The Travesty In The Pentagon

Please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces standing in harm’s way around the world, and for their families, especially those of our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen, who have died in defense of American liberty while prosecuting the war with Jihadistan, and while you are praying, pray for US!

The recent sacrifice of Stephen Coughlin by the political correctness "police" of the Pentagon, for being to critical of the radical Muslims is an incident that should elicit shivers up and down the spine of any American who remembers 9/11/2001.
Technically he was not fired, but the man who is considered the most knowledgeable expert on radical Islam, did not have his contract renewed.
The injustice of this action has made a mockery of the recent statement made by US military chief Admiral Michael Mullen, who when asked about the situation in Pakistan said: "We know about al-Qaeda in Pakistan, we know it is having a significant impact, not just in Afghanistan, but certainly there are concerns about how much they have turned inward inside Pakistan. I am extremely concerned about this," he told a press conference. So concerned, he allowed the dismissal of the one man who knows more about al-Qaeda than anyone left on his staff. I wonder if his concern includes the infiltration by al-Qaeda here in the United States as well?

I have said it before and written it many times, but it needs to be shouted from the roof tops! We are letting our freedom be subverted by those who would destroy us. Kruscheff was right when he said we don't have to beat you on the battle field, we can defeat you from within!

Even the Democrat candidates for President refused to comment on the Islamic threat when prompted in the recent debate.None of the four Democrat presidential candidates — despite running for an office that demands they lead the ongoing global war against Islamic extremists — could bring himself or herself to define the enemy we face is Islamic.

The Republican candidates , on the other hand, called the enemy by its proper name.
The candidates referred to terrorists and terrorism as "Islamic," while also citing radical "Islam" as the problem, no less than 22 times.

Fred Thompson asserted, "We are in a global war with radical Islam. They declared war on us a long, long time ago. We took note, really, for the first time on Sept. 11, 2001."

The Republicans seem to get it. Democrats don't. They talked a lot about "fighting" — fighting insurance companies and big business and Wall Street and polluters. But will they fight the real enemy — Islamic terrorists?
To hear the Democrats in their debate, you'd think Islamic radicals had stopped plotting new attacks against us and scheming new ways of killing us.

WE allowed the secularist humanists to "kick" God out of our schools, public buildings, an WE stood by silently when the Supreme Court perverted the Constitution to allow the killing of unborn babies in the name of "free Choice". What choice, and whose choice I ask?
We have allowed many of the basic principals of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to be subverted in the name of "PC" and diversity. Will we give up our freedom completely by sitting on the fence of political correctness while organisations like CAIR and ACLU subvert our basic right of free speech?

Truth Is a Stranger To Hillary Clinton

There are some basic truths that describe the condition that we find ourselves and the Country in today.

The first is we are at war with World wide Radical lslam.A war that will probably last for years to defeat an enemy who has stated they want to destroy us!

The second is despite the relatively small number of home foreclosures. To date, approximately 500,000 of those sub prime borrowers have lost their homes to foreclosures. An additional 1.8 million are likely to follow as the market deteriorates. That’s nearly 2.4 million lost homes.

But compared with the number of total households in the USA, 111,269,000 in 2007, of which 67% were owned. It is evident that despite the painful experience for those who loose their homes. It is not a big National problem. Many of the people involved are second time home owners who over reached their financial capacity by buying a second house that cost more than they could afford!



The Third Truth is Social Security is the single largest federal program, and it is going broke. In 2004, the Social Security system took in $569 billion in tax revenue and paid out $493 billion in benefits. The program provided benefits to more than 47 million people--about two-thirds of them retired workers and the rest disabled workers, survivors of deceased workers, workers' spouses, and minor children.
Although today the program takes in more revenue than it spends, that situation will not continue once large numbers of baby boomers begin claiming retirement benefits. In coming years, the Social Security system will face mounting financial pressures as its outlays start to grow much faster than its revenue. CBO projects that scheduled Social Security outlays (those implied by the current benefit formula) will rise from 4.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) this year to 6.5 percent in 2050. Revenue, however, is scheduled to remain at 4.9 percent of GDP. This is the third basic truth, Social Security is going broke!
And yet, candidate Hillary Clinton seems to ignore the Basic truths and promise if elected she will spend 70 billion dollars on what this blogger believes are nothing more than an extension of the Federal Governments rush to bankruptcy or massive tax increases.

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton on Friday proposed a $70 billion emergency spending package and possibly another $40 billion tax rebate to counter what she sees as a coming recession, according to the New York Times.
“I have been looking at the latest unemployment numbers, and I really think it is imperative that we start to move to help people dealing with the housing market and give the country a jolt of confidence in the economy,”(aka more welfare at taxpayers peril) the senator from New York told the Times.
Clinton’s plan would provide $30 billion for an emergency housing crisis fund for states to help low-income families unable to make mortgage payments; $25 billion to help low-income families pay heating bills this winter; $10 billion to extend unemployment insurance for people unable to find jobs; and $5 billion for alternative energy programs, the Times said.
The $40 billion tax rebate would be enacted later if economic conditions worsen.
Clinton told the newspaper she “absolutely” believed it was possible for Democrats in Congress to work with US President George W. Bush to enact a stimulus package early this year. The US presidential election does not come until November and the new president would take over a year from now.
But President Bush has said any stimulus he is considering would most likely focus on tax cuts rather than spending.

