Want Texas Independence? Stop Taking Federal Money!

Will Malven
4/18/2009

So Mr. Governor Rick Perry has discovered that big federal government is an anathema to state governments as well as the nation’s citizens.

Governor Perry's new found voice on fiscal restraint is refreshing; it appears that being forced to run for office every now and then does serve a purpose.

After serving for years as a relatively mediocre governor, Mr. Perry faces his first real challenge from another candidate in his own party, the retiring Senator from Texas, Mrs. Kay Bailey Hutchison who is polling very well within the state.

His decision last month to reject that portion of federal stimulus funds that would simultaneously increase unemployment benefits and burden the states with funding those benefits after the initial funds offered by the federal government were depleted, while laudable, was only a symbolic expression of independence.

Now, on the heels of the tea party movement and the immense popularity of the underlying principles being expressed, he is raising the possibility of Texas seceding from the Union.

Sorry Rick, I'm not likely to buy that pig in a poke.

I don't trust this newly discovered Conservatism coming from a man who has exhibited rather moderate leanings. It seems to have come about rather abruptly and at a convenient time for his campaign. The idea of Texas secession has popped up on occasion over the last thirty to forty years, usually when the citizens of Texas are feeling disgruntled or the federal government has overstepped its constitutional authority, only to recede as sanity returns to citizens of our state.

Not only would such an act be ill-advised and unnecessary, it also would be illegal. It appears to be nothing more than a blatant and cynical appeal to a disgruntled electorate for political gain. If Governor Perry truly is unhappy with the extent of influence federal authorities exert over affairs in Texas, there is a much simpler, more direct, action that he could take. It would require considerable courage from the governor, but it would be a guaranteed means of breaking the yoke of the federal government.

STOP TAKING ALL FEDERAL FUNDS!

There has been considerable interest of late in the respective state governments invoking their rights as described in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution which states:

“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.”

It is an attempt by the states to reassert their authority under the Constitution. The problem is, States have not lost their autonomy; they have sold it piecemeal to the federal government in return for billions of dollars in federal assistance.

It was the states’ acceptance of federal funds back in the early 60’s which first allowed the federal courts to rule in favor of the federal government’s efforts to impose desegregation on those Southern states which at the time were attempting to assert the principle of “states’ rights” under that same 10th Amendment.

It is the continued acceptance of federal money which will allow the federal government’s continuing influence-some would say interference-in matters traditionally reserved to the state, in spite of those resolutions.

Now we are faced with the distasteful and hard to swallow truth. The reason all of these states, which of late have passed these resolutions of states' rights, are forced to do so is that they have voluntarily surrendered their sovereignty for the “filthy lucre” of our federal government.

That's right folks; this transfer of power from the states to the federal government is a direct result of the state governments’ greed for federal dollars. Cut the flow of dollars from Washington DC to your state and you cut the reins with which the federal government exercises its control.

I’m afraid I must agree with Democrats who point the finger of hypocrisy at governors who reject a portion of federal stimulus money while eagerly demanding what remains. I find it a little more than disingenuous for Governor Perry to take a stand against federal interference in state matters while continuing to take federal money for our schools, our state highways, and other state needs.

If Governor Perry is sincere about severing those federal reins of power, then he must sever the pipeline of federal monies into the state's coffers.

You want Texas independence? Then it's your for the taking. Cut the flow of federal dollars; otherwise all that is happening is the blowing of hot air.

That is the hard truth facing each of these Republican Governors; if you're unhappy with the power and influence the federal government exercises over your states, you have the power to throw off those reins. All that is lacking is the will.

Hard facts for hard times.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

President Obama is a Classic Marxist

Will Malven
3/13/2009

We continually hear that he is not a socialist. Conservatives are ridiculed by those on the Left for declaring the truth, that Barack Obama is a Marxist, so let's look at his agenda as he has laid it out.

Universal Healthcare

He proposes universal healthcare. He tells us that he want a system which offers the American people a choice; they can keep the coverage they already have, or they can opt in to the federal system that congress enjoys. The fact is this is a Hobson's choice.

Corporate management is not stupid, if they see that they can save millions on healthcare benefits by dumping their private coverage and letting their employees get their coverage from the government, they will. As those small and large corporations begin to do this, the pool of privately insured citizens will shrink, and as that pool shrinks the costs to each member rises.

Remember that private insurance pools work because of the economies of scale and because the probabilities built into a large population make the risks of financial loss tolerable. As that population shrinks, those associated risks rise and thus the insurance companies are forced to raise their rates.

As those rates rise, more and more people will be forced, for economic reasons, to opt into the government system thus further shrinking the pool of available privately insured and the cycle continues. The end result is inevitable; a single payer-European style-rationed healthcare system.

America will end up with the vast majority of our citizens being victimized covered by a government run healthcare system and a very small minority of very wealthy elite citizens (the ruling class and their select anointed ones) who will continue to enjoy the benefits of private healthcare.

The Redistribution of Wealth

President Obama has already said he favors the redistribution of wealth. He stood face to face with "Joe the Plumber" and said…"when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody." This is classic Marxism:

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

There's no ambiguity here. Obama has already made his intent clear with his new budget which raises the taxes on those who earn in excess of $250,000/year. However, not only does his budget raise the marginal rates on these individuals and small businesses, but it also eliminates or reduces the two most important deductions available to them, the deduction for mortgage payments and the deduction for charitable contributions. Of course Obama's view, as reflected in his own charitable giving is "Who needs charities when you have the government to take care of people?" Once again a Marxist concept, the state provides all.

He then will “cut taxes for 95% of American workers.” Note that number, 95%. Almost half of those to whom President Obama is planning to give tax breaks pay no income taxes to the federal government…thanks to former President George W. Bush…so what President Obama is really saying is that he plans to take money, in the form of taxes, from the wealthiest 5% of Americans and redistribute that money to those making less, in the form of “tax cuts,” by giving them what amounts to a welfare check.

Ah, but that redistribution doesn’t last very long. What Obama's government gives with the right hand, it takes back with the left. Those 95% of Americans to whom he is claiming to give tax cuts to will have all of that taken away when he ends the tax-cuts put in place by President Bush. So next year their taxes will go up, not down.

Then, while they are recovering from the shock of paying higher income taxes after being promised that they would pay less, he will put the double whammy on them by adding the carbon tax to every gallon of gasoline, every cubic foot of natural gas, and every product manufactured, transported or grown using a petroleum product they buy…which means everything. The price of everything will go up to pay the carbon tax.

Education Reform

In furtherance of that "state provides all" frame of thought, President Obama's proposals for education reform create a new entitlement for college education. A new right is created, the “right to a college education.” This has now been amended to include the “right to attend a trade school.”

College education has always been an option. It is not a right, but an opportunity; a privilege for those who can afford to avail themselves of it. What happened to the right to work at a job, save you money, and once you have saved enough paying for your own training?

For those who possess the intellectual capacity for college education, nothing prevents them from working their way through college the same way the generations before have. The enactment of a college education entitlement would only further dependence upon the government and undermine the understanding that getting what one wants requires individual effort and responsibility. If a student wants a college or university education badly enough he will find a means of paying for it...without the government’s assistance.

The truth is college is not for everyone. The reason America has historically chosen to provide a twelve year education rather than a sixteen year education is that a large percentage of people are not suited to pursuing the levels of learning one receives in a college. Today one in four high school students drop out before graduating. Clearly those students are not suited for college level course work. Just as clearly those whose grades fall below average are likely unsuited for college work.

How is it to the advantage of the American tax-payer to pay for the tuition of someone’s child who has a better than 50% probability of dropping out before graduation. That’s right President Obama is asking all American tax payers to pay for the folly of sending millions of youths to college, one third of whom will drop out after or during their first year, and ultimately half of whom will not graduate.

