Read Part Three
Cross posted to Take Our Country Back
August 31, 2007
Whenever the Socialist Left has an agenda they desire to bulldoze onto the public, it becomes an instant ‘crisis.’ Contrary thought or evidence is ridiculed and seen as heresy. Witness this in the urgency of pressing and alarmist issue of “Global Warming.”
From what I recall in school, the earth has been undergoing a constant series of changes for as long as man has been on it and naturally, before. As the Theory of Evolution was introduced into school teachings, one theory I recall to explain this concept of man evolving from lower life forms was Climate Change.
If, as evolutionists claim, a change in the earth’s temperature is responsible for man’s existence, changes in the earth’s temperature have been with us since the earth was formed.
Saying the earth’s temperature change is a naturally occurring circumstance does not help further the agenda of the Socialist Left, though. So, a crisis of environmental concern is born that is used to further take from all to give to the elite Socialist. The crisis was tried in the 1970’s and failed. The public just didn’t buy into all the hype over Global Cooling.
Today the claim is that man, you and I, have caused massive changes in the earth’s temperature and it must be reversed. Reversed by us giving up our luxuries of warm houses in the winter and cool houses in the summer. We are blasted for driving larger and safer vehicles and encouraged to drive smaller more “fuel efficient” vehicles, or give them up all together and use the transportation we may be provided by localities. Doing so also deprives us of a basic liberty of freedom of movement, going where we want when we want. Our dependence on “public transportation,” which we subsidize through taxes as well as fares, places us where the ‘elite’ want us to be when they want us there.
In the 1990’s we were presented with the ‘Kyoto Protocol,” an international agreement to limit greenhouse gases by industrialized nations by 2012. Somehow, the bulk of responsibility and cost of this protocol falls upon the United States as other developing nations that pump pollutants into the atmosphere, most notably Communist China, are exempted. If enacted, it could have resulted in a 66% increase in gas prices, and up to an 86.4% increase in our cost of electricity, costing each American family some $4,000 annually
As goods and even food costs us more, we lose buying power and who better than our government to step in “supply” us with our staples, in the amount they deem proper. Socialism 101! Rightfully, President Bush pulled out of this flawed treaty.
While cries of we must give up our SUV’s and large homes, being told we are using more than our fair share, the Socialist Elite flies around from conference to campaigns in Private Jets and builds mansion after mansion. Pointing out they are not living the standards of life they wish to impose on us elicits a defense of their purchasing “Carbon Offsets.”
Exactly what and how a Carbon Offset works is sort of elusive, but the way I interpret is, some leftist think tank somewhere decided that we are a each entitled to ‘X’ amount of pollution. Since those of us who must work day to day, 8 to 5 jobs will never quite use the allotted pollution, wealthy leftists, who wish to pollute more may “purchase” some of our pollutant allowance to use as their own. The purchase money does not come back to us, though, it remains with the “Carbon Offset Company” quite often set up and ran by one of the very Socialist Elites demanding we give our luxuries up.
And, of course, they may retain theirs! After all, they "worked hard and earned it."
As I said in part 3, we had an effective pesticide, Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane, better known as DDT. Lethal disease as Malaria was nearly a thing of the past due to it being used to kill malaria spreading mosquitoes around the world, especially in sub-tropical regions known for monsoon rains and excessive mosquitoes.
In the 1940’s and 1950’s, concerns were raised about its potential effects on fish and other wildlife. Enough alarm was raised and public fear and concern placed in a gullible public that the manufacture and use of DDT was banned nearly worldwide. It was replaced in most malarial regions by less persistent, and more expensive, alternative insecticides. Human life took a backseat to leftist ideology and disease like Malaria have been on the rise.
Much like the flawed Kyoto Protocol, leftist convened another convention in Stockholm to “protect humans from and the environment from persistent organic pollutants,” pesticides like DDT that have helped humans more than it has hurt. Some actually wonder if this isn’t Global Population Control.
Socialism relies on the British legend and myth of Robin Hood, one who always took from the rich and gave to the poor. Socialist would you have believe that is their intent as well. Take notice of just who is doing the taking and who from. A sizeable portion of the takings remains with the Socialists who sit over us in power as they reap millions of dollars off of our taxes to pay for their vacations, luxury homes, opulent offices, vehicles, aircraft and clothing. Note too than they miss very few meals while you and I must scrape to get by.
While they imitate Robin Hood, they hide that they are the rich barons that Robin would have been taking from and we, the working class, are the ones he would have given the spoils too.
With current Congressional pay averaging about $170,000 per year, why else would they spend millions of dollars they can never regain to hold the offices they do? Power, that is why. The power to create programs that perpetuate their seats and pass laws beneficial to themselves and at one time, exempt themselves from having to follow those laws they imposed on us.
In the 1800’s, a German Philosopher named Karl Marx wrote a series of books and articles that advocated a Liberal philosophy used by the Bolsheviks during an expensive and unpopular war and gave birth to the Soviet Union.
Individuality ceased. Profits ceased. Self-determination ceased. Religious freedom ceased. Everything went to the elite sitting in power over the masses and whom they determined should be allowed more. The elite controlled the media and filtered what the public would read or hear.
Vladimir Lenin enlisted the Bolsheviks to take control of the Socialist Democratic Labor Party. He was appalled at European Socialists support for World War One and in speeches, when he returned to Russia in 1917, urged peasants to take the land from the rich landlords and the industrial workers to seize the factories.
By 1960, after hundreds of thousands of citizens simply disappeared, we had Premier Kruschev declaring they would bury us.
Today, in campaign speeches for the United States Presidency, we hear, “We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” We also hear, "The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits. And I want to put them into a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative smart energy, alternatives and technologies that will actually begin to move us in the direction of independence.”
Redistributing the fruit of someone else’s labor is not independence. It is enslavement.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Read Part Three
Posted by Lew Waters at 10:24 PM
Read Part 2
Cross posted to Take Our Country Back
August 30, 2007
As said earlier, Socialist Democrats tried desperately to change the outcome of the 2000 election in Florida to keep a Democrat in the White House. No one blames them for wanting a recount of such a close election, but some of the techniques employed to “determine a voters intent” that did not properly cast their ballot was almost laughable.
As if by clairvoyance, agents searched ballots for any sign that they pin may have touched candidate Al Gore’s name to add that ballot to his count. Sorry, but if you are voting and cannot push a simple and small metal pin through a paper ballot, you have only yourself to blame for your vote not counting.
In Palm Beach County claims were made that the ballot, what became known as the “butterfly ballot,” was too confusing and voters were misled into voting for someone besides Al Gore Jr., who was assumed to walk away with the election.
The ballot was condemned and castigated as another Republican Trick. What they neglect to say is that the ballot was designed by a Democrat and approved by both major parties.
Claims were made that Republicans disenfranchised Black voters and prevented them casting their ballots for Democrats. The claims were subsequently proven false.
Most disturbing, but not really surprising, was the Democrat effort at denying Military Absentee Ballots, while chanting, “every vote should be counted.”
Having failed in changing the outcome of the very close election results in Florida in 2000, Democrats grabbed at their next chance in the Washington State Governors race in the 2004 election.
Once again, it was a very close election between Christine Gregoire and Dino Rossi. Rossi, the Republican, won by a narrow margin triggering a recount. In that recount and a subsequent one, he still won. Democrats resorted to their old “manual recount techniques” and with the help of heavily Democrat King County finding lost ballots, switched the outcome of the election to Democrat Gregoire.
The words once said by the Soviet Union’s Joseph Stalin, "He who votes decides nothing; he who counts the votes decides everything," never rang truer.
Not very long after the horrific Terrorist attacks of 9/11, we were shown the Patriot Act, measures to augment Law Enforcement in apprehending and stopping further Terrorist Attacks. No sooner had it passed into law than the leftist groups were crying and complaining about it. Safeguards written into the law to prevent innocents from being perceived as potential terrorists went largely ignored as cries of “Big Brother” spread across the land as the government was going to watch what everyone read from libraries or they would follow you to see what you did on public computers.
That it wasn’t happening mattered little, just the possibility was enough to launch campaigns opposing this “infringement upon our liberties!”
What many don’t see is that our real liberties have been being restricted and lost, ever so gradually, from leftist groups that are very slowly removing them and instituting Socialism on us.
Second Amendment right to own firearms has been under assault for a very long time and our right to own and protect ourselves with a firearm is currently restricted in many areas.
Smoking bans became very popular and supported by the majority due to repeated claims for decades of how harmful it is to those who use tobacco or are continually near those that do, especially small children. Smoking isn’t a good habit, we all can agree on that, but doesn’t a free society include rights to choose for ourselves? Does the nanny-state need to oversee all aspects of our life they deem inappropriate?
