Introspection:

A Case Of Amnesia

2011-12-04T12:04:00.001-08:00

We listened, back in August of last year, as our Socialist president mocked the Republican party saying, with an undisguised sneer, “You remember our slogan during the campaign, ‘Yes, we can’? Their slogan is ‘No, we can't’, he said to laughter and applause from a Seattle Democratic fund raising crowd. “No, we can't. It's really inspiring”, said Obama.
All inquisitive, right minded or thoughtful people of this nation are by now acutely aware of the travesty of conduct manifested by this president and his band of incompetents. To relate all of the miserable failures of this administration would be boring and redundant.
A more accurate portrayal of the mood of the Republican party back then would have been, ‘no YOU can’t’, Mr. President; Or maybe, ‘no YOU won’t’; Or even, ‘yes YOU could have’. But the painful and absolutely humorless reality that this nation is facing, after enduring almost three years of your failed presidency is, ‘no YOU didn’t’, unless the message that you meant to convey (way back then when you were campaigning) was, ‘yes we can’ destroy this great nation.
In Seattle,you said that all Republicans have done is obstruct the agenda that you and your fellow Democrats are pushing in Washington. “No, on help for small businesses; no, on middle-class tax cuts; no, on clean-energy jobs; no, on making college more affordable; no on Wall Street reform”. You then added, “After 18 months, I have never been more confident that our nation is headed in the right direction. We are doing what is needed to move forward and we're doing what's necessary not just to rebuild the economy for the short term, we want to rebuild it for the long term, for our children, for our grandchildren.” And finally you said, “Basically, what this campaign is coming down to is that between now and November they're betting that you will all come down with a case of amnesia”.
Uh……. excuse me Mr. Obama, but it was YOU who seemed to have come down with a case of amnesia. First of all, you did not “inherit” economic problems, as you again implied, and have frequently suggested, unless you will admit that the problems that you “inherited” when you became president were the direct result of mistakes made by the Democrat dominated Congress that you yourself were a member of from 2007 until you took office in 2009, and the same Congress that you joined forces with for the first two long years of your presidency during which your collective actions produced the unthinkable economic and moral consequences that this country is now faced with, and the worst national economic circumstance since the Great Depression. Still, your rhetoric would suggest that you had missed, and continue to miss the point all together, ‘WE the people’, did not “come down with a case of amnesia”. Instead, we understood all too well what has been going on, and sent you a resounding message at the polls last November. However, in spite of that, you have continued since then to promote your failed notions of government, by attempting to circumvent the new 112th Congress which now includes a House of Representatives which seats a Republican majority, duly elected by the people of this nation.
What has been painfully obvious in 2011, is that you intend to impose taxation and regulation whenever and wherever that you can, and as a consequence, to impose exponential price increases and costs upon everyone, (the poor and rich alike), although you would like for the misinformed masses to believe that you are somehow, “sticking it to the rich folks” on behalf of the lower middle class, the poor, the illegal immigrants and the unemployed. We have already seen how this all plays out at the gas pumps, grocery stores and other retail outlets. Can you not see that your ill advised actions have only succeeded in increasing unemployment, home foreclosures, debt, deficits and racial tension in America.
For those who are listening to the liberals who are propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", I'd like to set the record straight!! The day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, was January 3, 2007, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. On that day the DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77 the GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% and the unemployment rate was 4.6%. Also on that day, Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee. You may thank these two gentlemen who, with Barack Obama's approval and endorsement have taken us from a near 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% unemployment to the current unprecedented crisis by dumping 5-6 trillion dollars of toxic loans on the economy from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiascoes!! During his two terms in office, President Bush repeatedly asked Congress (as many as 17 separate times) to end the Fannie & Freddie regulations because the were endangering the US economy. Barney called the President's view a “chicken little philosophy and he and the other Washington socialists blocked any such action.
Mr. Obama, the citizens of America don’t need to hear any more deceptive revision of the facts, or cleverly scripted distortions, and we don't need Big Brother to ‘help’ us succeed, we just need to be left alone. Stop conspiring to tax, bully and regulate us out of existence....or don't, and in one more year someone else will have a shot at cleaning up the unprecedented messes that YOU, not your predecessor have created for this nation.

Copyright©2011. All Rights Reserved.

If It's An Unmerited Gift, It's Not An Entitlement

2011-10-20T07:56:00.000-07:00

Alright, I am tired of the misuse of yet another word. Those of you who have followed my blog in the past, will probably recall my tirade back in February of 2009 against the misplaced practice of taking a perfectly nice word like gay and completely changing it's meaning to define something that is decidedly not gay.
Well, today I would like to present for your thoughtfulness another bastardization of an English language word: Entitlement!!

Consider the following dictionary comparison:

entitlement:
2 : something furnished, with proper grounds, for seeking or claiming something
(note: I have applied for, and am entitled to receive, social security income because I loaned that money to the government over the past 50 years or so, and am now entitled to have it paid back to me, with interest, according to our original agreement)

gift:
2 : something voluntarily transferred by one person to another without reciprocal compensation from the receiving person (example: holiday and special event “presents”, Christian charity, Government “welfare”, free lunch programs, food stamps, free medical care, etc.)

As I've listened to the rhetoric about funding or not funding “entitlements”, I couldn't help but wonder; “why is it that the first so called “entitlement” thought to be in jeopardy is my social security?” And then it hit me....social security is the only real entitlement on the theoretical chopping block. Now while we are on the subject of social security, allow me to state the obvious: Those of us who spent our adult life working for a living, not only contributed to our social security plan every year, but our employers did as well. The amount contributed over our work life totaled around 15% of our total income, before taxes. If our average annual salary was only about $30K, that totals to around $220,500 in contributions made to our respective retirement plans. If we calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (combining both our personal contribution with that of our employers) at a compounded 5% interest rate (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows elsewhere), after 49 years of working we'd each have an average of nearly $950,000 in the till. If our social security distribution equaled only 3% of that total to be paid out annually, we would receive about $2,375 per month, or around $28,500 per year, and it would last better than 30 years (until age 95 if we retired at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on the ongoing net amount of money sitting there on deposit! If we had bought an annuity that returned 4% per year, we'd have a lifetime income of about $3,200. per month. In either case, those amounts are far more than most of us actually receive in retirement income. But I digress...............

Everything else that our society has come to accept as “entitlements” are simply freebies that our deeply flawed government, (in order to curry favor at the polls), likes to hand out to individuals who, for the most part, have done nothing to deserve the gifts that they are receiving.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for charity and assistance for the truly needy, but being willing to care for those who fall into these truly needy categories does not somehow, even then, make them entitled to that care. No....such assistance should emphatically not be defined as an entitlement but instead as a simple gift of kindness from someone(s) who is able to bestow it.

From the Declaration of Independence I read these words:

“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

I find nothing in that honored statement that would encourage the belief that everyone is entitled to happiness without pursuit, or that anyone who is unwilling to pursue happiness is somehow entitled to receive unmerited gifts, the substance of which our society has somehow allowed to morph into what we today call “entitlements”. But here is the rub: Even the economists who have recently sounded the alarm about 48.5% of Americans receiving “some type of federal assistance” have including in that number the 16% of American households that receive social security benefits. I cannot emphasize enough to the morons in Washington, or to anyone else who does not get it:

MY SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT FEDERAL ASSISTANCE......IT IS MY ENTITLEMENT....A REFUND OF MY CASH, WHICH I WAS FORCED TO HAND OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT EVERY YEAR THAT I WORKED, THAT HAS BEEN PITIFULLY MANAGED BY AN INCOMPETENT GOVERNMENT, AND IS NOW BEING DOLED OUT TO ME EVERY MONTH.

MY SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT A PART OF THE COLLECTIVE FREEBIES THAT THE FEDS ARE NOW HANDING OUT TO NOT ONLY THE POOR AND NEEDY BUT, IN TODAY'S AMERICA, IS JUST AS LIKELY BEING DISTRIBUTED TO DEADBEATS AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, MOST OF WHOM HAVE NEVER PAID ANYTHING INTO THE FEDERAL COFFERS AND ARE NOT REALLY ENTITLED TO ANYTHING BUT ARE INSTEAD, SIMPLY BENEFICIARIES OF CHARITY WHICH IS TOO OFTEN MISGUIDED OR DECEPTIVELY CHARACTERIZED BY CORRUPT POLITICIANS !!

And so to the socialists in Washington, and to their apologists, I say, “Leave my entitlements alone!! Take your cuts from the free and unmerited “handouts” that you have for too long injudiciously distributed!!”

Wake up and take a stand America!! Wake up before it's too late.

Copyright©2011. All Rights Reserved.

For A Few Pieces Of Silver

2010-03-22T12:47:00.000-07:00

There is an old story I once heard that goes something like this:

Man: "Would you sleep with me tonight for a million dollars cash?"
Woman: "One time for a million dollars? Sure."
Man: "OK. I have a room reserved. Here's five bucks. Let's go."
Woman: "What are you talking about? I'm not sleeping with you for five dollars. What do you think I am?"
Man: "We've already established what you are, now we're just negotiating the price."

This story came to mind when I heard the report of Bart Stupak who, after a career of claiming to be pro-life, made an amazing departure from what he had touted to be an unyielding defense of the lives of unborn innocents in exchange for a few pieces of silver, $726,409 worth of silver in this case.

On March 19, 2010, two days before the vote on the national healthcare bill, U.S. Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Menominee) announced three airports in northern Michigan have received grants totaling $726,409 for airport maintenance and improvements. The funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration. This was the same Bart Stupak who previously had insisted that he would vote against Obamacare, before he voted for it on Sunday, along with as many as nine of his so called pro-life democrats who had stood with him to the end.

The stand of Stupak and his colleagues, including Rep. Charlie Wilson (D) of Ohio and Rep. Dale Kildee (D) of Michigan, had every indication of a moral stance, more than mere political gain. “We stood strong,” said Stupak. “We stood on a principle.” Stupak and his colleagues did indeed appear to be doing what they believed was right, until Sunday. I don't know about the rest of them but surely Stupak knew that he was no longer, "standing strong" no later than Friday when he announced receipt of the airport grants for his district back home.

I couldn't help but wonder if Stupak would have just as easily accepted a murder for hire contract if the price was right. I also wondered if the voters in the 1st Congressional District of Michigan will watch his hips this November instead of his lips. Will they tell him that, "you talked the talk, then you didn't walk the walk"? I wonder if they see any similarity in the Louisiana vote Purchase, the Nebraska Cornhusker vote Purchase and the Michigan Judas vote Purchase?

Stupak himself says he has suffered for his pro-life advocacy, calling his life a “living hell” in an interview with The Hill newspaper. “People saying they’re going to spit on you and all this,” he says. “That’s just not fun.” Who knew that he was taking a stand "for fun"?? I thought he said he was standing on principle?

“Since I was first elected to Congress I have fought to provide quality, affordable health care for all Americans and I am proud to be able to vote for this historic legislation,” Stupak said. “In my travels and town hall meetings around northern Michigan I have witnessed the struggles families and employers face under the current health care system. Americans have spent 98 years talking about reforming health care, today Congress has finally accomplished that goal.”

“Although this legislation is not perfect and does not do everything I believe is necessary to reform our health insurance industry, it is a tremendous step forward for northern Michigan residents and for our nation,” Stupak said. “Skyrocketing health care costs are unsustainable for our families, our seniors, our businesses or our government. This legislation will protect consumers from unconscionable industry practices while helping to lower costs and make the health insurance industry more competitive.”

Stupak and other professing pro-life democrats Congress had previously insisted that H.R. 3590 would implement a dramatic shift in federal policy that would allow the federal government to subsidize insurance policies with abortion coverage and recognize abortion as a benefit in a federal health plan. However, after intense negotiations with Stupak and other so called pro-life Democrats, President Obama announced he would sign an executive order reaffirming that the Hyde amendment could not be circumvented and that no taxpayer dollars would be used to pay for health plans that cover abortion.

“I have said from the start I would not vote for health care reform without adequate protections in place to make sure the current law of no federal funding for abortion is maintained,” Stupak said. “The president’s executive order upholds the principle that federal funds should not be used to subsidize abortion coverage.”

Remember when JFK promised the Cuban patriots that he would provide air support for the invasion of the Bay of Pigs before he rescinded the order and allowed the invaders to be slaughtered? Does anyone care to predict how long it will take before abortion is covered under this law?

“While there is still work to be done, this historic health care reform legislation marks significant progress toward making sure the cost of health care in America never results in our citizens having to file bankruptcy because of illness, disease or injury,” Stupak said. “I look forward to the president signing this bill into law to provide 31 million Americans with access to affordable, quality health care.”

Since even the most conservative estimates by pollsters such as Rasmussen indicate that the majority of Americans do no want socialized medicine and furthermore believe that Obamacare will cost them more and provide lower quality medical services, I have to wonder who Bart Stupak and the rest of them think they are fooling.

What a difference a day makes, or in this case 2-3 days.

Foolishly, many Conservatives have allowed themselves to dare to believe that there might be some legitimately moral democrats left in Congress, but on Sunday we found out the truth. The time for reaching across the aisle has come and gone. Democrats already know this but one must wonder if Republicans need to be jolted further before they wise up. This nation must purge itself of criminal leadership that operates in ways that are contrary to the Constitution, to our historical American way of life and to God himself.

Wake up America!! Wake up before it's too late.

Copyright 2010. All Rights Reserved.

Will Conservatives Ever Stop Eating Their Own Young?

2010-02-18T04:48:00.000-08:00

I guess it really is true that, “what we learn from history is that we do not learn“. I was beginning to wonder how the socialists could possibly withstand the landslide of conservative backlash against them in upcoming elections. I should have known better. If the so called TEA Party that is trying to climb out of the "tea party movement" continues to evolve, the socialists won't have to do anything but wait because, once again, conservatives appear to be gearing up to, figuratively speaking, eat their own young.

And so at the outset, “let me be clear”, as Mr. Obama likes to say: The last thing that historically patriotic, and politically conservative, America needs is a bunch of off based self righteous "born again patriots" trying to split the Republican party into two parties, neither of which will then have a snowball's chance in Hell of defeating the Democrats at the polls. The Republican party needs healthy revival, not destructive revolution. And let's get something else straight. The so called TEA party is not made up of former democrats, independents and loyal conservatives as I have heard naively stated. If anyone really believes that those three distinctly different segments will come to together and somehow form a more perfect political union, so to speak, then I may have a bridge that I can sell...

This morning, I had just begun working on a piece entitled, Tea parties..........Yes! TEA party...........No!, when I received this message from a friend who has been active in the organization of the “tea parties” down in south Texas. So that I don’t distort the message, I am including it as received, with my only addition in italics and parenthesis at the end:

Please check out this Newsmax article, RNC Takes Down Controversial Tea Party Site at the following link;
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/gop-tea-party-site/2010/02/17/id/350140?s=al

The move appears to indicate Republican recognition that TEA Party leaders will not tolerate efforts to absorb it into the GOP. TEA Party groups, rightfully, are being very careful to avoid any appearance of an alliance with the GOP, because the Tea Party ranks include many independents and former Democrats. (this statement was excerpted from the above linked article)

This to me is an indication that from within our own conservative ranks we are about to destroy any hope that we have of reversing the downward spiral and restoring this nation to it‘s historical fundamentals.

One of the most effective activities arising out of conservative politics during the past year has been the public outcry of conservative Americans. Across the nation, ordinary citizens have rallied to downtown meeting sites in almost every large city in the United States to protest unconstitutional and irregular activities of the socialist Obama administration. Dubbed "tea parties" by their organizing activists, they were purposely intending to call to mind the Boston tea party, a direct action taken by colonists in Boston, a town in the British colony of Massachusetts, against the British government. On December 16, 1773, after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor. The incident remains an iconic event of American history, and reference is often made to it in other political protests.

The Boston tea party was the culmination of a resistance movement throughout British America against the Tea Act, which had been passed by the British Parliament in 1773. Colonists objected to the Tea Act for a variety of reasons, primarily because they believed that it violated their right to be taxed only by their own elected representatives. Protesters had successfully prevented the unloading of taxed tea in three other colonies, but in Boston, embattled Royal Governor Thomas Hutchinson refused to allow the tea to be returned to Britain. He apparently did not expect that the protestors would choose to destroy the tea rather than concede the authority of a legislature in which they were not directly represented.

I was an early advocate of, and a participant at the “tea party” protests and even published early support on one of my blog spots, (Dallas Tea Party, Apr 19, 2009 http://denniskey.blogspot.com ), but the people who are taking a political position such as we‘re seeing today, as indicated in the above correspondence and elsewhere as of late, the ones who are traipsing off Ross Perot style in the absolutely wrong direction, and in the wrong manner, are in no way speaking for me and my family. I hope and pray that most of you will agree and continue to stand with me and most other conservatives on this. We need a strong, united and conservative Republican party that is filled with true Christian patriots that are dedicated to the preservation of the constitution and our American way of life. We do not need a fragmented, “let’s start over by kicking everyone out and putting in all new people and creating a couple of new political parties” approach.

While it might feel good to shout, “let’s vote ’em all out”, realistically that is not going to happen, nor should it. The socialists in Washington have screwed things up badly and they know it. As a result, we conservative constitutionalists currently have them on the run, and can very likely make significant gains or even major gains in the upcoming 2010 elections if we remain united. Some of these successes have already been forthcoming in unlikely places such as Massachusetts and Virginia. At the same time, we see liberal congressmen dropping out of the races almost in droves.

President Ronald Reagan once encouraged this nation with these words: “Let’s stay the course”, I am today inclined to repeat those words. If we can continue to have well attended, wonderfully encouraging and effective “tea party” protests, to make known our dissatisfaction with the socialist attack on America, then let’s do it; but if doing so leads us to turn on each other, as it appears that some are now doing, then what will we have gained?

Tea parties.....Maybe! TEA party..........Emphatically No!!

Wake up America..........Wake up before it’s too late!!

Copyright 2010. All Rights Reserved.

Another Disgrace, As The White House Now Attacks Toyota

2010-02-11T09:26:00.000-08:00

The politically motivated attack on Toyota by the Obama administration is disgraceful, unprecedented, reprehensible and transparent. The White House has denied any such motivation on the part of the United States. But their denial lacks credibility. There can be little doubt that Toyota, the world's greatest auto maker in recent years, has become the victim of much more than another typical out-of-control All-American media frenzy.

When top-line political gamesman such as a U.S. Transportation Secretary, who is aptly named, Ray La Hood, Congressional pit bull Henry Waxman, and conniving United Auto Workers executives start piling on, this is clearly much bigger sport that the usual ritual public lynching of auto executives, a routine occurrence in Washington. The attack on Toyota, at this time of U.S. economic weakness and populist excess, is fast turning into a great American nationalist assault on a highly successful foreign corporation, an economic mugging. Bully tactics being used to stifle competition have been well documented in the anals of Detroit and Chicago history, and the actions of this administration are reminiscent of Hoffa and Capone.

While it may be technically true that President Obama's team didn't explicitly reach a decision to target Toyota, nobody in this crowd needs a presidential order to turn the Japanese auto giant's Sudden Unintended Acceleration (SUA) problem into a national industrial advantage for the U.S Big Three automakers. The owners of union-dominated Government Motors can spot a strategic economic opportunity without waiting for a memo from the head office.

Upon hearing the spin, out of Washington, California Congressman Henry Waxman swung into action, using recent anecdotal reports of sudden acceleration as a pretext for extended assaults on Toyota and its management. The UAW has joined the project as part of its campaign against Toyota's closure of a unionized California plant.

You could practically see the calculating wheels spinning under the hood of Mr. La Hood's cranium when the transportation secretary told a committee that Toyota owners should simply "stop driving" their Toyotas. He later claimed to have misspoken, but then said much the same thing. If Toyota drivers are worried, they can take their vehicles to a dealer where, as Mr. La Hood knows, there was nothing the dealer could do since it is expected to take weeks if not months for Toyota to "fix", if a "fix" is even called for, the alleged cause of Toyota's alleged sudden acceleration problem.

At this stage, there is little hard data on whether Toyota actually even has a sudden acceleration problem. SUA is a phenomenon that has been cropping up in auto industry lore for decades, involving many cars and automakers. No maker is immune. But Toyota seems to be enduring a particularly venomous assault at this time, from the White House, the United Auto Workers Union, Government Motors and the main stream media. All of the historical reports are anecdotal accounts of out-of-control vehicles for reasons that nobody can ever adequately explain. The latest stories, including one of a Tennessee man who says his 2003 Camry suddenly jolted into a parking space, become instant media legends.

Of the millions of cars on the road, only a few hundred anecdotal reports exist, making it far more likely that other things are happening, including driver mistakes and even fluke occurrences that no amount of corporate fixing can avoid. Usually the stories fade and the auto companies move on, although Audi famously became victim of a SUA craze a couple of decades ago, losing massive market share even though no problem was ever identified beyond driver error.

Toyota's experience looks like it could become even worse that Audi's, mainly because in the eyes of this administration, bashing Toyota serves the national economic interest of the United States, U.S. auto makers, union leaders and all others whose economic ideas tend toward nationalism (read socialism).

Nevertheless, the controversy has thus far cost Toyota an estimated $2 billion in actual cash outlay and additionally, the company has lost $23-billion in market capitalization since the crisis began.

Destruction of Toyota, would be highly damaging to ordinary American citizens who are enjoying long term employment with a profitable, successful, community oriented company that offers it’s employees high wages and cheap health insurance. That insurance only costs a family of four an average of roughly $75 per month. Why on earth, you may ask, would the Obama administration seem be so jubilantly hawkish over this issue? Why would Obama go after a company that has been so beneficial to the economy when in doing so, they are putting literally thousands of American jobs at risk?

Well let’s examine some of the facts.

In 1986, Toyota invested $5.3 billion ($5,300,000,000), to build a massive 1300 acre manufacturing facility near Georgetown, Kentucky. That fully operational factory now employs 7,000 American citizens and produces a new Toyota car roughly every minute of the day. Since that time, Georgetown, which is situated just north of Lexington, has seen the development of a plethora of new homes, apartment complexes, condominiums near the plant, and the development of a 150,000 square foot modern retail center near the plant, to support the needs of it's citizens. Thoroughbreds graze and trot across fenced fields of trim bluegrass on the horse farms that ring much of the city. But in the past 20 years, a different type of horsepower—Camrys, Avalons, and Solaras—has transformed Georgetown from a quiet country town into a booming suburb and export engine.

The investment and arrival of Toyota into the United States was quickly followed by Volkswagen, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Honda, Hyundai and Nissan When the manufacturers were deciding where to open plants, they chose right-to-work states because they wouldn't have to use union labor. Above all, these states had longstanding cultures that made it difficult for unions to organize. Over the past two decades, enticed by cheap labor and massive incentives, a second auto industry has emerged: a nonunion, Southern-based, foreign-owned industry. Large plants, with names of Asian and European carmakers emblazoned upon them, now dot the Southern landscape. By moving aggressively into Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas, foreign manufacturers—call them the "Little Eight"—have transformed the economic geography of the nation's auto industry and the political debate surrounding its future.

But there's a deeper cleavage at work here. Today's Southern solons have watched their local economies blossom, thanks to a younger more-vibrant auto industry unencumbered by the Big Three's legacy costs and union work rules—a sort of anti-Detroit that has the flexibility and ability to turn profits by making the types of cars that Americans actually want to buy.

Foreign automakers have been operating in their own domestic environment where gas prices were four, five, six dollars a gallon for generations, so the motivation to build cars that are fuel efficient has also existed with them for those many years. However, U.S. automakers GM, Chrysler and Ford never supported it.

The foreign car manufacturers have also concentrated on continuous improvement, designing factories with maximum flexibility—i.e., they can adjust production of models depending on consumer tastes and market conditions, whereas Detroit's plants, by and large, can't be retooled as easily to produce different models.

At a time when the South's core industries, like textiles and apparel, were going offshore, foreign automakers grew to become crucial contributors to the region's economy. Through 2007, Toyota alone had invested more than $17 billion in 10 U.S. production facilities, which collectively employed more than 36,000 workers. Alabama, which didn't make a single car in 1995, in 2008 produced 800,000, making it the fifth-largest auto-producing state.

The arrival of these car companies has had a huge ripple effect. "Every job in auto production supports five other jobs in the economy in steel, tires, rubber, programmers, and auto dealers," says Robert Scott, senior international economist at the Washington, D.C.-based Economic Policy Institute. Toyota's Kentucky operations support 28,000 jobs in the state. In 2007, according to the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, foreign automakers employed 92,700 workers directly and 574,500 indirectly, accounting for 33 percent of U.S. auto production. By contrast, the Big Three directly employ about 240,000 workers.

When the foreign automakers first came to these shores in the 1980s, many simply wanted a foothold in the world's largest consumer market. But in a period when there was rising hostility to imported cars—it wasn't uncommon to see Japanese-made cars destroyed for sport in Michigan in the 1980s—establishing U.S.-based manufacturing plants was a way for Toyota and its peers to defuse international trade tensions, insulate themselves from the swings in the current market, and avoid the impact of any tariffs. And the states in the Southeast had plenty to offer—large tracts of undeveloped land with road, rail, air, and sea access; fewer snow days; and federally subsidized power from the Tennessee Valley Authority.

And while the Big Three frequently exhibit an air of entitlement when dealing with the state and federal governments—remember the disastrous private-jet caravan when the CEOs came to cry poverty in Washington?—the foreign automakers have gone out of their way to ingratiate themselves with their new hosts. BMW has endowed professorships at Clemson University's new automotive-engineering program. And when Alabama and Louisiana were competing to attract German steel giant ThyssenKrupp, Mercedes-Benz U.S. CEO Bill Taylor flew to Germany on his own dime to make the successful case.

It's hard to overstate the economic impact that a new plant can have. Before Nissan arrived in Smyrna in 1983, it was a sleepy town of about 6,000. Today, many of Smyrna's 40,000 residents are engaged in production of the Nissan Altima, Xterra, and Pathfinder. When Alabama first announced it was paying $169,000 per job to attract Mercedes-Benz, everyone felt they were nuts," says Andy Levine, president of DCI, a New York-based firm that specializes in economic-development marketing. "Fifteen years later, it's probably the smartest investment any state has ever made.” " Indeed, last year these companies supported a combined payroll of $5.2 billion," says Neal Wade, director of the Alabama Development Office.

The expected recall of the hybrid Prius yesterday, to fix an alleged quirk in the computer-driven anti-lock braking system, was quickly followed by news that the Toyota Corolla is under inquiry for faulty steering. Exactly who made what complaints about the steering wasn't clear, but it didn't really matter. First it was the gas pedal acceleration problem, then the brake problem and now a steering problem. Since all car owners have complaints about their cars, every Toyota in existence will soon have to be deconstructed.

The behavior of the White House, the Secretary of Transportation, the United Auto Workers and main stream media, in concert, in unjustly attacking this fine company that has contributed so much to the American economy and offered such opportunity and benefit to the citizens in their employ, is indeed disgraceful, unprecedented, and reprehensible. And the driving force behind these attacks is blatantly transparent!!

Wake up, America........Wake up before it's too late!!

Copyright 2010. All Rights Reserved.

When Will They Set Themselves Free?

2010-02-10T10:36:00.000-08:00

One of the greatest puzzlements of the 21st Century thus far is the continued support for the Democrat Party by over 90% of black-Americans. Without their vote, the Democrats could not get a candidate elected to the post of Director of Latrine Maintenance anywhere in America, and believe me the leadership of the DNC are well aware of this fact.

"Stockholm syndrome", the phenomenon in which victims display compassion for, and even loyalty to their captors was first widely recognized after the Swedish bank robbery that gave it its name. For six days in August 1973, thieves Jan-Erik Olsson and Clark Olofsson held four Stockholm bank employees hostage at gunpoint in a vault. When the victims were released, their reaction shocked the world: they hugged and kissed their captors, declaring their loyalty even as the kidnappers were carted off to jail.

Time and again during the 18 harrowing years Jaycee Lee Dugard allegedly spent in captivity, must have had the chance to cry for help but she assisted her alleged abductor, Phillip Garrido, with his home business, sorted out orders by phone or e-mail and occasionally greeted customers alone at the door. She even went out in public but she apparently never made a run for it, returning each day instead to a shed in the backyard of the man who allegedly kidnapped and raped her.

When San Francisco newspaper heiress Patty Hearst, daughter of Randolph Hearst, was abducted by the so called Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) in 1974, she eventually and famously became their accomplice, adopting an assumed name and abetting the radical political group in at least one bank robbery.

A decade later, shortly after TWA Flight 847 took off from Athens in 1985, two gun-toting terrorists forced their way into the cockpit, demanding that the plane touch down in Lebanon. Once on the ground, they held passengers captive, threatened them with guns and murdered one hostage, dumping his body onto the tarmac. Nevertheless, after the captives were rescued, one of them reportedly said of his captors, "They weren't bad people; they let me eat, they let me sleep, they gave me my life."

Natascha Kampusch's story is perhaps even more troubling. The Austrian girl was abducted at age 10 and held for eight years in a windowless cellar by her abductor, Wolfgang Priklopil. She ran away in August 2006 yet upon learning that he had thrown himself in front of a train a few hours after she escaped, she reportedly burst into tears. "All I can say is that, bit by bit, I feel more sorry for him," Kampusch said in a 2007 documentary intended to mark her first year of freedom, calling Priklopil a "poor soul — lost and misguided."

As I observe the historical behavior of black Americans, I cannot escape the feeling that perhaps they have been (and continue to be) suffering from a hereditary form of this phenomenon (Stockholm Syndrome), that finds it's earliest precedent in the Exodus story of the Israelite's flight from Egyptian bondage, which is found in the Holy Bible:

Exodus 1: 11 So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh. 12 But the more they were oppressed, the more they multiplied and spread; so the Egyptians came to dread the Israelites 13 and worked them ruthlessly. 14 They made their lives bitter with hard labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their hard labor the Egyptians used them ruthlessly.

..........And yet when they were finally free.................

Numbers 11: 4...............the Israelites started wailing and said, "If only we had meat to eat! 5 We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost—also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. 6 But now we have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!"

How else does one explain the historical support by black Americans of a Democrat Party that has for nearly 300 years, either enslaved them or, for the first five generations that followed emancipation, murdered and abused them in a virtually unrestrained manner. And furthermore, how does one explain their loyalty and the rush back into bondage to a Party which has habitually attempted to deny black Americans the freedoms that have been guaranteed unto them by a variety of guiding laws and principles, beginning with the specific language of the US Constitution.

Political Democrats dominated American politics for the first 85 years of the new republic, throughout the entire era of legal slavery. During that time, wealthy slaveholding families were predominantly supporting members of what president Andrew Jackson finally defined in 1828 as the Democrat Party.

History reveals that after the War of American Independence, which began in 1776, black American slaves continued to be held as personal property of white citizens of the fledging nation, unabated, until September 22, 1862 when newly elected president Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing all slaves in America.

As slaves, black Americans obeyed their owners/masters in order to receive “fair“ treatment, and to avoid punishment that was sometimes severe. In return for their obedience, they were fed, clothed and given a place to sleep so as to keep them healthy, viable and able to work. In 1861, when Lincoln was elected and sent to Washington to lead the nation, he became the first Republican president of the United States. The emancipation action taken by Lincoln's administration was immediately objected to by indignant leaders of the Democrat Party, which emphatically supported slavery and which had continuously wielded power over the office of the president for the aforementioned 85 years prior to the election of Lincoln.

For the next 100 years, (1862-1962) whenever Democrats had control of the government, they persisted in their habitual efforts to keep black citizens segregated from the white population, to deny them the privilege of voting and to even to disallow equal access to public facilities. Worse, they were grievously abusive to them in heinous ways across the land, especially in the southern states where a secret and sinister organization known as the Ku Klux Clan perpetrated atrocity upon atrocity against black Americans whose only crime was being black and free.

In stark contrast, the historical record reflects that when Republicans controlled the government, efforts were made, or more likely diligently made to remove the restrictions and unconstitutional barriers to full citizenship for all races, and in particular for the descendents of the African slaves who had been freed by Lincoln and, in part, for whom the great American Civil War was fought.

Initially, many black Americans supported Republican politics, because of Lincoln's actions on their behalf. Then, Republican president, William Howard Taft (1909-1913), came along. Taft had publicly endorsed Booker T. Washington's program for the uplift of the black race, advising "now was the time for them to stay out of politics". Due to continued animosity between North and South politicians, however, he was reluctant to use federal authority to enforce the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution that allowed black Americans the right to vote. Disappointed by the lack of fervor by Taft, and encouraged by Woodrow Wilson's promises of support for their issues, in 1912, "an unprecedented number" of black Americans left the Republican Party to cast their vote for Democrat Wilson. However, they were disappointed when early in his administration he allowed the introduction of segregation into several federal departments and signed a bill making miscegenation (the mixing of different racial groups, that is, marrying, cohabiting, having sexual relations and having children with a partner from outside one's racially or ethnically defined group), a felony in the District of Columbia.. He also allowed DC streetcars to become segregated.

