Saturday, September 01, 2007

WE COULD BE SPEAKING GERMAN OR JAPANESE




There is no doubt in my mind that if we had such an unpatriotic Congress and a Press supporting the "defeatists" during World War II, we would now be speaking German or Japanese. Perhaps, the West Coast would be Occupied by the Japanese and the East and Middle West by the Germans. With the Russians knocking on he door.

The negativism exhibited by the Socialist Press and the power hungry Democrats toward the Presidents campaign against Muslim evtremists would never have been tolerated during the Bloodiest Campaigns since the Civil War.

The Press and "fellow travelers"like Reid, Pelosi, Durbin and Murtha would have been ostracised if not jailed, if they spoke such disparaging words about a war effort that was in doubt from the day the combined forces under Eisenhower invaded Normandy, and at the same time MacArthur was leading the bloody slaughter toward Japan.

Compared to the losses in Iraq WWII was disaster of extreme proportions, but we won and tyrannical forces were defeated because we all stood together.

From the Normandy invasion on June 6th, 1944 to the of August we had 29,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 29,000 missing or wounded, and it got worse as the battles went on. In the battle of the Bulge we lost 19,276 killed in action between December 16th and January 10 thth of 1945, and a total of 89,987 killed missing or wounded.

In the Pacific the invasion of Tarawa 1.001 marines were killed in three days(11/20-11/23.1944). The battle for Saipan to establish an air base to bomb Japan into submission there were 3,426 killed and 13,160 wounded between June15,1944 and July 9,1944.

The battle that got the most media attention and turned into a war bond raising tour was fought 650 miles south of Tokyo during February and March of 1945. This battle resulted in the KIA of 8,86 marines and 19,189 wounded.
These five battles alone cost over 83,700 lives of Americans in uniform, but you didn't read or hear one peep from Congress about quitting!

The Germans didn't even attack us, but we went to war to rid the World of the Tyrant Hitler, and everyone including the Media stood behing the war effort. Japan made the mistake of bombing Pearl Harbor, and awakened a "sleeping giant". This is what we Americans were before the transplanted Communists and their willing accomplices began to support our enemies in Korea and then Vietnam.

Now they are at it in full force. They have the minds of America fixated on the death total in Iraq. The amount of money spent there that could be spent on their welfare programs, and the duration of the war. All in a negative perspective. There is no patriotism in any of these people despite their protestations to the contrary. We did rid Iraq of a tyrant, but his followers still are fighting US.

In my mind there is no option for surrender in Iraq, and despite what the "peace" candidates and the press call withdrawal. Surrender is what we will be doing if we leave before we clean out the rats nest in Iraq. As in Vietnam, we are not using the full force of arms at our disposal, but are fighting the war on the enemies terms.

I know General Petraeus will not recommend it. Not a politically astute career military man like him, but if I were leading the battle for Iraq as I believe would General Patton. I would drop leaflets from high flying planes, giving the civilian population 3 days to get out. And then I would bomb the whole place back to the stone age. Eisenhower did this to all the German Major Cities, and Truman dropped the "Bomb' not once but twice, and now we can still speak English in most states.

Friday, August 31, 2007

Democrats Hope For Failure In Iraq




While campaigning in New Hampshire this week Presidential front runner for the Democrats revealed what most Liberals fear the most.
Their defeat by the Republicans in 2008, because of some unforeseen attack on the U.S. by terrorists.

Hillary had this to say:“It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again…”

This comment was immediately attacked by some of her Democratic rivals for the White House. Why? Because they don’t want the voters of America to be reminded that when it comes to terrorism, the Republican candidates are much more willing to do whatever it takes to protect the United States.

Senator Clinton isn't the only American to worry, about the possibility of another terrorist attack here at home. Vice Admiral (Ret) John Scott Redd, the Head of the National Counter terrorism Center, was granting an interview to Newsweek magazine in which he categorically stated that “We have very strong indicators that Al Qaeda is planning to attack the West.” When pressed on where, he continued, “Well, they would like to come West, and they would like to come as far West as they can.” Obviously, “as far West as they can,” would be the United States."

For all we know Iran already has a operative nuclear weapon. One that is often called "a suitcase bomb".The Iranians march toward nuclear weapon capability has even worried the new President of France.President Nicolas Sarkozy observed that Iran’s nuclear ambitions present “catastrophic” alternatives: “an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.” Both Messer’s Bush and Sarkozy are correct — though it may shock liberal Democrats to see the French standing side by side with the United States on an issue none of their candidates for president wants to talk about.(excerpt from col. Oliver North's article)

I have written about the safest place to be in the world at this time before. But I believe it needs to be addressed again at this important time in the future of this Great Country.

The safest place is right here in the USA, because the Islamist Terrorists know the Democrats and liberal "Rinos" in Congress are doing everything they can to assist the enemy in Iraq.Why would they "rock the boat" now?

The Democrats talk daily about withdrawing our troops, partitioning Iraq, and deny that there is any progress toward winning the battle for those in Iraq who want to live in a free Iraq.

The press, visual media and a great number of liberal blog sites bombard the American people every day with negative news about Iraq. The Left has already discounted as false and misleading the report that general Petaeus will give to Congress later this month.

Why, when things are going their way here in the political and media arena would they jeopardise the Democrats efforts to retake the White House?

The answer is they won't! We are safe until the Leftist fed American populace has made the mistake of handing over the White house to the "PC", secularist, anti-religion and weak on defense Party. The Democrats! Then when we are despised by the Iraqi whom we left to be massacred by the terrorists and taken over as a satellite of Iran. WE can expect all Hell to break loose!

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Another Reason Why Diplomacy is a Failure




The Left in the United States is enamored with the use of diplomacy to solve every problem. Iraq, illegal immigration, arms sales by Communist China, Russia, Iran and every other conflict between the USA must be solved by talking to the perpetrator.
The Left hates the strong approach of the use of our military , and have done their best to delay the building of a fence between our border with Mexico while the illegals daily, continue to pour across the border.

The latest example of the results of talking and "bribery" (NAFTA)by our Government is seen in the Press Release from the office of the President of Mexico. Despite all the talk while here in the U.S. about co-operating in the control of the flow of Mexican Nationals over the border into the U.S. Mr. Calderon,the President
of Mexico is shown meeting and sympathizing with Elvira Arellano.
Ms. Arellano entered the United States using a fake social security card. This is a crime in itself. She was caught and deported back to Mexico. Now she is pleading her case to the Mexican President who you will find in the quote below, has agreed to help this felon re-enter the United States via diplomatic channels.

The following appeared in The American Thinker today:President Calderón Receives Elvira Arellano
Tuesday, August 28 Press Release
Official Residence

"President Calderón received Elvira Arellano at the Official Los Pinos Residence today
During the conversation, the Mexican President listened carefully to Mrs. Arellano’s explanation of her current situation and her constant struggle to reunify migrant families.
The president offered Elvira Arellano all his sympathy regarding her compulsory separation from her son and offered her his support in this complex situation.
President Calderón ratified the priority his government places on the living conditions of Mexican migrants residing in the United States and repeated the need for an integral migratory reform in that country.
He also explained that his administration is working hard to create employment opportunities for Mexicans which, in the medium and long term, will enable a larger number of co-nationals to have opportunities for development in this country.
For her part, Mrs. Arellano asked the Mexican government to apply for a visa from the United States that will enable her to return to that country.
The Mexican president instructed Secretary of Foreign Affairs Ambassador Patricia Espinosa to order her department to undertake an analysis of the situation being faced by Mrs. Arellano and her son and to take the necessary steps with the US authorities to be able to respond to this request".