This college entitlement is nothing more than a full employment act for the Ivory Tower Elite at our universities with whom President Obama likes to rub elbows; a gift from a former associate. With Professorships being handed out to individuals like Bill Ayers (of the Weatherman Terrorist group fame) and Ward Churchill (of fake Native American heritage and plagiarism fame) college in many cases has ceased to be an institution for higher learning and more of a source for indoctrination of students by teachers filling their “minds filled with mush” with Boilerplate Marxist dogma (as have many of our high schools).

As I said...He's a Marxist. He believes that government, not private enterprise holds the solution to all of our problems. He believes in the redistribution of wealth and thus he does not believe in the sanctity of the inherent right to own private property.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms IS an Absolute Right

Will Malven
3/03/2009

Well here we go again...and who among us can possible say, "I'm surprised!" as the Democrat gun-grabbers, under the leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder, begin their assault on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms once more.

This time they're not going to do it "for our own good," they're going to attempt it for the good of Mexico. Mexico?!?!! Yep, Mexico.

Now I know what you are going to say, "Since when is the Attorney General of the United States of America supposed to be working for the good of the citizens of the United States of Mexico?"

You simpleton, didn't you know, it's in the Constitution...somewhere...at least it must be...after all, he's doing it and he wouldn't do anything that is not within the purview of his office...would he?

Unfortunately the answer to that simple, if somewhat sarcastic, question is a resounding "Damn right he would." Democrats and especially Liberal Democrats, of which there are at least a few, or so I am told, believe our Constitution is an impediment. Most certainly our newly elected President believes that and said so way back in 2001 when he was just a simple corrupt Illinois State Senator talking on Chicago's public radio station In that interview, our Lord High Empty Suit in Chief, bemoans:

"...as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties -- says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted."

For any who believe in the Constitution as originally written, that entire comment is frightening. For him to say that the Warren Court "wasn't that radical" is, to say the least, a unique understanding of the most activist court in American history. He then complains that they (the Warren Court) failed to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

Sorry Mr. President, I love those essential constraints. I want them to be respected, just as I want the Constitution to be respected...as it was written, not as you wish it was written. Those essential constraints were placed in our Constitution to protect the citizens from people like you.

So anyway, as I was saying our new Attorney General, the man whose job is to ensure that the Constitution is protected, has suggested that a new, even more draconian version of President Clinton's so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" known as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 should be reinstated. He has also suggested that Congress pursue another Liberal red-herring, the so-called "gun show loop hole," a chimera that Liberals continually claim to have seen, but have never proven to exist.

Here are the facts. The Assault Weapons Ban had no effect on crime in the United States. It did not reduce violent deaths due to firearms or "ugly gun's" in any appreciable or measureable way. When it was allowed to sunset in 1994 after ten years, there was no appreciable effect. Since the law was allowed to lapse, the murder rate has hit a 43 year low...I am not claiming that this has any relationship to the lapse of the gun ban, I merely point it out the absurdity of the claims made by those who seek to reinstate the law. Obviously if the ban had any positive effect, we should have seen an uptick in violent deaths after the sunset date...we did not.

Let me once more explain what the Second Amendment of the Constitution is and is not.

The Second Amendment does not grant Americans the right to keep and bear arms...it forbids the government from "infringing" on that pre-existing, natural right which every law abiding American citizen has. In this sense, President Obama was right in his lament, if not in his sentiment. The Constitution is a charter of liberties which the government is expressly forbidden from infringing. The Amendments don't grant us rights, they proscribe the government from limiting those rights.

America is unique among all other free nations in that our rights don't come from the government, they come from God. They are inherent rights which pre-existed the constitution or any government. Our Founding Fathers recognized this fact and thus codified the concept in both the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

"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..."

Thus we know from the Declaration, that our rights come from our "Creator." Our Founding Fathers recognized that any rights which are granted by men or their governments may be taken away by those same men or governments. Rights which come from God however, may never legally be taken away by men or the governments of men. They are "unalienable" rights. They can never legally be severed from their possessors. They are absolute.

Now as to the purpose of having the right to keep and bear arms, that too seemed intuitively obvious to our forefathers. They believed that the ownership of property was the ultimate inherent, unalienable right and that all other rights sprang from that right. Thus, if the ownership of property is a right, then a man must be capable of protecting that property against any and all who would attempt to dispossess him of it. Therefore the possession of a weapon capable of allowing a citizen to protect his property was an essential and undeniable right.

We can look to the Declaration of Independence once more for guidance. Continuing from the above quote:

"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."

If it be a man's right, or rather say the "governed's" right to abolish any government which "becomes destructive" to our "unalienable rights," then those "governed" must possess the ability to bring such a change about. This means a modern firearm capable of defending the citizen against any who would oppress him, including his government's own military.

Many are shocked when I say this. They will scoff and ask, "You mean that your neighbor should have a howitzer?" My answer, according to my understanding of the intent of our Founding Fathers is "Yes, if that neighbor feels that a howitzer is necessary for him to defend himself against an oppressive government." Radical thinking...not according to the Framers of our Constitution.

Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Mason, and many others wrote expressly about the necessity of the citizen possessing contemporary firearms. Here are a few quotes listed on the GunCite website:

"We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;"
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

"To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character."
---Alexander Hamilton

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?"
---Patrick Henry to Edmund Pendleton at The Virginia ratifying convention June 2 through June 26, 1788

And never forget the words of Benjamin Franklin:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

All of these man believed it to be an absolute necessity for citizens to possess firearms. I don't believe they were advocating that right for the purpose of hunting.

The assumption that these "arms" of which our forefathers wrote so eloquently must be "modern firearms." is a simple extension of the purpose for which they advocated possession of those firearms, to defend against tyranny whether it be from the state, or any group of usurpers.

In the 1780's a large group of men armed with muskets was a match for any army, because the weapons were the same. If it was the intent of our Founding Fathers that we be capable of defending ourselves against the tyranny of the state, then it only follows that we be armed in a similar manner as any military force the state might use against us. The logical extension of our founders words is that every law-abiding citizen who so chooses should have at their disposal according to their capability to afford them any weapon available to our military troops.

This of course means the striking down of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which bans the unlicensed possession of short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and firearms capable of firing in fully automatic mode. It also mandates the striking down of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which added any weapon with a rifled barrel larger than .50 caliber. It also includes bombs, explosives of certain types and any ammunition that contains more than 1/4 oz of explosive, grenades, etc.

Some, perhaps many would call this an extreme view of our right to keep and bear arms, but according to the words and beliefs of our Founding Fathers as they made them known in their writings, it is the only logical conclusion.

Our Founding Fathers were suspicious of governments and powerful centrally controlled governments most of all. Judging by the actions taken so far by this new President and his appointees that suspicion appears to be justified. In closing I will add this little poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power as they began persecuting and prosecuting those with whom they disagreed:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then...they came for me
...And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Can the same thing happen in America? If the people fall asleep, you better believe it can...and will.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

In A Dangerous World “Dangerous” McCain Better than “Diplomatic” Obama

Will Malven
September 10, 2008

As the most enduring beacon of liberty and freedom in the world, America needs a strong, and yes dangerous, President. Our freedom and that of the world depend on that fact. A leader who is regarded as being dangerous enough to use the power at his disposal, is a leader who will be respected by those whose respect America most requires. John McCain is that leader.

We don’t need the respect of the Socialist Democracies Western of Europe, we need the respect (and fear) of those leaders and those nations which most pose a threat to international stability. Apparently that simple fact is beyond the grasp of those in the Democrat Party Leadership, who continue to be concerned mostly with how America is seen by the tea-sippers in London, the coffee drinkers in Paris and the beer drinkers in Germany, when they should be concerned by the overt aggression of Putin’s Russia and Ahmadinejad’s Iran.

During the 1980 election, one of the arguments put forward by the Democrat Party was that Ronald Reagan was “too confrontational,” too dangerous to be President of the United States. His labeling of the former Soviet Union as an “evil empire” frightened the Democrats here at home and our European allies overseas.