In the first half of the 20th Century, some of the earliest welfare programs were instituted and welfare agencies were notorious for racialized use of discretion. Noteworthy were programs such as State Mother's Pensions (1910-1930), which was designed to assist widowed mothers with children but excluded women of color, and The Social Security Act of 1935 (1930-1960), which was a broad national system of provision for the poor but specifically excluded domestic and agricultural workers who were predominantly black Americans.

By 1960, black American had become a significant voting block and during the 60s, specifically during the presidential terms of both John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, under severe pressure from the “civil rights movement“, the Democrat leadership capitulated to rights demands of black leaders such as Martin Luther King. What followed was a societal change which opened up significantly greater access to public assistance programs for black Americans, which allowed the Democrat Party to gain a firm control of the black vote by making them once again beholden to the same Democratic Party that physically enslaved them for 243 years (1619-1862) and physically and mentally abused them for 100 more (1862-1962)

Since the 60s, Democrats have intentionally drawn black Americans deeper and deeper into another, more sinister type of bondage by the use of such deceptive means as welfare, affirmative action and other racial quota and entitlement programs; By lowering educational standards they have given them the impression that they are progressing when in fact the majority are being pervasively and profoundly held back and rendered inadequate educationally to achieve whatever goals they may one day desire.

Democrat land owners may not still physically own black Americans for use on their plantations and as slaves in their homes, but they have managed to still own them psychologically, demanding that they serve the political purposes of the Democrat Party. In return, they are fed, clothed and given a place to sleep so as to keep them healthy, viable and able to work for the leaders of the Party. Even the first black president of the United States, it would appear, has been positioned through deception, trained and brought into the big house to serve the interests of his wealthy Democrat masters.

When will they set themselves free?

Wake up, black America........Wake up before it’s too late!!

Copyright 2010. All Rights Reserved.

When The Inmates Run The Asylum

2010-02-04T11:14:00.000-08:00

In January, I published a couple of sequential articles entitled, Why Airline Safety Can't Be Insured (Jan-4) and Morons Of America Please Stand Up (Jan-5). Shortly thereafter, a very dear friend took me to task about my comments against the futility and invasion of modesty that full body screening will bring to air travel, not to mention further loss of revenue to an already deeply troubled airline industry as travelers eschew this mode of travel for yet another reason. The position that I advocated in these two previous articles, has not changed. For reasons that cannot be ignored by a rational person, the only way to improve security at the airport is to very specifically profile, and to disallow commercial flight to those who would deny our citizenry the freedom to fly in peace. We must not continue to allow ourselves to be subjected to ever increasing, and futile attempts to screen out weapons of mass destruction that have only been carried onboard by individuals of a certain profile.

I will not spend a great amount of time making the obvious case but before Middle Eastern Muslim men between the ages of 20 and 40 began high jacking airplanes and killing the passengers, or committing suicide by blowing up entire planes; Before Middle Eastern Muslim men between the ages of 20 and 40 began flying airplanes into prominent buildings, or attempting to destruct the Pentagon and the White House by crashing pirated airplanes into them; Before Middle Eastern Muslim men between the ages of 20 and 40 began attempting to ignite explosives stashed in their shoes or in the cavities covered by their underwear; Yes, before all that there was deemed to be no need to even screen passengers. Back then, people considered air travel a social occasion which allowed whole families to gather at the gate without passing through any screening device, and have a drink or dinner or just visit together with the arriving or departing traveler(s), or to arrange for a happy greeting to an arriving friend or loved one.

Please feel free to go back and read my two referenced articles but in synopsis I stated therein that neither metal detectors nor full body screening nor strip searches nor X-Ray nor MRI, nor any other technique currently known to mankind would insure a high probability of safety in air travel. No!! Only rational profiling will accomplish that.

I am writing this article today to further illustrate what I stated in my blog last month. The following is an excerpt of what was printed this morning on WorldNetDaily:

"Women suicide bombers recruited by al-Qaida are known to have had the explosives inserted in their breasts under techniques similar to breast enhancing surgery. The lethal explosives – usually PETN (pentaerythritol Tetrabitrate) – are inserted during the operation inside the plastic shapes. The breast is then sewn up. Similar surgery has been performed on male suicide bombers. In their cases, the explosives are inserted in the appendix area or in a buttock."

"Properly inserted the implant would be virtually impossible to detect by the usual airport scanning machines. Given that the explosive would be inserted in a sealed plastic sachet, and would be a small amount, would make it all the more impossible to spot it with the usual body scanner."

"Explosive experts at Britain's Porton Down biological and chemical warfare research center told MI5 that a sachet containing as little as five ounces of PETN when activated would blow "a considerable hole" in an airline's #skin which would guarantee it would crash."

But, in order to be politically correct, our leaders in their dubious wisdom have determined that all travelers will continue to be subjected to futile metal scans, requirements to remove their shoes, jewelry, belts and coats, to empty all their pockets and throw away their toothpaste, bottled water, coffee, shampoo, hair spray, deodorant, etc. Furthermore, because a Muslim terrorist caught himself on fire during a failed terror attack in flight on Christmas Day, and was found to have explosive material carefully stored inside his underwear (which would not have been caught by anything except a body cavity search anyway), we are all soon to be subjected to extremely invasive full body scans that will certainly turn many travelers away from the airport. Meanwhile, those who have the potential and desire to harm us may walk blithely onboard with their C4 or PETN safely stored in a body orifice or organ, to be activated during what should have been (and used to be) a pleasant and statistically safe mode of travel.

The same governmental leaders wish to disarm all of the law abiding citizens of America under the guise of protecting (us?) from law breakers?

They are spending billions of dollars, and have created a billion dollar industry in it's own right, to protect the world from global warming, which has itself been proven to be a lie based upon fraudulent data and other outright lies. Furthermore, and incredibly I might add, the leader of this movement, Al Gore, has been proven to have one of the largest personal carbon footprints of any other individual, and is doing nothing to change that.

Through Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac programs, they forced the investment community, and the nation into an unprecedented financial crisis by requiring banks and other lenders to extend sub-prime mortgage loans to individuals who did not have the means to pay, and who subsequently defaulted in record numbers.

And though they have proven to possess minimal credible business experience, they believe that they can run the auto industry, the banking industry, healthcare, etc, better than people who have spent their lives in corporate achievement.

Our president, in cooperation with the trade unions, believes that they can turn out better citizens by re-writing the history books the way that they wish it had been, instead of the way it was; that by purging Christianity from our culture they can create a better society; that by attacking industries and companies that are not organized, and forcing them to adopt union policy they will make the playing field more level for average Americans. It is not so. Advancement based upon individual merit, which is foreign to union labor, and the competition between corporations and other businesses are the hallmark of the free enterprise system that made America the envy of the rest of the world. Furthermore, it is the unions that have destroyed whole industries in America and the auto industry is the new “poster child” for the failure of union dominated companies to compete in the global marketplace.

Irrational conduct such as this can be expected to occur, when the inmates run the asylum my friends, and the politically correct, irrational and futile attempts to protect us in the air are just further evidence of that analogy. We cannot continue to accept leadership in Washington that is so obviously inept. We deserve better.

Wake Up, America...........Wake Up Before It's Too Late!!!

Copyright 2010. All Rights Reserved

Morons Of America, Please Stand Up!

2010-01-05T06:09:00.000-08:00

After listening to a couple of hours of talk radio this morning, I just have to add a few more comments regarding the aftermath of activities by the Christmas Day Panty-Bomber.

Please people,.........let’s stop sounding so ridiculous!! To prevent terrorism on air flights we're going to randomly screen passengers via full body imaging and not let people read, hold anything in their hands or go to the bathroom during the final hour of a flight?? I mean, Come on!!!

We have morons running our Homeland Security program. I'm sorry!! I wish that there was another name for it but......there isn't!! Mark Levin said on his radio program yesterday, "I feel like I'm living near a giant Jim Jones commune" (sic), and I know what he means. Think people..........think........or you may one day find yourself in a village somewhere drinking the arsenic laced Kool-Aid.

Every time I hear someone like even popular conservative talk show host Dennis Prager saying, “I’m all for full body scanning. It will make our air travel a lot safer”, I just want to say, “People go put on your moron hats and sit quietly in the corner somewhere and do........ whatever morons do”, no offense intended Dennis.

The only way that enforcement of the quiet hour prior to arrival at a destination, or random full body scanning prior to the flight will make anything safer is if another moron is the one who is traveling with the bomb and/or being scanned prior to boarding. Considering these new and enhanced security measures, it goes without saying that on any flight lasting over 60 minutes the terrorist will have to use the remaining duration prior to the final 60 minutes to activate his package (I can’t believe I am explaining this). Furthermore, random full body scans will not catch the Arab/Muslim terrorist, most of the time. Profiled full body scans won’t either because if the terrorist wedges it in his.....you know........, which he very happily will, it won’t be seen by the imaging machine anyway.

These notions will be no more effective in actually providing security for air travelers than requiring infrequent flyers from say, Oklahoma, to throw away their toothpaste, shampoo, bottled water and a $4.00 cup of Starbucks coffee prior to entering the ’security’ area, when finally taking that rare flight to see their children who now live in California.

I wonder, how dumb we have to be before we truly become the laughing stock of the world. I’m sorry but surely I’m not the only one who sees the wry humor in our ridiculously misguided attempts to secure air travel. Take my shoes off ?? Don't make me laugh!!

The kind of explosives being used by Arab/Muslim terrorists will not usually be caught by any current screening techniques. The only way to maximize safe air travel is to deny boarding rights to anyone who fits a profile that has been known to be a threat to the safety of air travelers, i.e. Arab/Muslims whose fathers have reported them as possible terrorists, are traveling without papers or luggage and paying $3,000. cash for a one way ticket to America. If some very simple and rational rules of logic had been applied, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab would not have even been on Northwestern flight #253 on Christmas Day where ~300 travelers narrowly escaped death when the detonator that , Umar had brought onboard merely set his pants on fire instead of igniting the bomb that he had wedged into his...........you know........

Wake up, America!! Wake up, before it's too late!!

Copyright Ó 2010. All Rights Reserved.

Why Airline Safety Cannot Be Insured

2010-01-04T10:24:00.000-08:00

On Christmas Day, 2009, a Yemeni Muslim Terrorist successfully executed a bomb attack upon Northwest Airline flight #253 while in route from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan. No one was killed, no thanks to Homeland Security or TSA, only because the bomb’s ignition system failed, after which other alert passengers seized the moment and subdued the terrorist.

No security screening technology that is currently in use, or is planned to be put into use would have prevented this act, so to pretend that we are going to take drastic measures (by adding full body scans), and by doing so will assure airline safety, is either purposely patronizing and deceptive, or just plain stupid.

Three days after the Christmas Day attack, Mr. Obama came out with a statement which implicated Al Qaeda. To which my daughter responded, “Thank you, Captain Obvious”!!

Quite frankly, I don’t give two hoots whether it was the act of the Taliban, Al Qaeda or simply the random act of yet another Middle Eastern Muslim terrorist. It does not even matter to me that our Homeland Security is so ineffective that it let a man whose own father had turned him in as a potential terrorist, a man who showed up at the airport in Amsterdam with no luggage and no travel papers, and paid $3000 cash to purchase a one way ticket to Detroit, and did so with no problems. It is irrelevant to me that 23 year old Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in spite of all the evidence that would seem to have justified it, received no special scrutiny or screening whatsoever because to be politically correct, we refuse to profile in order to protect our citizens from harm,....but even if we did, we must face the inescapable conclusion that even that would not really secure the safety of air travel.

And so yesterday, we were requiring all passengers and their carry on items go through metal detectors, and today we plan to add random full body scans using the long threatened imaging technology that looks through clothing but does not inspect body cavities or crevices. When that proves to be ineffective, which indeed it will, and anyone but a moron can determine that for himself, what will we do next? Begin strip searching passengers so that body cavities and crevices may be "looked into"? And when that doesn’t suffice, will we add MRI or X-Ray scans performed on passengers to find ingested or surgically implanted WMDs?

None of these actions will be effective unless we begin barring Arabs/Muslims from integrated flights and so, what if we do that? Well, airline safety will be dramatically improved but, the Arab/Muslim terrorists will simply shift their focus to football domes, or malls, or some other target of their venom.

I’m sorry, but after having my personal freedom trampled upon more and more, and year after year, and after waiting over 8 years since the September 11, 2001 attack on America for someone in the Arab/Muslim community to step up and condemn the behavior of Muslim terrorist in the world, to act like real Americans, I have become radicalized against their continued presence and impact upon my personal freedom and the lives of my family members and friends.

Islam is not really so much a religion as a radical ideology which tolerates nothing less than total societal change. The changes that they desire are backward, ugly, dangerous and intolerable to civilized people, and those who follow it are destroying every modern culture around the world that acquiesce to their desires.

It is therefore my view that Muslims, and the Muslim religion itself must be purged and totally banned from this country, and that if we don‘t urgently take such radical action, we place the future of our children in the greatest of jeopardy.

Wake up, America!! Wake up before it’s too late!!

Copyright Ó 2010. All Rights Reserved.

Well, Everything May Just Be Fubar!!

2009-12-29T13:10:00.000-08:00

On this New Year's Eve, with so many things off base as we witness a legislative and judicial system out of control (and the Supreme Court itself legislating from the bench), unabashed distribution of Socialist propaganda by the Establishment Media, habitual glorification of immorality under the guise of entertainment, genocide being committed against helpless children while still in the wombs of their mothers, celebration of the abominable practices of homosexuality, government takeover of private industries and health care, suppression of free speech, gun control, phony environmental legislation, inappropriate, ineffective and inaccurately portrayed information being disseminated within our public schools, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, one cannot escape the very real possibility that everything may just be Fubar!! That is to say, in the nicest way that I possibly can, Fouled Up Beyond All Repair!!

Maybe it is too late to close the gate, since the cows are already out. Perhaps it isn't possible to put the Genie back in the bottle but one thing that we can know for certain, trying to maintain a status quo that is a moving target, as we continue to witness the ongoing devolution of our national heritage is not going to suffice. When degeneration of a culture is considered progress, and loss of morality a sign of societal maturation then just saying ‘enough is enough’ is simply and decidedly inadequate if salvation of the culture is to be accomplished.

It is my view that a grassroots movement by 'we the people', that calls for major reform in Washington is both urgent and long overdue. Sitting here waiting for the next election dates with the intent of somehow voting out the old (representatives) and voting in the new (representatives) , without making any philosophical adjustments is, to put it bluntly, lame, ineffective and foolish! Let's instead begin a movement that brings before the people topics to vote upon that allow for reformation of behavior and rules that have crept into our government and that now clearly threaten our very freedom. But personally, I'm not sure that at this late stage of devolution even that will be sufficient to turn back the clock or repair the destruction of America that we continue to witness.
There is just cause, and immediate need for the following to be put to a vote before 'we the people' of the United States:

*Term limits for all public servants [read: elected officials and those whom they appoint]. No longer than 8 years for any elected official, not a career in public office.

*No golden retirement plans; No tenure, No pensions for any of these individuals. Social Security, when eligible, just like every other ordinary citizen. A salary while in office but no continuation of payment burdening the public afterwards. Said salary should be determined by the will of the people, not by Congress, especially with regard to Congressional salaries and benefits. We need to put an end to the practice of allowing the 'weasel to guard the hen house', so to speak. We need to return to the practice of sending patriots and public servants (those who wish to serve) to Washington, not mercenaries.

*A Requirement for our lawmakers to live by the same laws, measures and benefits they impose upon 'we the people' during their terms in public office(no elite sector s that live above the law and the masses).

*Move to end the ridiculous practice of lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, and of allowing this high court to reinterpret the intent of our Constitution.

*Demand appropriate action from those who we send to Washington to represent our interests. That they immediately consider non-exhaustive activities such as:

*The rollback of all laws that have been enacted that are contrary to the intent of the Constitution of the United States.
*The rollback of all laws that are contrary to the Biblical fundamentals upon which this nation was founded .
*The rollback and/or deregulation of some of our societal changes and a restoration of reason . ( includes a long list of inexplicable regulations that have been imposed upon us without sound logic having been applied)
*Ending subsidization of illegal immigrants and their children
*The prosecution of any individual who commits treason
*Reinstatement of the concept of "Don't Tread On Me"

On November 7th, 2008, I advanced these thoughts and questions:

Generations before us, all the way back to colonial times, have given their blood, sweat and tears to preserve our culture and protect our freedom. I wonder if we are up to the challenges that we now face? I wonder what any American generations that exist in the future will say about us?

On November 9th, I added:

With over half of the voting population of America casting their votes in support of the most immoral agenda in the history of America, in blind support of the intrinsic moral wickedness that is currently being advanced by the far left, it is time to for all of us to 'get off the fence'.

On April 10th, 2009, I observed:

My dear friends, . . . 'We The People’, . . . our national complacency, and acceptance of moral decay is palpable, and astounding!

Then on April 15th, I implored you:

I pray that right thinking Americans will resist the slide to Socialism, to their last breath. And beyond personal and community based charity for those who are truly in need, as opposed to those who simply believe themselves to be entitled, I pray that we will fight to preserve what conservatives for generations have called the American way: Capitalism based on the competition of free enterprise, and of a free market system augmented by abiding, personal and relentlessly ambitious commitment to personal excellence.

On April 22nd, I made this impassioned plea:

We are, one nation of united states by design, under God by His creation and sovereign will; But the reigning liberals, and their followers, are putting this great nation at risk of losing it all, when they blindly, and ignorantly, interpret evil as good and good as evil; when they don't want to face the ugly truth, even when they see it with their own eyes, preferring rather to ignore the facts; when they defend what is evil and condemn what is good; when they refuse to call those who have repeatedly attacked us, terrorists, but are more than willing to call God fearing American citizens, "right wing extremists", and "a security threat to the nation" because we have the audacity to express outrage, at the outrageous conduct and attitudes of those very same liberals.

On April 29th, I observed:

I hear frustrated people every day who agree with the description of the problem, but complain, "What can I do, I'm only one person without significant influence". Well, once again the perhaps rhetorical question, "What are you willing to do?" You may answer the question now, if you like, or you can answer it later, but answer it you will.

On June 10th, I offered this perspective:

My dear friends, it is not difficult to understand why the people who give unconditional support to the socialist goals of Obama do so, (the Black Americans, Sodomites, Abortionists, Labor Unions, Muslims, Welfare Recipients, Illegal Immigrants, Hedonists and the like), but when I begin to hear a softening of tone, a rationalizing of standards, a move toward the left and compromise of substance from those who have been the public face of American conservatism, how can I not feel a little confused and demoralized. When I also hear a left shift from my personal friends and fellow conservatives toward a more moderate view, and an underlying criticism of those who would boldly speak out against the tyranny of socialism and yes, against this administration, it is difficult to believe that our national heritage is not at great risk. When we become like sheep, the wolves will devour us.

On June 16th, As I told a tale of the battle between a good and a bad wolf, and closed with the following:

..........in Turkey last week (on June 3), as he has done before, Barack Hussein Obama declared that we are not a Judeo-Christian nation. On June 4, he paid homage to Islam, repeatedly calling the Koran Holy, and quoting from it over and over for emphasis.
Asked last year to clarify his remarks on America’s spiritual heritage, Obama repeated them to the Christian Broadcast Network: “I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism. Whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers,” Obama wrote in an e-mail to CBN News senior national correspondent David Brody.
“We should acknowledge this and realize that when we’re formulating policies from the statehouse to the Senate floor to the White House, we’ve got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community,” wrote Obama.

"Grandfather which wolf will survive?"
"The one that is fed, my son."

On November 9th, commenting on the Fort Hood massacre, I stated:

It is time for the ‘I'm OK, your OK’ generation that are trying to destroy the moral values of this country, the Establishment Media, the ObamaNationistas, Homeland Security, the FBI, politically correct military officers like, General Casey, and Fort Hood base commander Lt. General Cone (who said that “the evidence did not point to terrorism” sic), to stop making excuses. What has happened in this country that we are no longer willing to call a spade a spade, for fear that we may hurt our careers or appear to be politically incorrect? Even the doctors who worked with Major Hasan were said to be so "creeped out" by him that they purposely steered patients away from him, but were afraid to report his behavior to their superiors. As a collective consequence of reluctance, pacifism or apathy, on the part of those whom we rely upon to protect us, 13 souls departed this life last week, 30 more lay wounded, some critically, and 43 families are grieving. And every true patriot in this nation grieves with them.

On November 18th, I ventured the following:

Where did we think all of this would lead us? Barack Obama is the most transparent president in history. He never felt the need to disguise his intentions and is doing exactly what he said he would do, should he be elected president.
This nation did not elect one that it believed to be the Messiah and then later find that in reality he had evil intentions that are contrary to what was expected. No. What has become, and is rapidly becoming an ever more evil and foolish nation elected him for just what he is now proving himself to be: an Abortionist, a Muslim, a Blasphemer, a Marxist, a Racist, a Narcissist and a Tyrant, who despises American capitalism and the free enterprise system that has made it the most powerful and envied nation upon the earth.
He and all those who align themselves with him are resolute in their determination to destroy the moral basis upon which this great nation was founded, they intend to deprive us of the freedoms guaranteed to us by our Constitution, and are bent upon the destruction of our very way of life.

The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men. Psalms 12: 8

And now, as we witness the close of the 2009th year of our Lord, do we conclude that this nation is irretrievably Fubar? As I look back over this, another year, I find myself to be even more convinced than ever that unless a change in direction is initiated, this nation is headed toward a great peril.

May 2010 be a year that is blessed by God on our behalf, and may we find within ourselves the answers to the questions: What are we willing to do, which wolf will we feed, and what will any American generation that may exist in the future say about us?

Wake up America!! Wake up, . . . . .before it's too late!!

Copyright Ó2009. All Rights Reserved.

A Modern Day Declaration Of Independence

2009-11-24T05:06:00.000-08:00

Tyranny, even when it comes from within our very nation, is tyranny all the same. In order to further emphasize this point, I would ask that on the heels of my November 16 article entitled , “A Modern Day American Crisis”, you also consider the following words from the writings of another of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, who would later become the president of the United States. The general content of this document has been preserved, but in order to make the blunt point, the specifics are herein modified for your sober reflection upon:

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of (these states); and such is now the necessity which constrains them (to protest the changes to) their former systems of government. The history of (this president, Barack Hussein Obama), is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world:

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has refused to present birth evidence that establishes his legal right to hold a congressional or executive office in the United States.
He has (identified so called czars) dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has conspired to enlist a private civil militant entity for undetermined use.
He has attempted to indoctrinate our children, through our public schools, with doctrine that does not consider or represent the beliefs of non Socialist homes and families

He has attempted to destroy our dedication to the Christian faith upon which this nation was founded.
He has filled his cabinet and other government agencies with known criminals and Socialists without proper vetting or concern as to possible consequences..
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For the bailout of failing businesses;
For redistribution of wealth under the guise of economic stimulus;
For regulation of industry using "cap and trade" terminology under the guise of planetary defense;
For the nationalization of whole industries;
For the nationalization of health care;
For severe regulation and restriction of private gun and ammunition ownership, in violation of our Constitutional rights;
For restriction of free speech under the guise of a "fairness doctrine";
For imposing taxes on us without our consent;
For taking away our charters, abolishing (or ignoring) our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments.
He has excited domestic insurrection among us.
He has incited racial discrimination among us.
He has conspired to relinquish our national sovereignty to a world government.
He has given aid and comfort to enemies of the state during a time of war.
He has refused to support the recommendations of his military leaders during a time of war, putting the army of our government unnecessarily at higher risk.
He has conspired to force corporations into unionizing their labor forces, an act that will destroy our international competitiveness.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A (leader), whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our (Socialist) brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of (that preceded the) emigration and settlement here (of our forefathers and national founders). We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, (as) representative (citizens) of the (United States of America), appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the (expressed ) authority of the good people of these (states) solemnly publish and declare, That these United (States) are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the (Socialist form of government of the Obama administration and those like it), and that all political connection between them and the (aforementioned government entity or entities) is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Wake up America! Before it is too late!!

Copyright 2009. All Rights Reserved.
______________________________________________________________________
To compare this writing to the original Declaration of Independence, published on July 4, 1776, go to: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/declare.asp
______________________________________________________________________

Barack Obama Is The Effect, Not The Cause

2009-11-18T03:32:00.000-08:00

Please take a moment to recall to your consciousness the following
non- exhaustive selection of events and factors; "The Cause":

Roosevelt's “New Deal”, Government Provided Welfare Payments,
Organized Labor, Organized Crime, The Mafia, The Ku Klux Clan,
Racial Discrimination, John Kennedy's Assassination,
Lee Harvey Oswald, Martin Luther King's Assassination,
The Watts Riot, Bobby Kennedy's Assassination,
Sirhan Sirhan, Black Panthers, I'm OK-You're OK, Free Love,
Drug Abuse, Flag Burning, Woodstock, Flower Children,
Civil Disobedience, If It Feels Good Do It, Hell's Angels, Black Muslims,
The Vietnam War Defeat and Disgrace, The Charles Manson Gang,
Bianca Family Murder, Treasonous Acts Without Consequences,
Sharon Tate(and her unborn child) Murdered, Draft Dodgers,
The Feminist Movement, The Burning of Bras, William Ayers,
Bernadette Dorn, The Weathermen, Madeleine Murray O'hare
The Advancement Of Scientology, Abortion Legalized "Roe v Wade",
The Bloods, The Crips And Other Street Gangs, Communes, Cults,
Jim Jones' Mass Suicide, Draft Card Burning, Pornography,
Explicit Adult Movies, Domestic Terrorism, Malcolm X, Atheism,
Employment Programs Based On Race Or Color, John Hinckley,
Rampant Entitlement Demands, Affirmative Action, Crooked Politicians,
Attempted Assassination of Ronald Reagan, Open Homosexuality,
Attacks On Prayer In School, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
National Organization of Women (NOW), Attacks On Public Prayer,
Hollywood Uncensored, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV),
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), Latch Key Children,
Attacks On Public Displays Of Christian Faith, MoveOn.org,
Child Pornography, Ruby Ridge A National Disgrace,
David Koresh and The Branch Davidians, Same Sex Marriages,
The Waco Massacre A National Disgrace, Hedonism,
Attacks On Governmental Use Of Christian Symbolism,
Rampant Sexual Perversion, Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs)
Attacks On, "In God We Trust", Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton,
Violent And Explicit Rap Music And Video Games, Sadaam Hussein,
Voter and Election Fraud, Attack On The Acchile Lauro,
Revisionist History, Socialist Control of Main Stream Media (MSM)
First World Trade Center Attack, Attack On The USS Cole,
Second World Trade Center on 9-11-2001,
Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now(ACORN),
Supreme Court's Repeated Failure To Uphold The Constitution,
Government Provided Compensation to Illegal Immigrants,
Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda And Taliban, Muslim Extremists,
US Border Agents Prosecuted, Socialists, Communists,

The Election Of A Muslim And A Marxist President.
Barack Hussein Obama.

Where did we think all of this would lead us? Barack Obama is the most transparent president in history. He never felt the need to disguise his intentions and is doing exactly what he said he would do, should he be elected president.

This nation did not elect one that it believed to be the Messiah and then later find that in reality he had evil intentions that are contrary to what was expected. No. What has become, and is rapidly becoming an ever more evil and foolish nation elected him for just what he is now proving himself to be: an Abortionist, a Muslim, a Blasphemer, a Marxist, a Racist, a Narcissist and a Tyrant, who despises American capitalism and the free enterprise system that has made it the most powerful and envied nation upon the earth.

He and all those who align themselves with him are resolute in their determination to destroy the moral basis upon which this great nation was founded, they intend to deprive us of the freedoms guaranteed to us by our Constitution, and are bent upon the destruction of our very way of life.

The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men. Psalms 12: 8

Wake up America! Before it's too late!!

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

A Modern Day American Crisis

2009-11-16T05:43:00.000-08:00

Tyranny, even when it comes from within our very nation, is tyranny all the same. In order to make this point, I would ask that you consider these words from the writings of one of our founding fathers, Thomas Paine, which are being herein modified and reapplied for your sober reflection upon:

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheaply, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value.

Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. [Barack Obama], with an army to enforce his tyranny, [has demonstrated that he believes] he has a right not only to tax, but "to bind us in all cases whatsoever" and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.

Many today by there complacent attitudes seem to be saying, no matter what they do "Well! [Just] give me peace in my day." [redacted] A generous parent [might well say], "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.

There are cases which cannot be overdone by language, and this is one. There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that [this administration], if [it] succeeds, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both. [Barack Hussein Obama's] first object is, partly by threats and partly by promises, to terrify or seduce the people to deliver up their arms and receive mercy. [redacted] This is what the [Socialists] call making their peace, "a peace which passeth all understanding" indeed! A peace which would be the immediate forerunner of a worse ruin than any we have yet thought of. Ye men of [America], do reason upon these things! Were [we and our neighbors] to give up [our] arms, [we] would fall an easy prey to the [criminal elements, including corrupt government agencies], who will all be armed: this perhaps is what some [Obamanistas] would not be sorry for. [redacted]

Mutual fear is the principal link in the chain of mutual love, and woe be to that state that breaks the compact. [Barack Obama] is mercifully inviting you to barbarous destruction, and men must be either rogues or fools that will not see it. I dwell not upon the vapors of imagination; I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as A, B, C, hold up truth to your eyes. Yet it is folly to argue against determined hardness; eloquence may strike the ear, and the language of sorrow draw forth the tear of compassion, but nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice.

Quitting this class of men, I turn with the warm ardor of a friend to those who have nobly stood, and are yet determined to stand the matter out: I call not upon a few, but upon all: not on this state or that state, but on every state: up and help us; lay your shoulders to the wheel; better have too much force than too little, when so great an object is at stake. Let it be told to the future world, that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet and to repulse it. Say not that thousands are gone, turn out your tens of thousands; throw not the burden of the day upon Providence, but "show your faith by your works," that God may bless you. It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all. The far and the near, the home counties and the back, the rich and the poor, will suffer or rejoice alike. The heart that feels not now is dead; the blood of his children will curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole, and made them happy. I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death. My own line of reasoning is to myself as straight and clear as a ray of light.

Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to "bind me in all cases whatsoever" to his absolute will, am I to suffer it? What signifies it to me, whether he who does it is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman; whether it be done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference; neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in the one case and pardon in the other. Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a stupid, stubborn, [arrogant, self serving] man (indeed, a narcissist and an avowed follower of Marxist priniciples). I conceive likewise a horrid idea in receiving mercy from a being, who at the last day shall be shrieking to the rocks and mountains to cover him, and fleeing with terror from the orphan, the widow, and the slain of America.

This is our situation, and who will may know it. By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue; by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils — a ravaged country — depopulated cities — habitations without safety, and slavery without hope — [redacted] Look on this picture and weep over it! and if there yet remains one thoughtless wretch who believes it not, let him suffer it unlamented.

"Wake up America! Before it's too late!!
　
Copyright 2009. All Rights Reserved.
__________________________________________________________　
To compare this writing to Thomas Paine's original, The American Crisis, published on December 23, 1776, go to: http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/crisis/c-01.htm

On Radical Muslim Faith

2009-11-09T06:40:00.000-08:00

There are Christians and then.... there are Christians. To paraphrase the intent of an oft repeated comment , "sitting in church doesn’t make one a Christian, any more than sitting in a henhouse makes one a hen". Truly devout Christianity, in these enlightened times, causes one to pursue a life that is based upon all the words and teachings of the Bible. It is a life long dedication to learning what is written there, and attempting to put that which is learned into practice. What one finds within those many pages is a consistent message of faith, hope and love; a dedication to peace and goodwill toward one's fellow man; and instruction to persevere in doing good, instead of evil (the golden rule).

Devoted Christians aside, there are many more who claim a Christian faith but do not truly practice it in their daily life, but rather simply go through the ceremonial motions. Go to church a couple times a year on Easter Sunday and during the Christmas holidays, or maybe attend every Sunday, maybe even Sunday evening and Wednesday evening .

Singer Amy Grant once had a song make popular in religious circles that said:

I know a man maybe you know him too,
You never can tell, he might even be you,
He knows the books of the bible, and John 3:16,
He's got the biggest King James that you've ever seen.
Spiritual tummy, he can't take too much,
One day a week he gets a spiritual rush,
On Sunday he puts on his spiritual best,
And gives his language a spiritual rest.

You are probably asking your self right now, "Where is he going with this? I thought he was going to talk about Muslims." Well in case you missed it, that is exactly what I am doing.

There are Muslims, and then......there are Muslims. If you listen to the Establishment Media (EM) or the ObamaNationistas, you may be led to believe that Islam is either a religion of peace, or that the only kind of Muslim that we have in the United States is the ceremonial kind, the ones who may or may not bow to the east five times a day, but who otherwise, for all intents and purposes, are just everyday American citizens with the same values, goals and sentiments as the rest of us, and in some, (maybe even many) cases, this is no doubt true, but to trivialize the Muslim faith by assuming that there is no real devotion to the writings of their bible, the Koran, is reckless and dangerous presumption. Like it or not, the problem that we must deal with sooner or later in this country is not associated with the ceremonial group, but rather curiously with the truly committed to all the writings in the Koran, the ones that share a similar devotion to faith and guiding principles with our most faithful Christians. Unfortunately, however, the writings that these radical and devout Muslims follow, which are found in the Koran, do not promote the same values as the Bible but rather, are filled with a dedication to anger, malice, violence and destruction, even to the murder of all non Muslims,............who they call Infidels.