If this isn't an example of the failure to talk to people who either hate US or don't respect our Countries Laws and Sovereignty.

No politician running for the Presidency of the United States has declared that if elected they will deport all the illegals and build a fence or wall if needed to stop the hoards of illegals from coming across the border. They are to busy promising more "bread and butter" issues like National Health Insurance, more loans for college students, and the biggie. Immediately abandon the Iraq war against terrorism!

Pols have shown that border security goes hand in hand with the voting public desire for overall security for them and their children, but the "princely" representatives in Washington refuse to come together and solve this problem . They are too busy working on how to remain in their positions of wealth and power to consider the safety of the people who elected them.

This reminds me of Nero fiddling away as Rome burned! And unless we clean out the "rats nest" that is populated by the Leftist(both Democrat and Republican) in Congress, we too will go down as did The Roman empire. When the hordes of illegals grow so large they can dictate the policies and laws(possibly Sharia) that control our lives it will be too late!

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

The Pope And Michael Vick




The past twelve hours have been a period of intense mental strain for my sense of what as a Christian I believe is right and wrong.
No I don't question my ability to discern the difference. I am disturbed, however, by the apparent misunderstanding by those who write, report, blog and in many different ways deliver their views to the American public.

The first event that alerted my sense of the "tripe" that is being fed to us by the television media was during the ESPN Monday night football game.
The Show has been an award winning sports event for decades. But last night the announcers booth with Tony Kornheiser, Mike Tirico and "Jaws" Jaworski evolved into a plea to their audience to accept the apology of Michael Vick, and "let the recovery process begin".

As everyone knows by now Vick has pleaded guilty to bankrolling the dog fighting events held by him and a few of his fiends. They didn't mention that this star football player has been bankrolling this cruel and inhumane "sport" for the last seven years!

During these seven years there is no way to determine how many dogs died a violent death while Vick and his fiends watched, bet and enjoyed the spectacle.

Tony Kornheiser, paid 1.8 million dollars for his commentary on the show was the lead defender. His opinion was that since Michael Vick publicly apologised he should be allowed to return to football after he has served his sentence. A sentence delayed until December, for what reason? I would like to know.
This is a man who is a close friend of James Carville, and after his first appearance on Monday Night Football(8/15/05) was given a harsh review for his performance by Paul Farhi of the Washington Post. Kornheiser publicly called the critic " a two bit weasel slug"!He likes to dish it out, but don't criticise him!

Kornheiser is not the only "notable" coming to the defense of Vick. New York Nicks basketball star, Stepen Marbury said essentially whats wrong with dog fighting behind closed doors, they shoot deer and other animals don't they?

Boxer Roy Jones, jr. made the astounding defense based upon the fact that dogs by nature fight each other, so what's the big deal.

Football player Clinton Portis was quick to defend Vick as were author and activist Harry Edwards and ex-NFL player, Fox sport contributor and part time "rapper" Ray Buchanan. Buchanan made the news himself recently for cashing three checks in Miami with no funds to support the checks.

It is fine to say give a person a second chance, but what he did was a crime committed not once, but for seven years where gambling took place, and non-performing dogs were summarily killed.This is no ordinary crime. As you will recall serial killer Jeffrey Damler began by killing and torturing small animals before he moved on to young boys.

The second jolt to my sense of fair and unbalance/non-biased reporting occurred this morning when I read an article from Walter Williams, written for The Patriot Post.
Mr. Williams is a noted and respected Libertarian, sometimes Conservative Economist and Journalist.I enjoy reading most of his articles and books, but what provoked a man of "letters" to write an article attacking Pope Benedict XVI for an alleged statement that hasn't been published yet, baffles me.

The article excoriated the Pope for allegedly including in his second Encyclical that tax avoidance by using tax shelters is wrong.
The Encyclical hasn't even been published, but Mr. Williams wrote his article based upon an article written in the London Times. This is a rumor perpetuating a rumor, or at best hearsay being repeated. For good Journalism to exist the source should be valid and verifiable, not based upon rumors or leaks! Shame on you Walter Williams! Your animus to the Pope and Catholicism is showing.

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

AMERICA'S PARADOXICAL LEFT




In the "hay days" of Marxist/Leninism there was only one left. That which Lenin brought to Russia from Carl Marx in Germany, Communism. In Russia, beginning in 1917, you were a Communist party member if you were chosen to be one.If you were not a member of the Communist party. You obeyed their rules or you were sent to the Gulag or shot!

Today here in the USA we have two Lefts. The dupes of the Leftist philosophy who have bought into the Peace movement as a way to save the World, and the "hard-core" Marxist-Socialists found in every College and University, and unfortunately in the groups known for their wealth and success in every area of endeavor other than government.

Dennis Kucinich in the U.S. House of Representatives, George Soros, the Media and the mega-wealthy and the Hollywood elite represent the second Left in America. They hate everything about the way our Government is run today. Today President Bush is the "hate object", and they will stop at nothing to change our beloved Country to their "Utopian" way.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich has introduced House resolution 808, that has 60 co-sponsors. This bill if ever passed, would create a Cabinet level position of Secretary of Peace. The area of his/her responsibility would be to create an Academy of Peace with curriculum developed for primary and secondary schools that would be mandated for the teaching of the Peace Process. It would provide funding for grants to select professors and students who make this their area of study.

This sounds like a good idea. After all who wouldn't prefer Peace to War? But history tells us, if we would only listen, that the way to Peace is to be strong not weak! Carl von Clauswitz advised this over one hundred years ago. The Peace movement doesn't want this!

In the United States, the peace movement is preparing young students to become virulent haters of our nation.
The people running today’s peace studies programs give a good idea of the movement’s liberal, anti-American inclinations. The director of Purdue’s program is co editor of Marxism Today, a collection of essays extolling socialism; Brandeis’s peace studies chairman has justified suicide bombings; the program director at the University of Missouri authorized a mass e-mail urging students and faculty to boycott classes to protest the Iraq invasion…

...First and foremost, they (Peace Movement leaders) emphasize that the world’s great evil is capitalism—because it leads to imperialism, which in turn leads to war. The account of capitalism in David Barash and Charles Webel’s widely used 2002 textbook Peace and Conflict Studies leans heavily on Lenin, who “maintained that only revolution—not reform—could undo capitalism’s tendency toward imperialism and thence to war,” and on Galtung,the anointed Father of today's Peace Movement in 1959, who helpfully revised Lenin’s theories to account for America’s “indirect” imperialism. Students acquire a zero-sum picture of the world economy: if some countries and people are poor, it’s because others are rich. They’re taught that American wealth derives entirely from exploitation and that Americans, accordingly, are responsible for world poverty.