They claimed Reagan would cause World War III by his refusal , not only to embrace the then growing “unilateral disarmament” movement, but also to use diplomatic language when discussing our Cold War adversaries. His tough rhetoric struck fear in Democrats in America and in our European allies, who were pressing hard for a “nuclear freeze.”

History proved President Reagan right and those who were calling for appeasement and Western disarmament in the face of Soviet expansionism wrong. As a direct result of Ronald Reagan’s confrontational style, rather than succumbing to the “inevitable” victory of Soviet ideals, the West prevailed, the Berlin Wall came down, and millions of East Europeans got their first taste of freedom in fifty years.

Today we are hearing the same whispered pacifist campaign, this time directed at John McCain. The Democrat “rap” on John McCain is that his election would send a dangerous signal to our political adversaries.

We are told, “John McCain might attack Iran,” or John McCain is too confrontational over the Russian invasion of South Ossetia and the independent nation of Georgia. “McCain is dangerous.”

Good! In dangerous times, America needs a dangerous leader; dangerous, as seen by those nations that would engage in the kind of adventurism exemplified by Russia’s aggressive “defensive” move.

Over the past year, we have seen Vladimir Putin’s military renew bomber incursions into American airspace, aggressive pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran, accompanied by threats of full scale attacks against Israel, and numerous other aggressive stands taken by nations like Venezuela, North Korea, and Communist China.

The Chinese have been pursuing a massive build-up of their military capabilities as well as an aggressive program of space exploration and cyber warfare.

More recently, Iran announced a program to build a submarine fleet to “defend it coasts” and missiles to carry its warheads to Israel, more militant rhetoric from Moscow directed at American relief missions to aid the people of war ravaged Georgia, and the announcement of “joint naval exercises” between Chavez’s Venezuelan Navy and the Russian Navy in the Caribbean Sea.

Additional threats can be seen in the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan, a fledgling government in Pakistan with questionable intentions and a substantial nuclear arsenal, and finally the announcement by North Korea’s ruling junta that they intend to reactivate the nuclear facilities previously deactivated in accordance with the most recent (and ill-conceived) treaty signed by Kim Jung Il and President Bush.

It is no coincidence that these aggressive movements by nations which traditionally have been enemies of freedom and democracy have accompanied the increasingly strident calls for “direct diplomatic engagement,” with our enemies coming out of the Democrat Party, rather than the path of confrontation chosen by the Bush Administration and advocated by candidate John McCain.

The chatter coming from the pandering polliwogs infesting the swamps of Washington D.C. echoes the naïve rhetoric of former Democrat Candidate for President, Dennis Kucinich, who loudly proclaimed that we should have a policy of “Strength through Peace,” rather than the “Peace through Strength” policies which have served our interests so well in the past.

Given the presumed ascendency of the Democrat Party and their “inevitable victory” in November, with their almost ceaseless defeatist rhetoric, this expansion of “adventurism” by nations whose foreign policy objectives run contrary to those of our nation and who oppose the expansion of freedom throughout the world was inevitable.

What possible reason would these nations have to curtail their activities if the government of their primary adversary became a soft echo of Britain’s Neville Chamberlain administration?

The Democrat Party is afflicted with the same well intentioned myopia that led directly to World War II.

Barack Obama tells us that he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Korea and Venezuela, “with no preconditions.”

Those who advocate these policies of appeasement are the real risk to peace. They are the ones that are prone to be caught off-guard by hostile actions and they are the ones who are prone as well to recklessly lashing out in response to those actions, as Bill Clinton did when he bombed the aspirin factory in Somalia.

Those who assume moral equivalency between the actions and intent of America and the base aggressive moves of nations bent on conquest and dominance, invite that aggression by their very attempts to secure peace. If you cannot see evil, then you cannot be prepared for its inevitable aggression.

Men like Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, and Mohammed Ahmadinejad are not impressed by diplomacy, they are impressed by strength. They see the diplomatic efforts of men like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama as weaknesses to be exploited. They see such efforts as an invitation to continue their aggressive actions and they will press and press until they meet resistance, then they will back up. If instead of resistance, they meet diplomacy and a desire to negotiate, they will take all that is offered and come back for more.

This simple fact of human behavior has been proven time and again throughout history. The lessons are readily apparent for any who care to study them. The decisions by Western democracies prior to World War II provide an object lesson in this darker side of human nature.

• Had Hitler not correctly interpreted the inaction of and attempts to negotiate with Germany by Neville Chamberlain and Edouoard Daladier as proof of their desire for peace at any cost, World War II might never have happened.


• Had the allies taken action against Hitler when his efforts to rearm Germany (in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles) became overt, rather than simply bury their collective heads, Hitler’s “Reich” would never have become the massive military machine it was when it finally invaded Poland in 1939.


• Had the larger and more powerful French Army confronted the German Army when they crossed the Rhine in 1936 to reoccupy the Rhineland ( again, in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles) rather than acquiesce, the Sudetenland, Austria, and Czechoslovakia would never have been annexed and Poland would never have been invaded.

At each juncture, the free nations of the world had an opportunity to prevent the eventual cataclysm in Europe and at each confrontation, rather than meeting aggression with strength, the allies met it with further offers of negotiations and offers of peace.

In order for an offer of peace to be taken seriously, both parties must desire peace. If one party sees only opportunity for gain in the proffered agreement, then the negotiations become a recipe for further adventurism by that party.

Again, in the Pacific, had Japan not believed it could successfully attack the American Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor; had American foreign policy been aggressively proactive rather than isolationist, the War in the Pacific would never have occurred.

In the Middle East, had Saddam Hussein not believed that he could successfully invade Kuwait and get away unscathed, he would never have invaded.

In the lead up to every war, there comes a time when the “aggressor power” over-reaches. Each time, they are gambling that those with no imperialistic aspirations will seek “an accord,” being more interested in peace than confrontation. If that aggressor is met with firm and unwavering strength, it will back down, but if instead it encounters with the soft words of diplomacy, then it will continue with its campaign of conquest.

These lessons are readily found in history for those who care to look, but apparently difficult for Democrats to learn. For nearly two decades, beginning almost immediately after the first Iraq War, the Democrat Party has been the party of weakness, surrender, and appeasement.

Under President George H.W. Bush, troop strength was reduced by roughly 15.5%. This was the “Peace Dividend” towards which both sides of the aisle were looking at to finance increased domestic spending.

Under President Bill Clinton, those reductions continued unabated. The number of troops in our military was reduced by a further 23.5%. These additional reductions were made in the face of an increasing awareness of the threats posed by international terrorism, and constituted the bulk of President Clinton’s pledge to “reduce in the size of government.”

Today, with Democrat Presidential Nominee Barack Obama in the lead, Democrats continue to pursue this ill-advised and mistaken belief that peace can be had on the cheap.

A President Barack Obama would emasculate our military, treat with our enemies, and is more concerned with Americas image in the eyes of our European allies overseas than in our image in the eyes of those who continuously seek to expand their power.

He would precipitously retreat from Iraq, leaving an unstable government to deal with the continued threats from al Qaeda and vulnerable to outside influence from the oppressive regimes of Iran and Syria. He would “negotiate without preconditions” with Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba.

He would, as Americans mistakenly did once before, have us turn our eyes inward rather than outward, leaving us vulnerable to terrorism and imperialistic adventurism by hostile governments.

Democracies need “dangerous” leaders, because only then will their allies cleave to them and their enemies fear and respect them. It is only when a nation becomes predictably “nice” that the enemies of freedom begin to get wanderlust.

Now is not the time for a man who thinks that “calling for sanctions against Russia in the United Nations Security Council” is the way to deal with an international crisis instigated by Russia; a nation which, apparently unknown to him or any of his foreign policy advisors, possesses a veto vote on that council.