Much of the evidence that has thus far been uncovered clearly indicates that Major Nidal Malik Hasan committed the Fort Hood atrocities because he is a radical and devout follower of Mohammed and yet, the EM have hardly even mentioned it. Instead, they prefer to look for the blame for his heinous acts somewhere else. He was unable to find a wife. He felt angry because someone once called him a "camel jockey". He was upset because he may have been deployed to the Middle East (He's a psychiatrist, he would not have been a combatant, and the media is still unclear as to whether or not he was even considered for deployment). Whatever! The good folks within the EM and the ObamaNationistas are desperately trying to make us believe that something other than his radical faith in the teachings of the Koran caused him to just "crack".
In the American justice system, if a man and his wife have a strong disagreement that escalates into violence, and he ends up killing her, a good defense may be that he just "cracked". The media term is, ‘a crime of passion’. On the other hand, if that same man goes out and buys himself a couple of hand guns, gives away his most precious possessions, says goodbye to his family and then goes home and shoots his wife to death, that my friends, is called premeditated murder or murder in the first degree.

If Major Hasan had spontaneously lashed out in anger at someone who called him a "camel jockey", or a "rag head", one might accept that he simply “cracked” , and committed ‘a crime of passion’. But when a man who is reputed to be a devout Muslim, who for months, or even years, has been professing support for terrorists and acts of terrorism against America follows this same pattern, and then uses those purchased hand guns to murder, indiscriminately, fellow soldiers at an American military facility while shouting, "Allahu Akbar" (God is great!), That my friends is premeditated murder, and another blatant act of terrorism on American soil.............by another Muslim terrorist.

In yet in an obvious attempt to ignore the plight of the victims while excusing and/or justifying the conduct of the murderer, Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey Jr. stated on Meet the Press yesterday morning, "Loss of diversity, would be worse than jihad murder: “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse". Spoken like a true politician General Casey!! Why don’t you make that speech to the families of the fallen?

It is time for the ‘I'm OK, your OK’ generation who are trying to destroy the moral values of this country, the Establishment Media, the ObamaNationistas, Homeland Security, the FBI, politically correct military officers like, General Casey, and Fort Hood base commander Lt. General Cone (who said that “the evidence did not point to terrorism” sic), to stop making excuses. What has happened in this country that we are no longer willing to call a spade a spade, for fear that we may hurt our careers or appear to be politically incorrect? Even the doctors who worked with Major Hasan were said to be so "creeped out" by him that they purposely steered patients away from him, but were afraid to report his behavior to their superiors. As a collective consequence of reluctance, pacifism or apathy, on the part of those whom we rely upon to protect us, 13 souls departed this life last week, 30 more lay wounded, some critically, and 43 families are grieving. And every true patriot in this nation grieves with them.

Wake up America, before it's too late!!

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Give Me A Break!!

2009-11-06T06:46:00.000-08:00

I heard about the afternoon carnage at Fort Hood yesterday, while driving in from Plano and, upon arriving home, went straight to the computer and sent the following little note out to my wife and some of our friends and family:

"Sooooo U.S. Army Major Malik Hassan (now deceased), with the possible assistance of two other American soldiers, kills 12 and injures another 30+ at Fort Hood and it is uncertain whether it is a political act or just a case of some Arab Muslim in an American uniform who just cracked after having served in Iraq? I would laugh at the ridiculously implied denial if it were not such an undeniable, serious and tragic act of terrorism on U.S. soil. Wake up America!! "

She instantly fired back:

"YES!!!! They immediately come out with, "It isn't an act of terrorism...but we are not releasing the name right now..." I knew right then it was a Muslim.....AND the FBI went in right away....that doesn't happen on military bases....even Fox...won't "speculate" on whether it was terrorism or not....GIVE ME A BREAK!!!! The mall shootings...the guy who blew himself up outside the stadium...the freeway killer....GEE...they're all Muslims but it isn't terrorism."

Although the establishment media initially reported that Major Hasan had been killed, it has since been reported by CNN, ABC and others that he is in fact not dead. Rather, his condition is now described as stable.

This incredible act which apparently was perpetrated upon these, and all of the other innocent victims by Major Nidal Malik Hasan (and possible accomplices) is horrific, but it is just another in a series of incidents of domestic terrorism (yes by Muslim terrorists) that the establishment media and this current administration continue to deny the existence of.

Let’s give a quick factual review of what led up to this atrocity:
Nidal Malik Hasan was born about 1969 in Arlington Virginia. He apparently graduated from high school about 1988. He joined the army about 1988-89. By 2003 he had received a bachelors degree from Virginia Tech and a doctorate from the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, MD., graduating with a degree in Osteopathy and later finished his residency as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. (all paid for by the U.S. Army -courtesy of 'we the people') He was promoted to the rank of Major in May 2009 after completing a fellowship in Disaster and Preventive Psychiatry at the Center for Traumatic Stress. He was subsequently advised that he would be deployed to Iraq in November , and that's when the (you know what) hit the fan . Major Hasan immediately hired an attorney in an attempt to get out of the military. He was soon advised by his attorney that he was unable to accomplish this, even if the Major paid back the money for his education, one that most other Americans could only dream of obtaining, he would still have to fulfill his current enlistment obligations which included deployment in Iraq. Major Hasan's response to this conclusion was yesterday's rampage.

According to establishment media news reports, Fort Hood base commander, Lt. General Cone, said the motive for the attack, which took place just after 1:30 p.m. CT, is unclear. While he said he could not rule out the incident as an act of terrorism, evidence does not support that theory.
That same media quoted Hasan's cousin Nader Hasan saying that she believed it was his upcoming deployment combined with the wartime horror stories he heard from his patients that set him off. Those same media sources also reported cousin Nader Hasan saying that mass murderer Nidal Hasan was harassed after 9/11 because of his ethnicity, and was called a "camel jockey".

So some people may have called him names because he was an Arab Muslim, and that is more important for the establishment media to talk about than the fact that he has received a full ride education courtesy of the government (read taxpayers) with several years of applied medicine under his belt by the age of 39. Yeah,...... this country has certainly not been very good to people like Nidal Malik Hasan. Unbelievable!!!! I cannot find the words to express the outrage that I feel when I read these transparent attempts to rationalize, or even justify acts such as this when they are committed in these modern times by Muslims. I agree with my wife. Give me a break!!

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Obama Given Peace Prize

2009-10-09T06:56:00.000-07:00

The Norwegian Nobel Committee says U.S. President Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

According to Reuters: U.S. President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for giving the world "hope for a better future" and striving for nuclear disarmament, in a surprise award that drew both warm praise and sharp criticism. The decision to bestow one of the world's top accolades on a president less than nine months into his first term, who has yet to score a major foreign policy success, was greeted with gasps of astonishment from journalists at the announcement in Oslo.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." "Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. "In the past year, Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations."

Upon awakening to this stunning news report from the television, at 5:00 am this morning, my immediate reaction was to go to Google and check it out. I typed in 'Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize', and at the top of the hit list found this comment from Jacob Weisberg: "Aren't you supposed to do something for peace BEFORE winning the prize?" Apparently not, Mr. Weisberg, but why should we be surprised that an organization that previously granted this same award to the likes of Yassar Arafat, Nelson Mandela, Jimmie Carter and Al Gore would now add Barack Hussein Obama to it's list of recipients.

Comments from around the world were instantaneous:

Well, well, from the looks of it, Obama and his friends at the Nobel Prize Committee have done what no one could do before them: unite the world. In utter disbelief, of course, but hey, let’s not obsess over details. Michael van der Galien

At influential Dutch blog Dagelijkse Standaard readers wrote:

Joshua Livestro: And deservedly so. He gives me hope Sarah Palin will win in 2012
.
Jimmy: I’m no Palin-fan but if it means we won’t be bothered by this insane progressive idolatry of Obama she has my vote.

Jamal Yasin: The Nobel Prize in Literature will be next. He’ll have to write his umpteenth biography to win that one though.

Frank Verhoef: Congratulations Obama! Please, keep working hard on doing absolutely nothing!

De Snotverlosser: Well done, my Big O, you barely succeeded in defeating Ahmadinejad. By the way, Arafat says ‘hi.’

A commenter at Jules Crittenden’s blog wrote something along the lines of “Even Obama must have woken up to this news and gone ‘WTF’?”

"Obama has a long way to go still and lots of work to do before he can deserve a reward," said Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri. "Obama only made promises and did not contribute any substance to world peace. And he has not done anything to ensure justice for the sake of Arab and Muslim causes."

When I was growing up in Oklahoma, one of the goals that I hoped to achieve as a teenager was to "letter" in some athletic endeavor. To do this, I would be required to participate in one or more or the sporting activities offered by my school for a whole season. In other words, I had to do the work. For that effort and commitment, I would be given a 6"x 6" embroidered letter "H", which was emblematic of my hometown and the school, which I would represent. This was not only common to Oklahoma, but was practiced in schools all over America, and was exclusively dedicated to organized athletics, in which any member of the student body was invited to participate. Earning the "letter gave me the right to have it affixed upon the left breast of a "letter jacket" for all to see, as representative acknowledgment of my expended effort. Furthermore, if I were able to achieve multiple years of lettering, or if I lettered in several sports (basketball, football, track, baseball, etc.), there were small denoting emblems that could be affixed to the jacket as well. Then if I achieved recognition beyond the realm of my own school, such as All-Conference, All-District, All-State, etc., I could proudly display a patch on the sleeve of my letter jacket in further recognition of my individual accomplishments. During my high school years, I wore that jacket with pride.

In later years, (as America adopted social changes that were common elsewhere in the world) it apparently was deemed inappropriate to recognize the great amount of effort required to earn a “letter” in an athletic event because it denied other students (who did not desire to make such an effort) the right to have a letter and a letter jacket of their own. As a result, it was made possible for just about anyone in the school to receive a “letter” for something and as a further result, the meaning and original intent of “lettering” was lost, and no longer retained it’s honor or value. One could letter in band or glee club or speech or debate or cheerleading or just being a booster. One could receive a sleeve patch for participating in district or state contests or for being class president or for being named, ’All-Home Room’ or for being first chair on the trumpet. Understand that in addition to participating in athletics, I proudly played the trombone in the school band, and sang tenor for the glee club, and was class president and president of the student council, but I did not receive, nor expect to be given a letter for any of that. The “letter”, for which I made significant investment in effort and time, was reserved for and originally intended to reward specific achievement in athletics, and further to encourage participation in athletics by members of the student body.

When the five man Oslo committee uses the Nobel Peace Prize to promote it’s social agenda as has been the demonstrated in each of the aforementioned cases ( Yassar Arafat, Nelson Mandela, Jimmie Carter and Al Gore), rather than as an award for real and tangible peace initiative and accomplishment, it negates the value of the award, just as the high school “letter” was diluted and misused until it no longer has any real honor or value attached to it.

In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."

The prize is awarded by a five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament. The committee has taken a wide interpretation of Nobel's guidelines, expanding the prize beyond peace mediation to include efforts to combat poverty, disease and climate change.

Nevertheless, Mr. Obama was selected, and will receive his Nobel award and his estimated $1,720,000 for making ineffective speeches around the world that have achieved nothing of substance unless, as many believe, it is to diminish the potential for world peace. But socialists love another socialist, and the Nobel committee is irrefutably composed of socialists.

Liaqat Baluch, a senior leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami, a conservative religious party in Pakistan, called the award an embarrassing "joke".

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Transparency Of The Obamanation

2009-08-12T03:53:00.000-07:00

On January 21st of this year, upon his arrival at the White House, Barack Hussein Obama said, "Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency." Many conservatives have recently made remarks about his failure to deliver on the promise of transparency, citing this, that and another comment made by the president such as, “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.” Although one might reasonably decry his failure to deliver upon promises to 'work to ensure the public trust, public participation and collaboration', or 'the rule of law' being the touchstone of his presidency, I myself have seen no failure to deliver transparency from this administration. During the campaign he promised "change" and "hope" to all those who dislike America and it's historical and fundamental moral values; and he is delivering upon that promise.

He told them that he would support unlimited abortion, gun control, advancement of the homosexual lifestyle, expansion of trade unions, nationalization of healthcare, and that he would render unprecedented support for Muslims, Muslim nations and the Islamic religion itself, and he has. He promised that he would take away the earnings of the productive and 'redistribute' it to the unproductive, and he is doing that. He promised that he would appease our enemies and attack our allies, and he has. He revealed himself to be a classic Marxist who now, after becoming the president of the United States, has exhibited the most socialistic tendency and character ever seen in the White House, and I find that to be quite apparent or if you will, transparent.

Webster-Merriam online dictionary defines transparent in this way:
2-a: free from pretense or deceit ; frank
-b: easily detected or seen through ; obvious
-c: readily understood .

There is no mystery here. Barack Hussein Obama, using straight forward 'in your face' methodology, is simply doing exactly what he said that he would do. The problem is not a lack of transparency. Too many American citizens, who now seem shocked and surprised, just did not listen or chose to ignore what I perceive to be his manifestly transparent intentions. Apparently bored by the whole process, 100 million eligible voters simply shunned the polling booth altogether during the 2008 presidential election. Then post-election a host of others, so called moderate Republicans, began to say, "Barack Obama is our president now and we need to support him and pray for his success ". I said it then, and I will say it now: success for this president will be the loss of our freedom and the destruction of our American way of life! My prayer continues to be that an all seeing, all knowing , all powerful God will see fit to protect us from the ravages of this administration.

At best, the chief problem within the Obama presidency seems to be the revelation of a profound and intrinsic misunderstanding of how things work (cause and effect). This grievous lacking seems to pervade his entire administration, the people and advisors he has chosen to surround himself with, and all those who support him from within and without the public eye.
At worst, in the alternative view, he and his associates are pure evil and bent upon the deliberate destruction of American. Quite frankly, there are many of us have not ruled this possibility out.
It is one thing to espouse feel good words like, 'hope' and 'change ', and quite another to give substance to the emotion evoked by those words. Getting from A to Z, so to speak, requires a depth of thoughtfulness that appears to be totally absent from the Obama White House.

Those who paid attention to his campaign, and to his historical references, knew this lacking before he ascended to the most powerful position in the world, and that is why the outcry from the truly conservative right was, and continues to be, so loud. Like a lot of people who have never shouldered the awesome burden of great responsibility, they seem to believe, and would like for us to believe, that they can simply think of something and it shall come to pass, the intricacies involved to accomplish the thought (or task) not withstanding. They fail to see or to accept the truths of reality, ignoring what is obvious in favor or that which is not. In so doing, they distort the facts and disguise the circumstances to achieve their purpose (i.e. 'then a miracle occurs'). They then declare unto us success, while failure literally 'stares us right in the face' ('are you going to believe me, or are you going to believe your eyes'), and so we have seen a stimulus package that did not stimulate (the economy shows no tangible signs of recovery), job development programs that that did not develop (unemployment rate is now near 10%), industry rescue programs that did not rescue (those that were failing are still failing and well they should).

A good example of this lack of success is seen by observing what has happened to the U.S. auto industry and to at least two of the failed big three automakers, Chrysler, and General Motors. After funneling literally tens of billions of dollars into the rescue of these failed automakers, they went bankrupt anyway. The Obama administration and their minions have unjustly cited the failure of the CEOs and their corporate staff in explaining what went wrong within the big three, but 'the abomination that brought desolation' to them, so to speak, was actually organized labor (read: organized crime). Yes, the management sucked at Chrysler and GM because no credible corporate executive would have disgraced himself by accepting a position with a company that was obviously being run by union bosses (read: syndicate thugs), when so many other opportunities for ambitious people with exceptional management skills are available within corporate America. However, you can be assured that it was the trade unions that were at the core of that which collapsed and bankrupted these giants of American industry. These are the same trade unions who literally contributed tens of millions of dollars to the Obama campaign and about whom he has said, "I owe those unions. When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I do not consider this corrupting in any way", (see my article entitled 'Quid Pro Quo, Something For Something ', published on May 20, 2009). Ignoring the impossible circumstances of their existence, which resulted in their obvious failure to compete with (non union) foreign auto makers located right here in the United States, the Obama administration decided to first invest the billions of taxpayer's dollars into these two failed companies and then, when they failed anyway, to nationalize them and turn shared ownership and management over to the federal government and the United Auto Workers with a ridiculous plan to build motor cars that the consumer does not want. In order to sell these cars, they advanced an equally foolish plan by which the auto dealers would (presumably) offer an automatic and unreasonably large trade-in allowance (subsidized by the federal government) for any old car that would be brought in to the dealership, effectively using more of the taxpayer's money to continue subsidizing the failed automakers. Even some of the successful foreign car makers of our nation, like Toyota, jumped to qualify for this windfall from the feds.

When viewed from the so called 30,000 foot level, all of the issues that have found delirious support within this administration, and the attempts to change America which are being made by those who (in a human sense) are currently in control of our national destiny, are being approached with the same seemingly blatant lack of understanding of how things work. From national health care, to dealing with our enemies abroad, to gun control, to the sanctity of life, to properly educating our children.

. A clear example of my presumptions is found within the issue of gun control.
People will, and should, protect their own homes, their families and their neighbors when necessary, and the right to do so is inalienable. A few years ago, I arrested a man at gunpoint who was looking in our bedroom window at around 2:00 AM. The police were called and he was taken away. It was fortunate that we happened to be awake and that I saw his profile silhouetted against a street light. He was wearing camouflaged clothing, and a ski mask and he was carrying a bayonet as a weapon . I wonder what the outcome might have been had I not discovered his presence, or had a gun in my home for the protection of my familyThe Obama administration seeks to disarm all law abiding Americans leaving them unable to defend themselves from dangerous law breakers such as this.

Another example of misplaced action is found in the raging health care controversy that is going on right now. People venture out to face the day at their own risk. We choose to purchase insurance to protect ourselves against harm then we must first earn a sufficient amount of money to be able to afford it. Insurance companies were once classic examples of supply and demand, before state and federal governments got involved mandating insurance coverage. Then the demand became absolute and prices skyrocketed, whereas before, the cost of insurance was generally affordable, even for those of modest means. On the subject of affordable health care, the Obama administration, in another misguided attempt to resolve this government created problem, are proposing that the same government take over the management of health care, once again using taxpayer money of course. This idea, which has by the way failed to deliver anything but fear, stress and a host of other negative results in countries where it has been employed, has some very ugly aspects to it. One of the many problems associated with, ‘the plan’, is the deprivation of care for those who are more grievously afflicted than the norm, or are of an advanced age.

I could go on and on but surely you get the message. Let's stop talking about his lack of transparency. This president is clearly pursuing intentions that were made abundantly clear to those who paid attention, before and during his campaign. The problem with Obama is that his intentions are utterly transparent and, (forgive my redundancy), they reveal that he is either naively incompetent or inherently evil. Whether it is on the subject of protecting the environment through Cap and Trade legislation, Job Development, Taxation, the War on Terror, Redistribution of Wealth, Corporate Bailouts, Structuring Government, Nationalizing Industry Sectors, Reinterpreting the Constitution, Revising Family Values, Modern Morality or another of the many favorite liberal issue, they arrogantly define a perceived problem (found within their own misguided minds), prescribe a desired result (whether you and I like it or not), then swiftly stumble forward without a workable plan or solution ( 'Then a miracle occurs'). When objections arise from rational sectors, the response from this president and his supporting cast seems to be, "don't confuse us with details, let's just 'change' . . .and 'hope'."

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

So Who Are Your Heroes? And For Whom Will You Reserve Your Praise?

2009-07-27T03:00:00.000-07:00

The rush to praise the life and times of Michael Jackson has subsided but I am finding it more difficult to end this, my Hero series. Certainly, as is often the case with research, I have personally learned many things that were unexpected when I began this work. Nevertheless, today I will simply conclude this series by giving honor, praise, respect and time to a few more (real heroes) for your edification, a few of the many who have given so much.

Mitchell Red Cloud, Jr. (July 2, 1924 – November 5, 1950) was born near Hatfield, Wisconsin and died near Chonghyon, Korea. He was a soldier in the United States Army during the Korean War and was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions on November 5, 1950. Red Cloud had previously served in the United States Marine Corps during World War II. He was a member of the Ho-Chunk (Winnebago) Native American tribe.

His award citation read: "Corporal Red Cloud, Company E, distinguished himself by conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action against the enemy. From his position on the point of a ridge immediately in front of the company command post he was the first to detect the approach of the Chinese Communist forces and give the alarm as the enemy charged from a brush-covered area less than 100 feet from him. Springing up, he delivered devastating pointblank automatic rifle fire into the advancing enemy. His accurate and intense fire checked this assault and gained time for the company to consolidate its defense. With utter fearlessness he maintained his firing position until severely wounded by enemy fire. Refusing assistance he pulled himself to his feet and, wrapping his arm around a tree, continued his deadly fire again, until he was fatally wounded. This heroic act stopped the enemy from overrunning his company's position and gained time for reorganization and evacuation of the wounded. Corporal Red Cloud's dauntless courage and gallant self-sacrifice reflects the highest credit upon himself, and upholds the esteemed traditions of the United States Army."

Eugene Ashley, Jr. (October 12, 1930 – February 7, 1968) was a United States Army Special Forces soldier and a recipient of America's highest military decoration—the Medal of Honor—for his actions in the Vietnam War.
Ashley joined the Army from New York City and served in the Korean War. On February 6, 1968, he was a Sergeant First Class in Company C of the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), 1st Special Forces in Vietnam. On that day, Ashley led an assault force in an attempt to rescue American troops trapped by North Vietnamese infantry and tanks during the Battle of Lang Vei. He led several assaults against the enemy and was mortally wounded in his fifth and last attempt to reach the American forces. He was subsequently awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions during the battle.

His award citation read: "Sergeant First Class Ashley, distinguished himself by conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity while serving with Detachment A-101, Company C. He was the senior special forces advisor of a hastily organized assault force whose mission was to rescue entrapped U.S. special forces advisors at Camp Lang Vei. During the initial attack on the special forces camp by North Vietnamese army forces, Sergeant First Class Ashley supported the camp with high explosive and illumination mortar rounds. When communications were lost with the main camp, he assumed the additional responsibility of directing air strikes and artillery support. Sergeant First Class Ashley organized and equipped a small assault force composed of local friendly personnel. During the ensuing battle, he led a total of 5 vigorous assaults against the enemy, continuously exposing himself to a voluminous hail of enemy grenades, machine gun and automatic weapons fire. Throughout these assaults, he was plagued by numerous booby-trapped satchel charges in all bunkers on his avenue of approach. During his fifth and final assault, he adjusted air strikes nearly on top of his assault element, forcing the enemy to withdraw and resulting in friendly control of the summit of the hill. While exposing himself to intense enemy fire, he was seriously wounded by machine gun fire but continued his mission without regard for his personal safety. After the fifth assault he lost consciousness and was carried from the summit by his comrades only to suffer a fatal wound when an enemy artillery round landed in the area. Sergeant First Class Ashley displayed extraordinary heroism in risking his life in an attempt to save the lives of his entrapped comrades and commanding officer. His total disregard for his personal safety while exposed to enemy observation and automatic weapons fire was an inspiration to all men committed to the assault. The resolute valor with which he led 5 gallant charges placed critical diversionary pressure on the attacking enemy and his valiant efforts carved a channel in the overpowering enemy forces and weapons positions through which the survivors of Camp Lang Vei eventually escaped to freedom. Sergeant First Class Ashley's bravery at the cost of his life was in the highest tradition of the military service, and reflects great credit upon himself, upon his unit, and upon the United States Army."

Joseph C. Rodriguez (November 14, 1928 – November 1, 2005) was born in San Bernardino, California,. He was a United States Army soldier who was awarded the Medal of Honor - the United States' highest military decoration for his actions near Munye-ri, Korea during the Korean War. Rodriguez, a Mexican-American, was raised in the town of San Bernardino where he also received his primary and secondary education. On October 1950, Rodriguez was drafted into the United States Army and ordered to report for induction in his hometown. He received his basic training at Camp Carson in Colorado. There he was assigned to Company H, 2nd Battalion of the 196th Regimental Combat Team. Private Rodriguez completed his basic training in February 1951 and volunteered for duty in Korea. He was promoted to Private First Class and sent overseas and assigned to Company F, 17th Infantry Regiment of the 7th Infantry Division. On June 1950, General Douglas MacArthur decided on an amphibious invasion of North Korea's west coast, entrusting the 1st Marine Division and the 7th Infantry Division for the mission. The division landed in Pusan and continued to drive toward the southeast to seize key terrain, and also to cut off possible enemy escape routes. On November 27, the terrain gained by the division came under heavy attack from the Chinese Communist Forces (CCF) who had intervened in the war. The enemy attack caught the 7th strung out, with some elements as far as 250 miles apart. On May 21, 1951, Company F was assigned the mission of occupying some high ground near the Korean village of Munye-ri. The high ground was firmly entrenched with Communist Forces, who were unwilling to give up the ground. Three times Company F attacked the ridge and three times they were thrown back. Private First ClassJoseph C. Rodriguez was the assistant squad leader of the 2d Platoon. His squad's advance was halted by enemy hostile fire coming from 5 different emplacements. Rodriguez then took it upon himself the mission of destroying these emplacements. He charged the emplacements and hurled grenades into each one of the foxholes. Rodriguez destroyed the emplacements and annihilated a total of 15 enemy soldiers. As a result the enemy was routed and the strategic strongpoint secured. Private First Class Rodriguez was promoted to the rank of Sergeant and nominated for the Medal of Honor.

His award citation read: "Sergeant Rodriguez, distinguished himself by conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty in action against an armed enemy of the United Nations. Sergeant Rodriguez, an assistant squad leader of the 2d Platoon, was participating in an attack against a fanatical hostile force occupying well-fortified positions on rugged commanding terrain, when his squad's advance was halted within approximately 60 yards by a withering barrage of automatic weapons and small-arms fire from 5 emplacements directly to the front and right and left flanks, together with grenades which the enemy rolled down the hill toward the advancing troops. Fully aware of the odds against him, Sergeant Rodriguez leaped to his feet, dashed 60 yards up the fire-swept slope, and, after lobbing grenades into the first foxhole with deadly accuracy, ran around the left flank, silenced an automatic weapon with 2 grenades and continued his whirlwind assault to the top of the peak, wiping out 2 more foxholes and then, reaching the right flank, he tossed grenades into the remaining emplacement, destroying the gun and annihilating its crew. Sergeant Rodriguez' intrepid actions exacted a toll of 15 enemy dead and as a result of his incredible display of valor the defense of the opposition was broken, the enemy was routed, and the strategic strong point was secured. His unflinching courage under fire and his inspirational devotion to duty reflect the highest credit upon himself and uphold the honored traditions of the military service."

Sergeant Rodriguez subsequently became a commissioned officer in the US Army Corps of Engineers, serving more than 30 years, with combined tours of duty in four Latin American countries, in Korea and in Vietnam. In 1980, he retired from the Army with the rank of Colonel.

Earlier in this series I quoted this verse from the bible:

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends".
John 15:13

I can think of no stronger statement with which to suspend the printing of these continuing thoughts.

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

So Who Are Your Heroes? More To Be Honored.

2009-07-20T03:00:00.001-07:00

The media attention to the life and death of Michael Jackson continues and so my attention to real heroes, and to people who truly deserve to be honored for what they have done, continues as well. The persistent absence of interest in brave and honorable souls such as these by main stream media (MSM) is shameful, when compared to the idol worship shown to one whose life can be only accurately characterized by the terms outrageous, disgraceful or perhaps simply pitiful. At his best, what did he ever accomplish that compared to the patriots that we are honoring in this blog today? He was a handsome and talented young man who earned and squandered millions of dollars, and whose life, character, personality and appearance were all destroyed, year by year-before our very eyes, while MSM even then pretended that it wasn't happening. It is unavoidably sad for us, when someone dies whom we have literally grown up with, be it Farah Fawcett, Ed McMann, Walter Cronkite, James Stewart, Paul Newman, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson or many others that could be named, but it is a national disgrace that MSM spends so much time on their "life and times", while utterly ignoring the loss of courageous young men and women who literally fight and die for us.

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends".
John 15:13

Gary Ivan Gordon (August 30, 1960 – October 3, 1993), and

Randall 'Randy' David Shughart (August 13, 1958–October1993)

are posthumous recipients of the Medal of Honor. Perhaps you will recognize them from the riveting movie, "Black Hawk Down". At the time of their deaths, they were both non-commissioned officers in the United States Army's special operations unit, the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (1SFOD-D), or "Delta Force." Their medals were earned, and awarded, for actions they performed during the Battle of Mogadishu in October 1993.
According to their medal citations: "Master Sergeant Gordon, and Sergeant First Class Shughart, United States Army, distinguished themselves by actions above and beyond the call of duty on 3 October 1993, while serving as a Sniper Team, in the United States Army Special Operations Command with Task Force Ranger in Mogadishu, Somalia. Master Sergeant Gordon's sniper team provided precision fire from the lead helicopter during an assault at two helicopter crash sites, though subjected to intense automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenade fires. While providing critical suppressive fires at the second crash site, Master Sergeant Gordon learned that ground forces were not immediately available to secure the site. He and team member Sergeant First Class Shughart then unhesitatingly volunteered to be inserted to protect the four critically wounded personnel, despite being well aware of the growing number of enemy personnel closing in on the site. After their third request to be inserted, Master Sergeant Gordon and Sergeant First Class Shughart received permission to perform their volunteer mission. When debris and enemy ground fires at the site caused them to abort the first attempt, they were inserted one hundred meters south of the crash site. Each equipped with only a sniper rifle and a pistol, Master Sergeant Gordon and Sergeant Class Shughart, while under intense small arms fire from the enemy, fought their way through a dense maze of shanties and shacks to reach the critically injured crew members, where they immediately pulled the pilot and the other crew members from the aircraft, establishing a perimeter which placed Master Sergeant Gordon and Sergeant First Class Shughart in the most vulnerable of positions. Using their long range rifles and side arms they killed or disabled an undetermined number of attackers. While providing protective fire, and as their ammunition became depleted, Sergeant First Class Shughart was fatally wounded. Master Sergeant Gordon continued to travel the perimeter, protecting the downed crew. Finally, his own rifle ammunition exhausted, Master Sergeant Gordon returned to the wreckage, recovering a rifle with the last five rounds of ammunition and gave it to the pilot with the words, "good luck." Then, armed only with his pistol, he continued to fight until he was, himself, fatally wounded. The heroic actions of Master Sergeant Gary Gordon and Sergeant First Class Randy Shughart saved the pilot's life. Their extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty were in keeping with the highest standards of military service and reflect great credit upon him, his unit and the United States Army."

Paul Ray Smith (September 24, 1969–April 4, 2003) was a United States Army Sergeant First Class, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for actions in Operation Iraqi Freedom while serving with B Company, 11th Engineer Battalion, 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad, Iraq. He was also the first recipient of the Medal of Honor Flag.
Smith was born in El Paso, Texas and raised in Tampa, Florida. He graduated in 1989 from Tampa Bay Vocational Tech High School. Following graduation, he enlisted in the United States Army. Smith served there for thirteen years, eventually rising to the rank of Sergeant First Class.
On April 4, 2003, a 100-man force was assigned to block the highway between Baghdad and the airport, about one mile east of the airport. A brief battle was fought, and several enemy prisoners were captured. SFC Smith spotted a walled enclosure nearby with a tower overlooking it. He and his squad set about building an impromptu enemy prisoner of war (EPW) holding area within the enclosure. Smith and sixteen other men used an Armored Combat Earthmover (similar to a bulldozer) to knock a hole in the south wall of the courtyard. On the north side, there was a metal gate that Smith assigned several men to guard. These men observed and reported that fifty to 100 enemy had taken positions in trenches just past the gate. Smith summoned a Bradley fighting vehicle to attack their position. Three nearby M113 Armored Personnel Carriers came to support the attack. An M113 was hit, possibly by a mortar, and all three crewmen were wounded. The Bradley, running low on ammunition and damaged, withdrew during a lull in the battle. Smith organized the evacuation of the injured M113 crewmen. However, behind the courtyard was a military aid station crowded with 100 combat casualties. To protect it from being overrun, Smith chose to fight on rather than withdraw with the wounded. Meanwhile, some enemy combatants had taken position in the tower overlooking the courtyard, just over the west wall. The enemy now had the Americans in the courtyard under an intense crossfire. Smith took command of the M113 and ordered a driver to position it so that he could attack both the tower and the trenches. He manned the M113's machine gun, going through three boxes of ammunition, firing over 400 rounds. A separate team, led by First Sergeant Tim Campbell attacked the tower from the rear, killing the enemy.
As the battle ended, Smith's machine gun fell silent. His comrades found him slumped in the turret hatch. His armored vest was peppered with thirteen bullet holes, the vest's ceramic armor inserts, both front and back, cracked in numerous places. But the fatal shot, one of the last from the tower, had entered his neck and passed through the brain, killing SFC Smith.
At some point before the battle, Smith had written (but not sent), an email to his parents. In it, he had stated, "There are two ways to come home: stepping off the plane, or being carried off the plane. It doesn't matter how I come home, because I am prepared to give all that I am to ensure that all my boys make it home."
For his actions during the battle, Sergeant First Class Smith was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. On April 4, 2005, exactly two years after he was killed, his eleven-year-old son David received the Medal of Honor from President George W. Bush. For his actions in Iraq, he also received the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. When presenting the award to David, President George W. Bush said, “On this day, two years ago, Sergeant Smith gave his all for his men. Five days later Baghdad fell, and the Iraqi people were liberated. Today we bestow on Sergeant Smith the first Medal of Honor in the war on terrorism. We count ourselves blessed that we have soldiers like Sergeant Smith.”