..."The Peace Movement" maintains that the Western world’s profound moral culpability, arising from its history of colonialism and economic exploitation, deprives it of any right to judge non-Western countries or individuals. Further, the non-West has suffered so much from exploitation that whatever offenses it commits are legitimate attempts to recapture dignity, obtain justice, and exact revenge.

It is this mind-set that leads peace professors to accuse the U.S. of “state terrorism,” to call George W. Bush “the world’s worst terrorist,” and even to characterize those murdered in the Twin Towers as oppressors who, by working at investment banks and brokerage houses, were ultimately responsible for their own deaths.

In their distorted view, it’s America that is the wellspring of the world’s problems. In the peace studies world, America’s role as the beacon of opportunity for generations of immigrants is mocked, its defense of freedom in World War II and the cold war is reinterpreted to its discredit, and every major postwar atrocity (the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution, genocide in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan) is ignored, minimized, or—as with 9/11—blamed on the U.S. itself." preceding courtesy of Bruce Bawer of "CityJournal website.

Galtung is in fact a lifelong enemy of freedom. In 1973, he thundered that “our time’s grotesque reality” was—no, not the Gulag or the Cultural Revolution, but rather the West’s “structural fascism.” He’s called America a “killer country,” accused it of “neo-fascist state terrorism,” and gleefully prophesied that it will soon follow Britain “into the graveyard of empires.”

Though Galtung has opined that the annihilation of Washington, D.C., would be a fair punishment for America’s arrogant view of itself as “a model for everyone else,” he’s long held up certain countries as worthy of emulation—among them Stalin’s USSR, whose economy, he predicted in 1953, would soon overtake the West’s. He’s also a fan of Castro’s Cuba, which he praised in 1972 for “break[ing] free of imperialism’s iron grip.” At least you can’t accuse Galtung of hiding his prejudices. In 1973, explaining world politics in a children’s newspaper, he described the U.S. and Western Europe as “rich, Western, Christian countries” that make war to secure materials and markets: “Such an economic system is called capitalism, and when it’s spread in this way to other countries it’s called imperialism.” In 1974, he sneered at the West’s fixation on “persecuted elite personages” such as Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov. Thirty years later, he compared the U.S. to Nazi Germany for bombing Kosovo and invading Afghanistan and Iraq. For Galtung, a war that liberates is no better than one that enslaves.

Galtung’s use of the word “peace” to legitimize totalitarianism is an old Communist tradition. In August 1939, when the Nazis and Soviets signed their nonaggression pact, the same Western Stalinists who had been calling for war against Germany did an about-face and began to praise peace. (After Hitler invaded Russia, the Stalinists reversed themselves again, demanding that the West help Stalin crush the Third Reich.), and President Roosevelt obliged them.
The peace talk, in short, was really about sympathizing with Communism, not peace. And it continued after the war, when Stalin’s Western supporters whitewashed his monstrous regime and denounced anti-Communists as warmongering crypto-fascists. “Peace conferences” and “friendship committees” drew hordes of liberal dupes, who didn’t grasp that their new “friends” were not ordinary Russians but the jailers of ordinary Russians—and that the committees were about not “friendship” but deception, exploitation, and espionage. And Communism is alive and flourishing here today.

If the image of tenured professors pushing such anti capitalist nonsense on privileged suburban kids sounds like a classic case of liberals’ throwing stones at their own houses,this will shock you. America’s leading Peace institution based upon it's endowment,is the University of Notre Dame’s Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies—endowed by and named for the widow of Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald’s, the ultimate symbol of evil corporate America. It was the Kroc Institute, by the way, that in 2004 invited Islamist scholar Tariq Ramadan to join its faculty, only to see him denied a U.S. visa on the grounds that he had defended terrorism.

Peace studies students also discover how to think in terms of “deep culture.” How to prevent war between, say, the U.S. and Saddam’s Iraq? Answer: examine each country’s deep culture—its key psychosocial traits, good and bad—to understand its motives. Americans, according to this bestiary, are warlike and money-obsessed; Iraqis are intensely religious and proud. Not surprisingly, the Peace Movement's summations of deep cultures skew against the West. The deep-culture approach also avoids calling tyrants or terrorists “evil”—for behind every atrocity, in this view, lies a legitimate grievance, which the peacemaker should locate so that all parties can meet at the negotiating table as moral equals.
Students learn to identify “insurgent” or “militant” groups with the populations they purport to represent. The recipes for peace that flow from such thinking seem designed not only to buttress oppression but to create more of it. For if democracies consistently followed the Peace Movements recommendations, what they’d eventually reap would be the kind of peace found today in Havana or Pyongyang.

Speaking at a memorial concert on the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, George Wolfe of Ball State University’s peace studies program suggested that we “reflect on what we as Americans may have done or not done, to invoke such extreme hatred.” The Kroc Institute’s David Cortright agrees: “We must ask ourselves . . . what the United States has done to incur such wrath.”

In short, it’s America that is the wellspring of the world’s problems. In the peace studies world, America’s role as the beacon of opportunity for generations of immigrants is mocked, its defense of freedom in World War II and the cold war is reinterpreted to its discredit, and every major postwar atrocity (the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution, genocide in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan) is ignored, minimized, or—as with 9/11—blamed on the U.S. itself.

A peace-oriented perspective condemns not only terrorist attacks but also any violent response to them.” How should democracies respond to aggression? Hold dialogue. Make concessions. Apologize. Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 capitulation to Hitler at Munich taught—or should have taught—that appeasement just puts off a final reckoning, giving an enemy time to gain strength. The foundation of the Peace Movement's success lies in forgetting this lesson. Peace studies students discover that the lesson of World War II is the evil of war itself and the need to prevent it by all possible means—which, of course, is exactly what Chamberlain thought he was doing in Munich. What they learn, in short, is the opposite of the war’s real lesson. In other words, if you want to ensure peace, worry less about freedom. Appease tyranny, accept it, embrace it—and there’ll be no more war.

That’s the Peace Movement's message in a nutshell—and students find themselves graded largely on their willingness to echo it. For while the peace professor argues that terrorist positions deserve respect at the negotiating table, he seldom tolerates alternative views in the classroom. Real education exposes students to a range of ideas and trains them to think critically about all orthodoxies. Peace studies, as a rule, rejects questioning of its own guiding ideology.

George Orwell would have understood the attraction of privileged young people to the Peace Racket. “Turn-the-other-cheek pacifism,” he observed in 1941, “only flourishes among the more prosperous classes, or among workers who have in some way escaped from their own class. The real working class . . . are never really pacifist, because their life teaches them something different. To abjure violence it is necessary to have no experience of it.” If so many young Americans have grown up insulated from the realities that Vegetius and Sun Tzu elucidated centuries ago, and are therefore easy marks for the Peace Racket, it’s thanks to the success of the very things the Peace Racket despises above all—American capitalism and American military preparedness.

What’s alarming is that these students don’t plan to spend their lives on some remote mountainside.contemplating peace, harmony, and human oneness. They want to remake our world. They plan to become politicians, diplomats, bureaucrats, journalists, lawyers, teachers, activists. They’ll bring to these positions all the mangled history and misbegotten ideology that their professors have handed down to them. Their careers will advance; the Peace Movements influence will spread as the USA becomes an effete feminist nation. And as it does, it will weaken freedom’s foundations.
Bloggers thanks to Thomas Brewton and Bruce Bower!