Many states have now passed laws banning smoking inside of any business, especially bars and restaurants. The business owners lost their right to cater to the clientele of their choice while nanny-staters boast of cleaning up the air. Many went out of business and many lost their jobs, but that matters little.
As studies found Passive Smoking Not As Harmful As Previously Thought, findings were ignored and the bans continue spreading further and further into our everyday life. Many blindly accept this due to the obnoxious odor of tobacco smoke, but don’t wake up enough to see that smoking bans are opening the door to even more restrictive bans and restrictions upon our lives.
Outrageous and ever increasing taxes are placed on the legal product, justified by lawsuit settlements and claims of needing extra money to pay for health care costs. Little effort has gone into banning the product completely, though, as was done in the past when products as DDT were banned to protect the public health. (more on this folly later).
To show the greed of the left on tobacco money, the North Dakota legislature attempted to totally ban all tobacco within the state in 2003. The ban was overwhelmingly defeated due to testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.
Why would anti-tobacco groups oppose a total ban on the sale and use of the product they are fighting against? Money! They are the beneficiaries of outrageous taxes imposed upon the sale of the still legal product!
Oddly enough, smoking of marijuana is being pushed for legalization at the same time.
Smoking bans did not originate in the Soviet Union, but can be traced back to another Socialist country, the National Socialist Party of Germany, the Nazi’s, of World War Two infamy.
While I support banning smoking in public buildings where people mingle, it is going too far to ban smoking within one’s home or car, when their children are present, or for companies to mandate employees may not smoke at all, on the job or off.
If you support this intrusion thinking it is all for the better, we also see employers now going after those they deem unfit or overweight. We see fatty foods being regulated and fast food restaurants coming under fire to serve what the government and leftist “I know better than you” groups deem as “healthy.”
We see environmental groups joining forces and pressuring the government to regulate certain vehicles they consider “gas guzzlers,” and imposing a tax upon purchase of these vehicles. Airbags are mandated, as are emission controls that add large cost increases to car prices. Seat belts and side airbags are required with explosive devices to ensure rapid deployment in case of an accident, raising the price even more, all government mandated and automatic, for the good of all.
In an effort at instilling class envy and showing how they would “stick it to the wealthy,” Democrats passed a 10% “Luxury Tax” in 1990, adding a 10% tax on luxury items costing over $100,000. Democrats billed it as the wealthy paying their “fair share.”
The result was upwards of a 93% drop in sales of these items as yacht builders went out of business across the nation; ending thousands of jobs for the working class Democrats said they were helping. The tax was repealed a couple years later, but as Democrats once again regained power in 2006, it appears their quest to take from the rich has not ceased.
Socialist never seem to learn from their past mistakes.
Class Envy seems to be the cornerstone of Socialists power and the Democrats use it effectively, convincing many that the rich don’t pay taxes and the so called poor are overburdened and mistreated by those that own the companies and supply the jobs and wages.
Bolsheviks spent decades preaching this message until they gained political power in Russia towards the end of World War One and used it to build one of the most oppressive regimes ever to exist.
Humans have an innate desire to better themselves and improve their lives and those of their children. Our society has thrived and grown immensely since the birth of the nation due to this innate desire. Socialism robs humans of their ability to improve due to the government giving you what they deem you need and taking any improvements you may build and giving them to others that don’t share your drive.
The quality of your economy flounders and you slip into second-class status or lower. Black Markets thrive as entrepreneurs illegally supply what some desire to survive in a slight modicum of comfort. Your natural desire wanes as you realize you will not ever be able to get or keep what you work for, but it will go to others that are lazy or unable to develop your talents.
That is what Socialism does and why it ultimately fails.
Continue Part Four
Posted by Lew Waters at 1:14 AM
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Read Part One
Cross posted to Take Our Country Back
August 28, 2007
Ever since President Bush won the Florida electoral votes in the farcical recounts in 2000, we have seen relentless attacks on his character, Military Service with the Texas Air National Guard as an F-102 Fighter Pilot, his appointees, his nominees and his handling of everything from standard day to day practices to War on Terror and Hurricane Katrina. I can’t think of anything bad that has happened that he didn’t somehow receive the blame for, leading to what we conservatives now call BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome).
Prior to the 2004 elections I asked for any one afflicted with this disorder, due to their cry of him never being held accountable for his mis-actions by the major media sources, to list any pro-Bush articles they could find, either by link or title. To date, one was returned, the 2004 Time Man of the Year, which also listed possible shortcomings prominently.
Cabinet members have been endlessly castigated by the leftists, resulting in several resigning in his second term. Judicial Nominees appointed early in his first term are still waiting confirmation while others were subjected to endless filibusters in an attempt to prevent President Bush from carrying out his legal responsibilities and implementing his vision for the country that elected him, twice!
As is known with neo-communism, one dare not step out of group think for even a second. Democrat Representative Brian Baird of Washington States 3rd Congressional District. Rep. Baird, my Representative and who I am most often at odds with, apparently has the audacity to travel to Iraq and return with the conviction that we need to stay and finish the mission there, now. Amazing how seeing something first hand instead of what you are told by someone else who was told by someone else who was told by someone else what to think, can do to your attitude.
After a few days of condemnations from leftist constituents, Congressman Baird held a local Town Hall Meeting where he was racked over the coals by locals that really have no dog in this hunt in the first place, just anger that someone changed his position for good reason.
Anti-war activist Zamme Joi brayed, "You have the opportunity this September to get back to that man you were two years ago," adding, "There is only one way to end an illegal and immoral war, and that's to end it." Joi neglected to state just which laws declare the Iraqi Theater of the War on Terror illegal. Also completely ignored is what becomes of the Iraqi people should the neo-com left succeed in getting their way on this. Some others were heard to say that Baird “represents us and had better get his act together (paraphrasing).” I suppose to them, Congressman Baird does not represent the rest of us that live here in Southwest Washington States 3rd District.
For a group that has complained now for years that President Bush and the Republicans are mere “rubber stamps” for each other, I find it ironic that “rubber stamping” their agenda is what they expect from Congressmen.
Prior to World War Two, earlier versions of this leftist crowd were solidly opposed to any American involvement in that war. That is, until such time as Hitler’s Nazi Germany turned on and attacked Stalin’s Soviet Union. Then, they were all too eager to save “the Motherland.”
Since winning the off year elections in 2006 by not presenting any ideas, just portraying the Republican Party as “corrupt” and expressing never ending hatred of President Bush, while hiding their own corruption, remember, there has been a voluminous number of hearings and investigation initiated over legal matters performed by the Bush administration, all in an effort to present the air of impropriety within the administration.
As I previously noted, their tactics mirror those of the Bolsheviks very closely towards the end of World War One that resulted in establishing the now failed Soviet Union. Every act I see coming out of the main Democrat party today looks as if all they desire is defeat in hopes that it will propel them into permanent power in implementing their neo-communist agenda masked as liberalism.
Mirroring the Soviet Communists we see calls and judicial decisions in favor of “Separation of Church and State.” Christianity, what the majority of our country believes and what many of our Founding Fathers practiced, is all but outlawed in the public arena. Oddly enough, “Separation of Church and State” is not found in our constitution, being decided by the Supreme Court, first quoted in 1878 and subsequently in several more cases starting in 1947. Religious expressions by Islamic people’s, where the Terrorist hail from, is encouraged and tolerated, but not Christianity.
What is most revealing is that while Separation of Church and State is not expressed in our own constitution, it was very prominent in the constitution of the former Soviet Union where Article 52, section 2 states, “In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.” Asking many who lived under the Soviet regime and they will inform you that this was translated as no public religion.
Our own constitution’s Bill of Rights in part, starts off with, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Through the efforts of atheist leftists, this has been circumvented and our religious ideals have been laid by the wayside throughout America.
Our constitution has been interpreted as a ‘fluid document,’ leaving it open to interpretation of leftists that have been known to consult the laws of nations as Zimbabwe to decide cases concerning our nation. The concept of ‘sovereignty’ seems to be lost on activist judges and the Democrat party, as they forever desire us to be under the watchful control of the United Nations, who can’t seem to manage anything other than enriching delegates from third world member nations as oppressive regimes are rotated onto Human Rights commissions.
Eminent domain has now been reinterpreted to allow local governments to take private property, not to build thoroughfares or public buildings, but to be sold to private developers to develop into more expensive venues in order to fatten to tax coffers of government by collecting higher property taxes from the developed property. Private property ownership is essential to freedom. Without that right we are placed at the mercy of wealthy landlords that do own the property and may manipulate us as they would a puppet.