John William Finn (born July 23, 1909) is a retired officer of the United States Navy who received the Medal of Honor in recognition of heroism and distinguished service during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. At age 99, Finn is the oldest living Medal of Honor recipient and is also the only living Pearl Harbor Day Medal of Honor recipient.
During the first attack by the Japanese aircraft, ignoring the risk to his own welfare, John William Finn took control of a mounted 50 caliber machine gun, and continued to fire on the attacking planes, despite being hit several times by enemy strafing fire, until ordered to stand down. Following that incident, he was presented the Medal of Honor for his heroism, on board the USS Enterprise by Admiral Chester Nimitz in September 1942.
His medal citation read, "For extraordinary heroism, distinguished service, and devotion above and beyond the call of duty. During the first attack by Japanese airplanes on the Naval Air Station, Kanoehe Bay, on 7 December 1941, Lieutenant Finn promptly secured and manned a 50-caliber machine gun mounted on an instruction stand in a completely exposed section of the parking ramp, which was under heavy enemy machine-gun strafing fire. Although painfully wounded many times, he continued to man this gun and to return the enemy's fire vigorously and with telling effect throughout the enemy strafing and bombing attacks and with complete disregard for his own personal safety. It was only by specific orders that he was persuaded to leave his post to seek medical attention. Following first-aid treatment, although obviously suffering much pain and moving with great difficulty, he returned to the squadron area and actively supervised the rearming of returning planes. His extraordinary heroism and conduct in this action were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

These men of valor, like the others represented in this series, did not provide entertainment for our young people, or live the life style of the rich and famous. They were never seen "moon walking" or dancing on television or Youtube videos. They were simply ordinary people who, at a moment in time, found within themselves greatness and self sacrifice to an extraordinary degree, and for that, and that alone, they deserve our honor and respect.

-To Be Continued-

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

So Who Are Your Heroes? Here Are Three More Of Mine.

2009-07-17T03:00:00.000-07:00

In presenting these three to be honored today, there is no real need for preface as their own service, and performance of duty beyond the call, speaks for itself.

George Everett "Bud" Day (born February 24, 1925) is a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot who served during the Vietnam War. He is often cited as being the most decorated U.S. service member since General Douglas MacArthur, having received some seventy decorations, a majority for actions in combat. Day is a recipient of the Medal of Honor. On 26 August 1967, Colonel Day was forced to eject from his aircraft over North Vietnam when it was hit by ground fire. His right arm was broken in 3 places, and his left knee was badly sprained. He was immediately captured by hostile forces and taken to a prison camp where he was interrogated and severely tortured. After causing the guards to relax their vigilance, Colonel Day escaped into the jungle and began the trek toward South Vietnam. Despite injuries inflicted by fragments of a bomb or rocket, he continued southward surviving only on a few berries and uncooked frogs. He successfully evaded enemy patrols and reached the Ben Hai River, where he encountered U.S. artillery barrages. With the aid of a bamboo log float, Colonel Day swam across the river and entered the demilitarized zone. Due to delirium, he lost his sense of direction and wandered aimlessly for several days. After several unsuccessful attempts to signal U.S. aircraft, he was ambushed and recaptured by the Viet Cong, sustaining gunshot wounds to his left hand and thigh. He was returned to the prison from which he had escaped and later was moved to Hanoi after giving his captors false information to questions put before him. Physically, Colonel Day was totally debilitated and unable to perform even the simplest task for himself. Despite his many injuries, he continued to offer maximum resistance. His personal bravery in the face of deadly enemy pressure was significant in saving the lives of fellow aviators who were still flying against the enemy. Colonel Day's conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Air Force and reflect great credit upon himself and the U.S. Armed Forces.

In his own words, Colonel Day has said,
"I got shot down over N Vietnam in 1967. I was a squadron commander. After I returned home in 1973, I published 2 books that dealt a lot with “real torture” in Hanoi. Our president is branding our country as a bunch of torturers when he has no idea what torture is. As for me…put thru a mock execution because I would not respond…pistol whipped on the head…same event… Couple of days later…hung by my feet all day. I escaped and got recaptured a couple of weeks later… I got shot and recaptured. Shot was OK…what happened after was not. They marched me to Vinh… put me in the rope trick, trick…almost pulled my arms out of the sockets. Beat me on the head with a little wooden rod until my eyes were swelled shut, and my unshot, unbroken hand a pulp. Next day hung me by the arms…rebroke my right wrist…wiped out the nerves in my arms that control the hands…rolled my fingers up into a ball. Only left the slightest movement of my L forefinger. So I started answering with some incredible lies. Sent me to Hanoi strapped to a barrel of gas in the back of a truck.
Hanoi…on my knees…rope trick again. Beaten by a big fool. Into leg irons on a bed in Heartbreak Hotel. Much kneeling–hands up at Zoo. Really bad beating for refusing to condemn Lyndon Johnson. Several more kneeling events. I could see my knee bone thru kneeling holes. There was an escape from the annex to the Zoo. I was the Senior Officer of a large building because of escape…they started a mass torture of all commanders.
I think it was July 7, 1969…they started beating me with a car fan belt. In first 2 days I took over 300 strokes…then stopped counting because I never thought I would live thru it. They continued day-night torture to get me to confess to a non-existent part in the escape. This went on for at least 3 days. On my knees…fan belting… cut open my scrotum with fan belt stroke. Opened up both knee holes again. My fanny looked like hamburger…I could not lie on my back. They tortured me into admitting that I was in on the escape…and that my 2 room-mates knew about it. The next day I denied the lie.
They commenced torturing me again with 3- 6- or 9 strokes of the fan belt every day from about July 11 or 12rh…to 14 October 1969. I continued to refuse to lie about my roommates again. Now, the point of this is that our president has declared to the world that we (U.S.) are a bunch of torturers… Thus it will be OK to torture us next time when they catch us….because that is what the U.S. does. Our president is a know nothing who thinks that pouring a little water on some one’s face, or hanging a pair of woman’s pants over an Arabs head is TORTURE. Point out the stupidity of the claims that water boarding …which has no after effect… is torture. If it got the Arab to cough up the story about how he planned the attack on the twin towers in NYC … hurrah for the guy who poured the water." (Contributed by my friend, and fellow patriot, Jerry Pettigrew)

James Maitland Stewart (May 20, 1908 – July 2, 1997), became a symbol of patriotism as the first top Hollywood actor to enter the service in World War II. An early interest in flying led Stewart to gain his Private Pilot License in 1935 and Commercial Pilot Certificate in 1938. He often flew cross-country to visit his parents in Pennsylvania, navigating by the railroad tracks. Nearly two years before the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, Stewart had accumulated over 400 hours of flying time. In 1940, Stewart was drafted into the United States Army, at the age of 33, but was rejected for failing to meet height and weight requirements for new recruits (Stewart was five pounds under the standard). To get up to 148 pounds he sought out the help of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's muscle man, Don Loomis, who was noted for his ability to add or subtract pounds in his studio gymnasium. Stewart subsequently attempted to enlist in the Army Air Corps, but still came in under the weight requirement, but he persisted, and persuaded the AAC enlistment officer to run new tests, finally passing the weigh-in, with the result that Stewart successfully enlisted in the Army in March 1941. He became the first major American movie star to wear a military uniform in World War II.
Stewart enlisted as a private and began training in the USAAC. He qualified quickly as a pilot. During this time the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, bringing the US into direct involvement in the war. Stewart continued his military training and earned a commission to second lieutenant in January, 1942. He was posted to Moffett Field and then Mather Field as an instructor pilot in single- and twin-engine aircraft. Later assigned to the Second Combat Wing of the Eighth Air Force in England, he was successively the operations officer, chief of staff and squadron commander. He eventually led 20 bombing missions over Germany, hitting targets in Bremen, Frankfurt and Berlin. He won a cascade of decorations, including the Distinguished Flying Cross twice, one of them for piloting the lead plane in a spectacular raid on key aircraft factories in Brunswick, Germany. He also received the Air Medal, a succession of oak leaf clusters, six battle stars and the Croix de Guerre with Palm. When the war ended he was mustered out a colonel but remained in the Air Force Reserve and, in 1959, the Senate approved his promotion to brigadier general, making him the highest-ranking entertainer in the American military. He retired from the Reserve in 1968.

Ed W. "Too Tall" Freeman (November 20, 1927 - August 20, 2008) was a United States Army helicopter pilot who received the U.S. military's highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, for his actions in the Battle of Ia Drang during the Vietnam War. During the battle, he flew through gunfire numerous times, bringing supplies to a trapped American battalion and flying dozens of wounded soldiers to safety. Freeman was a wingman for Major Bruce Crandall who also received the Medal of Honor for the same missions. Freeman was born in Neely, Perry County, Mississippi, the sixth of nine children. He grew up in nearby McLain and graduated from Washington High School. He served in World War II and reached the rank of master sergeant by the time of the Korean War. Although he was in the Corps of Engineers, he fought as an infantry soldier in Korea. He participated in the Battle of Pork Chop Hill and received a battlefield commission. The commission made him eligible to become a pilot, a childhood dream of his. However, when he applied for pilot training he was told that, at six feet four inches, he was "too tall" for pilot duty. The phrase stuck, and he was known by the nickname of "Too Tall" for the rest of his career. In 1955, the height limit for pilots was raised and Freeman was accepted into flying school. He first flew airplanes before switching to helicopters. By the time he was sent to Vietnam in 1965, he was an experienced helicopter pilot and was placed second-in-command of his sixteen-craft unit. He served as a captain in Company A, 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). On November 14, 1965, Freeman and his unit transported a battalion of American soldiers to the Ia Drang Valley. Later, after arriving back at base, they learned that the soldiers had come under intense fire and had taken heavy casualties. Enemy fire around the landing zones was so heavy that the medical evacuation helicopters refused to enter the area. Freeman and his commander, Major Bruce Crandall, volunteered to fly their unarmed, lightly armored helicopters in support of the embattled troops. Freeman made a total of fourteen trips to the battlefield, bringing in water and ammunition and taking out more than 30 seriously wounded soldiers, who may have not otherwise survived. Freeman's commanding officer nominated him for the Medal of Honor for his actions at Ia Drang, but not in time to meet a two-year deadline then in place. He was instead awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. The Medal of Honor nomination was disregarded until 1995, when the two-year deadline was removed. He was formally presented with the medal on July 16, 2001, by President George W. Bush.

-To Be Continued-

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

So Who Are Your Heroes? Here Are Three Of Mine.

2009-07-15T03:00:00.000-07:00

So if the press and Main Stream Media can continue to express adoration for nearly two weeks now for it's superstar hero, (and Muslim pedophile) Michael Jackson, I guess I am entitled to spend a few days on my own heroes. Maybe you would like to share yours with me, for possible publication in this series.

Alvin Cullum York (December 13, 1887 – September 2, 1964), born into an impoverished family in the back woods of Pall Mall, Tennessee, was drafted into World War I, in 1917. Though he applied for a deferment as a religious conscientious objector, his application was denied, and York subsequently became a national hero in the fall of 1918 during the Battle of the Argonne Forest. In an improbable feat of courage, Alvin York found himself in charge of his heavily decimated unit, after many of his compatriots had been either killed or injured, and he managed to almost single-handedly kill over 25 German soldiers and capture 132 more. He was awarded the Medal of Honor and, upon his return to the United States, was feted in New York with a ticker tape parade.
York, then a corporal, was part of a company of the 82nd Army Division that was dispatched to attack a heavily guarded hill near Chatel-Chehery. Pinned down by heavy machine-gun fire, he joined a squad of 17 men sent to outflank the German position from the rear of the hill. After capturing 20 German soldiers, the Americans were discovered and fired upon by some of the other enemy combatants in the trenches. Within minutes his squad was down to just seven unwounded men. York took his rifle and worked his way up to a point where, as a sniper, he picked off 17 German soldiers and then shot eight more with his pistol, silencing the machine gun bunkers and causing the remaining 112 demoralized German soldiers to surrender to the lone Corporal York. For his amazing feat of courage and military prowess, Alvin York received the French Medaille Militaire and Croix de Guerre, and the Italian Groce de Guerra. He was also promoted to the rank of sergeant in addition to being awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

York later recalled:
"Those machine guns were spitting fire and cutting down the undergrowth all around me something awful. And the Germans were yelling orders. You never heard such a racket in all of your life. I didn't have time to dodge behind a tree or dive into the brush… As soon as the machine guns opened fire on me, I began to exchange shots with them. There were over thirty of them in continuous action, and all I could do was touch the Germans off just as fast as I could. I was sharp shooting… All the time I kept yelling at them to come down. I didn't want to kill any more than I had to. But it was they or I. And I was giving them the best I had."
One of York’s prisoners, German First Lieutenant Paul Jürgen Vollmer of 1st Battalion, 120th Württemberg Landwehr Regiment, emptied his pistol trying to kill York while he was contending with the machine guns. Failing to injure York, and seeing his mounting losses, he offered to surrender the unit to York, which was gladly accepted.

Of his deeds, York said to his division commander, General George B. Duncan,
in 1919: "A higher power than man guided and watched over me and told me what to do."

Audie Leon Murphy, (June 20, 1926 – May 28, 1971) son of poor Texas sharecroppers in Hunt County, Texas, rose to national fame as the most decorated U.S. combat soldier of World War II, before he had reached the age of 20. After the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Murphy, then just 15 years old, tried to enlist in the military, but the services rejected him for being under age. In June 1942, shortly after his 16th birthday, sister Corrine adjusted his birth date so he appeared to be 18, and legally able to enlist. He was turned down by both the Marines and the Navy for being too short and slight of build. His height and weight at his enlistment were 5 feet 5.5 inches and 110 pounds; after his three year enlistment, they were 5 ft 7 inches and 145 lbs. Among his 33 awards and decorations was the Medal of Honor, the highest military award for bravery that can be given to any individual in the United States of America, for "conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty." He also received every decoration for valor that his country had to offer, some of them more than once, and 5 decorations from France and Belgium. Credited with killing over 240 of the enemy, while wounding and capturing many others, he became a legend within the 3rd Infantry Division. Beginning his service as an Army Private, Audie quickly rose to the enlisted rank of Staff Sergeant, was given a "battle field" commission as 2nd Lieutenant, was wounded three times, fought in 9 major campaigns across the European Theater, and survived the war. During Murphy's 3 years active service as a combat soldier in World War II, Audie became one of the best fighting combat soldiers of this or any other century. What Audie accomplished during this period is most significant and probably will never be repeated by another soldier, given today's high-tech type of warfare. The U.S. Army has always declared that there will never be another Audie Murphy. Later Murphy became a well known movie star who starred in a movie about his war experiences. The movie was titled, To Hell And Back, and if you have never seen it, I would encourage you to rent it and watch it.

Irena Sendler , 1910-2009, died recently at the age of 98. Irena, born Irena Sendlerowa , was raised by her Catholic parents to respect and love people regardless of their ethnicity or social status. Her father, a physician, died from typhus that he contracted during an epidemic in 1917. He was the only doctor in his town near Warsaw who would treat the poor, mostly Jewish victims of this tragic disease. As he was dying, he told 7-year-old Irena, “If you see someone drowning you must try to rescue them, even if you cannot swim.” In 1939 the Nazis swept through Poland and imprisoned the Jews in ghettos where they were first starved to death and then systematically murdered them in killing camps. Irena, by than a social worker in Warsaw, saw the Jewish people drowning and resolved to do what she could to rescue as many as possible, especially the children. Working with a network of other social workers and brave Poles, mostly women, she smuggled 2,500 children out of the Warsaw ghetto and hid them safely until the end of the war. This courageous young woman took great risks – obtaining forged papers for the children, disguising herself as an infection control nurse, diverting German occupation funds for the support of children in hiding. She entered the Warsaw ghetto, sometimes two and three times a day, and talked Jewish parents into giving up their children. She drugged the babies with sedatives and smuggled them past Nazi guards in gunny sacks, boxes and coffins. She smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried, and she carried in the back of her truck a burlap sack for larger kids. She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered up any noises made by the children. She helped the older ones escape through the sewers, through secret openings in the wall, through the courthouse, through churches. Once outside the ghetto walls, She gave the children false names and documents and placed them in convents, orphanages and with Polish families. In 1942 the Polish underground organization, ZEGOTA, recruited her to lead their Children’s Division, providing her with money and support. In 1943 Irena was caught, and arrested, then tortured and sentenced to death by firing squad. The Nazi's broke both her legs, and arms, and beat her severely. She never divulged the identities of her Polish underground contacts, or of any she had rescued. At the last moment she was saved by members of ZEGOTA , who bribed a guard to secure her freedom. During the remainder of her life, she still bore the scars and disability of her torture. After the war, the Communist government suppressed any recognition of the courageous anti-fascist partisans, most of whom were also anti-Communists. Irena’s story and those of other courageous Poles, were buried and forgotten. Her hope had been that after the war she could reunite the children with surviving relatives, or at least return their Jewish identities. To that end she kept thin tissue paper lists of each child’s Jewish name, their Polish name and address. She hid the precious lists in glass jars buried under an apple tree in the back yard of one of her co-conspirators. After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived and reunited the family, the rest were placed into foster family homes or adopted. Her courage and resourcefulness were recognized by Israel in 1965 when she was awarded the Yad Vashem medal given to Righteous Gentiles who risked their own lives to save Jews during the Holocaust.

In 1983 a tree was planted in her honor in Israel. But in general, the world has been silent about Irena Sendler.

In 2007, Irena Sandler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize ... She was not selected. Al Gore won, for his slide show on Global Warming.

So Who Are Your Heroes?

2009-07-10T03:00:00.000-07:00

Last week, as day after day, and night after night the Main Stream Media (MSM),and talk show hosts, gushed over Michael Jackson's enormous talent and international charisma, while totally ignoring his blatant sexual perversions; while declaring over and over what a wonderful person he was; as tens of thousands of people applied for the 17,000 lottery tickets for seats at his memorial service, which filled a huge arena in Los Angeles this week; and as millions were presumably glued to their television sets, as accolade upon accolade was laid upon the memory of the late "King of Pop," the bodies of seven American soldiers, who were killed in Afghanistan on July 6, were being prepared for shipment back to their families in the United States for burial. Their bodies were to be transported in those standard wooden military coffins. The caskets would have no gold or expensive silk, no radiant hues of color for added grandeur and beauty to grace their precious content, just the red, white and blue of the American flag reverently laid over the top of each one. There would be no lottery necessary to gain tickets to their respective funerals, no highly publicized memorial services, no jostling for the honor of being present with their families and friends as they are committed into the hands of God. No clamoring media, or fawning entertainers, or pompous politicians would stand beside their graves with tear stained eyes. No moment of silence would be observed by the Congress of the United States. I felt certain we would not see repeated specials and MSM news broadcasts about the acts of bravery and heroism these soldiers performed as they gave up their very lives, while fighting against the terrorists that we have sworn to confront wherever they exist so that our nation may never again be subjected to horrific terrorist acts on American soil. I wonder why our priorities and our loyalties are so skewed in the obviously wrong direction?

During the past two to three weeks leading up to the Independence Day holiday last Saturday, I became increasingly agitated by a pervasive realization that we the people no longer honor real courage, integrity or valor. It seems that we have replaced those who, by their deeds, have earned the worth of our recognition and respect, preferring instead to lavish praise and honor upon others, who have shown themselves to be profoundly unworthy.

One incident, that only mildly irritated me, occurred after I had watched an old movie, Sergeant York, that I had not seen in years. I loved it, just like I had before, [and if my memory serves me correctly, Gary Cooper received the Academy Award for his portrayal of the title character]. I recommend that if you have never seen it, you should. A couple of days later, however, I was at the feed store in town, and I asked the owner, a likeable young man in his late 20s- early 30s named Shane, if he had ever seen the movie. He said, “No”. I then asked him if he knew who Sergeant York was and he again answered, “No”.

Shortly thereafter, on July the 4th, I asked two of my grand-daughters, ages 17 and 15, if they knew who Sergeant Alvin C. York was. They shrugged their shoulders. This was sad for a variety of reasons and one of them was that my own Dad, and their great grandfather, Alvin C. Key, born August 21, 1919, was no doubt named after this great hero of World War I. Still, undeterred, I asked them if they knew who Lieutenant Audie Leon Murphy was. Nope again. So finally I asked, “Do you know who General James Stewart was and, you got it, they had never heard of him either.
So I asked my 28 year old daughter if she knew who York or Murphy or Stewart were, and she did not.

Then somewhere along the way I received a Best of Leno video email showing him interviewing people on the so called, Jay Walk with the following excerpts from those interviews:

Question: Who was the first man on the moon?
Answer: Armstrong
Question: What was his first name?
Answer: Louie.

Question: Can you name two of the founding fathers?
Answer: Founding fathers of what?

Question: Who was the first president of the United States?
Answer: Benjamin Franklin, . . .am I right?

Question: What was the Gettysburg address? (asked of a young woman in graduation cap and gown.)
Answer: Hmmmm??
Question: Have you heard of it?
Answer: (indignant) Yes I've heard of it, but I don't know the exact address.

What is going on here? How can we have so failed our children in our homes, and our schools, that all of the younger generations are totally devoid of knowledge about how we came to be free and how we have managed to stay that way? When did we stop honoring those who throughout history have sacrificed their very lives for the sake of others. What defect do we have inside us as a nation that we would so honor a pedophile like Michael Jackson, and dishonor the very memories of our real national heroes, both past and present, by simply ignoring them?

There were many things that led up to the writing of this article, too many in fact to dwell upon, but the essence of it all has kept me stymied for these past weeks because it is probably impossible to say all the things that are in my heart without losing your attention, but here goes anyway.

It of course started much earlier than this, but there was a defining day in American history when the founding fathers took a definitive stand, at great personal risk to all that they might have held dear.

There were 56 patriots who signed the Declaration of Independence. They all were men of means, well educated, and well respected. Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants. Nine were large plantation owners. They were intelligent, and they were committed to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence. They signed, knowing that it was a declaration of treason against England, and that if subsequently captured, they would be subjected to the worst kind of death, (hung, drawn and quartered and/or decapitated). They knew also that if the war was lost, their possessions would be forfeited to the English government, leaving their families homeless and destitute and likely imprisoned. They signed it anyway, because they knew what some who are living today seem to have forgotten. That our freedom would not be free, but would instead be purchased with the precious blood of many! Nine of the 56 signers fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War. Five were captured by the British and tortured as traitors, before dying. 14 dead, or 25% of those who signed the declaration. Two more had sons served in the Revolutionary Army , and died. Twelve others had their homes ransacked and burned. Eight more ( Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton) had their homes and buildings looted by Tories or English soldiers. In order to evade the relentless pursuit of the British, Thomas McKeam was forced to move his family almost constantly from one hiding place to another, eventually losing everything. He died impoverished. Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, had his fleet of ships sunk by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and also died in poverty. During the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. Nelson quietly urged the American generals to have open fire on the house with their artillery batteries . The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt. Francis Lewis was forced into hiding from the English forces. His home and personal property were all destroyed. The English then imprisoned his wife, who died within a few months. John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she lay dying, by oncoming English soldiers. He fled the house and was even separated from his 13 children, who were trying to escape as well. His fields and his gristmill were burned by the English. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves before returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished.

Yes indeed, my friends, the cost of courage is sometimes dear.

United States Presidents, in the name of Congress, have awarded more than 3,460 Medals of Honor to our nation's bravest warriors since the decoration's creation in 1861, an extremely small number when you consider the millions who have served in 146years. A little more than 600 have been awarded the medal posthumously.

How many Americans can name any of the 245 Medal of Honor recipients from the Vietnam War ? How many can name even one of the two from Somalia or the two from the war in Iraq?

Forty years ago on May 2, 1967, near the village of Ap Bac in the Mekong Delta region of South Vietnam, the 9th Division’s Company A, 3rd Battalion, 60th Infantry, was attacking a heavily armed VC position, and under heavy fire. Sergeant Leonard B. Keller and Specialist Fourth Class Raymond R. Wright, in great acts of individual heroism, ran along the line of VC foxholes, ahead of the advancing Company, throwing hand grenades, engaging in hand to hand combat, and taking out the enemy positions one by one. In rapid succession they destroyed an automatic rifle position and a machine gun post and then penetrated the enemy’s main line to take out a mortar station. Inspired by Keller and Wright, who were both subsequently awarded the Medal of Honor, the rest of the company followed their lead and killed most of the remaining VC as they quickly overran the enemy position. Only two Americans died in the battle, and only fifteen were wounded. Over 200 VC were killed. Keller and Wright’s heroic action under fire saved dozens of American lives. Had they not attacked as they did, with total disregard for their own lives, many more lives from Company A would have been lost.

On October 22, 2007, when President Bush posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor to the family of Navy SEAL Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy in a ceremony at the White House, it received little coverage by the media. That’s unfortunate, because Lieutenant Murphy joins an elite list of American heroes who should serve as role models to all Americans, regardless of their politics. Murphy, the first person awarded the Medal of Honor for valor in combat in Afghanistan, was killed in 2005 during Operation Red Wing. He was leading a 4-man SEAL recon team that came under intense fire from several dozen Taliban fighters. Murphy, even after receiving a bullet wound, fought his way into open terrain to gain a better position to transmit a call for a rescue helicopter. Thinking only of his team members, he continued to engage the enemy until he was mortally wounded.

The news media and entertainment industries may not focus, as they once did, any of their attention upon the heroes who serve in harms way, not even upon Medal of Honor recipients like Michael Murphy, Leonard Keller, and Raymond Wright but in today’s world we no longer have to rely on them to inform us of these stories. We just have to take a little time to do it ourselves. A nation that forgets it's great military heroes, and all those who have served for the greater good, is a nation that forgets the price that has been paid for it's freedom, and a nation that will soon lose it.

Nor yet, O Freedom! close thy lids
in slumber, for thine enemy never
sleeps. -- From The Antiquity of
Freedom By William Cullen Bryant

To Be Continued

I'm Voting With My Ballot, My Money and My Time

2009-06-19T03:00:00.000-07:00

This just in and excerpted from the Drudge Report. . . .

Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET
ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE

On Wednesday, June 24, the media and government will become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

As an interesting footnote: The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who herself worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.

Highlights of the June 24th agenda:

1) Wednesday morning’s “Good Morning America” will originate from the South Lawn of the White House and will include an exclusive interview with President Obama. He will sit down with Diane Sawyer to discuss healthcare and other issues on the nation’s agenda. Wednesday’s GMA program will also feature portions of Robin Roberts’ exclusive interview with First Lady Michelle Obama.

2) That evening, the network will air a prime time "town hall" special entitled: “Questions for the President: Prescription for America".

3) Later that same evening, Charles Gibson will deliver “World News” from the Blue Room of the White House .

4) Then at 11:35pm ET “Nightline” will continue the discussion of, "Prescriptions for America", to conclude the unprecedented day's activities.

This all free, courtesy of ABC and it’s sponsors.

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS. In it he said:

"As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.”

“Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.”

“In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime."

Laughably, ABCNEWS responded with a refusal and a ridiculously ludicrous reply that included the following comment:

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue."

I said, laughably, but what I should have said is, “Don’t make me laugh!!”

I will not be tuning in to the gala events, though I may read the transcript, because I no longer spend time watching ABCNEWS except occasionally to find out who is sponsoring them so that I can add their names to the list of companies that I refuse to spend money with. Oh, I'm not trying to tell anyone what to think or how to behave anymore, but if you are an entertainer then you had better just entertain me if you want my financial support via the purchase of your entertainment products, movies, music and the like. If you produce or sell a product, and you want my business then don't shoot your mouth off about your destructive liberal views, and how your president is doing such a wonderful job, and don't advertise your own financial support for the socialists who are hell bent upon ruining this great nation of ours, because I will surely remove you from my list of those that I intend to patronize; and if you are a news reporter then report the news, don't spin it or fill it with your disturbed liberal bias or you will lose me and all other conservatives like me.

You may say, “who cares“, but I assure you my friend that you will care because it is conservatives who habitually follow the news. Liberals, as a demographic group, are too busy trying to figure out how to disprove the facts that invalidate Al Gore's global climate change lunacy. Or they are too engaged, trying to gain for homosexuals the right to marry each other so that they can become Daddy and Dad to some poor adopted child, or they are off protecting some abortion clinic where an irresponsible woman and a mercenary doctor can destroy the evidence of her folly. Liberals don't watch the news because they don't care what the facts are, they just want to be identified as liberals or socialists or communists or whatever segment of the left that they might have a desire to fit into. They don't really care what Obama's agenda is, as long as they get some free stuff and as long as they are never required to take responsibility for any irresponsible action that they may engage in. They will cheer anything that he does or says as long as he includes the words, “change” or “hope” in his commentary.

Who knew that it could be that easy. That he really didn't have to 'do' anything of substance in order to capture their adoring support.

Well I don't know about you, but as a very good friend of mine said recently, "There are two ways to vote, at the ballot box, and with your money; and I will no longer give my money to anyone who reveals himself to me as a liberal." I agree, and have added a third category: I will not give any of my time [read: attention or time spent viewing or listening] to liberals, or my money, or my ballots, and additionally, I will personally also continue to vote with my website.

It has been years now since I watched any news program on ABC, CBS, NBC, or really any of the others except FOX, but when I do occasionally pause to hear what is being said, it is so out of context that I, even now, are somewhat shocked. A little known and unreported fact is that all three of these, as well as MSNBC have lost an average of 25% of their viewing audience since January 1st of this year, and that, after an undisclosed erosion over the past few years. I predict that news, that is not news, but rather is undisquised biased,and "in your face" spin of the facts, is of no real interest to any serious observer.

While I have refused to give them any of my time, I have not fully concentrated on their sponsors so that I can refuse to spend any money with them. I will do that beginning today. I will make a list of who they are, and add them to a growing group of product companies and people that I no longer support with my time or my money. In the present, I no longer knowingly purchase products that are union made, or that benefit people such as Alec Baldwin, Kim Basinger, Sean Penn, The Dixie Chicks, Jennifer Aniston, Barbara Streisand, David Letterman, Wanda Sykes, Janine Garafola, or Kathy Griffin, or companies such as Citgo, Starkist, Del Monte, Tyson, Heinz, Snopes, Wikipedia, The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Los Angeles Times, General Motors, Chrysler, Ford, etc., or producers that develop and promote movies such as Corpus Christi and The Omega Code, or anti-American groups such as the ACLU, ACORN, The UAW, the AFL-CIO, NOW, etc. I will not, going forward, knowingly purchase products from companies that are owned or managed by the government either. It is my intention to begin a regular publication that summarizes my findings, with associated justification, and I will continue to add names and companies to that list as they arrogantly offend me by their blatant and undisguised support of all those who would oppose the fundamental morality upon which this nation was founded, and the rules of the Constitution by which it has been so well governed.

You, my dear friends and family, may do as you please, but I would “hope”, that you would join those of us who refuse to vote for anyone whose goals include perpetuating radical “change” that would seek to deprive our citizens of the freedom to openly express that morality, and to be justly protected by the true, honest and unambiguous language of the U.S. Constitution. I would further “hope”, that you would joins us in refusing to vote for anyone who would sponsor, aid, abet, fund or provide any other form of support to those merchants of destructive “change“, which they contrive to impose upon this nation. In summary, I would greatly “hope“, that you would join us in our resolve to withhold from the lot of them, not only your election ballots but also your money and your time [remember, read: attention or time spent viewing or listening].

As proof of his commitment, my friend initiated an immediate “change”, cancelling an insurance policy, that had for years been provided by a local agent who, in a moment of arrogance, flaunted his allegiance to Obama, and to the careless and foolish agenda of his administration. My friend now votes his money with an insurance agent that shares his conservative desire and “hope”, for our country.

You know, it occurs to me that, viewed in proper perspective, “hope” and “change” are really very good things, . . . . . .when they are found in the hearts and minds of right minded and thoughtful people.