Monday, August 27, 2007

TERM LIMITS OR MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE




It doesn't require a rocket scientist to determine that the longer one holds a position of power, the more temptation he/she will be subject to by the "forces" of special interest.

Today we have a situation in the United States where a Republic that was formed by the founders of this Country has evolved into a government of special interests and power brokers.

The list is long, and affects both sides of the political spectrum. Democrats and Republicans come to Washington with promises still fresh from their election, but rapidly learn that to stay in this "wonderful" place of power, prestige and money they must "play ball".

Lobbyists with fists full of cash, and special interest groups court politicians from the day they arrive.The money starts to flow in from all special interest groups to aid the re-election that will be here before they learn the ropes. Herein lies the problem.

The framers of the Constitution envisioned a government run by the people through their elected representatives. They began as gentlemen farmers, slave owners some of them, but all part time politicians. No one was a full time politician, and that is what the framers of our Constitution intended.Until 1913 the Senators were chosen by each State Legislature. They also intended the Constitution to be a "rock solid" document. Not a "living Constitution", as it has become bastardized today, thanks to the Left leaning Supreme Court.

The Houses of Congress have become full time jobs for most of the Senators, and too many of the Members of the House of Representatives. An example of the longevity of the Senators is indicated by the fact that of the 100 Senators, 59 are 60 years old or older. Six Senators are over 80, led by Senator Byrd of W.Va. at 89. Nineteen are 70 or older. Even the College of Cardinals in Rome has an age maximum for voting in election of the Pope. It is 80.

It isn't "PC" to mention this, but there is no way people of such advanced age can relate to the 21-50 age group in America. The generation gap is just to great!Term limits would allow for "new blood" to enter the Federal Government.

But the worst threat to a peoples representative government, is the longer a person is in office the more comfortable he/she becomes with the "princely" life in Washington. They become a slave to their own comfort and power, and as such often are seduced by special interest money.

The argument has been made many times for term limits for all elected officials. The counter argument is that the folks back home can't afford to loose the power and position of the "senior" elected representative.

This stalemate has resulted in a public satisfaction rating of Congress of about 10% favorable and 90% unfavorable. This is the worst rating in the history of This Great Nation!

Even the President is limited to two 4 year terms in office. Roosevelt ,with his "Rasputin" like control over Congress during the WWII years, managed to serve part of a third term. There is no reason for the positions of Congress person or Senator to be a life time position.

There are those who will argue that my argument is specious, because they have to stand for reelection every two years in the House and every six in the Senate. But it is next to impossible to beat an incumbent with the "franking" privileges, and all the fund raising that goes on during his/her term in office.

The only way to return to a truly representative government is to have term limits and mandatory age retirement for elected officials.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

THE POT IS BOILING WHILE COOKS TAKE VACATION




Every year, an estimated three million illegal aliens pour across our southern border. Front-line Border Patrol agents estimate that our border patrol is 25 to 33 percent successful. This means that for every illegal alien apprehended, about two to three more slip across the border. What other business allows a 33 percent success rate? Certainly not doctors, contractors or cashiers. Why do we allow our federal government to do its job only a third of the time? As a sovereign nation, we must control our borders. We must ensure that terrorists cannot and do not infiltrate the United States to plot and carry out attacks against citizens. Apologists for illegals refuse to acknowledge the connection between terrorism and our lax immigration policies, despite the fact we know the 9/11 terrorists were here illegally.

The Sept. 11 hijackers used our own laws to enter the country, but remained in the country and violated their visas by staying when they expired. Only four years has passed since Sept. 11, 2001, but did we learn no lesson? We must be able to make sure our visitors abide by our rules and if they're participating in terror activity, we should deport them. It's common sense.
Intelligence tells us there are terrorists in the U.S.striving to recreate a massive tragedy like Sept. 11, 2001. They know our border security weaknesses, and are exploiting it to enter our own country - right now. This is because, the federal government instructs their agents to minimally enforce the law.

In 2003 the agents responsible for apprehending illegals in the workforce, arrested only 445 illegals. This lax enforcement costs American tax payers at least 10 billion dollars a year in benefits to illegals. Medicaid costs 2.5 billion a year, and an estimated one billion dollars goes out of the U.S. economy back over the border.

This Country accepts one million legal aliens each year since the 1990 Immigration Reform Act. The U.S. Census estimates that in addition to these legals, 8-11 million illegals reside in the U.S.

In 1995 during testimony before a Congressional Committee the following quote was uttered: "In closing, the testimony of the chairman of the Commission on Immigration Reform, the late Barbara Jordan, said "Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."
If only it was true!

WE are told by such great prognosticators as the Washington Post that deporting all 11 million illegals would take five years and cost 1.7% of the annual federal GDP. By calculations made by people smarter than me it shows that it would cost the average family, earning the medium family income of $43,527.00, $148.00. This is little more than it would cost to change the lock on your front door!

A Country with a GDP of 12 trillion dollars annually can afford the deportation. It is the people we trusted, and elected to Congress and the White House over the past 20 years who don't want to do what Americans want them to do. Secure the borders and deport all illegals, and begin now!

The debate, actually the battle,is between "national-community Americans" -- those who continue to believe in the idea of a separate, self-governed nation -- and those who have a "post-American" vision. The post-American vision is for (1) America's workers to be "allowed" to compete directly with every worker in the world who makes the effort to move to this country and for (2) the quality of life of a local community to be determined by global forces rather than by democratic self-determination.

The words in italics are courtesy of "NUMBERSUSA">

Friday, August 24, 2007

Why WE Can't Afford a Clinton In The White House




Although James Patterson, an eminent historian on American history, has written in the Oxford Series "that President Bill Clinton achieved very little during his eight years in office." It is the damage that the sixties generation darlings did while "they" were in office that should disqualify Hillary Clinton from ever becoming President or for that matter hold a position of power in the United States Senate.

No politician in many years has shown the brazenness and outright dereliction of duty as President as did Bill Clinton and His accomplice, Hillary.

The list of reprehensible actions caused or taken by the Clinton's is very long, and I won't attempt to write about them all.

It is important to remember that Hillary Clinton was no normal wife or First Lady. A charming, stay in the background until needed at public functions, she was not!

In the first few years of Bill's Presidency, Hillary organized a large committee that met behind closed doors. in secrecy, to draft plans for a National Health Insurance Plan.

Hillary was not satisfied with the Marine Guards being present only to provide protection and a sense of regal presence. She used them as servants on many occasions as "waters and "bellhops" for Clinton guests who stayed in the Lincoln bedroom.

She was heard uttering profanity and her spewing her venom in frequent outburst with her Secret Service detail, showing how little consideration she has for "subordinates" and people below her status.

Her "Travelgate" episode was another example of her disdain for the "little People" as she often now refers to people she is courting for their vote.

In what has since been called an abuse of power. Hillary fired the whole White House Travel Office staff, so she could replace those long time employees with her personal friends.

In her travels around the country pandering for votes, she has said many things contradictory to her real feelings and beliefs, but the following is one good example of her two faced personality.

