibility and prosperity?