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

A Tale Of Two Wolves

2009-06-16T06:24:00.000-07:00

An old Cherokee grandfather once told his grandson , “Within each person there lives two hungry wolves at war with each other. One is a good, brave, kind and generous wolf and the other is an evil, cowardly, abusive, and self-serving wolf. In the end, only one of them will survive.” “Which one will it be Grand-father”, asked the little boy. “The one which that person feeds”, was the grand-father's simple reply.

Today, we hear many people wondering aloud why that conservatives and liberals can’t find common ground anymore; why we don’t just, “reach across the aisle”, so to speak and work together to achieve common goals. Well the reason is really quite simple; we no longer have any common goals, really. To use the analogy , there are two distinctly different types of people who support each ideology. Like the two wolves in the story above, we are inherently opposed to one another. One of us believes that this nation should be governed by the highly moral (Christian) principles upon which it was founded, and the other does not. One of us believes that the United States Constitution , which has served this nation well for 218 years should still provide the fundamental basis upon which it stands, the other considers it a flawed guideline, an outdated document. One of us believes in the sanctity of marriage between one man, and one woman, and the sanctity of human life, even that of the unborn, while the other rejects both, supporting same sex unions and the right of a mother to choose unprotected sex and then subsequently choose to kill the only innocent party to the event. We differ on almost anything that can be cited: on gun control and the right to bear arms, on capitalism through free enterprise, on excessive taxation and the way our tax dollars are spent, on health care reform or nationalization. We disagree on national security and defense, on the right to work without being required to join a labor union, on religious freedom to express our faith at home or in our schools, in government offices and in our public assemblies. We disagree on whether the government has the right to interfere with, or regulate our private lives, to take back those rights that were guaranteed to us by our founding fathers in the language of the Constitution of the United States. I would challenge anyone to identify one significant issue that we really agree upon.
But the most troublesome area of disagreement, the so called 'elephant in the room', is whether or not the rights, promises, requirements and privileges that are found in that historical text, were really intended to bind us, or to provide guaranteed rights to us, in the first place. You see it’s not that we simply disagree on things, we are in fact adamantly and completely opposed to one another as a consequence.

The truth is, there are two wolves that have always lived within the American republic, each distinctly identifiable by it's character makeup. Our culture has survived and flourished for this long because from the beginning, in spite of any of our personal weaknesses and character flaws, as a nation, we fed the first wolf, the one that is good, brave, kind and generous . Which wolf do you think that this nation is feeding today. Let's explore the record.

It is hard to find a documented statement by 18th or 19th century U.S. presidents that does not attribute our freedom and security to the presence and all surpassing power of the Almighty God. They prayed unabashedly in private and publicly at, it seems, every opportunity, feeding the wolf of good character.

From it's construction, in 1791, he Constitution was also revered, for it's simple genius, revered by those now famous icons of early American history: Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Hancock, Franklin, Lincoln, etc., and by all those for whom it was written, and by those which it subsequently governed. It was therefore fiercely protected as the imperative, the fundamental basis, for our national unity and the republic for which it stood. You've no doubt heard the inspiring comment, "All gave some, Some gave all", which so accurately describes and depicts the sacrifices that tens of thousands of our fathers and grandfathers have made, from generation to generation, to preserve all that we as a nation have so dearly held. The unselfish willingness to surrender their very lives, if necessary, was given in order that the integrity of this nation and it's Judeo-Christian, Constitutionally based government, might long endure, for the pleasure and comfort of all future generations to come, right up to and including the youngest or oldest living today. In so doing, they lovingly and unselfishly fed the wolf of good character.

Oh, to be sure, it has not been without conflict, this preservation and advancement of our culture, as one can readily ascertain from even a cursory review of American history. One tremendous debate over states rights and slavery was so intense that in 1861, it erupted into a violent civil war that lasted four years and took the lives of an estimated 620,000 soldiers, and an undetermined number of civilians, . . . . .but still it endured.

In 1864, in order to fund a war that had grown increasingly costly (topping $2 million per day in its latter stages), and difficult to finance,personal income was taxed for the first time in America. However, during the post war years, lawmakers allowed the Civil War income tax to gradually expire, and by 1872 had brought to a close the first national program to tax the population on a progressive basis. The American public, and affluent citizens in particular, had accepted income and excise taxes only as emergency war measures; once the crisis passed, they expected the tax burden to dissipate. No tangible organized support for a permanent income tax emerged in the immediate postwar years. Most legislators were content to see it phased out, and even resented it as unreasonable redistribution of income.

It wasn’t until the 20th Century that personal and corporate income tax became a fixed source of revenue for the federal government. However, it was not delayed by lack of effort. Democrats from the South and West introduced nearly 70 income tax bills between 1874 and 1893. Then in 1896, the Wilson-Gorman Tariff bill was passed by Congress. This bill contained a modest income tax provision (assessing a rate of 2 percent for incomes over $4,000), that had been added on to the bill. The measure represented the first federal income tax since the Civil War. In the eyes of it’s advocates, the issue became one of fairness and ability to pay.

Benton McMillin, Democrat from Tennessee and chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Internal Revenue, said as much when he introduced the income tax measure that would eventually be fused to the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Bill: "I ask of any reasonable person whether it is unjust to expect that a small percent of this enormous revenue shall be placed upon the accumulated wealth of the country instead of placing all upon the consumption of the people . . . . It is not a proposition to put an undue embargo upon wealth, but it is to make the wealth that is accumulated in this country pay some share of the expenses of government . . . My friends, are we going to put all of this burden on the things men eat and wear and leave out those vast accumulations of wealth?"

Opponents of the income tax, most of whom resided in eastern urban areas, derided it as "class legislation," some going so far as to label it communistic or the tool of socialist labor. David Wells, Democratic economist and well-known opponent of the tariff system, nonetheless condemned the income tax as "flagrant spoliation." He pointed to the excessively high exemption, which promised to exclude over 90 percent of all eligible taxpayers. Exemptions and graduated rates, Wells argued, violated the principle of equality before the law by penalizing the rich and favoring those below the exemption level. He added that the income tax had encouraged fraud and perjury during the Civil War, and currently threatened to encroach on state tax bases.

Nevertheless, in the 1896 presidential campaign, the Democratic Party platform endorsed income taxation, for the first time. A number of Democrats had already introduced constitutional amendments to allow for it, and found that rhetorical attacks on the Supreme Court resonated well with their constituents The Republican platform made no mention of an income tax. The party’s nominee, William McKinley, campaigned on prosperity ("a full dinner pail"), "sound money," and high tariffs, and easily won the election.

So it wasn’t until the advent of the 20th century that taxation of income became entrenched. The years, 1900-1930, witnessed the rise of the modern income tax. More energized than demoralized by the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the 1894 income tax, fiscal reformers mounted a powerful campaign to resuscitate the levy. By 1913, they had engineered ratification of a new constitutional amendment, clearly establishing the federal government’s authority to levy an income tax.

In its first two years, the tax was modest, providing only a small part of the government’s total revenue. But World War I transformed it, moving income taxes to the center of federal finance. In 1913, The Bureau of Internal Revenue also established a Personal Income Tax Division to collect the new tax. It included a Correspondence Unit of 30 employees dedicated solely to answering questions about the new levy.

Democrats and some moderate Republicans remained the strongest advocates of income taxation, but even mainstream Republicans eventually came to accept the levy. By the early 1920s, it was firmly established as a centerpiece of the federal tax system.

With the 20th century also came organized labor and trade unions , with there graft and corruption. Union Organizations, where adopted, denied jobs to non-members, and eventually destroyed the competitive world market capability of each respective organized sector of the economy, and most recently made the largest contribution to the downfall of the Big Three United States auto makers.

This century also introduced the burden of welfare payments and food stamps upon the tax payer, which was intended to protect those who were unable to fend for themselves but instead became the quagmire of misuse, corruption and abuse that we know it as today.

In the 1960s we began to eliminate prayer in schools or at school functions. Which led to the elimination of all references to God at school and the purging of the bible from school libraries and then efforts to remove God from public buildings, public documents and public speeches, and this downward trend is ongoing and continuous right up to this minute.

Then in 1973, a United States Supreme Court case resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings.
Roe v. Wade held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable.’" The Court defined viable as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton. These rulings affected laws in 46 states and have led to the propagated view that now allows for unrestricted abortion, even to end the life of a viable full term child that had the audacity to survive an abortion attempt.

In the 1970s we also began to see a national acceptance of homosexuality as merely an alternate lifestyle, rather than an abomination. Now, even in our public elementary schools, we are seeing it taught to our children as normal behavior.

There are ongoing efforts afoot to force denial of the use of "In God We Trust" on out money and in our public imagery, and for the first time in US history, we have a president who openly declares to the world that America is not a Judeo-Christian nation, bows down to Moslem leaders and calls the Koran and it’s writings Holy while deriding the words of the Holy Bible.

Last week, Representative Randy Forbes (Rep.-Virginia) gave a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives presenting the argument for passage of House Bill 397, which calls on Congress to not only affirm the nation’s spiritual heritage, but also resolves that the U.S. House of Representatives “rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure or purposely omit such history from our nation’s public buildings and educational resources.”

“The overwhelming evidence suggests that this nation was born and birthed with Judeo-Christian principles,” Forbes told reporters, “and I would challenge anybody to tell me that point in time when we ceased to be so, because it doesn’t exist.” see excerpt of his speech at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQOCvthw-o

The bill begins by asserting that “religious faith was not only important in official American life during the periods of discovery, exploration, colonization and growth but has also been acknowledged and incorporated into all three branches of the federal government from their very beginning.”

The bill’s long list of “whereas” affirmations begins with the statement, “Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed this self-evident fact in a unanimous ruling declaring ‘This is a religious people. … From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation.’”

Among the many historical proofs included in the bill were the following:
Whereas in 1777, Congress, facing a national shortage of ‘”Bibles for our schools, and families, and for the public worship of God in our churches,” announced that they “desired to have a Bible printed under their care and by their encouragement” and therefore ordered 20,000 copies of the Bible to be imported;

Whereas in 1782, Congress pursued a plan to print a Bible that would be “a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools’ and therefore approved the production of the first English language Bible printed in America that contained the congressional endorsement that ‘the United States in Congress assembled … recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States”;

Whereas the 1783 Treaty of Paris that officially ended the Revolution and established America as an independent [nation] begins with the appellation “In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity”;

Whereas in 1789, Congress, in the midst of framing the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, passed the first federal law touching education, declaring, “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged”;

Whereas in 1795, during construction of the Capitol, a practice was instituted whereby “public worship is now regularly administered at the Capitol, every Sunday morning, at 11 o’clock”;

Whereas in 1853, the United States Senate declared that the Founding Fathers “had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people. … They did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy”;

Whereas in 1854, the United States House of Representatives declared “It [religion] must be considered as the foundation on which the whole structure rests. … Christianity, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions”;

Whereas by 1867, the church at the Capitol was the largest church in Washington, D.C., with up to 2,000 people a week attending Sunday service in the Hall of the House;

Whereas President John Adams, one of only 2 signers of the Bill of Rights and First Amendment, declared “As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and the blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him”;

Whereas President Andrew Jackson declared that the Bible “is the rock on which our Republic rests”;

Whereas President Franklin D. Roosevelt not only led the Nation in a six-minute prayer during D-Day on June 6, 1944, but he also declared, “If we will not prepare to give all that we have and all that we are to preserve Christian civilization in our land, we shall go to destruction”;

Whereas President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared, “Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first, the most basic, expression of Americanism. Thus, the Founding Fathers of America saw it, and thus with God’s help, it will continue to be,” in a declaration later repeated with approval by President Gerald Ford;

Whereas the United States Supreme Court has declared throughout the course of our Nation’s history that the United States is “a Christian country,” “a Christian nation,” “a Christian people,” “a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being,” and that “we cannot read into the Bill of Rights a philosophy of hostility to religion”

Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-N.C. said Americans don’t know, that even Ben Franklin, who “wasn’t known as the most spiritual of the Founding Fathers,” nonetheless looked to God as the only hope for our country: “Ben Franklin,” McIntyre said, “stood up and called the assembly of delegates to prayer, because, he said, ‘Scripture teaches us that if a sparrow can’t fall to the ground without his notice, is it likely that an empire will rise without his aid?’ And if we don’t first go to prayer, he said, ‘We’ll be no more successful then the builders of Babel.’”

Yet, in Turkey last week (on June 3), as he has done before, Barack Hussein Obama declared that we are not a Judeo-Christian nation. On June 4, he paid homage to Islam, repeatedly calling the Koran Holy, and quoting from it over and over for emphasis.

Asked last year to clarify his remarks on America’s spiritual heritage, Obama repeated them to the Christian Broadcast Network: “I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism. Whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers,” Obama wrote in an e-mail to CBN News senior national correspondent David Brody.
“We should acknowledge this and realize that when we’re formulating policies from the statehouse to the Senate floor to the White House, we’ve got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community,” wrote Obama.

"Grandfather which wolf will survive?"
"The one that is fed, my son."

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Ann Coulter On The Cairo Speech

2009-06-11T06:13:00.000-07:00

Judging by the reaction of a few women who received my blog yesterday, and subsequently asked that their names be immediately removed from my mailing list, I was beginning to think that perhaps it was I who had misinterpreted Obama and his Cairo speech, not highly respected columnists Dennis Prager and Kathleen Parker, both of whom were cited in my commentary . Then I read the remarks of popular author and journalist Ann Coulter, another unflinching voice of reason, whose sharp wit and direct approach though sometimes criticized by moderates I consider to be entirely appropriate; especially in view of the devolving political crisis in America today.

I feel certain that many, or perhaps most of you, did not hear the speech or read the transcript of what was said in Cairo, but I found that Ann’s assessment closely mirrored mine, and for those skeptics who may think that I unfairly represented Mr. Obama’s comments I decided to re-issue her article this morning in it's entirety, as published on Townhall yesterday, and it follows:

Welcome Back Carter
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!! Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization. Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)

In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life." So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.

Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multicultural worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.

Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.

The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can think of.

The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)

Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Hussein's to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.

Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh. The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers. Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out. But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson. True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister. In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles. For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.

Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?

I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.

But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not enough oil and gas to run household fans?

Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren't so terrifying.

Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

The Wimping Down Of The Republican Party

2009-06-10T06:06:00.000-07:00

Today I am attempting to break through "writer's block" in order to continue publishing my political blog, Introspection. I realized this morning that the stifling of creative writing that I have been experiencing for the past couple of weeks has been brought on by what I must now characterize as the "wimping down" of the Republican party. Oh I have works in progress that I have begun, and tentatively identified, with titles such as...................

The Cancer That Killed General Motors (about the destruction of the big three automakers by the UAW)

Which Congressman Has The Cajones To Stand Up And Call Her A Racist And A Liar? (about the Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court)

Barack Obama, The Effect Not The Cause (about Republican abdication of responsibility)

Don't Tread On Me (a call to renewed patriotism)

The Chicken Or The Egg (about what came first, Socialism or Apathy)

If It Feels Good Do It (about the loss of our moral compass)

Not By Might, Not By Power But By The Spirit (about the condition of the world as it relates to biblical prophecy)

My Conservative Friends, Stop Promoting Foolish and Erroneous Stories. (about conservatives carelessly passing on ridiculous emails attributing great and patriotic statements to famous liberals such as Robin Williams, Andy Rooney, George Carlin, Bill Cosby and others that were never made, and in doing so, causing all conservatives to appear naive, misinformed and foolish)

Mr. Obama, You Are A Liar, A Blasphemer And A Traitor! (about the Cairo speech last week)

............................but I have been so bombarded by an emerging and disturbing trend that has invaded my consciousness in such volume that it has almost extinguished both hope and fervor within my heart and soul. Let me explain.

As I read the entire context of Obama's Cairo speech, I was struck by the fact that from start to finish he demonstrated an undisguised, disgraceful and treasonous intent to lie, distort facts, blaspheme and generally denigrate America, while fawning all over the Muslim audience that he was addressing .

Nevertheless, and incredibly I might add, well known conservative, Kathleen Parker wrote her own fawning critique of his speech in a Townhall piece published on June 7, entitled, Obama's Muslim Campaign, illustrating that she completely missed most of the salient points of his rant. To a somewhat lesser degree, popular talk radio host Dennis Prager in his June 9, Townhall article, Why The Cairo Speech Was So Sad, did basically the same thing.

Ms. Parker stated, "The nearly hour-long speech, which contained many inspired passages, was essentially a teaching moment. A lecture, if you will. Beyond delivering core messages of partnership and a new beginning based on mutual understanding and respect, Obama made three big scores: He essentially neutralized Osama bin Laden. He managed to call Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a hateful ignoramus without ever mentioning his name, and he affirmed Western values of democracy, human rights, religious freedom and women's right to self-determination -- all while making Muslims feel complimented, appreciated and understood. No small feats."
"Finally, Obama was unflinching in defending American values, though he characterized them not as uniquely American values but as human rights."

Clearly Ms. Parker missed the fundamental anti-American message of his speech, did not hear the same speech that I did or worse, only heard what she wanted to hear. Where she got the idea that, "He essentially neutralized Osama bin Laden,managed to call Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a hateful ignoramus without ever mentioning his name, and affirmed Western values of democracy, human rights, religious freedom and women's right to self-determination", or that he was, "unflinching in defending American values", is beyond my comprehension. Read in context, nothing that he said was complimentary to the US, nor to American women. Clearly his intent was to elevate his support for Muslim Nations and Islam by patronizing, chiding and denigrating America, our lifestyle, our place in the world, and Christianity.

Mr. Prager thought it was important for Mr. Obama to, "tell the Muslim world that there was a Holocaust, that anti-Semitism is evil, that Israel and America have an unbreakable bond, and that religious intolerance in the Muslim world is unacceptable".

Elsewhere in the article he stated, "Nevertheless the president made some courageous points, and an honest appraisal of his speech needs to note them. For example, telling an audience in Cairo and presumably hundreds of millions of Muslims elsewhere that America's "bond is unbreakable" with Israel was courageous and important".
"Yet, despite many objectionable aspects of the president's speech, it was very important for someone of President Obama's stature to tell the Muslim world that there was a Holocaust, that anti-Semitism is evil, that Israel and America have an unbreakable bond, and that religious intolerance in the Muslim world is unacceptable. But for precisely those reasons his speech was so sad".

It is well known that Mr. Prager, a Jew, has a sustained interest in the welfare of Israel, as well we all should. But a careful review of the entire Cairo speech reveals that Mr. Prager, who was obviously seeking encouragement for Israel, has also misinterpreted the meaning of Obama's words. When coherent, which was not always the case, this president clearly demonstrated a thinly veiled intent to support Palestinian and Muslim goals while patronizing and ultimately threatening Israel.

On another topic, Laura Bush, apparently felt the need to go on Good Morning America this week to lend her support to Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's candidate for the Supreme Court, calling Sotomayor, who has unquestionably demonstrated that she is both a liar and a racist, "a very interesting and good nominee."
Bush further stated, "You know, as a woman, I'm proud that there might be another woman on the court...."

Condoleeza Rice, Oklahoma congressman J. C. Watts, and other noteworthy conservative political figures greatly disappointed many of us when they made it plain that they supported Barack Obama for president simply because he was black. It is now equally painful to observe that Laura Bush's litmus test for this nominee, to the highest court in the land, is gender.

Compounding the shift in attitudes by public conservatives is my observation that many of my conservative friends seem to now believe that the nicer we behave the more the voting public will like us. That moderate tone will be more acceptable to the masses than an urgent and uncompromising cry for reason. This is historically, emphatically and unequivocally false!

My dear friends, it is not difficult to understand why the people who give unconditional support to the socialist goals of Obama do so, (the Black Americans, Sodomites, Abortionists, Labor Unions, Muslims, Welfare Recipients, Illegal Immigrants, Hedonists and the like), but when I begin to hear a softening of tone, a rationalizing of standards, a move toward the left and compromise of substance from those who have been the public face of American conservatives, how can I not feel a little confused and demoralized. When I also hear a left shift from my personal friends and fellow conservatives toward a more moderate view, and an underlying criticism of those who would boldly speak out against the tyranny of socialism and yes, against this administration, it is difficult to believe that our national heritage is not at great risk.

When we become like sheep, the wolves will devour us.

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Quid Pro Quo, Something For Something

2009-05-20T03:00:00.000-07:00

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), boasted to the Las Vegas Sun this week, "We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama -- $60.7 million to be exact -- and we're proud of it". The two-million-member union, which represents both government and private service employees, proudly proclaimed that its worker members, "knocked on 1.87 million doors, made 4.4 million phone calls and sent out more than 2.5 million pieces of mail in support of Obama." In the final weekend before the November presidential election, the SEIU sent union leaders to seven states to get out the vote for Obama and other Democrats. In return for his generous support and service to the Obama campaign, in a stunning illustration of quid pro quo, Stern now enjoys a prominent seat at the table of every major policy discussion at the White House, including economic recovery and health care radicalization.

In Barack Obama's book, "The Audacity Of Hope", published in 2006, he states,
"Few lobbyists proffer an explicit quid pro quo to elected officials. Their influence comes from having more access than the average voter, having better information, and more staying power when it comes to promoting an obscure provision in the tax code that means billions for their clients. For most politicians, money is not about maintaining status and power. It is about scaring off challengers and fighting off the fear. Money cannot guarantee a victory, but without money, you are pretty much guaranteed to lose. When I decided to run for the Senate, I found myself spending time with people of means. As a rule, they were smart, interesting people, expecting nothing more than a hearing of their opinions in exchange for their checks. But they reflected, almost uniformly, the perspectives of their class. I became more like the wealthy donors I met, in the sense that I spent more time above the fray, outside the world of hardship of the people that I had entered public life to serve."

How, I wonder, does one distinguish between "quid pro quo", and "explicit quid pro quo"?
Webster's New World dictionary defines explicit as: 1. clearly stated; distinctly expressed; leaving nothing implied; definite; etc., 2. saying what is meant; without reservation or disguise; outspoken AND defines quid pro quo as: [Something for something], 1. one thing in return for another; hence, 2. something equivalent; substitute.

So from that, I gather, that the hair Obama is splitting is found in whether the exchange (or trade) will merely be: something implied (or disguised) for something implied (or disguised), rather than the more clearly stated: something equivalent for something equivalent. Either way, in the realm of liberal politics, favor is definitely expected in return for favor, and I personally have a problem with that, when it involves the use of the taxpayer's money, or the granting of huge rewards as repayment to those (such as trade unions) who have made inordinate contributions to election campaigns.

A few pages later, in the same book, Obama adds,
"The leaders of service workers unions [SEIU] broke ranks & chose to endorse me over [my opponent], support that proved critical to my [Senate] campaign. It was a risky move on their part; had I lost, they might have paid a price in access, in support, in credibility. So I owe those unions. When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I do not consider this corrupting in any way; I do not mind feeling obligated toward home health-care workers or toward teachers. I got into politics to fight for those folks, and I am glad a union is around to remind me of their struggles."

This sounds like a perfect example of quid pro quo to me, but perhaps it begs the question: "Is it explicit, or just the plain old vanilla version?" Whatever the case, since it worked so well in the Senate campaign, it was not such a great 'leap of faith' for Obama to elicit the support of organized labor leaders, in his campaign for the White House. And it wasn't just the SEIU who chipped in, in order to get him elected.

In a Christian Science Monitor posting on, February 2, 2009 we read,
Happier days are here for the labor movement in the United States. The AFL-CIO spent $53 million and its trade union affiliates $250 million to help Barack Obama win the White House, relying mostly on "field mobilization" campaigns to turn out a favorable vote and, Obama has promised to push for and sign the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) [which does away with private-ballot union elections in the workplace], should Congress pass the measure. Trade unionists see that bill as offering a major opportunity to enlarge their numbers by making it easier to organize more offices and more plants. Passage of this bill into law would mean that, among other things, trade-union workers would receive substantial wage and benefit increases. As it is, union workers earn 30 percent higher wages than comparative non-union employees.

Oh, I'm starting to get it now: a substantial Something, for Something substantial!!

Within two weeks of moving into the White House, Obama signed a series of executive orders championed by union bosses. One such measure immediately adopted by Obama requires that when a government service contract runs out and there's a new contract to perform the same services at the same location, the new contractor must retain the old workers. Mickey Kaus of the left-leaning Slate magazine dubbed the move the "Labor Payoff of the Day." Last week Obama slashed the Labor Department's funding to investigate union corruption -- another welcome move for Stern, and the SEIU, who have seen three of Stern's handpicked deputies resign in 2008-2009 over financial scandals involving cronyism, nepotism and embezzlement.

A further indication of the great Obama payback is found in the fact that he has placed SEIU-blessed bureaucrats in every corner of his administration to carry out the agenda, including incoming Labor Secretary Hilda Solis. The new rules, which he approved, authorize sweeping powers for the labor secretary that essentially blackball nonunion contractors targeted by labor organizers and prevent nonunion employees in the private sector from working on taxpayer-funded projects. Such regulatory favoritism limits freedom in the workplace and raises the cost of doing business. The SEIU had submitted maximum donations to Solis' first congressional campaign, providing nearly 300 canvassers and 'door knockers'. "I wouldn't be here, were it not for my friends in the labor movement," she gushed. According to sources, over four terms in Congress Solis received more than $900,000 in union campaign contributions.

Also newly installed within the Obama White House's inner circle is former SEIU chief lobbyist Patrick Gaspard, who served as the Obama campaign's national political director and transition deputy director of personnel. During the 2004 election cycle, he led the George Soros-funded group America Coming Together (ACT) as national field director. SEIU poured $23 million of workers' dues money into ACT in its failed attempt to put Democratic Sen. John Kerry in the White House. Under Gaspard's tenure at ACT, the get-out-the-vote group employed convicted felons as canvassers and committed campaign finance violations that led to a $775,000 fine by the Federal Election Commission. Gaspard was appointed White House political director shortly after Election Day 2008.

SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger was appointed to the president's Economic Recovery Advisory Board to provide advice on "boosting the sagging U.S. economy" (translation: imposing new employment regulations on companies and expanding union membership rolls).

California officials also reported last week that the Obama White House gave the SEIU an unprecedented role in negotiations over federal stimulus funds. According to the Los Angeles Times, the union lobbied the feds to withhold nearly $7 billion in stimulus money from California unless it revoked a wage cut for unionized health care workers -- which had already been approved by Democratic lawmakers as part of a budget deal forged in February. Top SEIU officials participated in a conference call last month on the issue; the Obama White House backed the union demands.

Reuters, March 3, 2009:
President Barack Obama said on Tuesday the Bush administration had tried to undermine organized labor and he assured U.S. labor leaders they would always have a "place at the table" under his presidency. "We need to level the playing field for workers and the unions that represent their interests," Obama said in prepared remarks for a video address to the executive board of the AFL-CIO, the largest U.S. labor federation, meeting in Miami.

American union members are already by far the highest paid hourly workers in the civilized world. I wonder what Obama means when he repeatedly assures their representatives that he intends to, "level the playing field"? Perhaps he means in the same way that they 'leveled the playing field' for him during his presidential campaign [quid pro quo]. If you haven't been paying attention, the news is full of his repayment gestures to the trade unions.

According to The New York Times, December 12, 2008,
Hourly pay and compensation for most long-time United Auto Workers (UAW) union members is about $55 an hour. The figure ranges above $70 an hour when the automakers’ costs for health care for retired workers and retirement benefits is factored in. By contrast, workers in plants run by foreign companies in the United States earn about $45 an hour, and the non-union companies do not have the hefty burdens for future “legacy costs” that are faced by the Detroit companies. $45 versus $70 means the foreign, non-union companies have a $25/employee/hour labor advantage. Additionally, since pay and employment at non-union companies is dependent upon meritorious performance (not seniority), the efficiency of such companies are something in the neighborhood of 'light years' ahead of unionized companies, which are required to employ significantly more people than required for every task, just to make it possible to get the daily job done.

And while we are on the subject of pay and advancement based upon union rules rather than performance, let us consider the sorry state of public education in America today. In order to avoid offending those who are not the target of my comments, I offer this disclaimer: A good and dedicated teacher is worth every dollar of his/her pay, and more, and I don't have enough good things to say about such an individual. Unfortunately, however, after seeing my own children wade through the public school system, and having watched for another 10+ years, the continued and unabated degradation of public education in the United States, I have to say that the aforementioned teachers and school administrators are (sadly) in the minority. I am certain that some of you can relate to my personal experiences. Among other things, our children came home, K-12, with volumes of homework, most of which had never even been discussed in the classroom, and my wife and I (mostly my wife) had to do the teaching. This will never really be remedied until teachers are again properly compensated for meritorious performance instead of union seniority. This is the way it was done in earlier times when most teachers really were teachers, who carefully measured their worth by the degree of knowledge imparted unto their students. Of course, a lot of things have changed at school since those days, back when they taught the truth about our country,and the world at large, instead of the revisionist history that is taught today.

A good teacher is still worth his/her weight in gold, a bad, corrupt or indifferent one does far more damage than good. I recently discovered that the Los Angeles Unified School District is paying 160 teachers to stay home. Incredible!! These are California teachers who have been accused of things such as theft, drug possession and sexual harassment of teenage students. These teachers are being “housed,” as they call it, while their fitness to teach is under review. For some reason, reviews of this type may take years to complete. In the meantime, even now, when the budget cuts of a state [California] on the verge of bankruptcy, are forcing layoffs of other teachers, the cost of keeping this deadwood on salary runs L.A. taxpayers over $10 million-a-year. That doesn’t include the legal costs incurred by the city who has to fight the Teacher's Union in order to get these undesirables out of education and into a different line; preferably it will be one down at the unemployment office. The dumbing down of America, which is so obvious it has become an international embarrassment to our nation, is the result of teachers who simply don't care about much of anything except personal benefits. I said it and I meant it! If you really don't want to teach our children, and address them with responsible and nurturing care and behavior, then do us a favor and get out of the profession.

From Shikha Dalmia, Forbes, April 16, 2009, we have learned that teachers' unions contributed $50 million to Obama's campaign. Something for Something indeed: The Obama administration increased public education spending 10-fold for two years as a part of its $750 billion stimulus package including, among other things, money to weather-proof school buildings.

Though it should come as no surprise to the cynics among us, since taking office, this administration has quickly (and quietly) eliminated a popular Washington D.C. school voucher program. But for everyone else--or, rather, everyone who is not 'down' with the teachers' unions--its conduct has to come as a total shock. During his campaign, Barack Obama promised that if he was elected he would lead the most ethical administration in history, one immune from the corruption of special-interest politics. In reality, he has yet to offer even a pretense of resistance to one of the biggest Democratic special interest groups: teachers unions--even though it is evident that what's driving their opposition to the voucher program is not principle but rather, is motivated purely by self-interest. Oh yes, unions have pretended to oppose vouchers because they would drain resources from public schools and public school children. But the D.C. test program didn't do that. In fact, precisely to address this objection, the program was structured to keep D.C. public schools financially stable, meaning they lose no funding when their students transfer to a private institution. If anything, they have more money to spend on the remaining children. Obama would have done all D.C. children a service by pointing out this inconvenient truth--but instead, he chose to remain silent. The most blatant hypocrisy involves Obama's personal parental conduct. He chose to send his own daughters to Sidwell Friends, a private school, among D.C.'s most exclusive institutions, whose annual tuition runs around $30,000. If he felt so strongly that offering children an exit route would stymie the reform of public schools, then why not put his own daughters in one? It's sad that Obama's message of hope and change doesn't include children in the general population, yours and mine.

Our president would really like for all labor to be organized, and perhaps some of you agree. A union representative has stated that Obama made a clear promise to their 'bosses', at the very beginning of his campaign, that he would push for fair trade and protect work opportunities for U.S. workers. This was why many unions contributed so much to Obama’s run for the office. The AFL-CIO set up a campaign office for Obama in its headquarter with full time staff and 70 phone lines to get people to vote. The union’s local offices had similar setups. The representative stated that the members of the union, and their families, account for 25 percent of the total vote.

Picture a buffalo within a herd, relentlessly following those ahead of him who are all falling over a cliff. Albert Einstein once said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result", and someone else has said it another way: "What we learn from history, is that we do not learn". But the union labor drones, are not worrying about buffalo, or insanity, or history, they are instead worrying that corporate managers are exporting their jobs to foreign countries. Well guess what? They are moving to cheaper labor markets so that they can stay in business, as they strive to compete in the global marketplace. And here is a news flash for you. In every case in America, where the union has had a long term foothold we are failing in the international world of market competition. In some cases, we have already failed. Transportation (represented by Teamsters), Automotive (represented by United Auto Workers), Meat Packers, United Iron Workers, Teachers Unions and the list goes on and on. It is astounding to me that the members of these unions do not even seem to realize that they are organizing and negotiating themselves right out of their own jobs.

If you are an 'organized' citizen reader, I'm sorry if I come across too direct, but not really, for these are the blunt facts. Welcome to the real world, my friend! Quid pro Quo.

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved

See No Evil....?