Hillary's new add sounds alarms with the message: "As I travel around America, I hear from so many people who feel like they are invisible to their government. Americans from all walks of life may be invisible to this President,but they're not invisible to me, and they won't be invisible to the next President of the United States."

I guess she has a short and convenient memory about her past treatment of little people! Garry Aldridge, former FBI agent, wrote in his book "Unlimited Access" that staff members in the White House and Old Executive Office Bldg. were instructed to clear the hallways when Hillary was "out and about". If anyone happened to meet Hillary they were not to make eye contact with her. They were to remain "invisible to the "Queen"!

If that isn't enough to persuade you that Hillary should never set foot in the Oval Office again. Then the fact that if, God forbid, she does win. She will bring her perpetually adolescent Husband with her.

A Presidency that included eight years of ignoring the Terrorist threat, Troopergate, Filegate, Pardongate(that included pardoning Marc Rich, many drug dealers and money launderers),and allowing sale and transfer to Communist China of sensitive computer components now used in nuclear missiles aimed at our allies and soon to be a threat to OUR mainland.
The lies that got US into the War in Kosovo, that has now been made into a radical Muslim Base for Terrorist Islamofascists (The Fort Dix Six), and as reported by the UN, made "sex slaves" of hundreds of young girls, dislocated hundreds of thousands of Gypsies, Christians and other "undesirables" by the Muslim who have taken power.

Why anyone other than a sixties radical now full grown leftist, would vote for this pair, is a mystery to me. But as Will Rogers once said: "A great many people only know what they read in the papers" I will add, and see on television. WE know the media has been an apologist for the Clinton's, and now they are leading the Cheer leaders for Hillary's election!

Thursday, August 23, 2007

MEDIA IN FULL COURT PRESS TO FORCE IRAQ WITHDRAWAL




THE NIGHTLY NEWS ON TELEVISION ISN'T THE ONLY PLACE THAT BOMBARDS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WITH LEFTIST PROPAGANDA.

The cable channels appear to have joined forces with the "get out of Iraq" crowd, and are showing many movies and documentaries that at the very least can be considered anti-military, and in some cases outright condemning of the American military-industrial complex. A system which has by the way allowed us to fight with weapons that are state of the art.

Last night the Encore channel had a documentary entitled "Why we Fight Wars". It featured President Eisenhower's farewell speech when he left the presidency, and had well known liberals like Gore Vidal commenting on the out of control military-industrial complex.

This so called documentary is indicative of left wing propaganda. It takes a man whose whole life was dedicated to the killing of enemy soldiers and in the end stage of his career, responsible for killing tens if not hundreds of thousands of women, children and old people in the fire bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, and Berlin during February 1945.

the Allies' political-military leadership started to consider how they might aid the Soviets with the use of the strategic bomber force. The plan was to bomb Berlin and several other eastern cities in conjunction with the Soviet advance. In the summer of 1944, plans for a large and intense offensive targeting these cities had been discussed under the code name Operation Thunderclap.Prior to this the Soviets had several discussions with the Allies on how the strategic bomber force could help their ground offensives once the eastern front line approached Germany. The US ambassador to the USSR, W. Averell Harriman, discussed it with Joseph Stalin as did General Eisenhower's deputy at SHAEF, British Air Marshal Arthur W. Tedder in January 1945, when he explained how the strategic bomber could support the Soviet attack as Germany began to shuffle forces between the fronts.

The result of this bombing killed at least 40,000 civilians and wounded soldiers in hospitals in Hamburg,30,000 in Dresden and 50,000 in Berlin during February 1945. The massive bombing also allowed the Russians to take Berlin before General Patton was allowed to enter the area.A decision that allegedly was made at Yalta between Stalin and an ailing President Roosevelt. It was the prelude to a long and perilous "cold war"!

The movie documentary last night, highlighted the portion of "IKE's" speech in which he declared Americans should beware of the "MI" complex getting too strong , and out of control. A strange shift of philosophy from a man who spent his military career using every weapon provided to him in his pursuit of victory and glory! But taken out of context is fodder for leftist anti-military propaganda.

While the media puts on anti-war films of the Vietnam and Korea era. There is little or no mention any where of ex-KGB agent Putin's decision to once again begin long range bomber patrols over the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean.These bombers carry nuclear weapons are capable of striking both coasts of the United States.The Country that some Russian newspaper writers like Yulia Litiynina referred to as the "New Third Reich".

This decision was the week before his "air-show", showing the Chinese military officals, and other potential enemies of the United States, his newest tactical fighters, the MIG-29-OVT and the Sukboi Jet SV-35 that he has for sale.

While the American left is trying to destroy OUR ability to defend ouselves. The Communists who did not disband, but went "to ground", are rebuilding their first strike potential. They are also selling these weapons to our "enemies"!

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Only One Religion Does Not Get My Vote




"Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.” —Alexander Hamilton

This quote is appropriate for the perilous times we live in. There are those people in the Federal judiciary and in the Congress of the United States who would like nothing better then to be in control of all our lives from cradle to grave, and some are running for President!

When President Kennedy ran for President, the left wing press and their minions in the Government claimed We shouldn't elect a Catholic. They said if we did the Pope would be running the Government in abstention.

Now we have a decent man running for President in Mitt Romney, and the same secular anti-religion groups are saying we can't have a Mormon for President.

I am a Catholic, and don't agree with Mr. Romney's beliefs, but As we saw in the Presidency of John F. Kennedy. Religion played no part in his Presidency, and I believe it should have no bearing on who gets elected President. Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon or agnostic are all eligible for my vote if he/she believes in the sanctity of individual life, even before birth, individual freedoms including free speech without PC constraints and the rule of law.


The one person who should never be leader of this Country is a true believer of Mohammed. A Muslim who believes in the words as written by the founder of the Muslim religion over seven hundred years ago.

Mohammed writes in the Koran, "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (Surah 009.029)." Further, Mohammed says: "I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'."
Any person who follows the atrocities committed in Iraq by the "IRI"(Islamic Army of Iraq) knows that these Muslims are committed to destroying all non-believers. Even it means cutting off their heads while a video camera is recording the murder! The Islamic Army in Iraq, IAI, conducts a brutally violent campaign against foreigners within Iraq, specifically anyone believed to be cooperating with the U.S.-led coalition.
IAI has been implicated in several gruesome beheading deaths. The terrorist group aims to drive all U.S. and related Coalition forces, both military and civilian, from Iraq. But IAI does not limit its attacks to just these groups; in addition to the beheading of the American civilian contractor, Nicholas Berg by Abu Musad al-Zaqawi. The Radical Fascist Islamists have also murdered French journalists, Pakistani contractors, an Italian journalist, and Macedonian citizens working for a U.S. company.
Anyone who is follower of this "religion" must never lead this Country, or God help us!

There are those who will say I am getting the moderate Muslim confused with the radical, fascist Muslim. My answer to this is let all Muslims here in America disavow and reject radical Islam, and condemn the abhorrent violence they are committing in the name of Allah. Then I will gladly admit I was wrong.
Until there is an end of the "deafening silence" of Islamic leaders and their apologists, in the United States, who never condemn the slaughter of innocents by their fellow Muslims, I invoke the words of President Bush the week of 9/11: "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

Friday, August 17, 2007

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE CONTINUED



Medical care for the healthy and Euthanasia for the mentally and/or physically challenged younger people and also for the elderly with poor health.