Chapter 2, paragraph 3 subsection ‘a’ of the first Soviet Constitution in 1918 abolished all rights to own property, without compensation. Are we far behind that with the courts ruling on eminent domain?
In 1886 the country of France presented a very young America with a gift of a statue that was erected in the entrance to New York’s Harbor. On that statue is the inscription,
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
In the 1800’s and early 1900’s people from all over were fleeing feudal countries and arriving in America, coming to find freedom and build a nation. All came following the laws of America with the idea to become Americans and live as Americans. They struggled to learn our language and cultures blended in what became known as the Great American Melting Pot.
The Melting Pot was wrongfully denied to some and today, as they are now welcome to be part of it, we find multi-culturalism replacing it, erasing the distinctive American fiber that built the nation. Slavery was ended as was legal repression of Black descendants of slavery. Instead of encouraging embracing each other as Americans, we now embrace hyphenated Americans, seeking pride in what our ancestors fled and trying to institute that here.
Along with that push for multi-culturalism comes illegal immigration, with millions ignoring the laws that settlers set up and flooding our borders. Some come to better themselves, but others come to do us harm or push for return of millions of square miles of land lost in a war and justly bought in the mid 1800’s.
Instead of demanding enforcement of our laws, the Democrat party largely embraces these illegals and grants them benefits paid for by taxpayers, working the illegals at below minimum wage jobs and in effect, creating another slave class of people. Somehow, laws requiring only American citizens be allowed to vote are discarded, as long as the illegals register and vote for Democrats.
What harm can this do, you say? Are not these people just trying to better themselves, as did early settlers before? NO! These people hide in the shadows, drain our economy by taking benefits they are not deserving of and instead of circulating wages back into our economy, they send upwards of $25,000,000,000.00 back to their home nation yearly. Instead of learning our language, they demand we learn theirs and supply them with taxpayer paid healthcare and other entitlement benefits set up to help citizens in their time of need.
We are told we no longer wish to follow the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, but that isn’t true. We love immigrants that come here to be Americans and do as earlier settlers did, become American and build the nation, not just take from it. Our only desire is for them to follow our laws, as we would have to do in their countries. But, legal immigrants may not vote for Democrats, so they accept the flood of illegals with open arms and ballots pre-marked for Democrat candidates.
To be continued
Posted by Lew Waters at 11:12 PM
Monday, August 27, 2007
Cross posted to Take Our Country Back
August 27, 2007
Who of us my age can forget the indelible image of Nikita Kruschev (Premier of the Soviet Union from 1953 to 1964) standing before the United Nations General Assembly in October 1960, banging his shoe on the podium and on another occasion, stating “We Will Bury You?”
Confronted about the claim, he reportedly said, "I once got in trouble for saying, 'We will bury you'. Of course, we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.” The claim was taken from a popular Marxist saying of, "The proletariat is the undertaker of capitalism." He went on to explain that socialism would replace capitalism.
An ominous and portentous statement, and given what is seen throughout America today, prophetic!
The Democrat party advocating socialism, the system favored by the now defunct Soviet Union, is no secret. Of course, they rarely admit it, hiding behind terms like “liberal,” “progressive,” “freethinker,” “reformer,” “leftist” and I’m sure a few others. But, it is socialism nonetheless they favor. That socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried is of little consequence, Democrats apparently thinking they can do it better and make it work.
Just prior to his handing the office of president over to Ronald Reagan, then president Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, awarded the Medal of Freedom to Roger Baldwin. Until about 1940, Baldwin, a life long pacifist, was a member of the Communist party in America. In 1927, Baldwin traveled to the Soviet Union and wrote the book, “Liberty Under the Soviets” An attorney, Baldwin formed a group that played a key role in the infamous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. Becoming disillusioned with Soviet Communism, Baldwin left the Communist party and wrote another book, “The New Slavery,” condemning the Communist Police State, but apparently retained his left-winged socialist views that we still see today in the group he founded, the American Civil Liberties Union.
Under the guise of “protecting Americans Civil Liberties,” the ACLU has had prayer banned in schools, denied displays of the 10 Commandments in Court Houses, relentlessly attacked the Boy Scouts of America due to their policy of denying Gay Males to be Scout Leaders over young boys, fought diligently to remove a memorial to War Veterans because it was shaped like a Christian Cross, defended members of the Pedophile group, NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association), over their “first amendment right of free speech” to advocate pedophilia and so many more cases that in truth have undermined the very moral fabric Traditional America was founded on.
In all too many cases, they are also seen as the legal arm of the Democrat party, having legislation that citizens advocated and voted for over-turned by courts.
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of an unmarried Dallas, Texas woman who wanted to abort the child she was carrying in 1970 in what has become known as Roe vs. Wade, effectively legalizing abortions nationwide, with not one person ever voting on this major legislation that came from the bench. Since then, millions of children were not born as abortion came to be seen as an easy birth control method of just ending the pregnancy if you wished, often under pressure from left-winged groups. The Democrat party fights tooth and nail to retain “a woman’s right to choice,” with no regard to any rights of the human being growing in their womb.
All through the 1990’s, we saw scandal after scandal and cover-ups excused with the then Clinton administration, culminating in the infamous perjury impeachment of president B.J. Clinton in the House of Representatives. The Senate did agree and voted against impeachment.
Democrats and supporters rallied around the president’s misconduct, only to later condemn any sexual acts of Republican politicians, especially if they happened to be Gay.
Our children are required to attend school. Most attend Public Schools where many teachers are educated in the socialist liberal mindset and pass that on to our children. Many parents have complained, to no avail, that their children are taught social concepts against the parent’s own values and religion. Homosexuality is taught as just an “alternative lifestyle.” Some have even gone so far as to demonize and frighten children because their parent’s may feed them meat with dinner.
The three ‘R’s of old time teaching seem to have taken a back seat to modern teaching methods such as Outcome-Based Education. Discipline your child, especially if by spanking, legal in most states by their State Constitution, and you can expect many teachers to report you to Child Protective Services, who will interfere with your Parental Rights or take your children until such time as one of their ‘case-workers’ decides you are now an appropriate parent for raising your child the way the State sees fit.
Should your under-aged daughter become pregnant because the condom the school provided her failed, you may not be entitled to know that she has left campus, with the aid of the school authorities, for an abortion. That is considered “confidential” and parents are not entitled to such “confidential” information.
In the 2000 Presidential election, we all witnessed a major flap in the State of Florida as a very close vote was recounted, recounted, recounted and efforts were made by Democrat candidate, Al Gore Jr. to block absentee ballots of American Service-members serving overseas. As Florida Law required the election to be certified by a certain date, Democrats attempted have the law changed, in the middle of the recounts, to favor the continuance of the recounts until the Democrat won, in the three heavily Democrat counties subject to the recounts.
Clearly circumventing established law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Florida Supreme Court, upholding the election laws.
What I find most ironic about this case and attempt to circumvent the law, are cries of Republican “culture of corruption” coming from those who are given a pass for their own corruption. Republican ‘Duke’ Cunningham is rightfully cooling his heels in jail for his taking bribes, while Democrats Jack Murtha and William Jefferson are still sitting in Congress after being taped accepting bribes.
Showing much hypocrisy is comments coming from Democrats that today successfully caused the resignation of embattled Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, the first ever Hispanic Attorney General. Most hypocritical of the Democrats was Senator Ted Kennedy, who himself caused the death of a young lady in 1969 and circumvented many laws, basically getting a minor slap on the wrist, as he said today, "He has exhibited a lack of candor with Congress and the American people and a disdain for the rule of law and our constitutional system. I strongly urge President Bush to nominate a new attorney general who will respect our laws and restore the integrity of the office."
Shouldn’t the Senator and his family first “respect our laws” before recommending others to?
We have Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein calling for abolishing Electoral College and determining who wins presidential elections based solely by popular votes, which would end up having our president selected by the heaviest populated states, shutting less populated states out of the process.
We have recommendations and proposals of implementing “hate speech laws,” limiting freedom of speech
We have calls for reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine,” but only where it affects Right-winged Talk Radio, denying freedom of speech and expression by those of us not of the liberal mindset.
We hear promises of “Universal Healthcare,” socialized medicine in disguise.
Taxes are forever being raised under Democrat leadership, restricting our ability to spend what we earn as we see fit. Most ridiculous of these is the so-called “sin taxes.” Currently, there is a proposal to raise tobacco taxes to provide needed medical care to children of the “working class poor.” What they hide from the public is that the very people they claim to be helping are the ones most likely to be purchasing tobacco products, taking away what they claim they are providing!