The more I hear from Clinton, Obama and Edwards the more I think I am hearing a speech from the famous Socialist of the past, Karl Marx. But even he wasn't advocating the "genocide"of partial birth abortion!

Hollywood's New Matinee Idol Examined

The Hollywood elitists appear to have chosen their new Matinee Idol, Barrack Obama. The rich and "beautiful" of the celluloid screen helped push Bill Clinton into the Oval Office. Until the Iowa caucus it seemed their favorite was Bill's wife Hillary. But in all fairy tales the story has shifted a bit.

Yesterday the Hollywood mogul known for his lavish parties for Bill Clinton's campaign,David Geffen,endorsed Obama. His reasons were as follows:

He essentially said Hillary was unelectable. But he went further: he called her "incredibly polarising" before turning on her husband.Calling him "a reckless guy", who had given his enemies ample stout sticks with which to beat him, he even suggested Bill Clinton's personal habits would yet damage his wife's campaign, hinting at further skeletons in the cupboard. Referring to the couple, Geffen added: "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."

Their are lies, liars and politicians who use semantics and double speak to convince voters to pull the lever opposite their name on election day.

The candidate in this election cyle who has thus far demonstrated the ability to sway voters with semantics and catchy slogans but little substance, is Senator Obama.

The junior Senator from Illinois has little to show for his two years in the U.S. Senate other than his votes against providing more money for the troops fighting radical Islam in Iraq.

He is using as his slogan for his campaign " Change We Can Believe In."

But what kind of change, does he envision much less promise to accomplish if he were to be elected President? Obama has voiced essentially the same positions that the top three Democrats running have itterated. Abortion on demand, withdrawal from Iraq, ebryonic cell research sponsored by government money, gun control, larger taxes, repeal of Bush's tax cuts and bigger government.

From this Socialist, secularist position how will he affect a change in Washington that will lead to better protection for US and make life better for the rapidly vanishing middle class?

This candidate is handsome, erudite and appealing to the young. Those who always think they can make the World a better place than their parents did. Maybe they can, but to do so One must have a plan or at least an outline of what he/she will do to affect the change.

So far all Obama has shown us is his anti-war sentiments, and with the situation in Iraq looking better each month you don't hear many Democrats talking about Iraq on the "stump".

With the Iranian situation becoming each day more threatening. I would hope Americans would not vote for a man who has said publicly that his way of dealing with Islamic terrorists is by negotiation, not by force of arms to defeat them!

This is not Mister or Miss America we will elect in November. The beauty contest is a far cry from electing the head of the Free World !

Billionaire And Who's Behind Bloomberg Movement

For the last few days articles have appeared in the newspapers and on the Web speculating about a Michael Bloomberg Presidential campaign as a third party candidate.

Mr Bloomberg’s wealth has been estimated at as much as $13billion. With a potential war chest of $1billion, he can afford to run at any time with little contribution from the public. Bloomberg, quit the Democratic and Republican parties when he entered politics, and is now an independent.

He has called for an end to partisanship.Which sounds good, but in my opinion will never ever happen again in American politics. His positions on issues such as immigration, gun control and trade would be appear to be the big issues of his campaign.

Not only does Mr. Bloombeg have no experience in Foreign affairs, and is little known outside of the North East. The group that is behind the campaign to get him to play the role of "spoiler"includes some interesting people. This group has been referred to as "moderates", but I think this blog will show they are anything but moderate!

To lead off the group who reporters call moderates is the notorious Gary Hart of the "Monkey Business" trip to the Bahamas with Donna Rice during his run for President.
The Miami Herald obtained photographs of Hart aboard the Monkey Business with then-29-year-old model Donna Rice, sitting in over-50 year-old Hart's lap. The photographs were subsequently published in the National Enquirer. On May 8, 1987, a week after the Donna Rice story broke, Hart dropped out of the race.

Then there is ex-Senator Danforth who as a mainline Episcopal priest, retired U.S. senator and diplomat,worships a humbler God and considers "the Christian Right's certainty a sin".He had the following to say in March of 2005.

"Legislating against gay marriage, for instance? "It's just cussedness." As he sees it, "when we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so".
He also said: "We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.
Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals".

William Cohen is another of Bloombergs supporters. In commenting on the QDR,(Quadrenial Sefense Review).