Now is the time for a President who presents a credible threat to use force when needed. Now is the time for a President who has experienced the hardship of war and who therefore can be counted on to only pursue war as a last resort. Now is the time for a man who will not flinch in the face of adversity.

Now is the time for President John S. McCain.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Deconstructing Obama's War Myth: Troop Surge Instrumental in Iraq Victory

Since they have been proven so wrong about the troops surge over the past year and a half, Democrats, and their messiah have been attempting to construct a new mythology about the progress we have seen in Iraq, the troop surge was only peripherally effective.

For Obama and the Democrats, the 20,000 additional combat troops aren't the reason for the amazing progress we've seen in Iraq, it was the "Sunni Awakening" and Muqtada al Sadr's declaration of cease fire that ushered in the growing successes in Iraq.

Of course Democrats and Obama will say anything to prevent them from having to admit they were wrong about the troop surge. The fact is, the so-called Sunni Awakening occurred as a result of the successes our troops were having in driving al Qaeda out of the Sunni areas.

The Sunni Awakening could never have occurred without the presence of the additional 20,000 combat troops. Muqtada al Sadr would never have left Iraq and never have called for a cease fire if American combat troops hadn't been so successful in killing them.

So let's get the story straight. First came the much maligned and dismissed troop surge, and then came the Sunni Awakening and the al Sadr cease fire.

How wrong were the Democrats and RINO's about the troop surge?

Idiot Senator Chuck Hagel led the RINO charge in opposition to the President's troop surge (or as Democrats were calling it, "The McCain Plan"). On January 11, 2007, Hagel was on the Charlie Rose show calling the idea of the troop surge, a "dangerous foreign policy blunder."

"[The troop surge would be] the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.

I do not believe this administration, uh, has, uh, anywhere near an accurate assessment on what is going on in Iraq, uh, if they do, uh, they are preferring to look the other way hoping that things like adding 22,000 more troops and spending billions of more dollars is somehow gonna fix it. Uh, it is too deep. This is coming unraveling [sic] at a rate that I don't believe any of us can calibrate.

Way to call it Chuck! "Missed it by that much."

It looks as though you and your Democrat buddies were the ones who lacked "anywhere near an accurate assessment" of what was and is going on in Iraq. Talk about letting your arrogance and stupidity show.

Hagel, like retired NATO Commander Westley Clark, proved that having served in the military, while worthy of our nation's gratitude, doesn't make you an expert in foreign policy or fit to be Commander in Chief.

Of course, we are talking about the man who, amid rampant speculation that he would run for the presidency, called a press conference only to say "I'm here today to announce that my family and I will make a decision on my political future later this year." Yep, Chuck Hagel is truly a man of vision and decisiveness.

As for the Democrats:

• January 11, 2007 Dennis Kucinich, that world renown foreign policy expert, declared:

  "In Iraq, his new plan is a plan for more door-to-door fighting, more civil war, more civilian casualties, more troop deaths, more wasted money, more destabilization in the region and more separation from the world community. The President wants to send more troops to Baghdad, where they will work to quell a civil war. Only a small portion - less than 20 percent - of the new effort will be spent in al Anbar, to fight al-Qaeda. Does anyone in this Administration have any sense left at all? They are sending more US troops into the middle of a civil war!"

• July 12, 2007 Mad Captain Jack Murtha on CNN called President Bush's description of the success of the surge,
  
  

  "Well it's delusional to say the least. As I said earlier, and you heard me say it, it's a failed policy wrapped in illusion. Nothing's gotten better. Incidents have increased. We have had more Americans killed in the last four months than any other period during the war.
  
  "I don't acknowledge there has been any progress made. Maybe in Baghdad. But it just breaks out someplace else...there's no progress being made."
  

• April 20, 2007 Harry Reid declared:
  
  

  "This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week."
  

• December 03, 2007 Harry Reid said of Iraq,
  
  

  "The surge hasn't accomplished its goals... We're involved, still, in an intractable civil war."
  

• May 16, 2007 Dick Durbin stated,
  
  

  "This morning, the White House announced that the president has finally found a general who will accept the responsibility for the execution of this war. Why did four generals before him refuse this assignment? Because those four generals know, the American people know, and this Senate knows that the administration's policy in Iraq has failed."
  

• February 10, 2008 Nancy Pelosi asserted, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer, that the President's Iraq policy:
  
  

  “is a failure. [It has] not produced the desired effect...There haven't been gains, Wolf. The gains have not produced the desired effect, which is the reconciliation of Iraq. This is a failure. This is a failure."

It never ceases to amaze me how people who have been proven so completely wrong about events in Iraq...from the very outset of the war...and be so unbelievably arrogant about it.


This new narrative Democrats and RINO's are now espousing in order not to have to admit how wrong they have been, by crediting successes in Iraq to "the Sunni awakening," Muqtada al Sadr's call for a ceasefire, and only peripherally, the troop surge, just doesn't wash.

The troop surge was announced by the President on January 11, 2007 with troop levels standing at 132,000. By the end of March, troop strength is up to 150,000.

On April 26, just seven days after Harry Reid declared the War in Iraq "lost" and the troop surge "a failure," General Patraeus tells Congress, "We are just getting started with the new effort.”

So according to General Patraeus, the man assigned to execute the President's new strategy, it began at the end of April, 2007. Progress on the ground began almost immediately, though it was accompanied by a not to be unexpected spike in U.S. casualties.

In spite of real progress being made, on June 13th Democrats in Congress once again declare the surge a failure, three months before the last of the troops destined for Iraq via the surge were in place (troop strength reached 168,000 in September).

By then (mid-June) the Sunni's, having discovered that U.S. troops were not going to be withdrawn and witnessing significant progress by American troops in fighting al Qaeda in Iraq, began to fight alongside U.S. troops in Anbar province - the so-called Sunni Awakening had begun.

By August, Moqtada al Sadr declared a "ceasefire" after his Mahdi Militia had been repeatedly pounded by his rivals and Iraqi Army troops supported by U.S. troops from the surge.

Military progress was rapid and extensive, so much so that by November the only people who were still denying success were Democrats and their pet RINO's.

So there you have it, first the surge (“the McCain Plan”) then the “Awakening” and the ceasefire…simple cause and effect.

Now, progress on the political front in Iraq, which not unexpectedly lagged behind military progress, is beginning to accelerate with 15 of the much cited 18 benchmarks, placed by Congress as a means to measure the success or failure of the troop surge, having been met.

Democrats are so unhappy that we are winning the war in Iraq, that they continue to deny the efficacy of the surge, which officially ended this week with the withdrawal of the last units called up for the surge.

I have said over and over that Obama is an empty suit, singularly unqualified to be President and he has proven by his inability or unwillingness to admit he was wrong about the surge that he lacks the character and integrity to occupy the White House.

He's not a man, he's an Obamouse.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Obama Threat Not Islam, but Socialism and His Civilian National Security Force

Yeah so the New Yorker Magazine put out this issue with a caricature of Obama and his wife dressed up like an Imam and an Angela Davis clone, AK-47 and all.

The Obama folks are livid and are eagerly expressing their outrage over this horrible affront to their "Fearless Leader."

In response, the New Yorker claims that their cover is a satirical expression of all of the rumors being spread by Obama's opponents on the extreme Right.

Okay New Yorker...whatever you say...I just find it interesting that this drawing appears not on the cover of any Conservative magazine, whether the old, long established magazines like National Review or Reason, of the newer "movement Conservative" magazines like the Weekly Standard or Frontpage Magazine, but on the cover of an the New Yorker, which has an old, long established, very Left-wing bias.

My problem is, I am not concerned as to whether or not Obama is a Muslim or a Christian. I am not concerned with whether of not Obama was "raised and educated in a Madrasa." I am not concerned about the "Muslim" problem at all...and you shouldn't be concerned either...it's a non-issue.

Whether or not Obama actually is a Muslim, will be determined in due course if he becomes our 44th President and the American electorate will reject such a threat in short order.