2009-05-13T03:00:00.000-07:00

My wife loves scary movies. I generally hate them, but will take her to see one if she wants, although I do not understand her infatuation. She spends most of the movie hiding her face from the horror and digging her fingernails into my arm or leg! After nearly 40 years of study, I have concluded that she likes to be on the edge of terror, and therefore approves, but she does not want to be a witness to the graphic mayhem that awaits the unflinching viewer. As for me, I find real life plenty scary these days, I don’t need to pay someone to ‘entertain’ me with two hours of stress, spilled popcorn and nail prints in my arm. If she could be forced to watch, perhaps her support for Hollywood's ever more graphic cinematography would wane. But, alas, as long as she can hide from the 'virtual reality', she can continue to accept what is being dished out, no matter how macabre or intense it may become, living in 'virtual denial' of what is actually happening on the silver screen.

I am known as Daddy to six children, four boys and two girls, all of them very strong willed. When my youngest son was two, he was out on the ranch with me and apparently decided that he no longer had to obey my instructions, which can be very dangerous, with livestock, spiders and snakes loitering around(especially for a person who has only been two feet tall for about. . . 3 minutes). After about 10 corrective gestures, I decided to take a firm stance with him so, dropping to my knee in front of him, I began glaring into his eyes, which he promptly closed and refused to reopen. A test of wills ensued, and believe it or not, in 100+ degree heat, we remained that way for nearly 40 minutes, him waiting for me to just go away, and me waiting for him to give in. Analyzing it later, I realized that in his little mind, as long as he couldn't see me he could pretend that I wasn't there, so he spent 40 hot minutes in denial of my presence, before finally giving in and finally stepping into my arms for comfort and forgiveness.

The point is that sometimes in life it is easier to avoid unpleasant circumstances, than to face them, but denial of the subject issues does not make them cease to exist, and such is the case with the termination of life which, we prefer to call termination of pregnancy or simply, "abortion".

Shortly before Christmas, in 2002, Laci Rocha Peterson, 27, was savagely murdered and dumped into the San Francisco Bay. Laci was 8 months pregnant with a son that had already been named, Connor Latham Peterson. Scott Peterson, her husband, was tried and convicted of murder in the first degree for the death of Laci and 2nd degree murder in the death of his unborn son. He is currently on death row in San Quentin Prison, awaiting death by lethal injection . The conviction and sentence for the murder of Laci, if due process was served, is understandable, but how could this unborn child have been murdered when, in January of 1973, the Roe vs Wade decision was rendered, making it legal to kill the unborn, with the result being over 45 million deaths in the first 30 years?

Of course, this is a rhetorical question, because I, of course, agree that two people were murdered in this case, whether by Scott Peterson, or someone else, but listen, my friends, to the foolish denial of murder that is found, within our broken system, and irreconcilable law, when it is perpetrated upon a child by his/her own mother with the complicity of her doctor, rather than by the father or some outsider.
As a result of the Peterson murders and trial, the ‘Unborn Victims of Violence Act’, (also known as the Laci & Connor Act), was signed into law. Although well received by many pro-lifers, it is an incredibly comprised, and irrational piece of law which incorporates the following statements:

(a)(1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section.

(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the punishment provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.

(B) An offense under this section does not require proof that--
(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or
(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or bodily injury to, the unborn child.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution--
(1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;
(2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

Nothing in this law shall be construed to permit prosecution of a mother, and/or her abortion doctor, killing or attempting to kill her in utero child, herein defined as a human being? It's only murder if the perpetrator does not have the mother's permission? This logic, or dare I say illogic, is incredible, incomprehensibly stupid and an embarrassment to our national image.
Is it just me, or does it not sound very much like, “What is the meaning of the word ‘is’?”
At the deposition hearing, for the Bill Clinton impeachment, the judge ordered a precise legal definition of the term "sexual relations", that Clinton claims to have construed to mean only vaginal intercourse. A much-quoted statement from Clinton's grand jury testimony showed him questioning the precise use of the word "is" [i.e. what 'is' sexual relations]. Clinton said, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement".

Over the years, quite candidly, with the furtherance of the original intent of 'Roe vs Wade, it is now considered legal to kill the child up to, and including, the moment that it’s little head appears to the world. This final act is accomplished by inserting scissors or a scalpel into the brain and then suctioning out the contents of the skull (called 'partial birth abortion'). It is also considered legal to let an unwanted child die in the delivery room immediately after a botched abortion produces a live child. What has happened to our moral sensibilities? If these acts are not murder, then why don’t we just let the mother test drive the baby for a few months (say three) to see if she really wants it and if not, (as long as it is the mother or her doctor doing it) just let her kill it so that she will not be, as Barack Obama so succinctly put it, “punished for her mistake?” But perhaps some of you don’t like this kind of talk, this kind of reality, preferring denial of the blunt facts.

This is a photo of Tracy Marciniak Seavers, holding the body of her son Zachariah.
The photo was taken at Zachariah's funeral.
Tracy was seriously injured, and Zachariah was killed [in utero], by an assault during the ninth month of the pregnancy. Do you think this photograph shows one victim, or two? Is this child a human being simply because he was killed without Tracy's consent?
But perhaps some are offended by my use of a picture such as this. Perhaps some, once again, would prefer denial over reality; would rather hide their eyes so as not to be haunted by the truth.

I have long observed that in our judicial system those who are in their peak fitness and earning years, as a group, are considered to be of significantly more value than those existing in age and status before or after those years, and that the farther removed that one is, either younger or older, the less value is placed upon his/her existence. It is also easily observed that the more financial success that has been achieved, even within that group, the more precious they are considered to be, in eyes of the judiciary, or even through the eyes of the ordinary citizenry. Therefore, a greater effort is made to bring justice to such an individual from that elite group, when harm befalls him. The valuation of those individuals, whom some of us are, or have been or will become, is perfectly understandable, as long as in honoring their accomplishment we do not deny justice to the rest. When we devalue, and/or deny justice to the youngest and most defenseless of the human race, we open the door for the next phase, which is to devalue and deny the same to the older of our number, as they become more and more defenseless.

A man in his late 60s, that I once knew in San Francisco, an estranged member of my family, was beaten to death one night for reasons that were never clear, by someone who was never found, . . . . .or to my knowledge even looked for. Why? Because he was not in the prime years of his life, not successful with a career, not very worthy of concern, not worth expending the effort. A prime target of denial and dismissal.

More and more by our indifferent acceptance, or by observing, ignoring and maybe even supporting the direction in which the nation's liberals have taken us, and the ugly policies which they seem determined to strengthen and extend, we are sending a message that the care and protection required and deserved, by an infant or an older person is not worthy of primary concern. We all should, therefore, give sobering thought to this reality, and reflect upon it: The social elite, and those who honor them, will all sooner than they think become middle aged themselves, and later grow older and then one day be just old and helpless, that the beautiful people will one day be, not so beautiful, and the strong will come to realize that they have lost their vitality, and have themselves become what they once so carelessly disregarded.

The founders of this nation asserted that, "we are all endowed with inalienable rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I have taken that to intend inclusion of the helpless infant in the womb or in the delivery room, and the elderly man [or woman] who is doing his best to live out the twilight years of his life.

Wake up America. Open your eyes to truth and stand up for what is right, before you yourself become one of the disenfranchised.

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Preaching To The Choir

2009-05-08T03:00:00.000-07:00

Last week, a close friend of mine who had just read, my article, "One Nation, Under God, In Denial", commented, with frustration, "I agree; but it's like we are all just, preaching to the choir". I thought about his comment for a couple of days, and concluded that he was correct, but only partially correct, or at least in my case.

In fact, none of the content found in Introspection, nor any of the opinions expressed herein, are actually intended for consumption by the far left political wing of this nation. It may surprise you to hear me say, however, that my thoughts are not aimed at the truly faithful of the "choir" either, those of us who have been recently labeled, "right wing extremists", except insomuch as may be found useful in arming such patriotic souls for the battle.

No, my friends, my target audience is comprised of two groups, neither of which are sitting in the conservative "choir". The first group consists of 21 million registered Republicans, 60 million citizens who claim no party affiliation, and 29 million registered Democrats or an estimated total of 110 million Americans, 18 or older, who simply refused to cast a vote for anyone in November. The second group may include some from the first group, but also contains some regularly voting Republicans. These are the so called moderate Republicans (as compared to conservative Republicans).

In the movie, The Outlaw Josey Wales, there was scene in which a bounty hunter had tracked down his prey, and as they faced each other, Clint Eastwood's Josey Wales asked him, "Why are you doing this, boy"? The hunter replied, "Everybody's gotta' make a livin' somehow ," to which Josey replied, "Dyin' ain't no livin', kid." I believe that many American citizens need to seriously and responsibly contemplate why they behave in the manners that they do. To those who say I'm too busy trying to make a living to worry about politics and polls, or to those who vocally complain that evangelicals are ruining the Republican party, I would invoke this message. You urgently need to get your priorities straight, and start acting with moral sensibility, before you lose everything that you are, all that you have been busily working for, or all that you ever hope to be!

During his tenure in Congress, whenever an issue that he supported, or that he did not support, came before the Senate with sufficient votes to pass or fail, (according to the liberal agenda), and when he felt that by casting his vote, yea or nay he might be later criticized for supporting, or for failing to support, the subject issue, it has been clearly revealed, by the published record, that on many occasions, Barack Hussein Obama simply voted, 'present'. Too often people have taken a position that if their candidate doesn't win the primary election, or if the winner just isn't a candidate that they 'like', they will simply refuse to vote at all. Wake up, my friends. Stop whining and do your part!! A non-vote is like voting 'present', if you feel assured that the one who will best represent your views will win, but a non-vote in a hotly contested race, or a write-in vote for someone who has no chance of winning (just to make a point or a statement), is akin to voting for the enemy. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you may one day not be able to stand at all.

In defending his support of civil unions for homosexuals, Obama stated, "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." By this statement, Obama, is implying that we can pick and choose which parts of the bible to believe, or not believe. If we don't believe the entire bible then perhaps we really don't believe any of it. A lot of professing Christians today seem to have similar thoughts, believing that the politics of the nation, which effect their rights as citizens and as Christians, are somehow beneath their righteous calling. They seem to believe that their discretionary energy should be spent in service to their fellow man (the widows, orphans, etc) exclusive of political consideration or concern, and although the intent to serve is highly laudable, the narrow view that politics and religion are mutually exclusive is, quite frankly, misguided, and simply not what the bible teaches. It is a doctrinal view that serves a portion of God's stated will, but that excludes all biblical reference to justice achieved by standing up for what is right. Wise up my professing Christian friends. Wise up, before you lose both the means and the freedom that you presently have to serve your fellow man. Wise up, before you are deprived of the unobstructed freedom to worship God Himself.

"A patriot without religion, in my estimation, is as great a paradox as an honest man without the fear of God. Is it possible that he whom no moral obligations bind, can have any real Good Will towards Men? Can he be a patriot who, by an openly vicious conduct, is undermining the very bonds of Society? ...The Scriptures tell us righteousness exalteth a Nation." Abigail Adams to her husband John Adams, 1776

Moderate Republicans and Democrats, who claim to be Christians, it is without apology that I say to you that, believing you can possibly serve God and support moral abominations such as abortion and homosexuality, is self deception beyond measure. Of course these things are no more detestable to Him than other forms of murder [other than abortion], or lying, cheating, committing adultery, etc., but these latter things are not being legislated into our society as law; if they were, it would need be that we stand firm, against those who would promote such other moral wrongs, in like manner. Stop rationalizing!! Take a stand for what is moral and righteous, regardless of your personal history or your life story. Do the right thing!!

If only half of the 21 million non-voting Republicans had gone to the polls last November, and cast conservative votes for congressmen and a president, the world would be a much brighter place today. Or better yet, if only half of the estimated 110 million had done the same, it would have completely changed the direction that we are now headed. There is nothing yet so wrong with our political process that it can't be effective, if only our non-voting citizens will rise up out of their collective apathy and act. The first opportunity comes next year, in 2010, when we vote for our representatives in Congress.

If you are a charter member of, "the choir", please feel free to forward this exhortation on to everyone in the identified target group that you may know.

What Are You Willing To Do?

2009-04-29T03:00:00.000-07:00

The 1987 blockbuster film, The Untouchables, set in the 1930s prohibition era Chicago, features Robert DeNiro as gangster Al Capone, who rules the city with absolute power. Then newcomer, Elliott Ness and a small force of FBI agents arrive on the scene and swear they'll bring him down. Capone is enraged by this turn of events, as the plot thickens.

Sean Connery plays Jim Malone, a reknowned law enforcement officer, who comes out of retirement to help the young and naive Ness.

A private meeting was held inside a Catholic church, which was considered to be a safe haven from the Mafia. The speech that Malone gave to Kevin Costner's greenhorn Ness, there in the church, is now a classic. As I remember, it went something like this:

Elliott asked what Malone thought he should do about the gang violence of Al Capone and the mob, prompting Malone to ask, "What are you willing to do?" To which Elliott responded, "I'm going to enforce the law." Then, after a pensive pause Malone quietly said, "Mr. Ness, you need to understand something. If he puts one of yours in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue. That's the Chicago way. If you punch one of them in the mouth, they will break one of your arms; if you stab one of them, they will send someone to shoot you; if you kill one of them, they'll wipe out your whole damned family. So what are you willing to do now?" He asked that question, repeatedly during the movie, and finally wrote it on the floor in his own blood as he lay dying from a savage Mafia ambush.

"What are you willing to do?" I am convinced that the time is coming, and maybe is already here, when the two political ideologies that prevail in the United States of America can no longer co-exist. Since the founding of this Republic, the fundamentals upon which it originally stood have not changed. What has changed, however, is the attitude of one competing sector of our society. That change in attitude has made the one so profoundly different from the other, that there seems to be essentially no area of compatability left, with the changed ideology being so contrary to the basis upon which this nation was founded, that it begs the subject question, of every citizen that holds to the historical values of the other.

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Regrettably, this generation has seen the Democratic Party devolve from serving democratic principles, to liberalism, to extreme liberalism, to socialism, with no end to the transformation in sight. As a consequence, and as the direct result of these sinister events, the following list of grievances give brief, though not exhaustive, insight into the violations of, our culture, our society, our moral basis and yes even our Constitution.

They have changed us from a nation that was historically ultra-protective of our children, into one that now legally murders it's own babies.

They have changed us from a nation that historically protected our children from sexual deviates and predators, into one that now teaches our children that homosexuality is normal behavior.

They are making a concentrated effort to deprive our citizenry of the right to bear arms, in direct violation of the Constitution.

They are routinely usurping, and encroaching upon, states rights, which are irrefutably guaranteed by the Constitution.

They are nationalizing, seeking to nationalize or threatening to nationalize private and publicly owned US Corporations.

Under the guise of 'economic stimulus packaging', they are burying us with unreasonable taxation that will damage all present and future generations of this nation.

They have purposely encouraged and enticed illegal immigration, by extending financial incentives, such as welfare, social security and no/low cost educational benefits, creating a national crisis.

They are discouraging the free enterprise system by attacking and threatening private citizens over private issues, seeking to remove ambitious endeavor from the equation.

By promoting the destructive unionization of labor, as opposed to 'at will' employment, they are charting a course that will make it impossible for US corporations to compete in global markets, or with foreign manufacturers who export to the US (the auto industry is a prime example of the failure of this notion).

By blatantly tampering with voter eligibility, registration and identity, they have made a sham of our election process.

They have purposed, and sought to fill the courts with Judges and Justices who, like them, do not enforce or interpret the Constitution, but instead seek to re-write it.

They have violated campaign funding law, accepting majority contribution from those who would bring our government down, and have done so in a manner and time that complies with the proper definition of what the Constitution calls, treason.

In violation of the Constitution, they have conspired with federal judges and supreme court justices to place into the office of the White House, as President of the United States, a man who clearly is not a natural born US citizen.

In every area of our lives, whether the subject be religion, employment, marriage, child rearing, education, or a myriad of other standards, they have departed from or are seeking to depart from that, upon which America was founded; that, which has served our needs so well and made this nation the greatest, most prolific, most creative and by far the most generous society ever found upon the face of the earth. But they don't like it that way, and feel that it must be changed. They believe, for inexplicable, indefensible reasons, that our culture and our national history, so diligently protected for over two centuries, is somehow something to be ashamed of.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. . . . . ."

So what are you willing to do now?

"Like the original 1773 Boston Tea Party, the nationwide Tea Parties of 2009 were held in response to a government treating Americans as subjects to be commanded. rather than citizens with God-given rights.. . . . Adam Waldeck, the Tea Party coordinator for American Solutions, reported that the Tax Day Tea Party effort organized in at least 850 sites, with more than one million people all told. An impressive showing, especially considering that the elite media virtually ignored the movement, no big donor or organization was behind it, and right and center-right leaning Americans generally have jobs and lack the professional protest and "community organizing" prowess and funding of the left.. . . .more important than understanding what the Tea Parties were not is understanding what they were. I believe there are three much deeper meanings to the Tea Party movement that the elite media completely missed. The first is fairness, the second is responsibility, and the third is freedom. . . .The ultimate underlying force behind the Tea Parties is the cause of freedom. There is increasing recognition that this is the most radical administration and most radical Congress in American history.. . .The Difference Between Subjects and Citizens [is easily characterized]. . . The Democrats, Republicans and Independents who went to Tea Parties last week want the same thing that the patriots of 1773 wanted: To be treated as free citizens with inalienable rights, not indentured subjects of an all-powerful government. Subjects don't complain when government makes their lives more secular and more socialized. But citizens demand the "right to pursue happiness" as their Creator endowed them in the Declaration of Independence. Citizens do not want to be told that they can earn up to $250,000, but above that, they are illegitimate possessors of the "people's wealth" and should expect to have it taken by the government. Citizens do not want to be told that members of Congress or bureaucrats in the Treasury will set salary schedules and decide income for Americans in private business. The Tea Parties were a reaction to all these threats to the American way of life. . . . All that said, if the Tea Parties prove to be a one-time event they will probably not matter.But if the Tea Party movement is the beginning of a larger, broader and deeper dialogue about the future of America then they will matter a great deal. . . . Then, we should make July 4, 2009 "American Freedom Day." Tea Party activists across America should plan to go out and recruit supporters from every Fourth of July celebration in their community. If one million freedom-loving Americans work from now to July 4, the size of the Tea Party movement will grow dramatically." (the preceding quote was excerpted from a piece written by former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich)

I hear frustrated people every day who agree with the description of the problem, but complain, "What can I do, I'm only one person without significant influence". Well, once again the perhaps rhetorical question, "What are you willing to do?" You may answer the question now, if you like, or you can answer it later, but answer it you will. There are many things that you can do, my dear friends. You can spend a couple of hours attending and supporting the Tea Parties on July 4, so that Washington sees how great is the magnitude of our collective discontent. You can write your congressmen and add your voice to the ground swell of complaint. You can give up a half hour of your time to go to a polling station and cast your vote when afforded the opportunity, as 200 million eligible voters failed to do last November. You can forward this piece to everyone on your mail list. Or you can just sit on your butt and whine, without making any effort at all, until the situation spirals completely out of control and you are required to answer the ultimate question.

"What are you willing to do now?"

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

One Nation, Under God, In Denial

2009-04-22T05:00:00.000-07:00

What has happened to sensibility in America? Every day, as I listen to the maniacal comments made by congressmen, main stream media (MSM) news commentators and even a president, I am dumbfounded. Have they all completely lost their minds, along with the drones who follow along after them, excusing and defending every irrational and idiotic statement that they make, every incomprehensible action that they take? Or are they simply living in denial?

What horrible act must occur, before they wake up and realize that we are, and have been, under attack by Muslim terrorists for 20 years or longer, and that they(the terrorists) don't play by anyone's rules but their own? Seemingly oblivious to this, even in the shadow of the events of September 11, 2001, liberals spend their time "straining out gnats, while swallowing camels". They cower, yield and wither under verbal assaults at our airports, from Muslims who object to security scrutiny, yet practically strip search some little old grandmother, a blond teenager or a soccer mom, so as not to appear to be profiling. They repeatedly detain a handicapped dwarf like Matt Rolloff, who has sufficiently demonstrated to a national audience that he is a wonderful and patriotic American role model, scrutinizing the equipment that he must use, and travel with, in order to remain mobile. At the same time, in order to be politically correct, they wave through robed and bearded Arabs in turbans, with their burkha wrapped female companions, without even a nod. If you will pardon my language, "What a bunch of crap!"

Just for the record:

This is what terrorists look like: The 9-11, suicide bombers.

This is not what terrorists look like: Matt Rolloff

This week, the MSM has been filled with commentary, on the release by President Barack Hussein Obama of the so called ‘torture memos', outlining details of Bush-era interrogation techniques. The memos were released on the order of a US federal judge, in response to a request that was submitted by the ACLU.

"Unbelievably, here is what the so called 'torture memos' were talking about. The descriptions would be laughable, if not for their stunningly misguided treatment by liberals:

Interrogation tactics detailed in torture memos:

Walling: Shoving the detainee into a false wall. "...the false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock or surprise the individual."

Insects: "..place (the detainee) in a cramped confinement box with an insect....tell (the detainee) that you intend to place a stinging insect into the box with him. You would, however, place a harmless insect in the box (like a caterpillar)."

Insult Slap: "...the interrogator slaps the individual's face or abdomen, with fingers slightly spread...The interrogator invades the individual's personal space... the purpose of the facial slap is to induce shock, surprise, and/or humiliation."

Cramped Containment: "The confined space is usually dark. The duration of confinement varies based on the size of the container...Confinement in the larger space can last up to eighteen hours. For the smaller space, confinement lasts for no more than two hours."

Waterboarding: Simulates the sensation of drowning. Not painful but scary.

Forced Nudity: Causing the individual to be seen. . . . without clothes on?

Sleep Deprivation: An effort to induce the prisoner to reveal his knowledge of terrorist activities?

Dietary Restrictions: Causing the imprisoned Arab terrorist to eat food that is not to his liking?

Sitting in Stress Positions: Requiring the prisoner to sit in one of three "stress positions," such as sitting on the floor with legs out straight and arms raised in the air.

Water Hosing: Dousing the prisoner for minutes at a time with a water hose.

I don't know about you, my dear readers, but by my estimation, the ultra obvious, politically motivated, use of the word "torture", to describe activities that barely rise to the level of college fraternity hazing is patently ridiculous. This is again, the gross misuse of an old English word, similar to that which has been applied to the word 'gay', which really means happy, but now is commonly used as the description for something that is, detestable(I'm sorry. I wish there was a better word for it but...there isn't). In reality, there is nothing gay about the homosexual lifestyle. Neither is there any act of coercion in these memos, sufficient to merit the use of the word torture to describe it. Slapping and shoving, not so long ago, was preferred over a whipping(spanking), which we called corporal punishment. Keeping someone awake against his will, or spraying him with a water hose was once simply deemed to be obnoxious behavior, but "torture" is a word that throughout time has been reserved to define gross affliction of the body, as has been very properly illustrated by the disembowelment, and dismemberment of the William Wallaces of history or by the burning, stoning, scourging and crucifixion of Christian martyrs, and of Christ Himself. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines it thusly:

torture: 1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding).

During his first week in office, Obama issued an executive order banning the use of what he called, "these harsh interrogation methods", and ordered the CIA to abide by rules laid out in the US Army Field Manual. But on releasing the memos yesterday, he said CIA agents acted "in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice", so would not be prosecuted. "This is a time for reflection, not retribution, "Obama said, adding that nothing was to be gained by laying blame for the past. In condemning what he called a "dark and painful chapter in our history," he said these interrogation techniques would never be used again.

Oh really? I wonder what techniques he intends to use in the future? Perhaps "timeout", or "grounding" will work. Or maybe he can have them write,"I will not commit any more atrocities" on the chalk board 500 times.

What a bunch of hogwash!! To the president and his staff, and to my misguided liberal acquaintances I would like to say, "If you are going to throw around words like, "torture" to defame and discredit Americans, in favor of Muslim terrorists, then please, at least try to present some logical reasoning!" For edification, lest you remain in perpetual denial of reality, here are some comparatives that I hope you will find useful:

A correct use of the term "torture" is demonstrated, when innocent non-combatant citizens are forced to choose between being consumed by a 2000 degree fire or leaping to their death from an 80th story window.

"Torture" is not demonstrated, by slapping a militant terrorist in the face, or making him sit for a while in a stressful position!

Another correct usage of the term "torture" is demonstrated, by the fear mongering threat of death which leads up to, and culminates with, the beheading of innocent and non-combatant citizens without cause, under the pretense of religious fervor.

Paul Johnson, American contractor in Iraq

Nick Berg, American contractor in Iraq

A 16 year old Christian girl

"Torture" is not demonstrated, by depriving a militant terrorist of sleep, or shoving him against a hollow wall for effect!

Another correct usage of the term "torture" is demonstrated, by the use of box cutting blades to slit the throats of innocent non-combatant flight attendants, and letting them bleed out, or strangle on their own blood.

"Torture" is not demonstrated, by manipulation of the dietary regimen of a militant terrorist or by exposing his nudity to others! Neither is it demonstrated when he is threatened with drowning, but never drowned, nor when he is confined in a dark and cramped room for a few hours.

But by definition, another correct use of the term" torture" is clearly demonstrated, when airplanes full of innocent and non-combatant citizens are terrorized and abused for an hour or two, and then purposely flown into large buildings or into the ground, having their peaceful lives snuffed out in massive explosions.

"Torture" is just as clearly not demonstrated, when a militant terrorist is sprayed with a water hose for several minutes at a time, nor when he is confined in a 6 x 6 box and threatened with the possibility that a non-poisonous bug , or a caterpillar may be placed in there with him!

By definition, "torture" is also graphically demonstrated, when an innocent non-combatant infant citizen is murdered in utero, or is violently ripped from his mother's wombs, with her complicity, causing instant death; or when a child who refuses to die during an abortion is allowed to endure a slow death of intentional neglect in a hospital closet or a wash basin. Yes indeed, dear friends, acts of "torture" such as this, are happening every day right here in America, and the perpetrators of these heinous crimes against humanity are not Muslim terrorists, but every day liberal Americans; the same ones who naively believe that showing our weakness and our unwillingness to act forcefully in the face of terrorism, will make Muslim terrorists, and terrorist nations, our friends.

We are, one nation of united states by design, under God by His creation and sovereign will; But the reigning liberals, and their followers, are putting this great nation at risk of losing it all, when they blindly, and ignorantly, interpret evil as good and good as evil. When they don't want to face the ugly truth, even when they see it with own eyes, preferring rather to ignore the facts. When they defend what is evil and condemn what is good. When they refuse to call those who have repeatedly attacked us, terrorists, but are more than willing to call God fearing American citizens, "right wing extremists", and "a security threat to the nation", because we have the audacity to express outrage, at the outrageous conduct and attitudes of those very same liberals.

Wake up America!! Wake up, . . . . .before it's too late!!

The Dallas Tea Party

2009-04-16T09:23:00.000-07:00

For those who don't know us well, my wife Pam and I are passionate about a lot of things, especially things that have to do with God and country. And so on April 1st, I diligently packed envelopes with tea bags and sent them off to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, D.C., to support the 'Take Back America' movement. I wasn't confident that it would be very effective, but Pam insisted. Then, after planning for weeks, I rather lost my enthusiasm for fighting rush hour traffic to and from downtown Dallas, a 180 mile round trip for us, to support the Dallas Tea Party, on the15th. After suggesting that we attend a 'Party' somewhat closer to home, and getting scalded for it by my wife for compromising, I resigned myself to the fact that, we were going. Later, after doing a little research, I discovered that we could take the Dallas Rapid Transit train to the Ackard station, which was only a short walk to the rally site at City Plaza, and my commitment and attitude began to improve. Huh? Yeah-yeah, well that was Pam's idea too!
As soon as we boarded the train our rally began, as we met other citizens who had boarded with us with the same intentions. The first couple that we met on the train said that this was the only time that they had ever attended a protest rally. I think that was the case with many who were there, especially in view of the number of young adults who were found in attendance. I suspect it will not be the last for any of us. In the case of this couple, she commemorated the event by making a special set of earrings out of tea bags:

It would be difficult to describe the pride that I felt last night, from that first moment on the train, meeting and joining together with fellow Americans who were uniting for a common cause, until we arrived back at the Plano train station. No matter what negatively biased number that Main Stream Media reports, there were several thousand Texans who were on site, coming and/or going during the three hour event. They were comprised of young people, old people and everything in between, representing every ethnicity.
The Plaza was essentially full of people, the streets were full of others, coming and going, and the trains were filled with liked minded patriots, and guess what. . . . I saw not one sign with vulgar or offensive language on it. I heard not one 'F' bomb dropped by any speaker or anyone in the crowd, in fact not one obscenity of any type, during the two hours that my wife and I were involved. Strange behavior, I must say, for folks who have been labeled by the Filthy mouthed, Constitution corrupting, Baby murdering, Freedom robbing Socialists as, “right wing extremists“. This publication is a little different from what you normally expect from me but since a picture is worth a thousand words, I now leave you with this pictorial documentation of the Dallas Tea Party.

God Bless America Again!

Ambitious Commitment To Excellence

2009-04-15T05:30:00.000-07:00

There is an old saying that, "everyone wants you to be successful, as long as you are not more successful than they are". This is especially true under the ideology of Socialism.

America is in great need of perspective these days. And even within the Christian church, a huge wrong is being advanced by too many professing believers; one that goes something like this: "I know that abortion and homosexuality is wrong, but so is failing to share what we have with the needy in our communities". In saying this, the speaker is (disgracefully) seeking to justify his support for the Democratic party, with it's immoral and anti-Christian ideals, and even further seeks to reconcile that support to some misguided religious view by suggesting that liberals care more about the needy than conservatives. This is completely erroneous thought, and the suggestion that Democrats are more charitable than Republicans blatantly contradicts the recorded facts. How a Christian believer can elevate socio-political topics beyond the issues of abortion and homosexuality, both of which are clearly detestable to God, is an ongoing mystery to me, and so I challenge all my readers who claim to be both Christian and Democrat to consider this humble assertion, as you review the content herein: The term ‘Christian Democrat’ is an oxymoron in the most literal,liberal and classic sense.

Whenever someone suggests, "You have too nice a car, or too nice a house, or some other "too nice" possession, and that it should be traded in on something cheaper and the rest given to the poor" (I’m not making this up, I have actually heard people suggest this), the only response that I have for such a ridiculous statement is the facetious remark, "You first!" Should the drivers of the Chevys follow this practice, or just the drivers of the BMWs? Should the owners of the tract homes scale down to double wides, or only the owners of estate sized properties?

Of course, and unquestionably, we each have, as individual citizens, a primary and persistent obligation to care for our fellow man, but charity is a thing of the heart, not possessions. True charity, is an unselfish demonstration of love, without any expectation of personal reward or recognition, other than what might simply be felt in the heart for having done it. Some of the wealthiest people are the least charitable and some of the poorest are the most charitable, and vice versa. No one should ever say to another, "I give this much, or in this or that way, so you should do the same". If a person has charity in his/her heart, whether he be rich or poor, is of no consequence.

One of the great lies of socialism is that the government can, and will, take better care of the needy of the land than they themselves can. Socialists don't promote this thought out of an abundance of sincerity, but with a clear desire to gain control of the population by implying that they will take away from those who have, and give the proceeds to those who have not, and by having done so all may thereby become 'equal'. Where this philosophy has been applied, in places and times such as the Roman Empire, Nazi Germany, The Soviet Socialist Republic and today's Communist China, extreme poverty and pain for everyone under that prevailing authority has been the consequence. Oh, the promise of equality was real and, when allowed to propagate to maturity, did indeed insure that all but the 'rulers', who were apparently considerably more needy than the rest, achieved equal status. Equal status? Yes. And all on the bottom rung of the social and economic ladder, where they remained until the end of the given era. That is, with the exception of the millions, even tens of millions who were simply deemed to be undesirable and so were eliminated from the face of the earth. Yes young people, these annoying facts are truths of world history, which the public schools no longer teach. Check it out for yourselves. The information is available on the internet or at the public libraries.

Today's so called Democrats support, or look the other way, while executioners murder undesired babies before they are even born, or shortly thereafter, in one of the most uncharitable acts imaginable. (I realize that 'abortion of pregnancy' sounds so much more civilized than murder of babies, but let's call it what it is, shall we?) The suggestion that Republicans walk right past homeless people everyday and just ignore them, while Democrats do not, is a preposterous premise as is the expanded version which suggests that Republicans are rich and unfair to the poor , while Democrats are not. By doing your own research you will clearly find that the majority of America's richest people, are liberals, and yet liberals as a group are statistically the least charitable. Recently, my youngest son, Adam, shared the following with me, which I have excerpted from research he did last year.