This is what is really being practiced by subterfuge in many areas of this country right now under a disastrous plan called Medicare,not to mention an even worse plan called Medicaid.

With a National Health Care Plan for all,anybody who is deemed an excessive financial burden to an already flawed system of government controlled medical care will be given substandard care to hasten his death.If that sounds like a statement which is insensitive, exaggerated and plain nuts,just look at the indifferent slaughter of millions of children yearly by legalized murder called by the more gentle name, abortion.

Murder of one group will not stop with the babies as it has not stopped in some of our overseas countries with similar health programs.The quality and dedication of today's physician has already been hampered by frivolous lawsuits,excessive filing of paper work for a poor monetary reimbursement for services,excessive rules and regulations created by bureaucrats who aren't even physicians who control a doctors practice directly and indirectly.

.Many excellent physicians have turned to other professions because of an already unbearable system of obstruction imposed by the state and federal governments.Universal Health Care will be a debacle in a country that can't even control costs with today's foolish and exorbitant money wasting ventures.

However,these tax and spend advocates are almost to the man and woman against a strong defense for our country. Any half way sane thinking person would think our defense of what we hold dear is much more important than another big government scheme foisted on the American citizens.

The middle class will be paying these bureaucrats salaries with more and more taxes with little or no medical benefit.

If we had fewer self serving politicians and lawyers attacking our personal freedoms,and more real Statesmen ,we might save this country from an apparently inevitable slide to a socialistic disaster.God Bless America. We need it!

WHY WE SHOULD NOT HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE




Despite the media frenzy over the uninsured in America. The health care debate should not be about how we find a way to cover the 15% percent of Americans who presently are not covered by any type of health coverage. It should be about how we save the present medicare and medicaid insurance coverage presently in place. If their are no changes made these systems will be bankrupt in a few short years.

All of the Democrat candidates for President are for universal health coverage! They have their own semantic way of describing what if passed will be no more and no less than socialization of the most advanced medical system in the world.

I am not writing to defend the way the system has become too much business and in many cases not enough medicine. Government interference in a private medical system started the paper avalanche and raised the number of bureaucrats working for HRS by the tens of thousands. This all began in the late 60's with the passing of legislation that included both Medicare and Medicaid.
President Lyndon Johnson signed the Bill in the Harry Truman Library in Independence. Mo. in honor of the man who first asked Congress to pass a Universal Health Insurance Bill in 1945 while he was president.

The cost to enroll in the Program was $3.00 per month, and Truman was the first enrolled. We have come a long way baby! Look at your payroll stub to see how much you pay for medicare today, even though you are not eligible because you are not old enough. It is a large and ever growing portion of your tax confiscated from your earnings.

Unfortunately like every other government program the bureaucracy gets bigger every year, and HRS has become a jobs program for big government. Through out the years the medical care has grown so much better, despite the Socialists claims to the contrary, hat people come from Europe, Great Britain, South America and Canada to be treated.

I live in an area which is fortunate to have one of the more well known medical centers of the world, and my visits to this center demonstrates this, by the foreign languages I hear from so many in the registration areas.

Yes it is expensive, but socializing it won't get it to be any less expensive. All this would do is shift the dollars to the payroll of more administrators, away from the people who provide the care.
The one thing you can count on if Hillary, Obama, John or any of the other "Me TOO" candidates gets elected. There will be a shift towards socialization of our medical care, and before you vote for them you should consider what is happening in Europe under Socialized Medicine.


The perils of socialized health care can already be seen in Europe, where certain medical treatments or drugs are no longer available to Europeans above a certain age, says Paul Belien, editor of the Brussels Journal and an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute.

In Europe, says Belien:
"More expensive drugs and treatments with fewer side effects are set aside for younger patients, while less expensive drugs are given to the elderly because of budgetary constraints in a system providing "free" health care.
Studies of kidney dialysis show that more than a fifth of dialysis centers in Europe and almost half of those in England have refused to treat patients over 65 years of age.
If governments continue these policies, euthanasia will soon be the price that the solidarity principle of the European welfare states imposes on the very old and the very sick."

In the United States, the situation is the reverse:
Elderly Americans are entitled to universal health coverage via the Medicare program.
In America, the bulk of government health-care expenditure goes to those over 65 years old, while in Europe most of the government money is spent on those under 65. Even if you are under the age of 65 you must hope you will someday make it to that age, and do you want this type of situation to await you. And in the meanwhile consider this. No government program is paid for by the government. Every program has a tax consequence to you the tax payer. So while you work toward the age of retirement you will be paying ever increasing amounts of YOUR earnings to a program that may not be friendly to old people!




the perils of socialized health care can already be seen in Europe, where certain medical treatments or drugs are no longer available to Europeans above a certain age, says Paul Belien, editor of the Brussels Journal and an adjunct fellow of the Hudson Institute.

In Europe, says Belien:

More expensive drugs and treatments with fewer side effects are set aside for younger patients, while less expensive drugs are given to the elderly because of budgetary constraints in a system providing "free" health care.
Studies of kidney dialysis show that more than a fifth of dialysis centers in Europe and almost half of those in England have refused to treat patients over 65 years of age.
If governments continue these policies, euthanasia will soon be the price that the solidarity principle of the European welfare states imposes on the very old and the very sick.
In the United States, the situation is the reverse:

Elderly Americans are entitled to universal health coverage via the Medicare program.
In America, the bulk of government health-care expenditure goes to those over 65 years old, while in Europe most of the government money is spent on those under

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Lex et Libertas—Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander, Publisher, for the editors and staff. (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.)

THE BIG LIE IN POLITICS



One of the most frequently used terms used to describe the Republican party is a party of the wealthy "fat cats".

This is probably true when you speak of those serving in the Senate of the United States, and most men who get elected to the Presidency. The same can be said of the Democrats who are or were members of the higher echelons of government. The simple fact is you have to be wealthy or have many very wealthy friends to get elected to an office in either the Senate or the White House.

But the comparison ends there! The Republicans stand for less taxation, smaller and more efficient government, and many other social issues too numerous to mention that represents the vanishing middle class in America.

Yet, the richest men and women in America seem to be supporting the tax and spend Democrats in every election since President Reagan left the White House. The latest billionaire to join the ranks of Democrat supporters is the financial wizard, 76 year old Warren Buffett.

This man has amassed a fortune of 168.4 billion dollars with his Berkshire Hathaway Investment Fund. He did it taking faltering companies from their owners, many whom had inherited the business and could not pay the 55% "death tax".He bought them at much less than he knew they were worth, and with a aggressive development team made money from the apparent losers.