American voters are sometimes gullible, but they are not stupid and they are unlikely to surrender control of their fiercely guarded individualism simply because some hip, slick and cool character comes along and seduces them. If he was to attempt to institute Sharia Law, or began courting Muslim extremists, he would be rejected out of hand.

Unfortunately, American voters are very susceptible to the siren's song of Socialism and Marxism. Those two imposters are usually presented as high minded, noble, and compassionate alternatives to the "dog-eat-dog" world of capitalism and free market economies. The truth is, they appeal not to our nobler nature, but to our baser envious, greedy, and slothful nature.

Socialism/Marxism tells us that "the government" will take care of all our needs and they will do so by making those "evil rich people" pay for it.

• Tired of that "other guy" making more than you? Don't worry; just let "the government" set salaries..."equal pay for equal work"...gives you instant "social justice."


• Afraid of the future and retirement, but don't want to save for it yourself? Don't worry, "the government" will provide retirement benefits for you, pay "just a little more" in taxes.


• Can't afford housing? Don't worry, "the government" will provide you with low cost housing...all you have to do is pay "just a little bit more" in taxes.


• Can't afford Medical Insurance? Don't worry, "the government" will provide you with inexpensive, single payer insurance...all you have to do is give up your right to choose your doctor and your procedure...and, of course, pay "just a little bit more" in taxes.


• Don't want to work, but lack the income to live? Don't worry, "the government" will set a minimum income level to provide you all of your necessities...just let your fellow hard-working citizens pay "just a little bit more" in taxes.

With the promise of an easy life, comes the bitter pill of higher taxes. For the superficial sort of person, this Utopian system appears to be the perfect answer to society's problems, but it you examine it in depth, you will come to the conclusion that such a system just can't hold up and you would be right. It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Democrats and Obama, in their arrogance, still hold on to those failed models. "This is America," they say, "shouldn't we be able to succeed where others have failed?" This statement is a perfect summary of the combination of arrogance and naiveté embodied by the American Left. They eschew the hard realities and lessons taught to us by history for their faith in an unachievable ideal.

That arrogance is what makes those on the Left dangerous and it is what makes Obama dangerous.

If you believe that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong and by inference too ignorant to know what is best for them, then it becomes very reasonable to adopt an attitude of, "If the people don't want to do what is best for themselves, we must force it upon them."

Thus we have Obama's call, last week, for a a civilian national security force.

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

Imagine a large civilian force "just as powerful, just as strong, and just as well funded" as our military...answerable to whom, the President?

Now that's a scary idea. Adolph Hitler also had a large well funded civilian national security force composed of young idealistic youths. They were called the "Hitler-Jugend" or Hitler Youth.

In 1930 the Hitler-Jugend was comprised of 25,000 males from 14 years old and up, by 1932 there were over 108,000. By 1936 there were 5,000,000 Hitler-Jugends and membership was mandatory.

Obama's plan is to expand Americorps from its current funding level of 75,000 volunteers to 250,000. If he does what he is promising, how many of our youths will wind up being inducted into this program? Remember, "just as powerful, just as strong and just as well funded" as our military.

In his speech at the University of Colorado campus, Obama said:

"Loving your country shouldn't just mean watching fireworks on the 4th of July. Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, our country will be stronger.

We will ask Americans to serve. We will create new opportunities for Americans to serve."

Mr. Obama, there are many of us out here in "fly-over land" who don't want the changes you want. We like our nation's culture and economy just the way they are.

We don't want government to tell us who our doctor is or what services we have access to. We don't want to hand over our nation to you and your new civilian paramilitary organizations.

Will the Department of Homeland Security be turned into the American equivalent of the G.D.D.R.'s (East Germany) Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Ministry for State Security)?

Will you create an American "Stasi" to report on those who don't want to go along with your "change?"

How expansive will this new order be? What powers will be vested in them ultimately? Will they be used to report "minor" offenses like non politically correct speech? Perhaps they will serve as the Left's thought police, determining whether or not a "hate crime" is being committed.

For those of you who believe I am stretching the point, I will remind you of the words found on Obama's Presidential Campaign webpage:

“We must build a world free of unnecessary barriers, stereotypes, and discrimination .... policies must be developed, attitudes must be shaped, and buildings and organizations must be designed to ensure that everyone has a chance to get the education they need and live independently as full citizens in their communities.”

Sorry Barack, I don't want or need my attitude "shaped" by the likes of you and your Democrat Party. I don't want the youth of our nation organized, propagandized and sent out to "assist" their fellow citizens.

Our nation was and is founded on the belief that individual freedom and liberty is of paramount importance. To further that belief, our Founding Fathers set severe limits to the power of the state to control the people.

You will not find in our nation's charter (the Declaration of Independence) nor in our nation's founding document, the Constitution of the United States, any mention of a "civilian national security force."

For a man who claims to have taught "constitutional law" at the University of Chicago Law School, Mr. Obama sure has a strange view of what is and is not provided for in our constitution.

We all would do well to recall the words of George Washington, posted at the top of my web page. It is a stern warning from our first and greatest president. George Washington maybe the only leader in history to walk away from the offer of becoming King of a nation and his words are as powerful and meaningful today as they were 200 years ago:

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

It is a lesson that Democrats would do well to heed, but which seems to fall on deaf ears. Rather than worshipping government, our forefathers feared it. They chose to place power in the hands of free citizens, not government, because they had seen first hand what an all powerful government was capable of.

I'll take my admonitions from President George Washington, not candidate Barack Obama, thank-you very much.

Remember, government is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Side Tracking on Obama: Conservatives, Keep Your Eye on the Prize

"Obama's a Muslim."
"Obama's not a Muslim."
"Obama hasn't released his
birth certificate."
"Obama has released his birth certificate."
"Michelle Obama hates America and 'Whities'."
"Michelle Obama is a
patriotic American."

On and on it goes.

People, my fellow Conservatives and Republicans of all persuasions, it's a distraction. All of these side issues are distractions designed to prevent a discussion of the real dangers of an Obama-nation.

Keep your eyes on the prize.

Obama, whatever he may or may not be by birth, is a hardcore socialist who wants to take this nation down the path of other failed socialist experiments in Europe and other parts of the world.
We must not forget this!

What Obama believes in his spiritual life, is between him and whatever deity he chooses to worship or not worship. What matters are his plans, or the plans of those who are his handlers, to destroy this nation, culturally, fiscally, and socially.

He criticizes McCain's proposal for a summer "gasoline tax vacation" because it won't save people very much money. He does this while virtually admitting that he likes the high gasoline prices. Why, because like all Liberals, he promotes the concept of forced reduction in consumption.

High gas prices means people will be forced to drive less. This is an old Democrat/Liberal concept. One that has been promoted by Al Gore and other Leftist extremists within the Democrat Party.

Obama is a devout Marxist and as such, he believes that the end justifies the means, no matter what the cost to the his fellow citizens, just as his fellow Democrats in the House and Senate believe...if they actually were concerned about the stresses high gas prices place on the average citizen, they would be advocating increased domestic exploration rather than preventing it.

Obama believes in socialized medicine. He may call it by some other name, but his goals are the same as every other socialist who has raised his or her voice - government control of our medical care.

Obama believes in government. With every vote he has cast in the Senate and his every action, he screams government control. From his own website:

• He wants the Federal Government to determine what wages should be, not the free market and private companies.


• He wants the Federal Government to provide college tuition for anyone who wants it, while penalizing the private student loan industry by elimination of subsidies. [It's good to see government doing what private industry can do better, right Barack?]


• He wants the Federal Government to provide another $300/family in assistance, cost - $20 Billion


• He wants the Federal Government to provide protection from foreclosure for homeowners who bought houses they knew they couldn't afford, cost - $10 Billion (yeah right, like that's all it will cost).


• He wants the Federal Government to provide "communities hardest hit by the housing crisis" with funds to provide vital services," cost - $10 Billion (another lie).