The Second Amendment to our Constitution guarantees us the “right to bear arms,” own guns. For decades, Democrats have pulled every slick trick you can imagine to deny us that right and take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. If they can’t get the guns, they go after the ammunition, making our guns ineffective when they go for their final push at taking over the country completely and imposing Soviet style Socialism upon us.
Political Correctness, entitlement programs, school indoctrination instead of education and continual cries from the Socialist elite Democrats that they and they alone care about people and can solve normal everyday troubles, while they sit back and just take from the working class have numbed our “working class”. Being numbed, the working class too often buys the prevarications of the socialist Democrat party and keeps them in power, keeping them in the never-ending vicious cycle of accepting what the Socialist Democrats say they are entitled to.
Centuries ago, men walked the earth who made even more prophetic statements than those of Soviet Premier Kruschev. Once said was, “All this have I seen, and applied my heart unto every work that is done under the sun: there is a time wherein one man ruleth over another to his own hurt.” (Ecclesiastes 8:9)
Sadly, if the Socialist Elites succeed in their “coup d'état,” even those words may be one day banned as “hate speech.”
Posted by Lew Waters at 11:28 PM
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Cross posted to Take Our Country Back
August 26, 2007
Borrowing the title of the 1970 Motown Song sung by Edwin Starr, “War, What Is It Good For,” I feel compelled to compare it to Exit Strategies that the left maintains we must have in fighting terrorism.
In the song, Starr answers his question with “absolutely nothing!” 1970 was deep into the counter culture of anti-war and anti-American sentiment over our involvement in Viet Nam. 1970 was also the year I spent in its entirety in Viet Nam and believe it or not, the song was fairly well received those I served with and me. That is young soldiers for you.
My comparison begs the question of Exit Strategy, What Is It Good For? Primarily a business phrase for knowing when to bail on an investment or venture, applied to our involvement in war it carries a similar meaning, pre-planning how far we will fight and when we will just up and stop, surrender, cut and run, whatever you label it.
In business investments it can be a good strategy to keep you from losing all of your investment capital. In war, it can only be disastrous. Can you seriously imagine General George S. Patton telling his beloved Third Army or the Americans trapped in Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge that he would only go so far in rescuing them? Can you imagine General Douglas McArthur broadcasting to the Philippines that he had reached the point of his “exit strategy” and they were on their own now against the vastly superior Japanese Army?
This is where we are at today in the War on Terror, especially in the Iraq Theater. The job is only partially accomplished and anti-war leftists and other kooks desire us to have entered the venture announcing to the world what our “exit strategy” was. According to them, we passed it long ago and must now abandon the effort, wasting well over 3,000 lives of America’s Bravest. Their sacrifices would be meaningless.
If our enemy’s have foreknowledge of our “exit strategy,” will they not just hang on, wearing us down to the point we abandon the effort and they step in and conquer who were supporting? Yes, that is what the North Vietnamese did to South Viet Nam by 1975, as we stood by and watched. The kooks on the left turned a blind eye to the carnage that followed in South Viet Nam and today, some even have the audacity to say the Vietnamese are better off or that it never materialized. Just because some may be fairing better today or may have progressed to a higher situation doesn’t negate what happened as we cruelly allowed them to be overtaken by the oppressive Communist regime of North Viet Nam.
Osama Bin Laden, leader of the Terrorist Group, Al Qaeda stated in his 1996 ‘fatwah’ against America, "You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew. The extent of your impotence and weaknesses has become very clear.” This was said about our “exit strategy” in Somalia under the Clinton administration after the “Black Hawk Down” incident when terrorist drug the dead bodies of our Troops through the streets. Instead of annihilating the terrorists, we executed an “exit strategy.”
Bin Laden also said, “The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized, more than before, that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows…would run in defeat.” Perhaps he didn’t realize that in today’s America, “running in defeat” isn’t that at all. It is the implementation of an “exit strategy!”
Bill Powers of the American Thinker says in part, “To plan an exit strategy … implies that the National Command Authority anticipates failure.” Our enemies see that point of failure, or “running in defeat,” and work diligently to bring us to that point. We lose the war and ultimately, our freedoms.
War is not a gentlemen’s game. They are brutal. They are dirty. They are expensive. They require great sacrifices. They are bloody. That is why we strive to avoid them. But when despots try to dominate the world and take away our God-given freedoms, they become very necessary. Announcing to your enemies that you are only willing to oppose them a little makes them all the more worse.
That is what an “exit strategy” amounts to, telling your enemy that you are only willing to oppose them a little. Once you reach your pre-determined point of quitting, they win by default.
What a waste of lives of our Brave Troops!
Comparing again to Edwin Starrs song, Exit Strategy, What Is It Good For? I can only answer, Absolutely Nothing!!
For any who disagree, feel free to state the “exit strategy” of our enemy, the radical Jihadists.
Posted by Lew Waters at 2:48 PM
Cross posted toTake Our Country Back & The Autonomist
August 26, 2007
In their crafty endeavor at embarrassing the Bush Administration and causing defeat in the Iraqi Theater of the War on Terror, the leftists have been portraying the ongoing battle in Iraq as a separate war from the War on Terror. We hear that we dropped the ball by leaving Afghanistan, where terrorists are and invading Iraq, where they claim no terrorists were.
Nothing can be further from the truth, not that truth has ever been important to the anti-war left.
Given the events of September 11, 2001, which also revealed our total vulnerability to radical Jihadist and acknowledging that virtually every Intelligence agency in the world believed there was a massive stockpile of banned Weapons of Mass Destruction under Saddam Hussein’s control inside of Iraq, who would be willing to take the chance that those WMD’s would not fall into the hands of radical Jihadists such as Usama Bin Laden? Surely not me.
What leader worth anything wouldn’t take every step possible to safeguard the citizens that elected him to office? Given what was known and assumed, it would have been totally irresponsible to allow Saddam Hussein’s Iraq to remain as it was prior to 9/11.
However, Saddam’s refusal to abide by 17 United Nations Resolutions over the 12 years between the cease-fire he agreed to in 1991 and our invasion in 2003 was but one reason behind the invasion to depose Saddam and his brutal Baathist regime. Although no evidence has been found yet as to an operational link between Saddam’s regime and the horrific events of 9/11, links between Al Qaeda and the regime have been established and confirmed. During the Clinton administration links were established and I sincerely doubt they evaporated once the 2000 elections were finished. Even the vaunted 911 Commission Report stated there were ties, although not operational towards the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
After all the lies and obfuscation of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his CIA Analyst Wife, Valerie Plame, a declassified CIA Document on the debriefing of Joseph Wilson shows that Saddam’s regime was indeed seeking purchases of Yellowcake Uranium for nuclear purposes. In addition, we also now have proof that Wilson’s wife did indeed recommend him for the trip to Niger, revealing the lie’s of both of these people to the American Public.
Don’t hold your breath waiting to see either one of these two ‘darlings of the left’ prosecuted for ‘perjury’ as was L. ‘Scooter’ Libby.
A report produced by the Hudson Institute entitled "Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror," lists known terror groups as Hamas, the Palestinian Liberation Front, Ansar al-Islam and the Arab Liberation Front as having ties to Saddam’s regime. Additionally, known and suspected terrorists as Khala Khadar al Salahat (captured in Baghdad in April or 2003), Abu Nidal (who committed suicide in Baghdad in 2002), Ramzi Yousef (planner of the first WTC bombing of 1993), Abdul Rahman Yasin (conspirator in the first WTC bombing), Abu Abbas (captured just outside Baghdad in April of 2003) and Abu Musab al Zarqawi are listed as having been in Iraq, some for many years.
The report also mentions one of Hussein's diplomats at Iraq's Manila embassy was expelled from the Philippines for communicating via telephone with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Abu Sayyaf terrorist group as well as Saddam’s regime paying families of Palestinian suicide bombers upwards of $25,000 upon completion of a successful suicide attack against Israelis.
Clearly, when the anti-war left tells us there were no terrorists in Iraq before we invaded it in 2003, they are very wrong. Having now established there was just reason for invading Iraq, let’s move on to today and the calls to abandon Iraq and focus elsewhere to fight terror.
President Bush, vice-president Cheney, General Petraeus and others maintain that Iraq is the Central Front in the War on Terror. Leftist kooks, many Democrats, News commentators and RINO’s maintain that Iraq is NOT the Central Front in the War on Terror. Who is correct?
While we have Democrat candidates currently crisscrossing the nation pontificating such things as, "This is not our fight. Iraq is at war with itself and American troops are caught in the middle," (Hillary Clinton), "We cannot win a war against the terrorists if we're on the wrong battlefield," (Barack Obama), "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam," (John Edwards and his War on Terror is only a Bumper Sticker Slogan comment), “Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time,” (John ‘F’in Kerry in his failed 2004 campaign), I think it important to see what our enemies have said about it.