"Just for the record, here are some other interesting statistics about the giving of American citizens. Of the 25 states that give an above average percentage of their income to charities, 24 of them were "red" states in the last presidential election (2004). As it turns out, statistics confirm that people who define themselves as political conservatives give about 30% more to charities than those who define themselves as politically liberal and, incidentally, conservative headed families are of slightly lower average income than liberal headed families. However, difference goes beyond money. The people who give more of one thing tend to give more of everything. Conservatives even give 18% more blood. In reality, people who believe that it's the governments job to make incomes more equal are far less likely to give their own money away to those who are more needy than they are". So, this idea that liberals give more, or that those politicians care more for the "common man" is a flat out myth. It's a myth that's been told for decades, and naive people just keep believing it. "

When in power, liberals create entitlement programs such as welfare and affirmative action, which have done nothing but systematically tear down our society by the creation of a whole segment of our nation who has never learned how to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Yet these champions of entitlement did not excel in personal charity, but simply took it out of what they collected from people who by the sweat of their brows had earned it and then paid it into the national coffers. Pure and undefiled charity, with regard to tangibles, is reaching into your own pocket and giving to another, not reaching into someone else's pocket.

In, The Audacity of Hope, Barack Hussein Obama wrote the following:
"Americans believe that if we work full-time, we should be able to support ourselves and our kids. For many people, this basic promise is not being fulfilled.
Government policies can help, with little impact on market efficiency. We can raise the minimum wage. It may be true that any big jumps in the minimum wage discourage employers from hiring. But when the minimum wage has not been changed in nine years and has less purchasing power in real dollars than it did in 1955, so that someone working full-time today in a minimum wage job does not earn enough to raise out of poverty, such arguments carry less force. The Earned Income Tax Credit provides low-wage workers with supplemental income through the tax code should be expanded and streamlined so more families can take advantage of it."
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.180-181 Oct 1, 2006

Obama's suggestion that working full time is somehow construed as a "basic promise" that we can support ourselves and a wife and kids is simply, and emphatically, ridiculous. I don't think that reasonable self supporting people in America believe that anything such as that is "promised". His premise that government programs is the solution to happiness is just more foolish liberal demagoguery.

A few years ago I was speaking before a group of young people who had recently joined the workforce of a company for whom I served as a corporate officer, a member of the executive staff and Vice-President of Worldwide Sales and Field Operations. The topic of my speech was 'Ambitious Commitment'. During the Q&A, one of the young men in the audience asked this question: "What do I need to do in order to reach your level in the company?" My answer to him was simple: "Whatever you are doing right now, be the very best at it. If you are the janitor, be so conscientious that everyone notices, and one day someone will say he is so good at this, he should be supervising others. If you are supervising others, attend to those duties so well that one day someone says he should be managing a group of supervisors, and if you are managing a group, learn the required skills and perform them to an exemplary level so that, over time, you may continue to advance. If you persist in "ambitious commitment" to the task at hand, you will continue to realize ever greater capability, opportunity and reward for your diligence ."
Someone once said, 'Cream always rises to the top' and, by personal observation, I have confirmed that although not always true, that analogy is valid more times than not.

Minimum wage is not intended, as Socialists infer, to be a living wage for a family man after a lifetime of effort, nor is that implied in the real world of business application, rather, it is a wage that is intended to be paid to new entrants into the work force, or entrants into a new area of endeavor. In America, adults with families, have simply abdicated their future by failure to perform or apply themselves to "ambitious commitment", if they are habitually working for minimum wages. One of the primary strengths of an 'at will' work environment, is that unlike union shops, such as those burdened by the employment of United Auto Workers (UAW), wages are predicated upon performance and demonstrated abilities. Socialists, of course, desire to pull the undeserving up in wages and the deserving down, destroying the incentive to excel for both. Remember the old adage, "If you give to a man a few fish, he will feed his family for a day; If you teach a man to fish, he will feed his family for a lifetime".

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931-2005

It is a sound biblical principle that states, “If a man will not work, He shall not eat” (2 Thess: 3:10)! I pray that right thinking Americans will resist the slide to Socialism, to their last breath. And beyond personal and community based charity for those who are truly in need, as opposed to those who simply believe themselves to be entitled, I pray that we will fight to preserve what conservatives for generations have called the American way: Capitalism based on the competition of free enterprise, and of a free market system augmented by abiding, personal and relentlessly ambitious commitment to personal excellence.

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

The Problem Lies With: 'We The People'

2009-04-10T04:05:00.000-07:00

'We The People' of the United States have been sounding the alarm, ad nauseam ,to each other, and to anyone else who will listen: Corrupt Socialists, led by a primary cast of characters who include Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Timothy Geithner, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanual, and the Democrat controlled Congress, with a supporting cast comprised of other Socialist figures such as George Soros, William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Bernadette Dhorn, and with fawning contributions being made by Socialist Main Stream Media(SMSM) stooges such as Chris Matthews and Katie Couric, and Socialist Hollywood and Nashville airheads like the Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin and Oprah Winfrey, are treading upon, blatantly ignoring or contriving to systematically take away our Constitutional rights, one at a time.

It occurred to me today that those people, and their zombie like followers, are not really the cause of our problems, but merely the effect. The fundamental cause for our great loss of the freedoms which were guaranteed to us by our founding fathers, and the moral morass that we presently find ourselves in is that, ‘We The People’, by our complacent conduct over the past 50 years, have simply abdicated our Constitutional rights. And, as a predictable conclusion, we are now even willing to let "the inmates run the asylum", so to speak.

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. ”

These comments, taken from the Declaration of Independence, were penned by Thomas Jefferson, who would become the 3rd president of the Union, and was signed by him and 55 others, (including Benjamin Franklin and John Adams who would succeed George Washington as the 2nd president); the founding fathers of the United States. The words and conditions described herein clearly resonate, when read in the context of our current predicament and state of the affairs of our country. The list of grievances which followed this declaration were many, and though levied against King George of England, represented what the population of the American colonies found intolerable at the time. Absent the relevant voting voice of, 'We The People', those stated grievances, and the effects of the same against the people, culminated in the violent American colonies revolt now known simply as, The Revolutionary War .

When the Declaration of Independence is read today, we may find striking parallels to what many of us again find intolerable. I say ‘many’ because to use the term most would mean that ‘We The People’ feel that we are experiencing anew “a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states” but alas, the results of recent elections do not support that assertion.

According to the US Census Bureau, at poll time last November (2008) there were approximately 240 million US citizens who were of voting age (18 years of age or older). The Rassmusen Report, has stated that about 81 million people of that group identified themselves as Republicans, about 99 million as Democrats, and another 60 million claimed no party affiliation at all. Sadly, however, only about 130 million, or 54%, actually submitted a ballot, and this, according to Wikipedia, a 40 year high.

But even though the total potential voting group who claimed to be either Republican or of no party affiliation exceeded 140 million, only about 60 million, or roughly 46% of the total votes actually cast were for the Republican ticket or, said another way, the 60 million votes for McCain equaled only about 43% of the 140 million number of citizens who either claimed to be Republicans, or who claimed no party affiliation. Or to put it in the most graphic (and worse) way, (not withstanding our pervasive suspicions of voter fraud), 60 million votes were cast to sustain the Republic, 70 million for a "change" to Socialism and at least 110 million , or around 46% of the population who were legally eligible, did not even care enough to cast a vote!!

By voting against the war on terrorism, or by not voting at all, we’ve shown that we are unwilling to fight to preserve the security of our nation and the future of our children.
By voting against the preservation of life in the womb, or by not voting at all, we’ve shown that we are unwilling to fight for the lives of the helpless.
By voting against the sanctity of marriage, or by not voting at all, we’ve shown that that we are unwilling to fight for the morality of our nation.
By voting against protection from encroaching taxation, and the subsequent 'redistribution of our own earned income', or by not voting at all, we’ve shown that we are unwilling to fight for financial advancement based upon meritorious work.
By voting against capitalism, or by not voting at all, we’ve shown that we are unwilling to fight for our rights to free enterprise.
By voting against independence from world unions, or by not voting at all, we’ve shown that we are unwilling to fight for our national sovereignty.
By voting against increases in domestic fuel exploration and production , or by not voting at all, we’ve shown that we are unwilling to fight for our energy independence.
By voting against at will work environments, or by not voting at all, we’ve shown that we are unwilling to fight for American strength in global markets.
By voting against verifying eligibility to become an elected official, and the right to bears arms, religious freedom and freedom of speech, or by not voting at all, we’ve shown that we are unwilling to fight for the protection of our Constitutional rights.

'We The People' of America have prospered and innovated far beyond any other culture in recorded history, and have generally acted as peacekeeper and financier for all the nations of the world. Americans have fought and died to defend the liberties of nations around the globe, through two World Wars, the Korean War, Vietnam and countless other actions less remarked upon, yet no less sacrificial. Though frequently abused, we have acted with uncommon restraint in dealing with the impudence and arrogant disrespect shown to us by lesser nations, Moslem and Communist nations in particular. Therefore, it is with great dismay that I watched , this week, as the first US president in history traveled around the world defaming our nation, declaring that America is not a Christian nation, bowing, scraping and reputedly even kissing the hand of the leader of a Moslem nation (while bowing low before him). Furthermore, while agreeing to unconditional ‘change’ in our relations with N. Korea, Cuba and Iran, Barack Hussein Obama apologized to everyone who would listen for undefined acts that America has committed against it’s neighbors, and promised a ‘change’ in conduct. I wonder which foreign cemetery filled with innumerable bodies of young American men and women, who willingly gave their lives in support of those “aggrieved” nations, did he apologize for?

Curiously, I am somehow reminded of a scene from the movie, Tombstone, which occurred shortly after the gunfight at the OK corral. Upon meeting them on the street, the young homosexual wanna’ be ‘Cowboy’ rebuffed the Earps for the Clantons who were killed in the fight. “They were my friends” . . . . , he said. To which Wyatt retorted to his brothers, “All they ever did was make fun of him.”

But I was not shocked, by the disgraceful conduct of our president, just sorrowful. What more could be expected from a Socialist 'First Family', who even before elected declared that they were ashamed of America, refused to honor our flag, declared the Constitution to be only an advisory document and openly and repeatedly declared support for the unrestrained rights of a woman to murder her living child if it is not successfully aborted from the womb.

My dear friends, . . . 'We The People’, . . . our national complacency, and acceptance of moral decay is palpable, and astounding!

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Letter To A Friend (part 3 of 3)

2009-03-31T05:34:00.000-07:00

This is the third part of our dialogue from last week. Part 2, dated and published March 30, 2009, ended rather abruptly with my response to your views on evolution; Part 3 begins (from that point), with my subsequent reply to your views on Christianity, in general, and specific to political dialogue. I separated this "letter" into three parts so as not to overwhelm my readers in a single document, but the need for continuity has prompted me to accelerate this final segment as follows:

On the issue of faith, you voiced a variety of opinions on Christianity that I must respond to. First you said, "Most of my family and people I have loved dearly all my life are or were devout Christians...my mother, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. Since I respect them, I rarely admit that I am an Agnostic, though not an Atheist, and that I do truly believe that Christianity is a bogus religion. "
Let us first get our definitions established:
bogus: counterfeiter's apparatus, not genuine, spurious, counterfeit, false
agnostic: a person who thinks it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God or a future life, or anything beyond material phenomena
atheist: a person who believes there is no God; a person who rejects all religious beliefs and denies the existence of God.
I don't believe that you are either agnostic or atheist, my friend, but just a sinner like all the rest of us. The trouble is that you have obviously not read the bible, though you are an intellectual, and (until now) have not heard the call of God. As I look back upon my own life I know, and have now become fully persuaded, that only the shed blood of Christ can keep me from everlasting destruction, and separation from the love of God, a love that I earnestly desire. So it has taken me most of a lifetime, but I now know that I am saved from that eternal torment, not because of anything that I have done, but because of what Christ did when he came to earth in the flesh and died for my sins, and for yours.
You went on to say, "On the other hand, Christianity and Judaism contain the best set of ethics ever devised by humans. If everyone followed the Golden Rule and about nine of the Ten Commandments, there would be fewer wars and much less strife in the world." First of all, humans did not devise that biblical set of ethics, but God himself, speaking through people who he selected and inspired; however, it goes with out saying that the world would be a much better place if everyone obeyed the Ten Commandments, so we are in complete agreement on this point.
You continued, "On the other hand, Christians ~ in my opinion ~ do lots of harm as well as good because there are so many kooks and charlatans using it for their own greed. " It is not true that true Christians 'do lots of harm', but rather , the 'kooks and charlatans' who disguise themselves as Christians 'for their own greed'.
Someone once said that sitting in a church house doesn't make you a Christian anymore than sitting in a chicken house makes you a hen. Quite frankly we all, Christian and non-Christian alike, do our share of harm during our lifetime, until or unless we learn that Christ is the only way to rise above it all.
Then you stated, "I believe people should keep their religious beliefs to themselves."
This is really quite impossible, and contrary to God's instruction for a true Christian. Of course there is a time and place for everything, but if those who have been enlightened did not share with those that He puts before them, and especially those that they care deeply about, then their own religious experience would be 'bogus', in the truest sense of the word.
You continued, “..also, more Christians should accept that non-Christians can also lead virtuous lives because they believe that is the right thing to do rather than because they think it will lead to the Kingdom of God in the hereafter." I would love to have a long discussion with you on this, but for now I will simply advance this thought; Virtuous behavior, absent of selfish or self serving motives, is certainly (and always) good, whenever and wherever it is demonstrated, but I would contend that a virtuous life is impossible, absent the involvement of God.
You then stated, “....it's the minds of people that we need to capture and convince when it comes to the type of country we want the USA to be. I believe that is best done by persuasion and the use of powerful arguments. (You have such abilities. Thomas Sowell is one of the best.)” Once again, you seem to suggest that we go after the bear with a peashooter, and my observation is that the radio and internet are filled with the most powerful arguments that I could ever have imagined against the direction that the Obama administration (after only two months) is already taking this country. How much more persuasion is possible than to completely expose the socialism that is rapidly encroaching upon all of our freedoms. Thomas Sowell is also one that I admire, and he also does not, as you suggest, shrink from invoking the use of God into his political positions.
Closing one door, opening another for Christian conservatives: Thomas Sowell, May 3, 2007
"Christians are . . . fond of saying God never closes one door without opening another door. The “door” of the Center for Reclaiming America has closed. The new doors can produce a more effective politics, if what’s on the other side is based on a message that has less to do with partisanship and more to do with the One who transcends all politics and who lends His power only to those who will use it as He instructed."
You suggested that, "Using religious arguments is counter-productive more often that it is persuasive." Of Course, this is the opinion of one conservative, who describes himself as Agnostic.
Then you continued, "I believe we need to convince a majority of the people that it is in their best interests to stay on the course set by our Founding Fathers, rather than moving toward a socialistic, big central government that controls everything we do."
To which I totally agree, but how do we do that gently, when the integrity of the Democratic Party , and main stream media (newspaper, television, Hollywood, etc.), has been so compromised?

You stated that, “Sean Hannity is such a powerful voice, but Limbaugh and Coulter are not, in my opinion, because they try to be provocative rather than persuasive. Limbaugh's ego also makes him a target and a laughing stock although he, too, is right more often than not." Well this may be (somewhat) one of those matters of personal taste. Ultra conservatives like the no-spin style of the Limbaugh and Coulters of the world and moderates like the compromising style of the Noonans and the O'reillys. But in perspective, Limbaugh is by far the best known, most listened to and highest rated talk show host on radio, and I'm quite sure that he is laughing as well, . . .all the way to the bank!! The liberals most certainly listen to him, and they are not laughing. Personally, I believe that moderate Republicans need to wake up and take a stand before it is too late.
And then finally, you wrote, "The matter of abortion, specifically Roe v. Wade, is something that is splitting our country apart. You used the phrase " their support for unlimited murder of the innocent," which clearly reveals the strength of your belief on this issue. I know that I will never change your sincere and deeply held belief about abortion being murder, nor would I try. But, I do not share that view. To me, forcing a woman ~ perhaps a drug addict ~ to bring an unwanted child into this world is one of the worst things that our society can do. I know that you feel that a fetus has been touched by the hand of God and is precious. Yet I do not feel that way. In the eyes of some, that may make me a bad person, but I am strongly pro-Choice under the guidelines normally used, i.e., within the first trimester."
My dear friend, I don't think that you are a bad person, just misinformed. Yes I do believe that an unborn child has been touched by the hand of God, and is in fact knitted together in the womb by his very hands, one of his many great miracles of creation. I am sorry that you don't share these views. I am equally sorry that you feel that bringing an unwanted baby into the world, (as the result of two self serving individuals placing instant gratification over caution), is “one of the worst things that our society can do” . You sound very much like the liberals on this subject, even in the use of the term 'fetus', to avoid calling it a baby. If killing a baby in (or out) of the womb is not murder, then there is no such thing. I believe that your point is that first trimester abortions should be allowed, but if even a conservative like yourself can believe that allowing a baby to die in the delivery room (after a botched abortion), is not one of the worst things our society can do, then I am even more fearful for the future of America, a nation that was built by our “founding fathers” upon a moral structure that would never have allowed them to even fathom that we would one day tolerate, or worse, condone such conduct. You suggest that normal pro-Choice guidelines dictate for first trimester abortions, but the facts don't support your belief. I'm sure you know (as I wrote earlier) that our president, Barack Hussein Obama, and pro-Choice activists across the nation support pre and post birth abortions; they want no restriction on abortion, not first, second or third trimester, and if the abortion effort fails, they do not want the baby to be cared for but instead to simply cry itself to death.

This a picture of my grand fetus, who is yet to be born.
Looks very much like a grand baby doesn't it? His/her mother and daddy go over about every two weeks and watch him/her smiling, turning , opening eyes, sucking a thumb, all in-vitro. Pam and I went with them and saw a 40 minute live video last week.

Letter To A Friend (part 2 of 3)

2009-03-30T05:31:00.000-07:00

This is the second part of dialogue from last week in which we found rather sharp, but reciprocally restrained disagreement. Part 1, published on March 29, 2009, ended with my following closing statement:

“(My friend) . . . . as I have said many times before, you and your family are as close in my life as relatives (. . . . ) and I greatly appreciate your supportive comments on my writing style, and also enjoy this, our political dialogue. We all have to at least try, by doing whatever we can, to secure the future for our own grandchildren, like our forefathers did for us."

And then you answered:

“Thanks for your comments, and especially for your closing comments. Let me deflect any disagreement we may have by saying that I not only admire you very much, but I also genuinely respect you. I think that you, too, are extremely bright, but I admire you most of all because you have a vast array of talents in many areas, a sparkling personality, a positive outlook on life, and you deal with success with great humility. You're a successful person with a great personal appeal and tender heart.”
“Now, where we disagree...”
“To me, Ann Coulter is a comedian first and foremost. Her sense of humor is biting, sharp and funny. Unfortunately, that creates many enemies and gives fodder for people to attack her (and other conservatives) even though she is correct on many issues. She is obviously very bright, but any intelligent, educated person who rejects evolution is not intellectually honest, in my opinion. She has a loyal band of followers but she is not going to win many middle-of-the-road converts to her side, in my opinion. In the meantime, she's getting richer and more famous. I think she likes the limelight.
Most of my family and people I have loved dearly all my life are or were devout Christians...my mother, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc. Since I respect them, I rarely admit that I am an Agnostic, though not an Atheist, and that I do truly believe that Christianity is a bogus religion. On the other hand, Christianity and Judaism contain the best set of ethics ever devised by humans. If everyone followed the Golden Rule and about nine of the Ten Commandments, there would be fewer wars and much less strife in the world. On the other hand, Christians ~ in my opinion ~ do lots of harm as well as good because there are so many kooks and charlatans using it for their own greed. I believe people should keep their religious beliefs to themselves. Also, more Christians should accept that non-Christians can also lead virtuous lives because they believe that is the right thing to do rather than because they think it will lead to the Kingdom of God in the hereafter.”
“Last, it's the minds of people that we need to capture and convince when it comes to the type of country we want the USA to be. I believe that is best done by persuasion and the use of powerful arguments. (You have such abilities. Thomas Sowell is one of the best.) Using religious arguments is counter-productive more often that it is persuasive. I believe we need to convince a majority of the people that it is in their best interests to stay on the course set by our Founding Fathers, rather than moving toward a socialistic, big central government that controls everything we do. Sean Hannity is such a powerful voice, but Limbaugh and Coulter are not, in my opinion, because they try to be provocative rather than persuasive. Limbaugh's ego also makes him a target and a laughing stock although he, too, is right more often than not.
These are just my views in a condensed form. Thanks for sharing yours."

And a little later you then added:

“Please permit me one more observation, Dennis...”
“The matter of abortion, specifically Roe v. Wade, is something that is splitting our country apart. You used the phrase " their support for unlimited murder of the innocent," which clearly reveals the strength of your belief on this issue. I know that I will never change your sincere and deeply held belief about abortion being murder, nor would I try. But, I do not share that view. To me, forcing a woman ~ perhaps a drug addict ~ to bring an unwanted child into this world is one of the worst things that our society can do. I know that you feel that a fetus has been touched by the hand of God and is precious. Yet I do not feel that way. In the eyes of some, that may make me a bad person, but I am strongly pro-Choice under the guidelines normally used, i.e., within the first trimester. Resolving this great divide is something that our society will hopefully be able to do. In any event, I dislike most of the things that Obama and crowd are doing to our country as much as you do. I can live with limits on abortion more readily than I can with a socialist government."

Herein, I now respond;

On the issue of evolution, In spite of the kind regard that you express toward me, you call me dishonest, along with Ann Coulter, when you say, "any intelligent, educated person who rejects evolution is not intellectually honest, in my opinion." My friend, you are an obviously intelligent and educated person, so let me ask you a few short questions.
First, which is easier to believe:
a) That colliding particles, in a vast expanse that had no origin, began to mysteriously assemble themselves and, over eons of time, evolved to the marvelous and present state of things?
or
b) That a being who has no definable origin, with superior intelligence beyond our ability to comprehend, created this universe and all the mysterious wonders that are evident in the present state of things?
In these modern days, someone advanced this thought: "to theorize that man, with no intelligent intervention, simply evolved from a random collection of matter, makes no more sense than to suggest that the random collection of parts in a scrap yard, with no intelligent intervention, began to assemble themselves and, over eons of time, evolved and crawled out of a scrap yard as a computer."
If evolution is how the universe has advanced, then how did it happen? Which came first the bumblebee or the flower, since neither can survive without the other?
A scientist whom I met some years ago told this story: He said that his father was a man of science, and an atheist, and so he himself was raised to be an atheist, and later became a scientist as well. He said that the life of an atheist is without fear of moral consequence and so, by definition, anything that one desires to do, and can get away with, is acceptable. He said that he met and wanted to marry the woman who eventually did become his wife, but at the time, she would not marry him because of her religious (and his non-religious) views, so he decided to read the bible himself, so that he could prove to her that it was all a lie. In doing so, (because he was an 'intelligent and educated person'), he became convinced by science that the bible was, in fact, true. The first evidence that he discovered is found in Job 26: 7, "He spreads out the northern skies, over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing." Since the age of the written biblical text is virtually undisputed, he points out that these words were written well over a thousand years before man was able to prove to himself that the earth was round, and not poised atop a variety of disputable objects and creatures. Next, he discovered that biblical references to conception confirm that both the male seed and female egg are required, in order to produce a child, even though the advent of technical understanding of this, medically speaking, did not occur until some time during the most recent 300 years. Before that, it was most commonly assumed that the female was only a virtual incubator for the child, which was deposited into her by a male. With his mind thus opened, he became a believer, married his paramour and (hopefully) they lived happily ever after.

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Letter To A Friend (part 1 of 3)

2009-03-29T05:28:00.000-07:00

My Friend, It always takes me somewhat aback to discover that someone who I had previously believed shared my very conservative views, does not. The multitude of messages and responses, which I received from you last week, were extremely sensitive to our long and close friendship, but at the same time filled with provocation. After the very kind description of me, that you presented in your notes, I was rendered somewhat timid to respond to the many issues that you raised. However, I consider honest dialogue between friends to be healthy and good, if approached with unselfish motives, so I have decided to respond to several excerpted topics, upon which you have expressed strong opinions during this week, and to discretely share the dialogue with my readers.

It all started when you innocently forwarded to me, a piece written by Peggy Noonan entitled, "Neither a Hedgehog or a Fox".
To which I innocently responded as follows:

"The trouble with Peggy is she tries to walk with one foot in each bucket. I prefer the blunt language of (an) Ann Coulter. For example, in order to not sound too aggressive, Peggy suggests (in this piece) that Geitner knew nothing about the AIG bonuses when in reality, he and the whole Obama administration clearly were aware of the associated incentive contracts well in advance of their payments, and long before the advent of the so called "bonus scandal". The "poor guy" was not just overworked and understaffed thereby missing info that would have allowed for early discovery."

And your immediate response was:

"I also like people who are forthright and blunt. The problem is that to win the argument and sway people, a softer tone is usually more effective, unless a person has a very strong and air-tight case to present. Then anger and moral indignation can be very effective and even necessary. I like Ann Coulter but she is rejected by most people as hateful and mean because of her strident tone and message. Her sense of humor helps, but it's not enough. Overall, I think Peggy Noonan is more effective even though she may seem wishy-washy on some issues.”
“If you don't mind, as a long time friend, let me offer you my comments about your writing. I like your passion, which comes through in what you write, though certainly not in a mean way. But, I am not a devout Christian as you are. Biblical quotes don't sway me. I would also guess that issues such as where Obama was born are not only not provable, but that raising such issues may work in his favor. I think he's going to be a complete disaster for our country, but I can't prove it and can't do much about it. But, to the extent that you can convince people of his ineptness, lack of courage, dishonesty, socialistic tendencies, Muslim sympathies, etc., then I'm behind you and for you 100 per cent. In any event, I always welcome receiving your articles. Thanks for sending them."

To which I then replied:

“(. . . . ) I really appreciate the candor found in your critique of my writing, but let me now respond to several of your points:
First in the order of appearance, on your assertion that my position is not "strong", or sufficient to "evoke anger and moral indignation". What is it that you finding lacking , in order to present an airtight case against the current administration and the points that I raised against it?
Herein I now add and ask, how much evidence is required in order to constitute, 'a very strong and air-tight case' ? Having read the four parts of my, 'Why I Can't Pray For The Success Of Our President' piece, if you feel that not enough evidence is presented against Obama, then all that may be left is for you and me to personally catch him with a smoking gun in his hand, in order that ‘anger and moral indignation' may be justified. It is not my intent to convince anyone to dislike Obama because of my opinions about him, but on the merit of rock solid evidence, uncovered by many who are much better qualified than I, who have clearly proven that he is, 'inept, lacks courage, is dishonest, and promotes undisguised socialistic tendencies and Muslim sympathies, etc.' Are you not convinced of this; by the factual evidence?
“Second, Regarding Ann Coulter, I wouldn't say that “she is rejected by most people" in view of the facts, starting with her 7 books that have made the New York Times best sellers list. Confronting some critics' views that her content and style of writing is un-Christian (read unkind), Coulter has stated,"

"I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it." She has also said: "... Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy — you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism." In Godless: The Church of Liberalism, as well as in personal appearances, Coulter characterized the theory of evolution as "bogus science", and contrasting her beliefs to what she called the left's "obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death."

"While I would agree that most liberals despise her for her aggressive candor which, as an attorney, she takes care to meticulously back up with facts, most conservatives like myself, prefer her direct (and also humorous) approach, over boring and politically correct. I also recognize that moderates, like Peggy Noonan, prefer a more mellow approach to combating the very real danger to our society that we are all seeing in the incredible, and rapid de-evolution of the Democratic Party
( liberalism to socialism to communism ), but quite frankly this mellow approach is what I consider to be the primary reason why we are losing our freedom. This, "I'm OK, You're OK" approach to politics ignores the fact that today's liberals are determined to change our culture into something that destroys all that you and I (and our parents and grandparents before us) have held dear during our lifetime. They (the liberals) are behaving like wolves and our more moderate conservatives are behaving like sheep (being led to the slaughter), diluting any attempts by deep conservatives to mount an adequate defense. I have nothing but praise for the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter crowd, and many well known pulpit ministers, like John Hagee, David Jeremiah (and others )who are not letting the blatant attacks on America by liberals simply go unanswered, and I am conversely dismayed when I hear " wishy-washy" attempts by the Peggy Noonans and the Bill O'reillys of the world, who choose to respond to the disgraceful conduct of our modern day Democrats, in a politically correct manner. . . . . so as not to offend.”
“Third, I do not deserve the description, “devout Christian", but I am more and more being humbled by God's grace (unmerited favor) towards me, and therefore, feel compelled to state my political case to Christian and non Christian friends alike, on the merits of faith. It would be impossible for me to stand against the liberal attacks on religious freedom, their support for unlimited murder of the innocent, their promotion of homosexual lifestyle as acceptable behavior, their desires to teach our children that to engage in immoral conduct is OK, as long as you use a condom, but to say a prayer on school property is a major offense, etc., without bringing God and bible verse into the equation. (My friend), you are obviously bright and, who knows, if you would go and check me out in the bible, even if just to keep me honest, you may (even) become persuaded to turn to Him for salvation also.”

On the issue of natural born citizenship, you said, "I would also guess that issues such as where Obama was born are not only not provable, but that raising such issues may work in his favor."

Herein I now respond to this point:

It is the Constitution which defines the qualifications for a president, with language that required Obama, or any other person seeking the referenced offices, to be able to prove himself to be a natural born citizen, yet Barack Hussein, (in the face of significant evidence against him), refuses to do so, with the apparent complicity of Supreme Court justices and various federal judges who have refused to compel him to comply. The onus is not upon the voting citizenry to prove where a presidential candidate was, or was not born, the burden of proof falls, Constitutionally, upon the candidate. I am, however, further curious as to why you think that exposing him as a liar works in his favor?
“Finally, as I have said many times before, you and your family are as close in my life as relatives (. . . . ) and I greatly appreciate your supportive comments on my writing style, and also enjoy this, our political dialogue. We all have to at least try, by doing whatever we can, to secure the future for our own grandchildren, like our forefathers did for us."

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Why I Can't Pray For The Success Of Our President (part 4 of 4)

2009-03-20T05:25:00.000-07:00

And Do We Still Not Dare Call It Treason?

The first time I was in Italy on business, I noticed that people in the major cites frequently did not stop at an intersection when the light was red. I don't mean that they tried to get through before it turned red, like we sometime see (or do) in the US, I mean that coming up to a light that was completely red, they frequently did not stop, especially taxicab drivers. My German colleague, with whom I was traveling, said that the practice had become so pervasive that at especially busy times in the day, some cab drivers would stop when the light was green , for fear that other cab drivers might not stop at the red.
I found the same non-stopping practice in Taiwan, and my Taiwanese colleague explained that in his country, the color of the traffic signal was viewed only as an advisory, not as an imperative.
Distinguishing in the behavior and quotes, both written and oral, of Barack Hussein Obama, is his disregard (even contempt), for the US constitution, the content of which he seems to view, "only as an advisory, not as an imperative".
Consider the following excerpts from the Constitution:
Article I, Section 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States. . . . . . . .
Article II, Section 1: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;. . . . . . . .
Consider these points:
***His African grandmother has said that she was in the room in Kenya when Barack was born. (Her
input is being completely ignored by the courts and by main stream media).
***He claims to have been born in Hawaii, but cannot, or will not, produce legal verification. (So far the
courts have refused to hear, and main stream media has ignored or ridiculed the evidence against him).
***He has spent mega $$$ (over a million dollars to-date), to deny anyone access to his birth records, (or
any of his school records) anywhere in the world, (which blatantly suggests that he has premeditated
to hide the facts of his national origin, how his ivy league education was funded and how he fared
in any educational endeavor, from the elementary grades through law school ).
***His mother was maybe only seventeen when he was born; meaning, she was under the legal age to
pass on US citizenship to her son if she gave birth to him while out of the country. (The courts and
main stream media have completely ignored or ridiculed this suggestion as well).
The outright refusal by Barack Hussein Obama to produce legal birth records, and the preponderance of evidence against his natural citizenship, suggest collusion by Obama, some federal judges, and perhaps even Supreme Court justices, to defraud the nation, by violation of Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution during his candidacy, and ultimate election to the Senate, and violation of Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, during his candidacy, and ultimate election to the Presidency. Why would so much detail have been applied to the Constitution by our nation's framers if we were to be allowed to ignore the requirements, or simply take the "word" of the candidate, no questions asked?
Article II, Section 1: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Although he has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, his written and oral statements before, and after his election, testify to his real intentions regarding that hallowed document.
From his book, The Audacity of Hope, pages 89-92, we read the following excerpt:
“When we get in a tussle, we appeal to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution's ratifiers to give direction.
Some, like Justice Scalia, conclude that the original understanding must be followed and if we obey this rule, democracy is respected.
Others, like Justice Breyers, insist that sometimes the original understanding can take you only so far--that on the truly big arguments, we have to take context, history, and the practical outcomes of a decision into account.
I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world. I see democracy as a conversation to be had. According to this conception, the genius of Madison's design is not that it provides a fixed blueprint for action. It provides us with a framework and rules, but all its machinery are designed to force us into a conversation.”
I don't know about you, but this ridiculous distortion of the intent of the founders and ratifiers, in particular Madison, sounds very much like, ". . . . . . the color of the traffic signal (or the US Constitution) is viewed only as an advisory, not as an imperative".
Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Once again, his written and oral statements before, and after his election, testify to his real intentions regarding his respect (or lack thereof) for the words of our Constitution.