• He wants the Federal Government to provide a further extention of unemployment benefits, cost - $10 Billion.


• He wants the Federal Government to provide another $500/person in his "Making Work Pay" tax relief to those who pay no income tax, "to offset the payroll tax," (he doesn't even dare provide a cost for this proposal).


• He wants the Federal Government to fund a "Advanced Manufacturing Fund" to promote "green technologies," no cost estimate.


• He wants the Federal Government to "invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, invest in low emissions coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid," cost - $15 Billion/year.


• He wants the Federal Government to create, "New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies," no cost estimate.


• He wants the Federal Government to create a "Renewable Portfolio Standard" (RPS) that will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025, (and cost untold $Billions).


• He wants the Federal Government to create a "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank," another Federal Bureaucracy, cost - $6 Billion/year.


• He wants the Federal Government to institute his "cap-and-trade system [that] will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters [folks, that includes you and me] pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies.

The list is almost endless. This is just a little sample from his Obama08 webpage.
These proposals don't represent "change," they represent a return to the tried and failed policies of Roosevelt's "New Deal" and Johnson's "Great Society." Those are the policies which have done more to destroy the fabric of our nation than any enemy could possibly have contemplated.

Through the misguided use of Federal money in "assisting" the poor, the Federal government, far from saving the American family, has done more to destroy it than any other single entity or cultural trend could have.

Obama's "Change You Can Believe In" is a huge step backward for our nation. His proposals are not a step forward to the future, but a giant leap backward to the past.

Obama is planning the systematic dismantling of our entire culture and economy with an aim of instituting a socialist "paradise" such as the Soviets enjoyed for 50 years. For Obama, government isn't a solution to our problems, it is the solution.

I don't care (at least not very much) whether Obama has a legitimate copy of his birth certificate, or if he is a Muslim. I care about what his plans are for this nation that I love, warts and all.

McCain sees government as a useful partner in meeting the needs of the American people. He has more faith in government than do I, but at least he envisions some limitations on the role of government in our lives. Obama has no such qualms about government intrusion into our lives.

For Obama, Government is mother, Government is father. Obama's vision of Government is as the ultimate expression of mankind. He trusts the government, not the individual. He believes that Government, not private enterprise can provide the solutions to our problems.

Surrounded by his thousands of adoring fans, none of whom can say exactly what he has done that warrants electing him as President of the United States, aided by a mainstream media more inclined to act as cheerleader and advocate for his election than as an objective and cautious critic, and being run by faceless controllers who hide in the background dictating his agenda, Barack Obama is the gravest threat this nation has faced in my lifetime.

Krushchev promised that the Soviet Union would destroy America not through might of arms, but from the inside.

Obama is Krushchev's promise made incarnate.

When an illusionist is performing tricks which dazzle you and divert your attention, watch that his assistant isn't standing behind you picking your pocket.

Keep your eyes on the prize!

Don't be distracted by these side issues. Yes Obama is a threat to America, but these small issues distract attention away from the threat Obama truly represents.

Obama is not a "Muslim Manchurian Candidate," his is an American Liberal Socialist candidate and his agenda will destroy our economy, our national security, and the social fabric of our society.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Contempt of Constitution: The 5-4 Heller Decision

Will Malven
6/26/2008

“This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.”

T.S. Elliot – The Hollow Men

In Heller vs. Washington D.C., The Supreme Court of the United States voted 5-4 (divided along ideological lines) to declare that “the right to keep and bear arms,” as described in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is an individual right.

Al-riiight! [fist pump] Yee-hah! Victory at last! Woo-hah! Celebrate the power!

Okay, back to reality.

The United States Supreme Court, that august body "assigned" the highest responsibility of all judicial authorities, to determine what is or is not within the bounds of our Constitution, made a decision that the right to keep and bear arms, as laid out in our Bill of Rights, is an individual right; something that should have been intuitively obvious to any casual reader of the Constitution without the need of reflection.

So what’s wrong? They did so along partisan philosophical lines.

Imagine that, the “right to keep and bear arms” described in the Bill of Rights as…well…”the right to keep and bear arms,” being interpreted as an individual right.

Gee guys (and gal), ya think so? My, how clever you are. What an original concept, reading the Constitution of the United States…as written. What will they think of next?

For some inexplicable reason, there was a collective sigh of relief and celebration of this narrow vote as a victory for those who believe in that right of the individual law abiding citizen to keep and bear arms…in other words those who actually believe the Constitution to be primary and to be the fundamental basis of all of our laws…as our founding fathers intended.

This was not a victory ladies and gentlemen; this was an escape (and a narrow one at that). It was, to quote Lord Wellington following his victory at Waterloo:

“…the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life.”

I find little comfort in this decision. Justice Scalia, in writing his opinion, was very eloquent. He was prolific in his use of quotations from our founding fathers’ writings and statements, to provide the historical context for the majority decision, but in the end this decision left the door open to a very broad array of laws restricting and limitations on, what should be, a law abiding citizen’s unfettered right, as long as those restrictions are not “arbitrary and capricious” in their enforcement.

Being neither fish nor fowl, I find this decision both gratifying and terrifying, gratifying in that it proves at least five of the justices on the Supreme Court can read, terrifying in that such a fundamental and inherent right, as are all rights protected by the Bill of Rights, should be decided under the hot passion philosophical and political opinion rather than the cold reason of constitutional interpretation by so many of our Supreme Court Justices.

It is horrifying that five of our nine justices (I include Kennedy here because his decisions are as inconstant as the wind) are so willing to include their own philosophical biases when making a decision that is so cut and dried as to the original intent of the framers of our constitution.

In the ruling, Justice Scalia says that laws that restrict access or possession of firearms, such as permitting fall within the constitution “as long as they are not arbitrary or capricious,” yet every vote by Justice Kennedy seems “arbitrary and capricious.”

For those who view the Heller decision as a “victory,” I will remind them that “stare decisis” as an “immutable” principle, or even a convenient excuse for avoiding changing prior rulings, is only considered so by those on the Left when the Court’s decisions agree with their own position, otherwise it is simply a vague and nebulous concept to be given cursory consideration before pressing forward with their Leftist agenda. Only honest jurists, those who believe in the concept of “original intent,” ever defer to stare decisis after careful consideration.

With the appointment of one more justice holding the (historically indefensible) belief that the constitution is a “living document” and that decisions should be made, “reflective of today’s evolving society” and the most recent public opinion polls, Heller can (and likely will) be overturned at the first opportunity if the American people relax their vigilance for even a moment.

Those on the Left have a cavalier contempt for the Constitution and for the concept of “original intent” when called upon to interpret the constitution, preferring instead a sort of “sense of the nation and society” basis for their interpretation. The fallacy of this view becomes readily apparent if closely examined.

If nothing within the Constitution of the United States is fixed in stone, if everything within the Constitution is impermanent and it is a “living, breathing document, then no aspect of our government or the way we choose our leaders can be considered sacrosanct.

If enough justices believe the people should not be able to elect their own government, who cares what the Constitution says? After all, it is a “living breathing document.”

If the original intent of our founding fathers, as made known in their concurrent writings doesn’t pertain or inform as to how the Second Amendment is to be enforced, then no right, is safe, no part of our Constitution is protected from the political whims of whoever sits in the majority of our Supreme Court.

In such a case, our Republic ceases to be a Republic and becomes an oligarchy in which the Courts, not the people or the democratically elected representatives of the people, rule our lives.

This ominous power of the Supreme Court was never the intent of our Founding Fathers when they wrote, revised, and then approved our Constitution. Their intent was clear and it was set down in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

"Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed"

These powers were further refined by the Eleventh Amendment, ratified in 1795:

"The Judicial power or the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citzens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

Judicial review, as it is currently practiced was not explicitly granted to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. It was only in making the Marbury v. Madison decision (1803) that the Supreme Court assumed for itself the extra-constitutional powers of judicial review.