Al Qaeda’s number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri released one of his video’s urging Muslim youth to hurry to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Palestinian areas to fight for their religion. In an earlier letter to Abu Mus’aab al-Zarqawi in Iraq, Zawahiri expressed Al Qaeda’s four step plan to, expel American forces from Iraq, establish a caliphate over much of Iraq, extend the Jihad to neighboring countries, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon and war against Israel.
Additionally, we have a report of bin Laden’s men breaking some bad news to Mullah Mohammed Omar, the elusive leader of Afghanistan’s Taliban. The message, “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.” The reason, “Because bin Laden and his lieutenants see a great opportunity for killing Americans and their allies in Iraq,” effectively turning Iraq into the “Central Front in the War on Terror!”
If our enemies see Iraq as the “Central Front,” we would be foolhardy to abandon the Iraqi People to their fate while we focus our main effort elsewhere that we have been able to enlist the aid of Allies to stand with us against the radical Jihadists there.
When you hear those denying Iraq as part of the War on Terror, don’t let them get away with it. They are wrong. They are in denial. They are completely misled. They are fools.
Just as the battles throughout the Pacific were half a globe away from the D-Day invasion in World War Two, yet were all part of the same war, so are Iraq and the Global War on Terror.
Iraq is but one battlefield in the Global War on Terror and one that we must win, if Western Civilization is to survive.
Posted by Lew Waters at 10:26 AM
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Cross posted to Take Our Country Back & The Autonomist
August 25, 2007
As small children, all of us heard or read the fable of Chicken Little who believed the sky was falling after an acorn fell and hit her on the head and subsequently scared other animals into believing the sky was falling and putting all in the forest in danger.
As the fable brings out, the sky cannot fall and the story of “The Sky Is Falling” has become synonymous with alarmists spreading false alarms. Some now refer to it as “fear mongering.”
Pacifists, anti-war leftists, Democrat Party leaders, RINO’s and other moonbats, including members of the lamestream media, use this fable today to point out that western civilization is in no danger from radical Jihadists and those of us who see the looming menace of radical Islamists are little more than Chicken Little ourselves, spreading word of false dangers.
With expectations of the congressionally mandated Petraeus Report on Iraq and the effectiveness of the Presidents Troop Reinforcement, pre-emptive measures are being taken to counter any anticipated good news reported. As I previously posted, even though some prominent Democrats are admitting the reinforcement is showing progress, party leadership has Continued to Strategize for Defeat.
To counter President Bush’s invoking the abandonment of the struggling country of South Viet Nam, we find claims of It Didn’t Happen concerning the bloodbath that history has recorded in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, after our ignominious abandonment of the people of South Viet Nam. Even though this claim was first made prior to Bush’s speech before members of the VFW in Kansas City, Missouri, the implication is clear that history must be revised to hide the senseless slaughter that occurred after we were forced into abandoning the Vietnamese as the same abandonment is being advocated for the Iraqi people today.
Not content with revising history that claims the well documented bloodbath did indeed happen, we have Newsweek’s leftist editor, Michael Hirsch telling us, Why America's Pullout From Vietnam Worked, based upon a visit made long after the reeducation camps, the boat people and the persecution of the Montagnard indigenous people of Viet Nam’s Central Highlands happened.
Hirsch glosses over the time from the fall of Saigon in April 1975 to his 1991 visit with the flippant “Yes, a lot of Vietnamese boat people died on the high seas” while ignoring that even senior Communist leaders, such as Colonel Bui Tin, became disillusioned with the Communist Revolution and defected to the west. One Vietnamese lady my wife and I know, who escaped as one of the “Boat People,” only calls this time “a very bad time.” Her husband, who fought with the ARVN, refuses to even return for a visit, fearing for his safety.
Hirsch also seems to have never read the words of the now anti-war Democrat Senator from Virginia, James Webb, in his 1995 article The Triumph of Intellectual Dishonesty. Instead, we read the praises of today’s Viet Nam as they move away from oppressive Communism and towards the Capitalism they were building before we abandoned them. In this regard, Hirsch assures us, “If we leave, Al Qaeda will rant triumphantly on the Web sites and perhaps win more adherents, but that won’t get them any closer to ‘victory’ over us than they are now.”
Similarly, then anti-war activist and now junior Senator John ‘F’in Kerry assured us in his 1971 “testimony” before the Fulbright Commission, “yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America…” while stating he felt only four to five thousand might be killed on the 1971 Dick Cavett Show where he and John O’Neill debated.
History records an astronomically higher number.
Also in their preemptive efforts at discounting General Petraeus’s Report, the Washington Post’s Michael Abramowitz published an article, “Iraq report unlikely to move Bush” where mentions of the progress noted even by some Democrats is barely mentioned and then deep in the article. I see the headline as attempting to paint a picture of Bush ignoring expected bad news, when most familiar with events expect mixed but positive results in progress and implementation of the Troop Reinforcement.
Never one to miss an opportunity to attack the President or the Iraq Theater of the War on Terror, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said through a spokesman, "Further pursuit of the administration's flawed escalation strategy is not in our nation's best interests.”
In a reluctant admission that the reinforcement policy has had success, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi joins Reid in saying, "Whatever improvements in security that may have resulted from the efforts of our troops since the surge began, Iraqi leaders have not done the hard political work on which the future of their country depends. And therefore, the purpose of the surge - to enable the Iraqis to produce political reconciliation - has not been accomplished."
In further efforts of denigrating expected good news from General Petraeus, we see Senators Clinton and Durbin calling for the ouster of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, joining Pelosi in shifting the focus to the Iraqi government not meeting the expectations of the U.S. Congress in the scant few months of time they allotted for unattainable improvements. How can they demand political reconciliation in such a short time in Iraq when, in over 200 years, we in America haven’t successfully achieved it? Granted, we aren’t shooting each other yet, but the Political Divide within the country today is as great as it has ever been and just as hotly debated.
But, it does allow them to continue the effort at creating a failure in Iraq while looking like they praise the efforts of the Troops.
Much like The Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing, leftists try to lull the populace into a false sense of security by advocating appeasement of our enemies and demonizing those of us who see the dangers facing Western Civilization from the radical Jihadist movement spreading across the globe.
History is ignored or revised as leftists claim that even if the reinforcement policy is working, it is years too late. How can it ever be too late to support an ally and prevent more bloodbaths?
Since the Iranian Hostage Crisis in 1979, radical Jihadists have attacked American interests no less than 15 times, twice upon our own soil. Their war on us was brought home to us on September 11, 2001. Terrorists have no intention of withdrawing from the battlefield. Three decades of inaction and soft responses to terrorist attacks have emboldened radical Jihadists to hit us harder each time. It is never too late for them to hit us again even harder. It is no longer a matter of ‘if,’ but a matter of ‘when.’
In the same speech where she declares it is too late and the best way to honor our Troops is to bring them home, Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton also speaks of preparing for The New War.
Wouldn’t we do better speaking of winning this war?
UPDATE: Published in today's Sunday Times (UK), an eyewitness to much of the horror of our leaving Viet Nam speaks out. Abandon Iraq and see a Vietnam horror show. Of particular note, he was opposed to America's mission in Viet Nam then, but now says, "I have always thought that those of us who opposed the American war in Indochina should be extremely humble in the face of the appalling aftermath."
Posted by Lew Waters at 4:51 PM
Thursday, August 23, 2007
August 23, 2007
Just as news of the Troop Reinforcement put into effect earlier this year by President Bush is showing progress and General Petraeus is soon due to deliver the report mandated by the Democrat Congress, we find Democrats strategizing behind the scenes as to how to portray the reinforcement as a “failure.”
Curiously, other Democrats have come forward stating they see progress in Iraq due to the reinforcement.
Brain Baird, “I have come to believe that calls for premature withdrawal may make it more difficult for Iraqis to solve their problems. If you have some guarantee of support, you have working space to reach out and involve the other side.” In areas where previously patrols were going out every night and being hit with IEDs (improvised explosive devices), all of those measures are better. Local Iraqis are standing up against the extremists on all sides. They are turning in the insurgents. They are fed up with al-Qaida.”
Sen. Carl Levin with Republican Sen. John Warner, “We have seen indications that the surge of additional brigades to Baghdad and its immediate vicinity and the revitalized counter-insurgency strategy being employed have produced tangible results in making several areas of the capital more secure. We are also encouraged by continuing positive results — in al-Anbar Province, from the recent decisions of some of the Sunni tribes to turn against Al Qaeda and cooperate with coalition force efforts to kill or capture its adherents,” although they aren’t as pleased with the Maliki Government and also desire a withdrawal.