Now he publicly joins all the other "rich" celebrities and modern day "robber barons" in stumping for Hillary Clinton and recently Barack Obama. During a fund raising event last night in Omaha, Nebraska for Obama. Mr. Buffett had these words of "wisdom". Buffett's said that he's the third richest man in the world, and he blasted the US tax system, because he said he pays a lower rate of taxes than his secretary. And last night he went even further about who should run this Country with these words: "U.S. Senator Barack Obama is a ``leader'' who can ease economic disparity while increasing prosperity.", ``We have abundance but we don't have as much fairness as we might have in the system,''
Buffett, has not endorsed Obama, 46, or rival New York Senator Hillary Clinton, 59, but said earlier this year that he would help either of them with their presidential campaigns if asked. He has often criticized the government for favoring the rich, repeating a charge last night that Congress is the ``tax planner'' for the rich.

``Apparently the government in its wisdom thinks that some guy like me is like the condor or the spotted owl or something to be protected,'' he said last night. ``We really need to figure out some way not to fill the golden goose but actually to have abundance grow.''

Obama can ``lead us to the right place, Buffett said, spreading prosperity so that it is more inclusive". The "all inclusive" words sound to this blogger as strangely similar to what a Socialist would have spoken. They believe in what is good for all instead of being concerned with the individuals rights and privileges.


When Democrats talk about raising taxes on the rich, they're starting with families of four making $200,000 a year. You start raising their taxes, and they're not going to have any savings. They probably will never be able to get their kids to "good" college without student loans.
But for people like Buffett and other super wealthy that have all these "gazillions". There's no tax on their portfolios other than when they sell it.
A stock or any asset,is subject to capital gains tax, and the capital gains rate is 15%. There is no tax on wealth per se. There is a tax on income, and the tax on income appears to be designed to keep everybody who is not wealthy from getting there. You can blame the tax and spend liberal Democrats for that.

It started with Roosevelt's "new Deal" and it continues today as we get closer and closer to Total Socialism in America.

Super Wealthy people like Mr.Buffett feel no matter what happens they will not be effected. After all there was even a "rich" privileged class in Communist Russia. Of Course they all were Party members! Besides he is 76 and won't be around to see the disaster that will result if his favorite candidates for President win!

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

YOUR COLLEGE STUDENTS TUITION HELPS DEMOCRATS



Those of you who spend 40 to 50 thousand dollars to send your children to Universities hailed as the best Institutions for learning. Should know that while the "kiddies" are away at school, their minds are being polluted by liberal, anti-religious ideologies that are taught in our Colleges and Universities.

Not only are nine out of ten professors at our universities liberal in thought. They are very liberal and generous in their political contributions to left leaning candidates for the Presidency of the United States.

CNSNews.com reports the following about how the well paid professors in American Universities spend their salaries. Which you pay with your tuition for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama received about $1.5 million in contributions this year from college professors and others in the education field, outpacing the party's front-runner, Sen. Hillary Clinton, who got $940,000 from academics.

Still, Clinton's near-$1-million second-place finish was almost as much as academia's total combined donations to leading Republican candidates Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. (See Complete Candidate Breakdown)

That many college professors and academics lean to the political left is no surprise -- 76 percent of their donations went to Democratic candidates in the first two quarters of 2007. But the volume of their donations is increasing, according to an analysis by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which tracks money in politics.

"College professors and others in the education field have contributed more money than the oil industry and drug makers, with the nearly unanimous goal of putting a Democrat in the White House," the report said.

Faculty members from Harvard University led the way in overall political contributions -- $266,044 -- with 81 percent of those gifts going to Democrats so far in 2007."

At the same time candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama say they want to go to the Oval Office as a President who will clean up the mess in Washington. I guess Hillary thought it would be easier to do the cleaninug if she didn't have to carry the baggage of 2 million documents that she and Bill have locked up in his Presidential library until after the 2008 election. These documents are emails, appointment logs and memos that just might give light to Peter Franklin Paul’s more than $1.2 million in donations to Bill and Hillary (manifested in their gala), and show the harder truth, election law fraud, obstruction of justice, perjury, suborning of perjury, the illegal solicitation and coordination of the money for a fundraiser, who was involved, how much money was involved, and the videotape that appears to corroborate all of it. But none of the mainstream media outlets will cover it, how will it get exposed? Bloggers like me and those with even greater distribution must do it!

Obama does not have clean hands either. The Chicago Tribune reported that Obama had this to say about the current situation in Washington.
“The reason that we’re not getting things done is not because we don’t have good plans or good policy prescriptions. The reason is because it’s not our agenda that's being moved forward in Washington – it’s the agenda of the oil companies, the insurance companies, the drug companies, the special interests who dominate on a day-to-day basis in terms of legislative activity.”

Well, let us take a look at what those enemies of progress have done for Presidential candidate and hypocrite Barack Obama.

Michael M. Bates reports in the NewMedia Journalthe following:
"In terms of money received from the oil and gas industry, Obama ranks third among the eight announced Democratic presidential candidates. He does the same with insurance, again coming in third. First place is reserved for Senator Christopher Dodd who, in his capacity as a committee chairman, can investigate the insurance industry if he wants to. Obama is number two in contributions from the pharmaceuticals and health products industry.

Senator Obama didn’t include banking interests among those nefarious special interests. Then again, with over $600,000 so far, he ranks number one among all candidates of either party in money from commercial banks.

And you may have noticed he didn’t mention teachers’ unions either. Surely that has little to do with the $1.3 million he’s gotten from the education industry, again putting him at the top spot among all announced Democrats and Republicans.

Railing against those abominable special interests is always a winner among liberals. If Mr. Obama were genuinely concerned about the deleterious effects of huge campaign contributions, he should set an example.

Let’s see him return the more than $5 million he’s taken from lawyers and law firms. He can also send back the more than $3 million from the securities and investment industry and attach a letter saying he doesn’t need or want special interest funding.

Then there’s the $1.3 million from real estate, the $1.3 million from the entertainment industry, and the $652,000 from hedge funds and private equity sources he’s accepted so far. Send it back with regrets. He could bow out of Oprahlalooza next month, saying that he doesn’t want to give even the slightest hint of impropriety by accepting all that dough from fat cats.

This is not to say that Rebublicans don't have their generous special interest donators, but at least they don't act as though they are not a party to what has become the most expensive election process in recorded history.

Do we really want these devious people in the highest office of this still great Country? I think not!

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

ANOTHER OBAMAISM UTTERED




Presidential candidate Barack Obama uttered another of his absurd pronouncements upon hearing that Karl Rove had tendered his resignation to President Bush.
He said:"an architect of a political strategy that has left the Country more divided."

I guess Obama was too busy reading fairy tails about "frogs turning into princes" or some of the lessons he learned in the Muslim school he attended as a youth, to learn that this Country has always been divided politically. In fact we fought a civil war that cost over 600,000 lives over political differences.

A simple review of Presidential election returns from the past will show just how divided this country was and still is.

Long before the debacle in 2000 when the Supreme Court decided that President Bush had won over Democrat Al Gore. there has been factual evidence of the great divide in this Country.

Some of the elections for president as far back as 1888 when Democrat Grover Cleveland won the popular vote, but Benjamin Harrison(R) won the electoral college vote and became President. In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes beat Samuel Tilden by one electoral vote 185-184.Previous to this, the election of 1800 resulted in a tie when Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson got the same number of electoral votes.Congress had to form a commission of 15 members from the Government, including the Supreme Court, to decide the issue. Jefferson finally won 8-7.