With that self-assumed power, the Supreme Court went from being the weakest of the three branches of our government, to the most powerful. Since that time and particularly over the past 100 years, the Court has used its self-determined powers to make sweeping changes to our nation and our society, substituting philosophical and ideological opinions for strict interpretation of our laws.

The dangers inherent in such a philosophically driven judiciary has become readily apparent in the court's modern tendency to "legislate from the bench" laws which cover matters rightfully belonging in the domain of the Legislative and/or Executive branches.

It is this tendency of modern jurists to legislate rather than interpret which has turned the Supreme Court from a strict monitor of our constitutional rights, into a political football.

It is also this tendency which emboldens the Supreme Court to thwart the wishes of the electorate as expressed by the various state legislatures and the Congress of the United States, as happened in the previous decision in Kennedy vs. Louisiana.

Justice Kennedy decided that raping a child was not a severe enough crime to warrant the death penalty (I think maybe justice Kennedy confusing his name with that of the appellant and fearing he might be the target of the investigation, cast his vote with the Foul Four just in case), in direct defiance of the will of the people of the State of Louisiana as made known in their passing of the law that was struck down.

Folks, I’m not certain what sort of Justices John McCain would appoint. I’m not terribly sanguine that he will appoint men of good originalist intent, but I do know for certain the kind of Justices Barack Obama would appoint and that alone is reason enough for me to vote for McCain in spite of my misgivings.

Long Live Our America Republic!!!

Uh, oh yeah! Hey Anthony…Anthony Kennedy – sorry -- Mr. Justice Kennedy, the word is “Republic,” not “Oligarchy.”

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Who Will Watch the Watchers?

Will Malven
June 24, 2008

In the science fiction thriller, Minority Report, citizens are under constant scrutiny by retinal scanners. They are used by advertisers to directly target individuals with products for their use and they are used by the government to monitor the location of every citizen. The aim is to reduce the likelihood of crime and to track known criminals.

Science fiction or science fact? In Britain today (and London in particular) citizens are being monitored, not by retinal scanners, but by thousands of remote controlled cameras.

The purpose of these cameras, as were the retinal scanners in Minority Report, is to reduce crime and to enable police to monitor criminal activity. The people who elected the councils who approved the use of these cameras are now questioning the wisdom of their decisions.

They are rapidly discovering a universal truth about ceding power to the state.

It is easier to withhold power from the state than it is to strip it away once it has been granted.

Originally approved under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to assist in the government’s battle against terrorism, the ease of access and the temptations associated with such a sweeping power has resulted in a trivializing of their use.

Those cameras are now being used not to stop serious crime alone, but to pursue any and all transgressors including people who fail to clean up “dog fouling,” when taking their pets “walkies.”

The citizens are now learning the lesson Benjamin Franklin attempted to teach when he admonished his fellow citizens that:

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Franklin’s admonishment was not simply a capricious thought, but was a result of his astute observations of humanity and our natural tendencies.

Face it human beings are a lazy lot, for the most part, and our natural tendency is to turn to others to do that for us which we should do for ourselves.

We are also (for the most part) creatures who crave safety and security. A great many of us have a natural tendency to seek those two imposters at any price. Some of us know that there is no such thing as absolute safety or security and that, whatever form they take, they must be provided for by the individual.

It is this natural desire for safety which in part gives Leftists so much sway in our society. They see this innate weakness in the populace and they exploit it by amplifying our fears and then proffering the absurd notion that we can be safe if we just allow the government to protect us.

They offer a false sense of security and they offer it at the high price of our freedom.

• Want to feel safe from murder, surrender your right to keep and bear arms.
• Want to feel safe from the costs of medical care, surrender your right to private healthcare.
• Want to feel free from being offended, surrender your right to the free expression of ideals.
• Want to feel safe in your job, surrender your right to work when and where you choose.
• Want to feel safe from the high cost of gasoline, surrender your right to choose what kind of vehicle you drive.

The list is almost endless and the price you pay for each service you accept from your government is another portion of your individual freedom.

In her speech, “A Whiter Shade of Pale,” Janice Rogers Brown, a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and a Bush (43) appointee said the following before The Federalist Society at the University of Chicago in April of 2000 It remains one of the best descriptions of the dangers of an increasing presence of government in our lives:

“Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.”

No truer words have ever been spoken and the above stands as a description of our society and the direction in which it continues to move. Most interesting is the fact that this one truthful, candid observation so offended the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee that it came close to derailing her appointment to the Circuit Court. This fact alone should tell you the dangers we face in the upcoming election should a like minded Democrat occupy the White House.

Echoing Benjamin Franklin’s warning, Ronald Reagan told America in October of 1964 in his speech “A Time for Choosing” [also known as “The Speech”]:

“You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.”

He also warned about the persistence of government bureaucracy when he said:

“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth.”

…and finally, Reagan said of government:

“the Founding Fathers…knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.”

Though this threat tends to come primarily from the Left, there are those within the Republican Party and on the Right who also seek to usurp our rights in the name of “Homeland Security.”

Their efforts come in the form of a large expansion of governmental powers to invade our privacy and investigate those they deem “suspicious.” The Patriot Act as it is called ceded a tremendous amount of leeway in how law enforcement agencies conduct their investigations and I have for the past several years supported its existence with the caveat that such revisions in our constitutional rights, though they have historical precedence, must always be limited in their duration.

In the past, our government has relinquished those “war powers” once the threat is diminished, but we must remain ever vigilant that such power never becomes so entrenched that it is automatically assumed by the government. With such power comes the tremendous potential for abuse, as our friends in Britain are now witnessing with the ever present cameras they initially allowed for “security purposes.”

So now we must remain ever vigilant as this “War On Terror” drags on. We must never allow our government, whether it is held by those on the Right, the muddled Middle, or the Left, to become so accustomed to those powers that they fail to give them up.

With a socialist running as the Democrat Party candidate for President, and a very Liberal Democrat majority in Congress, we are now nearing a time of decision about the level of freedom we wish to enjoy.

Are you one of those who is willing to “give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety.” Your answer to that question and the answer of all Americans will decide what kind of society we will live in.

The citizens of Socialist nations very rarely [if ever] enjoy the individual freedom, prosperity and power that we currently enjoy as Americans.

As was asked in the movie, “The Matrix,” the question you must answer is,

Will you take the blue pill and wake up in a society with few individual rights and a little security, or will you take the red pill and go forward into a society fraught with risk and filled with individual freedom and prosperity?

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Election 2008, McCain or Obama? It's a Hobson's Choice.

Thomas Hobson was the operator of the stables in Cambridge, England back in the 17th Century, and when a customer came to rent a horse, he was given one choice, the first horse in line. The alternative was to walk. It is from this story, that we now have in our vernacular the phrase "a Hobson's choice," meaning a choice that is no choice.

The phrase has evolved to imply a choice between two equally bad options, but the original definition is still the preferred one.

In this 2008 election, Americans are presented with a choice between what may be the worst two options in the past 100 years:

1. A small, gruff, cantankerous, old retired Navy Captain whose mental stability is more than a little suspect, but who served his nation with honor both in the military and as a United States Senator for 20 years.


2. A tall, attractive, smooth talking empty suit with great oratory skill and no ideas.

Not a very exciting choice for anyone with intellect enough to understand the issues confronting America.

To make matters worse, there's not a dimes worth of difference between the two of them on two of the most important issues (I'm tempted to say crises here) facing the American voter, the blight of uncontrolled illegal immigration and the farcical myth of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Both of these candidates seem to be Hell bent on destroying our culture by granting what amounts to automatic citizenship to all illegal aliens with nothing more than a slap on their collective wrists for violating our national sovereignty and our nations laws.

Both of these candidates also seem equally Hell bent on destroying our nation's economy by imposing pointless restrictions on our consumption of hydrocarbons and their consequent emissions of CO2.