Dick Durbin and Bob Casey, “We found that today as we went to a forward base in an area that, in the fifth year of the war, it’s the first time we’re putting troops on the ground to intercept Al Qaeda.” “The surge has resulted in a reduction of violence in many parts of Iraq. More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq. I think that’s a fact.”
Hillary Clinton, “That begins with ensuring that America does have the world’s strongest and smartest military force. We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it’s working,” although she still calls for withdrawal.
In an effort to inform the public through the VFW Convention in Kansas City, Missouri, President Bush finally mentioned the cost of abandoning a struggling ally, as we did in to the country of South Viet Nam three decades ago. As can be expected, Democrats blasted Bush’s Vietnam comparison almost immediately.
Sen. John ‘F’in Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) said, “Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars.”
Yet, just about one month ago, being interviewed about Iraq and when the bloodbath that history has recorded happening in Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos after we abandoned them, Kerry said, "We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn't happen." If it didn’t happen, then just what is the “tragedy of Viet Nam” that Kerry mentions?
Seeming to support the “it didn’t happen” claim, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer chimed in with, “If anything, an examination of history and the situation on the ground shows us the importance of creating a new direction in Iraq.” Isn’t a reinforcement that even some Democrats admit is working a “new direction?” Of course, we all know that when a Democrat speaks of a “new direction” in Iraq, they really mean a retreat, surrender, and another abandonment of a struggling ally.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chided the President for “providing the country with a history lesson” instead of “reevaluating his flawed strategies that have led to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our nation’s history.” But Senator Reid, it is your fellow Democrats who have admitted the reinforcement is indeed working, even if reluctantly, causing them to shift their focus to opposing Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, even calling for his ouster. I thought Democrats were opposed to “nation building?”
Not to be left out of the foray, first term Senator and Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama belched out, “the disastrous consequences described by President Bush are already in motion and are a direct result of a war that should never have been authorized.” I would encourage the junior Senator to do a little more research on the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the re-education camps and the fleeing Boat People of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, if he thinks the same thing is already in motion. And of course, he too calls for a retreat and surrender in the masked call for to “change course through a surge in our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in Iraq and a phased withdrawal of our forces that puts real pressure on the Iraqi government to act.”
Seeking to appear relevant to the discussion, Speakerette of the House of Representatives, Nancy (San Fran Nan) Pelosi brayed, "In an attempt to justify his stay-the-course strategy in Iraq, President Bush is offering false lessons from history."
Apparently, she pays more attention to a quisling Judas like John Kerry as he desperately attempts to rewrite history and pretend his prediction of a peaceful takeover of South Viet Nam by the Communist Forces of the North Vietnamese was good for the people we left behind and abandoned.
She adds, "The American people have already judged the president's war in Iraq as the wrong war at the wrong time, and are ready for our troops to come home now."
Perhaps she has failed to notice that while the President’s approval rating has risen to 32%, theirs has plummeted to 18% under her guidance, matching the historical lowest ever for Congress.
And now, the words spoken by House Whip James Clyburn just a couple weeks ago apparently have Democrats worried. Clyburn acknowledged, "if the surge is successful, it will be a real problem for us."
Instead of getting behind our Troops and supporting the reinforcement and securing Iraq enough so the Iraqi government can stand on their own and set up their version of Democracy in the troubled Middle East, Democrats desiring power so much, they once again belittle the brave efforts of our All Volunteer Troops and seek to disqualify the report due to be given soon by General Petraeus, weeks before it is even given.
Since General Petraeus, who was unanimously approved by the Democrat led Senate, has previously shown himself to be a straight shooter, what possible reason could Democrats have for the preemptive disparagement of the report they demanded he make this September? It can only be the knowledge that the Troop Reinforcement is working and a real worry that if the American Public hears it from credible sources like General Petraeus, they will open their eyes and see that the Democrat Party is more interested in grabbing hold of Political Power than protecting America from another horrific terrorist attack like we saw on September 11, 2001.
Such is the corner they have painted themselves into as they So Heavily Invested Themselves In Defeat.
No more images of The Last Helicopter fleeing a battle zone where we were winning, until Democrats waved their white flag!
Posted by Lew Waters at 11:06 PM
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
August 21, 2007
At one time or another and in one variation or another, we have all had the above quote attributed to one our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, thrown at us. In all variants it ends, “are deserving of neither,” or similar words.
Since the horrific attacks against us on September 11, 2001, it has been continually misused to justify opposition to the programs President George W. Bush has implemented to interfere with plans of and capture terrorists within our own midst. There is no real need to cover these programs as they have been discussed ad nauseam across the political spectrum.
What I am going to address is the quote itself and how it has been misused, misinterpreted and presented totally out of context, primarily by the left to justify their paranoia and opposition.
To begin with, the variation of the quote most presented is misinterpreted and somewhat revised. Due to the meticulous research of one Richard Minsky, Author and Book Artist, we know that the actual quote was, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety,” as expressed in a 1755 Pennsylvania Assembly Reply To The Governor letter.
The omission of the words “essential” before Liberty and “temporary” before Security, as well the revising of the word “purchase” and replacing them with “little” and “gain” is important. An “essential liberty” is far different than a “little liberty.” Likewise, “temporary” and a “little security.” By revising the words slightly, one could be led to believe that Franklin thought Liberty was so precious that there was to be absolutely no compromising it, even for our security.”
To support their claim, opposers often cite Abraham Lincoln as being a Republican Villain who robbed citizens of their liberty during the U.S. Civil War when he suspended the right of Habeas Corpus. This is equated to President Bush’s imprisoning suspected terrorists indefinitely for interrogation.
Critics neglect to see or state that in 1996, then President Clinton placed the first limitations on Habeas Corpus since the Civil War when, after the Bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City that left 168 dead and over 800 injured, signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
Undeterred by this and still wagging their tongues about Ben Franklin’s infamous quote, the claim is made that Republican Presidents, Lincoln and Bush have violated our Constitution with their suspension of Habeas Corpus. How they know it has been violated when apparently they have never read it escapes me. Under Article 1, Section 9, clause two is, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
As I read it, all 3 Presidents acted appropriately in regards to Habeas Corpus, given the time and reasoning, Public Safety, behind their actions.
That leaves us with Ben Franklin and the notion that he felt no amount of liberty should ever be given up for some security, as claimed by opposers. Returning to the context of the original quote, though, we will find that their notion is just wrong!
Reading before and after the single sentence quoted, we see that frustration was being expressed towards the “Freemen of Pennsylvania,” members of the religion of Quakers, most noted for their pacifist stance. 1755 was early into the French and Indian War and forts were being erected along the then frontier to protect settlers, who were spread out miles apart.
Being Pacifists, Quakers were trying to make friends with the marauders of that time by trading with them. Their religious beliefs prevented them from taking up arms against others and thusly; the frontier was being left fairly unprotected from bands of roving marauders. From the letter we read towards the end,
“In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it. Whether he could, as he supposes, “if his Hands had been properly strengthened, have put the Province into such a Posture of Defence, as might have prevented the present Mischiefs,” seems to us uncertain; since late Experience in our neighbouring Colony of Virginia (which had every Advantage for that Purpose that could be desired) shows clearly, that it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers: But thus much is certain, that by refusing our Bills from Time to Time, by which great Sums were seasonably offered, he has rejected all the Strength that Money could afford him; and if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them.”
As I read this, the frustration was due to an “essential liberty,” the right to bear arms, was being denied voluntarily in an attempt to “purchase a temporary security” from the band of murderers.
To my un-scholastic mind, this actually means that we should not give up our arms thinking we would gain security, as often recommended by portions of the anti-war left and liberals today. The quote, in context, tells me we are to be responsible for our own security and safety as well as that of our neighbor, who would be defending us as well.
I also see that certain liberties might have to be infringed upon, from time to time, to ensure our safety and security. We willfully accepted infringement upon liberty during World War Two to give the Troops what they needed to win as well as to ensure the public remained safe and separated from the war zone.
This time, the war zone has already landed around us and if we don’t allow our security forces some leeway in capturing and intervening with the plans of suspected terrorists and their cells, we won’t need to worry about either security or liberty. Both will be taken away by invading Jihadists setting up their Sharia Caliphate.
Ignore the left as they misquote and quote Ben Franklin out of context. Recall that he too signed the Declaration of Independence.
Posted by Lew Waters at 9:16 PM
Sunday, August 19, 2007
August 19, 2007
This question is taken from a headline of an article from the July 15, 2007 edition of the Sunday Times UK. Although decidedly left winged, it is an honest question that must play on the minds of people the world over as they hear the constant drone of defeatism and pessimism coming from our country today.