In more modern times the election of 1960, between Kennedy and Nixon was decided by a 49.7% to 49.6% vote. Kennedy won by a slim0.1%! Nixon beat Humphrey in 1968 by 43.4% to 42.7% and Carter won over Ford 50.1% to 48.0%.

Yes, this country has been divide politically for a long time, but the divide has become more ideological in recent years. Secular humanism has apparently taken over the Democrat party and too many RINOs. Abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage,animus for anything religious and rejection of moral values that once were the benchmarks of this Great Country seem to be what is driving the Democrat party.

A great patriot, Samuel Adams, had these words to say about our country: “Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.”

Underneath all the rancor and loose talk there seems to be willingness on at least 50% of the American people to deny the existence of a supreme being, and they do so at their own and the Country's peril. The Muslim radicals will gladly fill the void!

Monday, August 13, 2007

Infitada NYC? What Happened to Melting Pot?




"We should always remember that our strength still lies in our faith in the good sense of the American people. And that the climate in Washington is still opposed to those enduring values, those ‘permanent things’ that we’ve always believed in... Washington is a place of fads and one-week stories. It’s also a company town, and the company’s name is government, big government... In the discussion of federal spending, the time has come to put to rest the sob sister attempts to portray our desire to get government spending under control as a hard-hearted attack on the poor people of America.” —Ronald Reagan
I used this quote from a great President and a great American to illustrate His apprehension of government spending. Spending the money confiscated from you and I in the form of ever increasing taxation.
When My Great grandparents emigrated from Europe to their new home in America thay came to flee oppressive government and to begin a new life, new language and new customs.
They sent their children to American schools to learn English, and through the children's learning, they learned to also speak English. Although in some cases, slightly muddled by their native language.

To them the melting pot of America was a way to assimilate into a new life. This does not appear to be the plan for many in the once great city that welcomed them when they immigrated in the late 1890s.

An article in the New York Post illustrates the way that the Melting pot has given way to a Balkanization of New York and some of our other large Cities.

Under the supervision of School Chancellor, Joel Klein there are presently 60 taxpayer funded "public Schools" that focus on a language other than English! The schools are "charter schools" that teach in one of the following languages: Spanish,Russian, Greek,French,Chinese Koean and now Arabic.

The Arabic school, Khalil Gibran Arabic Academy, is still in construction, but the designated principal was to be an activist Muslim who wore a T-shirt with the words "Infitada NYC". Dhaba Almontaser has resigned her position before the school opened because of media exposure of her radical views, but the school will be completed, and open to teach Arab Culture, history and Arab language.And maybe Infitada aginst the U.S.

The word intifada was coined in 1988 when the Palestinians were waging war with the Israelis.It has no other logical definition than a word to describe the violence of waging war against the Infidels! Ms. Almontaser was quoted as saying it meant nothing other than "shake off".

There are no taxpayer supported Catholic or Jewish Rabinical schools. Nor are there Baptist, Evangelical or any other Religious schools that are tax payer funded. You can bet your last dollar that the Arabic school is a religious school based upon the teaching of Sharia and the precepts of Muhammed found in the Koran.

Why do the people of New York stand for this situation? It can only be that secular humanism, political correctness and apathy has taken over a City that should know better.

Saturday, August 11, 2007

BEWARE OF THOSE WHO SAY THEY CAN FIX HEALTH CARE




Senator Obama, Senator H. Clinton and every other Democrat candidate for President is traveling around the Country like little Red Riding Hood, bearing a basket of "goodies " they promise to deliver if elected to the Presidency.

But just like in the fairy tale. look out for the wolf in "Red Ridding Hoods" clothes!

Behind the promises some of this countries most liberal academics are meeting to develop plans for the socialization of the finest abd costly, medical system in the world.

The Brookings Institute recently held a forum called The Hamilton Project,moderated by Robert Rubin and included such experts as Ezekiel Emanuel, a bio-ethicist from NIH and Victor Fuchs, an Economics Professor at Stanford University.

The following is a direct quote from the publish report of their first meeting: "The universal basic package should be financed by a dedicated tax that everyone pays, such as a value-added tax.

We would administer the program through an independent National Health Board and 12 regional boards modeled on the Federal Reserve System. They would oversee health plans, define the benefits packages and, through strong incentives, facilitate adoption of patient safety measures and electronic management of medical records.(blogger note;this would produce thousands more government jobs while providing not one medical service to the public)

·We would establish an independent Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment to systematically evaluate new technologies and quantify their health benefits in relation to their costs. These evaluations would be used by the National Health Board and health plans.(more bureaucrats no care here!)

Reform based on these measures would eliminate job lock, increase workers' wages and make labor markets more efficient. It would also give Americans -- rather than their employers -- their choice of health plans, doctors and hospitals. And it would eliminate the $200 billion business tax deduction for providing health coverage.
(sounds like the taxes would decrease wages and have no effect on efficiency of markets)
Most important, such measures would improve efficiency and provide cost control for the health-care system. Eliminating employers' vetting of insurance companies and all associated costs would save tens of billions of dollars. Since all Americans would be guaranteed coverage, means testing and determination of subsidies necessary for Medicaid and SCHIP would be eliminated. Finally, the expected consolidation of the health insurance industry would also increase efficiency.(They don't mention that to do all of this $4-5 billion dollars would have to be collected in "value -added taxes")

Only comprehensive change of our broken system can The universal basic package be accomplished. It would be financed by a dedicated tax that everyone pays, such as a value-added tax.(see no numbers here, GAO estimates the 4-5 billion)

The program would be administered( more government employees-no care) through an independent National Health Board and regional boards modeled on the Federal Reserve System. They would oversee health plans, define the benefits packages and, through strong incentives, facilitate adoption of patient safety measures and electronic management of medical records.( sounds like the efficiency of the Postal Service_YUCK!)

· Establish an independent Institute for Technology and Outcomes Assessment to systematically evaluate new technologies and quantify their health benefits in relation to their costs. These evaluations would be used by the National Health Board and health plans.( more bureaucrats-no care here)

Reform based on these measures would eliminate job lock,(what job lock?), increase workers' wages( How?) and make labor markets more efficient. It would also give Americans -- rather than their employers -- their choice of health plans, doctors and hospitals. And it would eliminate the $200 billion business tax deduction for providing health coverage.(Typical socialism that sounds like Karl Marx)

Most important, such measures would improve efficiency and provide cost control for the health-care system. Eliminating employers' vetting of insurance companies and all associated costs would save tens of billions of dollars. Since all Americans would be guaranteed coverage, means testing(soak those who have,and give to have nots) and determination of subsidies necessary for Medicaid and SCHIP would be eliminated. Finally, the expected consolidation of the health insurance industry would also increase efficiency.

Only a comprehensive change of our broken system can The universal basic package be implemented, and it should be financed by a dedicated tax that everyone pays, such as a value-added tax.

What Ezekiel and Victor don't highlight is the Plan they propose would very soon eliminate Medicare and Medicaid, and end the tax exemption for employers health plans for their employees!

"Big Brother"is alive and well, and this time instead of meeting in closed door sessions directed by Hillary Clinton. They are holding forums allegedly for the purpose of fixing a broken medical system. What they actually are doing is planning the further socialization of our way of life.