Cohen stated that the Pentagon would retain the two regional wars scenario adopted after the end of the Cold War.However, he decided to scale back purchases of jet fighters, including the Air Force's F-22 and the Navy's F/A-18E/F, as well as Navy surface ships. The review included cutting another 61,700 active duty service members, 15,000 in the Army, 26,900 in the Air Force, 18,000 in the Navy, and 1,800 in the Marine Corps, as well as 54,000 reserve forces, mainly in the Army National Guard, and some 80,000 civilians department-wide. Cohen also decided to recommend two more rounds of base closings in 1999 and 2001. Sounds like a liberal not a moderate position to me. As a result when President Bush took over as the Commander in Chief, he inherited a weakened military.

Ex-Sentor Bob Graham, also is supporting the Mayor of New York as a Presidential candidate. He is remembered by this blogger for his Mea culpa in the Washington Post after he left the Senate in which he concluded: "From my advantaged position, I had earlier concluded that a war with Iraq would be a distraction from the successful and expeditious completion of our aims in Afghanistan. Now I had come to question whether the White House was telling the truth -- or even had an interest in knowing the truth.
On Oct. 11, I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptier. Most of my colleagues could not."
The writer is a former Democratic senator from Florida. He was a fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics when he wrote the column. Perhaps his position at Harvard colored his opinion, although he based his oposition to the Iraq invasion based upon:"As to Hussein's will to use whatever weapons he might have, the estimate indicated he would not do so unless he was first attacked."Sounds like the position of all Democrats now in the race to me.

Obama's Using Wife For Tough Issues

Although it is early in the campaign for the Presidential nomination. It appears The Barrack Hussein Obama has decided to use his wife to address issues that he doesn't want to go on record as being for or against.
Michelle Obama appears to be the "point" women used to go to Black schools and Churches, and try to convince those in attendance to drop their support for Hillary Clinton. She has appeared at numerous all Black meetings where her main message is "wake up and support one of your own."
She appears to be the "in your face" person bringing the message to the Black Community. This approach has been chided by some Black leaders as being duplicitous, and could backfire.

Mrs Obama serves as roaming ambassador for African-American audiences, Mrs. Obama is one of their own, with a more familiar background than that of her husband. At a black church in Cincinnati last week, the audience hummed approval throughout her speech.


Michelle Obama, said "Black America will wake up and get it" in an interview running on MSNBC.
In a clip that's featured in one segment, Michelle Obama invoked the name of civil rights leaders Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. when talking about African-American turnout, a crucial voting bloc for the Illinois senator.
She said:
"The legacy of slavery and racism is that a large number of African-Americans do not believe that they are able to succeed in the world. Not that they lack the capacity to succeed, but they simply do not believe that it will be possible because they still believe they will not be given the opportunity".
Many will point out that all candidates have their spouses out on the campaign trail drumming up votes for their spouse. This is true, but none other than Michelle Obama is playing the race card!

Mr Obama's refusal to wear one of Mr Bush's omnipresent American flag pin, which the senator called a substitute for real patriotism has attracted some voters, but makes me wonder if he were elected would he have more respect for Our flag?
Because the junior senator from Illinois has no achievements at all in foreign relations, very little accomplishments in national politics, and no significant achievements while in Illinois politics. He hasn't done anything, so they have to come up with nonsensical, or Racial reasons to vote for him. Where are his plans for dealing with illegal aliens, radical Muslims, Irans nuclear threat, Russia's saber rattling, fixing our weak dollar? He says nothing concrete. Just elect me for a new begining, and just what will that be?

In addition to the many reasons listed above, not to vote for Obama, there is his alleged ties to Tony Rezko, his membership in a church many consider racist, his acceptance of genocide as a possible cost of a too early withdrawal from Iraq.
The record shows a troubling deal with a shadowy figure in the Chicago area. The following is a brief description of his dealings with this man.

In June 2005, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels in Kenwood. The state's junior senator paid $1.65 million for a Georgian revival mansion, while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day.
Sen. Barack Obama says he regrets purchasing land from politcal fundraiser Antoin Rezko.(AP)
Last January, aiming to increase the size of his side yard, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for a strip of his land.
The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known Tony Rezko was under investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and as other Illinois politicians befriended by Rezko distanced themselves from him.
The land deal came up in a court hearing that delved into Rezko's finances. Obama said he has not been approached by federal prosecutors about the transaction nor has plans to go to them about it.
Obama and Rezko have been friends since 1990, and Obama said the Wilmette businessman raised as much as $60,000 for him during his political career. After Rezko's indictment, Obama donated $11,500 to charity--a total that represents what Rezko contributed to the senator's federal campaign fund.
The reason I would never vote for Obam is that Obama has been opposed to any military action in Iraq since the days he was in the Illinois State Legislature.His speeches on the campaign trail have included demands for immediate withdrawal, and statements that indicate we were led into the war by President Bush's duplicity. This is a common theme for all Democrat Presidential aspirants, but the "johnny come lately" with Muslim roots is in direct odds with ex-President Clinton who strongly said their was a threat in Iraq for WMD.


President Bill Clinton, during his second term, warned Congress of Saddam Hussein's pursuit of nuclear weapons:
"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again."