From several corners we hear the constant drone of the War is Lost, Bush’s reinforcement isn’t working, the war has been incompetently managed, the Iraqi’s don’t want Democracy, it is a civil war, we have no business being there, withdraw the Troops now and let the Iraqis solve their own problems, and so on. There is no end to the pessimism we and the rest of the world is hearing.
From what I hear, the majority of our Troops have the will, so it is the American Public, once again, that must not be supporting the Troops. I say again because we have heard this leftist rhetoric before. It is nothing new.
Bear with me, if you will, as I quote a prominent anti-war public figure in a speech just before we went to war,
“There are many viewpoints from which the issues of this war can be argued. Some are primarily idealistic. Some are primarily practical. One should, I believe, strive for a balance of both. But, since the issues that can be covered in a single address are limited, tonight I shall discuss the war from a viewpoint which is primarily practical. It is not that I believe ideals are unimportant, even among the realities of war; but if a nation is to survive in a hostile world, its ideals must be backed by the hard logic of military practicability.”
“It is not only our right, but it is our obligation as American citizens to look at this war objectively, and to weigh our chances for success if we should enter it.”
“Our Army is still untrained and inadequately equipped for foreign war.”
“But everything I mention here has been published in our newspapers, and in the reports of congressional hearings in Washington. Our military position is well known to the governments of Europe and Asia. Why, then, should it not be brought to the attention of our own people?”
“There is no better way to give comfort to an enemy than to divide the people of a nation over the issue of foreign war. There is no shorter road to defeat than by entering a war with inadequate preparation.”
“While we should have been concentrating on American defense, we have been forced to argue over foreign quarrels. We must turn our eyes and our faith back to our own country before it is too late. And when we do this, a different vista opens before us.”
“War is not inevitable for this country. Such a claim is defeatism on the true sense. No one can make us fight abroad unless we ourselves are willing to do so... Over a hundred million people in this nation are opposed to entering the war. If the principles of democracy mean anything at all, that is reason enough for us to stay out. If we are forced into a war against the wishes of an overwhelming majority of our people, we will have proved democracy such a failure at home that there will be little use fighting for it abroad.”
“The time has come when those of us who believe in an independent American destiny must band together and organize for strength. We have been led toward war by a minority of our people. This minority has power. It has influence. It has a loud voice. But it does not represent the American people.”
“Whether or not we do enter the war rests upon the shoulders of you in this audience, upon us here on this platform, upon meetings of this kind that are being held by Americans in every section of the United States today. It depends upon the action we take, and the courage we show at this time.”
Although the words are eerily familiar with what we hear today and heard from those who opposed our action in support of the South Vietnamese years ago, John Kerry, Sean Penn, Jane Fonda or any of the rest of today’s well-known critics did not speak these. No, they were spoken on April 23, 1941 by Charles Lindbergh, Aviation Pioneer and hero.
America was solidly opposed to our entry into “Europe’s War” and the America First Committee propelled Lindbergh to the front of their effort due to his popularity and notoriety. People listened to him and took his words to heart in supporting the U.S. to remain out of “Europe’s War.” That is, until December 7, 1941 when we came under a vicious attack from Japan at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, with Germany declaring war on us shortly after.
During the war, Lindbergh, who was refused reentry into the Army Air Corps by then President Roosevelt, traveled to the Pacific theater to support our Aviators fighting the Japanese, at times flying in missions against the Japanese himself, being credited with shooting down a Japanese Fighter.
Looking back at history, we can see just how wrong Lindbergh was before we entered WW2, late.
Had his anti-war actions continued and had the media supported him instead of Roosevelt, could we have read an article back then titled, “Has America Lost The Will To Win?” I think it very likely.
The Journalists that wrote the Sunday Times article are as wrong as Lindbergh was in 1941 as in the article, they answer their own question in a positive. There is a considerable number in the country solidly opposed to this war, opting for negotiations and a peaceful resolution, who I feel never had the will to win this war in the first place.
Others who were opposed to this war have begun to see the reality of remaining and completing the mission laid out for us in Iraq. One prominent critic is Democrat Representative of Washington State, Brian Baird, who now says an early departure from the war is bad for Iraq. A welcome change that he arrived at after traveling to Iraq and speaking with not only our Commanders there, but with Diplomatic Officers and our Troops as well.
In another article by one of the same Journalists that wrote the subject article of this essay for the Sunday Time, we se another rude headline of Americans doubt General Betraeus over troop surge. Ms. Baxter, his name is “Petraeus,” not “Betraeus” as she so rudely plays with his name to sound like “betray us.”
Of course, this is just a preemptive condemnation of the report General Petraeus is to give to the President and Congress on September 15. Apparently even the anti-war left expects to hear some good news about the war, so they must preemptively counter it before it is even given.
It makes me wonder just why they fear good news of the wars progress?
Returning to the original article, one assertion is made that is sadly true to all too many cases. That being, “After billions of dollars and thousands of lives expended, America, it seems, is back where it started on the eve of September 11, 2001.”
What the authors ignore and neglect to mention is that their own culpability in the constant drone of defeatism and opposition to countering and ending the worldwide scurge of terrorism has been essential to the publics lack of support and complacency about this war.
Returning to after the fall of Saigon, the North Vietnamese Officer who accepted the surrender of Saigon, Colonel Bui Tin, was interviewd after he became disillusioned with the Communist government he helped instill, and asked, “Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?”
He answered, “It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.” (Wall Street Journal, Thursday August 3, 1995)
History records that millions of innocent people were slaughtered in the countries of Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos, after we abandoned those people.
History records that some 12 million innocent people were systematically killed by the Nazi regime of Adolph Hitler, many during the time we preached appeasement and negotiations to end the coming war, as Charles Lindbergh did.
History shows that Saddam Hussein’s Baathist Party slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens that opposed him, many after we left the first Gulf War, Desert Storm unfinished by leaving Saddam Hussein in power.
Abandoning the fight now will just be another repeat of the slaughters we have seen time and time again, this time even worse, as it is misguided religious zealots who believe that God has granted them the right to rule the entire world.
In answer to the initial question asked in the article, “Has America Lost the Will To Win,” this ornery old Viet Nam Veteran says “Hell No!” This fight must be won!
Spineless politicians must be turned out in the 2008 elections. The anti-war left must be ignored and minimized, even if it means media sources go bankrupt.
To quote an historical American, “We have not yet begun to fight!”
Posted by Lew Waters at 9:17 PM
Thursday, August 16, 2007
August 16, 2007
American history is replete with examples of the best candidate for political office not being chosen. Our history also shows several examples of candidates thought sure to be losing actually winning, once the votes are counted. In the case of the former, we have been strapped with less qualified candidates obtaining office and giving us a lackluster performance or scandalous conduct, dragging the country through the mud of their less than honorable performance while in office. Some have even ended up in jail or resigning office amid scandal.
The highest office in the land and in the free world is no exception to this. We saw one President forced into a shameful resignation and castigated ever since as poor and corrupt person. We saw one impeached by the House of Representatives over scandalous conduct and corruption, but whom the media loved and now see as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
The former ended a very unpopular war and opened trade with a former enemy and was re-elected in the one of the largest landslide victories in American history. The latter really doesn’t have much of list of major accomplishments, but is lauded as a great President.
In the case of the latter, his wife, the former first lady, became a U.S. Senator and is currently running for the highest office herself. Such is the admiration of the media towards this couple that she is given glowing coverage in the media, although she too cannot point to anything specific in her record that would qualify her.
Running against her for her party’s nomination is a young first term Senator that also has no experience and no real record for us to compare, but who is also receiving glowing accolades from the media.
From the other party we have some this same media seems to at least somewhat adore, after spending the last 6 ½ years blasting and condemning the current holder of the office all are seeking and from the same party. Of those we have a former governor who oversaw the legalization of Gay Marriage within his state and who now says he has always been against abortion. This one also seems to offer lackluster support for the War on Terror. He recently won a straw poll after flooding the area with massive amounts of money; some saying his win amounted to about $800 per vote.
We also have a former Mayor who is credited with performing admirably during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This one has a background of opposing our Second Amendment rights to bear arms. He also seems to have suddenly become strongly opposed to illegal immigrant rights.
A third candidate is a U.S. Senator who is known for being a “maverick” and who has time and time again undermined the desires of the current President, in hopes of appearing to be the great compromiser.
All three suddenly seem to brag about their conservative values but have little history of it. At best, I would say they are moderates.