In his book entitled, The Audacity of Hope, Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, by Barack Hussein Obama, published October, 2006, we find written:
"In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."
The Obama camp has dismissed reports claiming that he said in the book, "If the political winds shift in and ugly direction, I will stand with the Muslims." From the direct statement quoted above, it would seem that people have rightly concluded that in summary, Obama was actually saying, yeah you guessed it, “should the political winds shift in an ugly direction, I will stand with the Arabs and Pakistanis (Muslims)”.
Sooo we find another Democrat president arguing semantics with the American people:
January 21, 1998-Bill Clinton's telephone interview with Roll Call
Q: You said in a statement today that you had no improper relationship with this intern. What exactly was the nature of your relationship with her?
A: Well, let me say, the relationship was not improper, and I think that's important enough to say. But because the investigation is going on and because I don't know what is out – what's going to be asked of me, I think I need to cooperate, answer the questions, but I think it's important for me to make it clear what is not. And then, at the appropriate time, I'll try to answer what is. But let me answer – it is not an improper relationship and I know what the word means. So let's just –
Q: Was it in any way sexual?
A: The relationship was not sexual. And I know what you mean, and the answer is no.
And now let us consider some more troubling facts:
During his initial week in office, after having been sworn in as President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, deliberately addressed his first official telephone call to Mahmoud Abbas, a Muslim, and leader of the Fatah party in the Palestinian territory of Gaza.
Later that same day he ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay Muslim terrorist holding facility, the cessation of all military trials of the Muslim detainees at that facility, including those implicated in the 9/11 bombings, withdrew all charges against the Muslim masterminds behind the terrorist attacks on the USS Cole and 9/11 and ordered all overseas CIA interrogation centers closed.
Then, in the same deliberate manner, he then granted his first official, one-on-one interview, as President of the United States, to Al Arabia television.
Last month we learned that the Obama administration has earmarked $20M of additional aid to Palestinians in the Gaza region, bringing the total US commitment to $60M, (some have said that as much as $800M has been committed to the Palestinians), since the Democrats gained control of Congress and now the White House. This in spite of the well publicized fact that Gaza militants rained thousands of missiles upon Israel until the only reasonable response by Israel was an offensive, then the Palestinians asked the international community for aid, and they responded favorably, and now in spite of the fact that Hamas continues to hijack the aid trucks, keeping them from reaching their intended targets, the civilian 'victims'. Furthermore, a generous part of this new commitment of US aid is specifically intended to assist in the migration to America of thousands of Palestinian Muslim 'refugees'.
His association with terrorists, Muslim terrorists, terrorist organizations, communists, socialists, and others that wish to do America harm are well documented, and he has indeed given aid to the enemy, by word and deed, during a time of war. What more does one need to do in order to be in violation of the clause which states: Treason against the United States, shall consist . . . . . . in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. (see also Introspection: Show Me The Company You Keep, And I'll Tell You Who You Are 3/13/2009)
Article IV, Section 4: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,. . . . . .
The Constitution guarantees to every state in the Union a Republican Form of Government, yet the Obama administration, by principle, by statement and by actions, advocates a system of socialism; Such things as providing universal health care, taking aggressive action to take away from those who have earned the most while producing the most and redistributing to those who have produced the least (or nothing), a plethora of entitlement programs, systematic nationalization of corporations such as banks and other industries such as auto makers, increasing social welfare, attempting to force industry in America into unionizing all labor (Where employed, the irrefutable, and greatest contributor to the downfall of American competitiveness in many world markets is US trade unions.), etc.
republicanism (guaranteed by the Constitution):A system that is based upon a state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote , and is exercised by representatives elected directly or indirectly by them and responsible to them.
socialism (in Communist doctrine): The stage of society coming between the capitalist stage and the communist stage, in which private ownership of the means of production and distribution has been eliminated, as in the Soviet Union , and the production of goods is sufficient to permit realization of the slogan, from each according to his ability, to each according to his work.
Article VI: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution . . . . ..
When Obama was sworn in as president, as all presidents before him had done, he said "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Article VI clearly states that he is bound by that oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. By his conduct and comments it would seem to be his view that this oath is perhaps irrelevant to the 21st Century as well.
Excerpts from the Bill of Rights:
Article III: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The continual, and unprecedented, public attacks by Obama upon private citizens like Joe the plumber, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and public companies like Fox News and Conservative talk radio in general, is a indicative of his disdain for the principles that were the foundation of Article III.
Article IV: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Obama is intent upon restricting and/or denying citizens the right of the people to keep and bear arms, by registration, by taxation , by confiscation, or by the redefining of the intent of Article IV to mean "guns for hunting", all this in direct violation of the expressed intent and verbiage of Article IV, which was to insure the defense of the nation, with such defense capability growing from the smallest unit, the family domicile.
Article XII: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Obama is intent upon creating and/or expanding central government power beyond anything ever before conceived in American history.
And so in summary we must conclude the following:
****Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen and therefore, his election to Congress and to
the Presidency violated Article I, Section 3, and Article II, Section 1 of the
Constitution.
****Obama, promotes a socialist form of government , in violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the
Constitution, which guarantees a republican form.
****He promotes the expansion of central government control, in violation of states rights, as defined in
Article XII of the Bill of Rights.
****He has attacked the free speech of American citizens and threatens to deprive them of the right to
dissent, (with actions such as those found in the so called "Fairness Doctrine"), in violation of Article
III of the Bill of Rights.
****He is determined to disarm America’s law abiding citizens, in violation of Article IV of the Bill of
Rights.
****He has given (and continues to give) aid and comfort to our enemies, even now when we are at war, in
violation of Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, which defines his actions as Treason!
As we review all of the many ways that Barack Hussein Obama, his liberal administration, the majority liberal Congress and the liberally dominated Supreme Court ignore or disrespect the purposes and directions of the Constitution, it is easy for the lay person to conclude that this noble document is no longer being enforced or revered by those who have sworn to uphold it's integrity.
"I might love, but never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates (do not) didn’t speak to my own. It (is) was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that (I've) I’d packed all the attributes I (seek) sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm , DuBois and Mandela.
(Barack Hussein Obama, Dreams From My Father, A Story Of Race And Inheritance! )
And so I wonder, what shall America do with one who would continually, and pervasively, spit upon our freedom, our faith, our national heritage and our history? He does so because, as you see, in his own words, he does not regard these things to be his freedom, his faith, his national heritage or his history.
It has been said that ‘even a blind hog can root up an acorn some of the time’ , and this week Obama just stuck his nose into the teleprompter and rooted one up when he compared his new Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geitner to the one who first held that office, Alexander Hamilton!!
Obama has frequently declared that Abraham Lincoln is the president that he most wants to emulate, and Lincoln’s intellectual hero was, Thomas Jefferson! From the biography, Thomas Jefferson, published by Mr. R.B. Bernstein, we find the following view of Hamilton: "Jefferson feared that Hamilton had plans radically at odds with the Constitution. As [Jefferson] saw it, Hamilton wanted to warp the federal government out of constitutional shape, converting it into a copy of the British government, built on debt, corruption, and influence. Hamilton's goal, Jefferson charged, was to ally the rich and well-born with the government, at the people's expense, creating a corrupt aristocracy leagued with the government against the people and destroying the virtue that was the basis of republican government."
This view of Alexander Hamilton, just attributed to Jefferson, clearly describes the objectives of Barack Hussein Obama, and the advisors, colleagues and appointees that he has brought into close association within his administration, including his own Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geitner. Jefferson wanted a strict interpretation of the Constitution, to give more power to the states, while Hamilton favored a broad interpretation to strengthen the central government. Jefferson wanted to give the common people more opportunities to participate in government, while Hamilton believed that ‘commoners’ were too ignorant, and therefore incapable of self-government.

In 1776 A.D., Patrick Henry, a great patriot of the American Revolution, uttered this passionate and immortalized statement, "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death. He was captured. . . . . and hanged. . . . . during the Revolution, one of many who fought and died for my freedom . . . .and yours. I will not willingly give up my freedom, which those who came before us protected with their very lives. From American history books, we can read of the great sacrivices that were made so that we could live as we have lived, in Freedom. True, and profound, is the well known statement, "All gave some; and Some gave all"

Nor will I give up my faith in the God of Creation whom I serve, or side with those who stand for everything that is contrary to Him.
In (~) 1452 B.C., Joshua, a great patriarch of the Bible, said, "If serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, . . . But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord".
And so, I must pray that Barack Hussein Obama's evil plan to destroy all that we hold dear, will fail. I will surely pray that he will, "let us live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness". And though I may pray that God will change Obama's heart, and that he will turn to Him for guidance, I cannot and I will not pray for the success of one who heads such an onerous agenda, which is wrong in every way!

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Why I Can't Pray For The Success Of Our President (part 3 of 4)

2009-03-13T05:23:00.000-07:00

Show Me The Company You Keep,
And I'll Tell You Who You Are

Was it comedian Richard Pryor who once quipped, “Are you going to believe me, or are you going to believe your lying eyes”? No matter, but the thought immediately has put me in mind of a cartoon that I once saw, in which a wife came home unexpectedly and caught her husband in bed with another woman. As the wife stood in stunned silence, the adulterous couple quietly dressed and she (the other woman), slipped out the front door while he (the husband), simply sat down and began to read the paper. After a few more moments of silence the wife finally spoke.
“Well”, she emphatically asked?
“Well what”, calmly answered the husband?
“Well, are you going to tell me about that woman”, she cried?
“Am I going to tell you about what woman, dear”, he replied?

These two attempts at humor are perhaps analogous of the real facts of our lives today. No matter what treasonous thing Barack Hussein Obama says (or has said), either orally or in print, no matter what he does (or has done) to harm or destroy the moral and/or ethical values of America, no matter what destructive action he has already taken (or plans to take) and no matter what disturbing , unsettling, or outright unconstitutional thing that is revealed about him through independent investigation or in the course of evolving events, his handlers, his rabid supporters and the complicit main stream media find some way to either justify or dismiss the obvious truth, in favor of a lie. To ignore the associated negative.

We have found that Obama and the new administration do not like to be called, socialists or communists, but someone once said, "Birds of a feather, flock together", and we find this statement to be broadly accurate. Christians seek the association of other Christians, Muslims seek the association of other Muslims, Whore mongers seek the association of other whore mongers, Conservatives seek the association of other Conservatives, Liberals seek the associations of other Liberals, (I could go on and on), Canadian geese seek......well, you get the point! But really, ...white horses even prefer the company of other white horses, and colored horses like to hang with other colored horses. I know, I raise them. And it is surely, and emphatically true as well that Socialists seek the association and company of other Socialists.

In his first book, Dreams from my Father, A Story of Race and Inheritance, by Barack Hussein Obama, published in August, 2004, we find written:
"I might love, but never emulate, white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm , DuBois and Mandela. Malcolm X was a black racist leader of the "Nation of Islam" who in denouncing capitalism and the American free enterprise system once said : "It is impossible for this system, this economic system, this political system, this social system, this system period, to produce freedom for the Afro-American”. DuBois, an outspoken black American Communist, was recruited by Soviet agents in 1926 and spent the better part of his life supporting the violent overthrow of America. In 1959, he was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize by the Soviets. He later renounced his US citizenship and moved to Ghana. Nelson Mandela was the leader of the African National Congress (ANC) , a terrorist group that waged a guerrilla insurgency against the white regime in South Africa for decades. The ANC was formally allied with the South African Communist Party and collaborated with the Soviet Union. At his trial for sedition during 1963-64, the prosecution produced pages from a Mandela essay titled, “How To Be A Good Communist” . In it, Mandela wrote: “Under a Communist Party government, South Africa will become a land of milk and honey. . . . Without a hard, bitter, and long struggle against capitalism and exploitation, there can be no Communist world. The cause of Communism is the greatest cause in the history of mankind” . (Source: ANC: A Soviet Task Force, National Review, March 13, 1987). The African National Congress became notorious for the heinous tactic of “necklacing” its opponents and detractors. A person who was 'necklaced' typically had a tire pushed down over his head and arms, was drenched in gasoline and then set on fire. Winnie Mandela, a former wife of Nelson, once bragged: “With our boxes of matches and our necklaces we will liberate this country.”

To my knowledge, Barack Hussein Obama has never recanted his statements , and if he considered, and still considers, the character traits of these three Socialist, Communist and/or America hating figures as ‘attributes’, and “attributes which he sought (seeks) in himself”, how can he ever produce a national environment that fosters the continued opportunity to “live peaceful and quiet lives, in godliness and holiness", as has been suggested in Romans 12: . As president, how can he ever do anything other than destroy, unless he somehow becomes someone completely different than he has thus shown himself to be?

It is difficult, however, to imagine how Barack could have grown up to be anything other than what he is. The family that he was born into, and raised by, was the antithesis of a typical family, (as we who are Americans know a typical family to be). His mother, Stanley Anne Dunham, was said to be married to the Kenyan Muslim, Barack Obama Sr. when she was only seventeen, and studying at the University of Hawaii, and had Barack Jr shortly thereafter. Sr. abandoned them within two years and shortly thereafter Jr’s mother was said to have married an Indonesian Muslim, Lolo Soetoro, and moved, to be with him, in Jakarta, Indonesia, where mother and child adopted Indonesian citizenship, and Jr became known as Barry Soetoro. By the time Barry was 10, however, he was no longer living with either of his birth parents but rather, back in Hawaii with his white maternal grandparents, who raised him through his adolescent years.

It was Barry’s maternal grandfather who introduced him to his own good friend, a black man by the name of Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was to become Barry's first, and perhaps his most influential mentor. So close was their association that Barry began to call him, Uncle Frank. In spite of his friendship with Barry's white grandparents, the infamous Davis, a Communist activist

(and self confessed Hedonist and bisexual pedophile) taught the youth that white people were consummate demons and that blacks were hapless souls, being eternally "victimized" by whites. In his memoir, Obama recounts how he visited Uncle Frank on several occasions, apparently at junctures when he was grappling with racial issues, to seek his counsel. In 1979, Obama is said to have graduated with honors from the esteemed Punahou Academy high school. During the time that he pondered his advanced academic plans, "Uncle Frank" explained to him that securing a degree from a university included accepting, "an advanced degree in compromise" that was designed to keep blacks in their place. Obama quoted him as saying: "Understand something, boy. You're not going to college to get educated. You’re going there to get trained." He added that "they'll ......let you know that you may be a well-trained, well-paid nigger, but you're a nigger just the same."

Obama claims to have studied at Occidental College in Los Angeles for two years, and then to have transferred to Columbia University in New York, where he is said to have graduated in 1983 with a bachelor's degree in political science. He took a corporate job for a couple of years and then moved to Chicago in 1985, where he has said that he worked as a community organizer with low-income residents in Chicago’s Roseland community and the Altgeld Gardens public housing development on the city’s South Side. During this time, he also visited relatives in Kenya, for the first time, to meet his paternal family and while there, visited the graves of his father and paternal grandfather.

Along the way to the presidency, young Barry Soetoro, who eventually reverted to the use of his birth name, Barack Hussein Obama, was befriended by a strange group of people, including the hate-spewing radical, Rev. Louis Farrakhan, and the raving Father Michael Phleger, the radical Islamist Khalid Rashidi, his close friends (and neighbors) the William Ayers, and to equally-close friends “Tony” and Rita Rezko – Tony being the notorious “fixer” , who was convicted and is now serving time in a federal prison for fraud, bribery, and money laundering. What did (does) the seemingly mild-mannered Obama find so irresistible in these angry and/or crooked people and others like them?

Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988. In February 1990, he was elected the first African–American editor of the Harvard Law Review. Obama says that he graduated magna cum laude in 1991. It has been suggested, and there seems to be a good deal of evidence to test to the veracity of the suggestion, that Obama’s acceptance at Harvard Law – and payment for his tuition – were facilitated by "friends" who had taken an unusual interest in the young community organizer.Among them was Percy Sutton, a former Manhattan borough president and ardent leftist, who was also Malcolm X’s lawyer. In an interview last year, the octogenarian Sutton stated: “I was introduced to [Obama] by a friend". The friend’s name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, and the introduction is said to have occurred about 20 years ago.” Sutton described al-Mansour as “the principle adviser to one of the world’s richest men” and suggested that al-Mansour was raising money for Obama. Knowing that Sutton had friends at Harvard, al-Mansour asked him if he would write a letter to Harvard recommending Obama, which Sutton did most agreeably.
This took place about 1988 when 27-year-old Obama was applying to Harvard Law.

After law school, Obama returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer, joining the firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. He also taught at the University of Chicago Law School. And he helped organize voter registration drives during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.
In 1995, Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district's influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they are better known nationally as two of the most notorious, and unrepentant figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement, as charter members of the underground Weather Men terrorist organization. I say unrepentant without danger of being refuted, since as late as 2001 William Ayers was quoted by the New York Times as saying, "I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough". The Ayers eventually became neighbors and close friends with the Obamas.

During Obama's unsuccessful bid for the US House of Representatives in 2000, a fundraiser was organized and hosted in the home of the radical Islamist, Rashid Khalidi, who was at the time, a Middle East professor at the University of Chicago, but later transferred to Columbia University. The Pro-Palestinian movement on Columbia’s campus is now led by Khalidi, who holds the Edward Said Chair for Middle East Studies, and was previously a director of the official PLO press agency WAFA in Beirut from 1976 to 1982 (this was at a time that the US State Department considered the PLO a terrorist organization). Therefore, Columbia now has a “former” terrorist employed as a professor. Khalidi was a major factor in Columbia’s decision to bring the Iranian leader and Islamist, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to speak on campus. Both men call for the destruction of Israel with Khalidi praising the 4-year Palestinian second intifida which left hundreds of Israelis dead. He has also called Israel an “apartheid system in creation” and a “racist state”. At a going away party for Khalidi in 2004, to celebrate his new professorship at Columbia, Obama gave a glowing testimonial on his behalf. Subsequently, Obama’s friend Khalidi, on his second try, succeeded in bringing his friend and ideological ally, Ahmadinejad, a modern day Hitler-like Jew hater, to a world stage at Columbia University.

Raila Odinga, of Kenya, is said to be Obama's first cousin. He is also a Marxist and a Muslim who engaged in ghastly atrocities against Christians in 1982 and served 8 years in prison for his part. In 2006 he ran for president of Kenya. He was backed by the Muslim community in Kenya. In return for Muslim backing, Odinga promised to impose a number of measures favored by Muslims if he were elected president. Among these were recognition of "Islam as the only true religion," Islamic leaders would have an "oversight role to monitor activities of ALL other religions [emphasis in original]," installation of Shariah courts in every jurisdiction, a ban on Christian preaching, replacement of the police commissioner who "allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists," adoption of a women's dress code, and bans on alcohol and pork. He also received the support of (you guessed it, didn't you), Senator Barack Hussein Obama, who took time out from his congressional duties to travel to Africa and stump for Odinga as he tried and failed to win in 2007, being defeated by President Mwai Kibaki who sought, and was re-elected to, a second term.
Odinga and Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Obama's six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya, and Obama spoke on behalf of Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. "The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials," Obama announced. "Kenyans are
now yearning for change," he declared. The intent of Obama's remarks
and actions was transparent to Kenyans - he was firmly behind Odinga.
The day after the election machete wielding terrorists who supported Odinga began a blood letting against Christians that ended with over
1500 dead and 500,000 displaced from their homes. In exchange for his agreement to stop the violence, Odinga was made Prime Minister of Kenya, second only to the president of the country, like our Vice-President.
For the full story, go to: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/12/obamas-kenya-ghosts/

Barack Hussein Obama, is a man who has said that his mother's family was not religious, and whose father and stepfather were both Muslim men, and who by his own admission remembers being schooled in the Koran but not the Holy Bible. But wait, he “converted” to Christianity didn't he? In Chicago, Obama joined the all black, Trinity United Church of Christ, which was led by the radical racist, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose decades-long anti-American and anti-Semitic rants apparently resonated in Obama, and augmented his search for "the attributes that he sought in himself". Incredibly, Obama has said that in over 20 years of regular attendance, he heard nothing inflammatory or anti-American, from the "right reverend" Wright, and never saw the videotapes of any sermon, although each one was unfailingly recorded. At his first opportunity after the terrorist attacks of September 11, Wright raged from the pulpit, “God damn America. The chickens have come home to roost,” to the absolute delight of his whooping and hollering congregation,.......... but Obama is said to have heard nothing.

In the case of his relationship with Rezko, (an Arab) Obama has also been slow to acknowledge the full extent of his relationship. Recently, he revealed that Rezko had raised some $250,000 in campaign contributions for him. The campaign had initially claimed Rezko connected contributions were no more than $60,000, an amount the campaign donated to charity. Then the figure grew to around $86,000, and there were additional revelations that put the amount at about $150,000. Obama’s $250,000 accounting was a substantial jump and clearly contradicted earlier campaign statements that Rezko was just one of “thousands of donors.” Obama was initially vague about Rezko’s role in helping him buy a new home on Chicago’s south side. Unable to afford an adjacent vacant lot the seller wanted to sell at the same time as the house, Obama approached Rezko. Rezko’s wife bought the lot on the same day Obama bought the house, and then later, Mrs. Rezko sold the Obamas a strip of the lot which gave the Obamas a larger backyard. Obama called it a “bone-headed” mistake but never revealed, until much later , that Rezko had actually toured the house with him and been deeply involved in the transaction.

Since beginning his run for the presidency, Obama has tried to distance himself from his ties to Islamic activists, socialists, communists, felons, terrorists and “former” terrorists,.... and the mainstream media, along with his blinded drone-like followers, seem to simply give him a free pass on all of it.

Nevertheless, as my Cherokee great-grandmother used to say in her revision of an old quote,

Why I Can't Pray For The Success Of Our President (part 2 of 4)

2009-03-06T05:20:00.000-08:00

If It Walks Like A Duck,
And Quacks Like A Duck.......

After extending unprecedented courtesies to Muslims, and Muslim nations from the day that he took office as President of the United States, Barack Obama has chosen to quickly insult our best and strongest ally, Great Britain, first by packing up and returning the bust of Winston Churchill that Tony Blair had loaned to the White House during George W. Bush’s presidency. And now, this week by disrespecting Britain’s current Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. during his first visit since the new administration took office.
The Prime Minister's first official meeting with the new President fell short of the lavish welcomes laid on in recent years. Within minutes of landing in a snowbound Washington on Monday night, Mr. Brown's aides had been made aware that their high expectations for the trip were in danger of exceeding the low-key welcome the Obama administration was prepared to offer. And instead of the traditional joint press conference, the Prime Minister was instead given an impromptu media briefing in the Oval Office. Suggestions that the new President's crowded diary made it impossible to give more time to Mr. Brown rang hollow after it emerged that his other engagements included a routine speech to the Department for Interior and a meeting with the Boy Scouts of America.
The formal tone of yesterday's meeting was a marked contrast to the jovial rapport enjoyed by George Bush and Tony Blair. The pair were often seen joking together. And during an address to Congress after 9/11, Mr. Bush turned to Mr. Blair and said: 'Thanks for coming, friend.'
The Blairs even received a lavish welcome-from Bill Clinton, who ordered a 19-gun salute to mark their arrival in 1998. At a party in their honor, they were treated to performances from Sir Elton John and Stevie Wonder.
But there was no family get-together this time, nor did the President offer Mr. Brown and his wife Sarah a star-studded White House dinner.

Brown had clearly put great thought into giving the US President lavish gifts to signify Britain's 'special relationship' with the US . During his historic trip to Washington, Gordon Brown gave Barack Obama an ornamental pen holder made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet - once called HMS President. The present, was very special, and unique because oak from the Gannet's sister ship, HMS Resolute, was carved to make a desk that already resides in the Oval Office of the White House, after being presented to the US by Britain in 1880. Mr. Brown also took to Washington a framed commission for HMS Resolute, a vessel that came to mark Anglo-US peace when it was saved from ice packs by Americans and given to Queen Victoria. He also gave a first edition set of the seven-volume classic biography of Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert.
The leader of the world's most bountiful nation, President Barack Hussein Obama handed over nothing more thought-provoking than a 'special collector's box set' of 25 classic American films on DVD. It was the equivalent of receiving a pair of socks from an unfamiliar aunt at Christmas - and a less-than-glowing affirmation of the UK-US bond.
Mr. Brown and his wife also showered gifts on the Obama children giving Sasha and Malia an outfit each from Topshop and six children's books by British authors which are shortly to be published in America.
In return, the Obamas gave the Browns two models of the presidential helicopter, Marine One, to take home to sons Fraser and John.
The Prime Minister’s wife flew to Washington and was granted only an hour of ‘get to know you’ talks with the First Lady in her White House office.
Sam Vaknin, Ph.D., considered by many to be the world's leading expert on narcissism, and the
author of a 2003 book release entitled, Malignant Self Love, Narcissism Revisited,. states that, “Barack Hussein Obama's language, posture, demeanor, and the testimonies of those who are closest to him suggest that the President may have a narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) , which is characterized by the projection of a grandiose but false image of oneself.”
The now infamous Jim Jones, charismatic leader of the People's Temple, who led over 900 of his followers to murder their own children and cheerfully commit mass suicide, was a classic narcissist. So was Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Kim Jong Ill, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, (Idi Amin), and even David Koresh, and Charles Manson, all of whom, by manipulation of the emotions and character of their followers, eventually reeked havoc upon them, and upon many others around them. These dubious men from world history, created adoring cult mentalities round about themselves and, with blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filling their hearts with enthusiasm and instilling within their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but invariably brought them to their doom. Alas, when you are a victim of a cult personality, you don't know it until it is too late.
Dr. Vaknin continues, “One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse. Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995.”
Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract, and (a cash) advance, to write a book about race relations. His subsequent work eventually morphed into, not a scholarly paper focusing on race relations for which he had been paid but instead, his own autobiography. He entitled the book, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography, when he was still a nobody. So did Joseph Stalin. For a narcissist, no subject is as important as his own self.
Dr. Vaknin continues, “I must confess I was impressed by Senator Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He (was) youthful, (well spoken), confident; a wholesome presidential package. But I was soon put off, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speeches we have heard in American history. Never has a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people. The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming.
“Obama is not an ordinary man, neither is he a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective (they are just distractions), says Vaknin. They are focused on one thing , (and one thing alone), and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they (are unwilling) to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them, is beneath them, and does not deserve their attention.”
Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no real threat to others, but are simply self serving and self indulgent. These traits are clearly evidenced by Obama's lack of interest in his own brother, and Kenyan grandmother, who each are said to live on only one dollar per month. A man who lives in luxury, who recently took a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who is said to have raised over $800M, for his presidential campaign, a feat unprecedented in American history, has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother was of no use to him in his ascent to power.
“(Different in the case of ) Barack Obama is the evidenced symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is (quite) different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw, (and this is what makes a pathologic narcissist dangerous, even treacherous), says Dr. Vaknin. One must never underestimate the manipulative (power) of (a) pathologic narcissist. (He) projects such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around him, and charmed by his charisma , people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service.”
“What (could) be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world? I hate to sound alarmist, says Vaknin, but one has been fooled if one is not alarmed.”
My dear friends and family, I do not apologize for allowing the content of this message to rely so heavily on the writings of Dr Vaknin, for I cannot presume myself to be an expert on the mental health issues, that he is noted for. But from my own perspective, the colloquialism that states, “If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, then it is probably a duck, ” formed the basis for the intent of my subject this week.
The peace of this world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castroists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists, and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospects of having “their man” in the White House. Can there be a worse insanity than electing a pathological narcissist as president? Someone once said, “What we learn from history is that we do not learn.” Pray for our country; that we will be allowed to continue living “peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness”, but don’t pray, and don’t ask me to pray, for the success of our current president, because his success, the success of his unconcealed agenda, surely portends dire consequences for all freedom loving Americans.

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.

Why I Can’t Pray for the Success of our President (part 1)

2009-02-27T05:18:00.000-08:00

“We must pray for Obama to succeed, after all he is our president now”.
This exhortation has been voiced by a number of my friends in the aftermath of the 2008 presidential election. It is generally accompanied by a reference to bible scriptures such as Romans 13, or Titus 3:1. Contextually, the scriptures found under the aforementioned passages, which instruct us to submit to authority and follow the law, actually say nothing about praying for the success of evil (or of an evil person), even if (sadly) those who perpetrate evil intent have been placed into a position of authority over us. However, I do recognize that other text, such as is found in 1 Timothy 2:1-2, urges us to pray for those in authority, but more specifically to pray that they will "let us live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness", and furthermore, because, "He desires all men to.....come to the knowledge of the truth". In Matthew 5:44 we read and hear Jesus saying, "Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you," and again in Luke 6:28, "Bless those who curse you and pray for those who mistreat you," but once again, the scripture does not say pray that their vile intentions will succeed, but only to pray for that person, and what could we pray for a person such as that, unless we were praying solely for his/her redemption. Certainly not for the success of evil schemes!!
Therefore, after careful study of these and other bible exhortations, I have become convinced that it would be entirely wrong to pray for the success of Barack Hussein Obama, and his unprecedented new regime of misfits, losers and felons, unless miraculously they alter their well documented course in favor of one that restores, not destroys, our nation to the God fearing basis upon which it was founded. But for now, the undisguised Muslim favoring, Anti-Christian, Socialist history, and present agenda of this administration will clearly do nothing but bring harm to this nation, and to the people of this nation. Unchecked, the success of Obama’s adamantly stated goals will just as clearly make it difficult, if not impossible, for those of this nation to, “live peaceful and quiet lives, in godliness and holiness”.
And so, to my fervently Christian friends and family I make this request, "Indulge me as I present my thoughts". And to my complacent Christian friends and family I shout, "Wake up!" And to my blind, deaf and still unbelieving friends and family I can only say, "Wake up-----or else-----".
In a commentary on pages 201-202 of a book entitled, The Audacity of Hope, Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, by Barack Hussein Obama, which was published October, 2006, we find the following excerpt:
“Today, white evangelical Christians are the heart and soul of the Republican Party's grassroots base. It is their issues-abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, intelligent design, Terri Schiavo, the posting of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, home schooling, voucher plans, and the makeup of the Supreme Court-that often dominate the headlines and serve as one of the major fault lines in American politics. The single biggest gap in party affiliation is between those who attend church regularly and those who don't. Democrats, meanwhile, are scrambling to "get religion," even as a core segment of our constituency remains stubbornly secular, and fears that the agenda of an assertively Christian nation may not make room for them or their life choices.”
“The evangelists' success points to a hunger for the product they are selling, a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause. They need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them.”
Please notice, my dear friends, what a clear and unashamed distinction our president makes; what an indelible line he draws, between white evangelical Christians, who he affirms as 'the heart and soul of the Republican Party', and a “stubbornly secular (non-Christian) constituency,” who he affirms as, “the core segment of the Democratic Party”.
He then goes on to define a basic principle, that was later used very successfully in his campaign for the presidency: He would capture the support of the majority by using what he had characterized as the evangelical Christian tactic of, 'selling a product', thereby addressing the ‘hunger' of the majority, for personal attention.
And so successful was his sales job, that just the thought of him is said to have sent a chill up Chris Matthew’s leg; and once caused an eerily animated Oprah to repeatedly shout during a segment of her television program, “Is he the one? Could he be the one?”, to the delightful shouts, cheers and applause of her loyal studio audience.
I was uncertain, and remain so today, which “one” Oprah was referring to. Surely she could not have meant ‘The One,’ in view of opinions and attitudes found in Obama’s own book, The Audacity of Hope, wherein he had described “white evangelical Christians” as “the heart and soul of the Republican Party”, and Christian issues such as abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, intelligent design, Terri Schiavo, the posting of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, home schooling, voucher plans, as “major fault lines” in American politics. And wherein he had further asserted, “the Democrat’s fear that the agenda of an assertively Christian nation may not make room for them or their life choices.”
In Romans 13:1 the apostle Paul wrote “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.” And earlier, in Romans 12:18, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.” And so, because so many of this nation have ceased to follow God, or have drifted away and refused to turn back, he has now placed it under the authority of an abominable anti-Christian assembly led by, Barack Hussein Obama. And He has closed the minds, ears and eyes of those who inexplicably elected this president, and now fervently support him, such that no matter what he does, or what he says, they are unable to see the wrong. And so I pray, and I will continue to pray that God will have mercy on us, that we might be rescued from the harm that now seems sure to come. I will pray for revival, so that this nation will turn back to the fundamental morality upon which it was originally based. That it will turn back to the One who made America such a great and powerful nation, to the One who has blessed us without fail, while protecting our freedom, for over 200 years.......... And although I too wonder who Barack Hussein Obama really is, and what his place in the will and purpose of God might be? One thing I am very certain of is that he is not......The One!

Copyright © 2009. All Rights Reserved.