Of all the candidates of both party’s, only one has a history of being The Most Consistent Candidate, Duncan Hunter. In viewing conservative forums and speaking with others, I hear comments of, “Who is he?” “If there was ever anything I’d like to be proven wrong on, it’s my opinion that Hunter’s going nowhere. He’s a good man.” “I am all for Duncan Hunter, BUT - he doesn't have the recognition that he needs, or deserves.” “I like Hunter, I just don’t see him going anywhere.” “The only thing I have against Hunter at this point is that he can’t win.” “Supporting Hunter is a noble cause, but it's also a rapidly dying one.” “He is my favorite candidate. I anxiously await for him to make a move.”
Nearly all agree that he is hands down the best conservative and most consistent in his record. Yet, he has little support among most conservatives at this time. I find it ironic that so many agree that he is the best qualified candidate but are waiting for him to do something to gain notoriety within the media, the very same media that is gushing accolades about the opposition candidates and moderates.
Once was the time that we conservatives didn’t rely on a heavily biased media to inform us of who is the best for us. Once, we told them who we wanted based on the candidates record and current stance on the issues. As the media condemned or ignored our choice, we bypassed them and spread the word of who was the best bet for America.
Today, we have the internet that makes the spreading of support for a man like Duncan Hunter even easier than we did years ago. Yet, we have a significant number of those who say they want to support Hunter, but don’t see him doing well in polls conducted by what I have come to call the Hillary supporting media.
Can you not see the disparity of waiting for a good man to receive accolades from them when it is obvious that they want for either their choice to win or someone who will follow the lead of their first choice, whose college thesis was a glowing account of a Socialist radical, Saul Alinsky?
This is the same media that tried to force a left-winged Senator on us last time that is best known for spreading lies about those of us who served in the Viet Nam War. This is the same media that broadcast fabricated “document” about the current Commander in Chief and who embarrassingly had to withdraw the document, costing one well known Journalist to lose his job, even though reluctantly.
Yet, nearly everywhere word is spread of a great candidate like Duncan Hunter, we still hear, “who?” “He can’t win.” “He has no support.”
Well, you are wrong. He does have support and as his message is spread, his support is growing, even if slowly. People are waking up to the manipulations of a biased Hillary Supporting media and are beginning to ignore them. People are watching Hunter’s message spread and are seeing they don’t need to wait for a biased media to tell them who is best for America. They know who is the best candidate and are joining many others in bypassing the media again and are spreading the word of Hunter to friends, over the internet, in phone calls, bumper stickers and yard signs.
He has a good chance of gaining the GOP nod for President, but not unless his support and donations grow. He can do it, if we give him the tools.
These times we live in are too perilous to allow another faulty candidate the biased media adores occupying the White House. We cannot continue allowing them to make our choices for us. We have too many examples of mediocre people who became popular and accomplished little or nothing for the good of America.
The next time you read of Hunter and are about to say “he is great, but,” think twice and ask yourself, “Why am I not supporting Duncan Hunter.” If you find yourself agreeing with his platform and ideas, stop waiting. Get behind him and let’s make America the great country we all know she is.
If you like what he says and stands for, WHY AREN’T YOU SUPPORTING DUNCAN HUNTER?
UPDATE: Another Hunter Supporter lists his qualifications and wonders where is the GOP support for one whose records is what they say they want. Duncan Hunter Doesn't Match GOP Shallow Boomer Values
Posted by Lew Waters at 8:30 PM
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
August 14, 2007
First, we had John ‘F’in Kerry, freshly home from his extremely abbreviated tour in Viet Nam and embroiled in anti-war movement, “testifying” before the Fulbright Commission with his call of, “They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war….,” followed by, “The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence…..,” ending with, “there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America…..”
In 1971, when Kerry told these fabrications of stories from mostly non-Veterans he associated with and had “testify” in the bogus “Winter Soldier Investigation followed by a very public chucking of what was claimed to be his medals earned combat, one could be left thinking that he wanted nothing to do with the Military any longer.
In fact, seeing those of us served in Viet Nam referred to as “Murderers” and “Monsters” leaves me feeling that he held much disdain for the Military. Not so, according to him, as he accepted the nod for the 2004 Democrat candidate for President with his I’m John Kerry and I’m Reporting For Duty, complete with medals he once claimed to throw away.
All through the campaign he declared his undying Support for the Troops. Maybe that is why I was taken aback when he later stated on CBS’s Face The Nation in December 2005, "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs…"
Of course, seeing what he really felt of the Troops, it was no surprise when, just before the 2006 elections, he said at Pasadena City College, “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.”
Indignant that true supporters of the Troops, Veterans and Active Duty Military took offense at this, he first stated, “Let me make it crystal clear, as crystal clear as I know how: I apologize to no one for my criticism of the president and of his broken policy,” followed a few days later by, “I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended,” now categorizing the comment as merely a “botched joke.”
If you believe those must be isolated incidents, read on.
In a 1969 letter written to Colonel Eugene Holmes, Commander of the University of Arkansas ROTC unit that former Democrat President, B.J. Clinton used to dodge the draft, the 23 year old Clinton said, “I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give.”
Apologists for the Clinton presidency claim he was only speaking of what others felt, but they neglect the very next sentence of that letter where he adds, “To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal.”
Clearly, young B.J. Clinton included himself in those “Loathing” the Military.
During the Clinton administration, it was reported by an Air Force Aid to the President, that former first lady, current New York Senator and candidate for president herself, Hillary tried to ban the wearing of Military Uniforms within the White House, that she had Marines in Dress Blues serving cheese and crackers to White House “guests,” and she and her aids showed rudeness often to members of the Military on the White House staff, one reportedly once saying, “We don't talk to people in military uniforms in this office.” Senator Clinton denies all of the reports.
However, she did cast a vote of NO on funding the Troops in harms way this past May.
Yet another example of the Support shown the Troops, we need only look back at the words of Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois, who, after reading off a long list of abuses against detainees at Guantanamo Bay said, “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have happened by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”
I fail to see how comparing our brave Troops to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others … with no concern for human beings” is supportive of our Troops.
After coming under fire for these comments from several angles for more than a week, he stated, “More than most people, a senator lives by his words ... occasionally words fail us, occasionally we will fail words. I am sorry if anything I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy. I am also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military. ... I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apology.”
Had he thought about what he decided to say instead of just launching into the reading of his prepared comments, he wouldn’t have needed to apologize on the Senate Floor.
Near the top of the Democrats Hall of Shame in showing Support for our Troops would be former vice-president Al Gores actions in desperatly trying to deny Military Absentee Ballots be counted due to technicalities as he was demnding "every vote should be counted." I guess that is for everyone except our Brave Troops serving overseas where the Clinton/Gore administration had sent them.
We cannot forget the many gaffs of Representative and ex-Marine, Jack Murtha, from Pennsylvania. He said of our Troops, "They've been there too long. We have to bring them home before they kill more babies." As word of the alleged massacre in Haditha came out, he blurted out, “"there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”
Being accused of killing babies and murdering in cold blood isn’t what I see as ‘supportive.’
After referring to our Troops in Iraq as “the enemy” in Iraq, he was asked in another interview "Would you join (the military) today?" He replied, “NO!” The interviewer continued with, "And I think you're saying the average guy out there who's considering recruitment is justified in saying 'I don't want to serve'," to which Murtha replied, "Exactly right!"
Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts said of the Abu Ghraib scandal, "On March 19, 2004, President Bush asked, 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?’ Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."
Does the senior Senator forget that is out Troops in charge of that prison and that the handful that mistreated Iraq prisoners were prosecuted? Regardless, he accuses the Troops of torturing when the mistreatment, wrong as it was, amounted to little more than college hazing incidents, mostly.
As our Troops were in need of reinforcements, Kennedy introduced legislation denying any funds for our Troops to be reinforced as President Bush was preparing to send them in. It was defeated.
As if those aren’t enough, and I’m sure there are several more out there, we now have the junior Senator from Illinois and also presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, as he tries to justify his call for abandonment of the Iraq theater of the War on Terror, after saying he would attack an ally, Pakistan, should their leadership not act in the manner he felt was appropriate, should some intelligence say Osama Bin Laden were there, calling on more Troops to Afghanistan saying, "We've got to get the job done there (Afghanistan) and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."
Once again, we have a Democrat adding his demeaning words against our Brave Troops who placed themselves between our enemies and us.
More pitiful than that is the work of Newsvine.com as they justify Obama’s claim by saying it is true that “WESTERN” forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents have been killing civilians.
In this spin effort they slyly mention “WESTERN” forces instead of the “TROOPS” Obama was speaking of. Very disingenuous, I’d say.
If this is what the Democrats feel is ‘supportive’ of our Troops in harm’s way, I’d hate to see what they feel would be considered bashing the Troops.
Posted by Lew Waters at 8:49 PM