Their attitudes seem to be. "Why let the free market do something when the government can do it?" Of course the last word off of that sentence, worse. "Why let the free-market do something when the government can do it worse?"

What do we know about John McCain?

Well, we know that he revels in his reputation as a "maverick," even to the point of "sticking it" to his fellow Republicans. He loves to brag about "crossing the aisle" (between the Republicans and Democrats in the Senate) in order to get something accomplished. Unfortunately, everything he has accomplished in that manner has been an anathema to those who believe in our constitution.

This sad form of "cooperation" has led to:

1. McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Law which effectively restricts the right of all Americans to free speech.


2. McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill, which was effectively a grant of blanket amnesty to all illegal immigrants.


3. McCain-Liebermann, which would have bankrupted our economy by imposing unnecessary limits to carbon dioxide emissions and imposed a "cap and trade" system of carbon taxation.

I guess "bi-partisanship" isn't all it's cracked up to be, John.

What exactly do we know about Barack Hussein Obama?

1. We are told he taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago School of Law, though how he did that I am at a loss to say as he apparently has only a very faint passing acquaintance with what the Constitution says, if one judges his knowledge from his (very brief) Senate voting record and the policies he supports.


2. We know that his is the most Liberal voting record of all 100 members in the Senate.


3. We know that he is a black separatist (sorry, one cannot attend a black separatist church for 23 years and not agree with what is being preached there), unless he is a liar and only attended that church for crass political reasons, which would make him a hypocrite and a liar of the most cynical sort.


4. We know that the policies he supports are socialist by nature, increasing governmental power in our markets, our culture and our lives.


5. We know that he lacks any experience in dealing with foreign powers. He mistakes our enemies (dictators, Castro of Cuba, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Kim Jong Il of North Korea, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran) for our friends and our friends (the Israeli people and their democratically elected government, the people of Iraq and their democratically elected government, our military leaders, and our troops in Iraq) for our enemies.


6. We know that he has not been to Iraq for over two and one-half years yet he has proclaimed the troop surge a "failure." "A failure," without having even been to Iraq to see whether or not the surge has been working. I believe that this is what Democrats like to describe as "Shooting from the hip."


7. We know he lacks the courage to take a stand. Obama's inability to take a stand came under scrutiny when his record of voting "present" 129 times while in the Illinois State Legislature, but that record pales in comparison to is record in the US Senate. According to Project Vote Smart, from January 2005, his first day in the US Senate, through June 10th of this year, this courageous Senator has "not voted" 232 times out of a total of 544 votes...ahem...that's approximately 42% of the time.

Those last two are perhaps the coldest cuts of all, America needs a leader, not a follower. Say whatever you will about John McCain, he is his own man and is not afraid to take a stand (however wrong that stand may be in the eyes of many within his own party).

Thus we are faced with the electoral equivalent of a Hobson's choice, the choice between the only horse available, an old beat up war horse, cantankerous and mean, but wise in the ways of the world and war, or nothing...an empty suit with a smooth seductive patter.

Obama lacks both the informational and intellectual depth and the breadth of knowledge of the issues confronting America to present a real alternative. He is the analogue equivalent of a jittery, wobbly legged, inexperienced colt to John McCain's old war horse.

With Obama, America would be rolling the dice as we have never rolled them before. He's naive enough to believe that meeting with our international adversaries without any pre-conditions would be advantageous to America.

He actually believes that Americans are stupid enough to vote for a slogan "A Change You Can Believe In" thus illustrating the contempt that he and his handlers have for the American voters. For many on the Left, unfortunately he is correct, they prefer the easy, "feel good," nebulous offerings of the Obama campaign to the tough choices real solutions require.

I will in the next few articles provide a glimpse into the abyss, pulling information directly from the Obama for President web page, I will show what an Obama-nation will look like.

The first heads up for those who love freedom and understand the threat that a Leftist government presents is the following quotation from Obama himself...in discussing his intended expansion of the American's with disabilities act.

"We must build a world free of unnecessary barriers, stereotypes and discrimination. That policies must be developed, attitudes must be shaped, and buildings and organizations must be designed to ensure that everyone has the ability to get the education they need and live as independent citizens in their own communities."

I take special notice of the phrase "attitudes must be shaped," I don't know about you but those are very frightening words coming from a potential President of the United States. There is a vast difference between "convincing people" which implies changing minds through reasoned debate, with compelling arguments and "shaping attitudes," which implies governmental coersion.

The world has had experience with people who believed in "shap[ing] attitudes." During the cold war, our enemies were very good at running "re-education camps" and using their educational institutions to promote a specific social agenda, replacing education of substance with propaganda.

Such a suggestion is the antithesis of the freedom of ideas and speech which most Americans hold very dear and for which hundreds of thousands of Americans throughout our nation's history have given their lives to defend.

That is the vision Obama and his handlers in the Leftist organizations of America offer our citizens.

As with all Liberal ideas, the intent is noble but the execution is execrable. The inevitable unintended consequences of such a suggestion is a further erosion of individual freedom in America.

This is not my vision for America and it was not the vision of our Founding Fathers when they built this greatest of nations.

McCain may not be my cup of tea, but the America he offers is far better than the enslavement those in the Obama camp offer.

As I have stated, a Hobson's choice...McCain and freedom or Obama and enslavement, a choice that is not a choice.

As the great Yogi Berra said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Lies and Myths of the “Anthropogenic Global Warming” Fear Mongers and the Dire Threat They Pose

Will Malven
June 5, 2008

The American people are constantly being bombarded more and more with piffle and drivel from the lunatic fringe of the “Greens” movement.

Organizations with their own political, social, and economic agendas, like the IPCC and the UN General Assembly present themselves as clearing houses for “scientific information” while placing their own philosophical brand on the findings they report.

The proponents of the “doom and gloom” scenario of man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW) tend to fall into easily recognizable categories:

1. Climatologists and other scientists whose livelihoods depend on the perpetuation of the theory that:
   
   a. The planet is warming up, and
   b. That man’s activities are the primary driving force behind such a change.
   
2. Computer modelers who take current data and construct mathematical models which they then use to confirm their already drawn conclusions about the origin and ultimate results of global warming.
   
3. Members of organizations (generally, but not exclusively found on the extreme left-wing of the political spectrum) like the Greens Party, the Sierra Club, and other environmental wacko groups who believe that mankind (and especially American mankind) is basically a toxic presence which infects the planet and that the planet would be better off without him.
   
4. Naïve, well intentioned do-gooders who lack the intellect or knowledge to penetrate the fog of jargon with which the global warming alarmists camouflage their intentions and to critically examine the weak, faux science now being presented as fact.
   
5. Leftists who understand global warming as the scam is, but see in it, through their cynical, Machiavellian eyes, a useful tool to further government control over the economy and the people.
   
6. The average citizen who lack the time, knowledge, or inclination to learn the truth about AGW and the aims of its proponents and who fall victim to the massive propaganda machine in the Leftist controlled mainstream media that tells them tales of a “grim reality” rapidly approaching which can only be prevented by taking draconian measures…IMMEDIATELY!

There have been innumerable “doom and gloom” cults throughout history, but never before have they had such a powerful propaganda weapon as the mass communications apparatus now in place.

That propaganda machine has already catapulted Albert Gore, Jr. from Clinton court jester to superstar status (with commensurate income) and has rendered him immune to cries against his hypocrisy, by excusing his massive “carbon foot print” (as well as those of other celebrity alarmists) as being an unfortunate side effect of the obligation he has to spread the gospel.

Al Gore, the man who flunked out of Divinity School, is presented as an expert in AGW. If he says it, we are to believe it without question. In fact Barbara Boxer quoted Al Gore, Jr. as one of her unimpeachable sources influencing the design of her global warming substitute amendment, a massive government takeover of the American economy.

Al Gore tells us that human generated CO2 is causing global warming and he uses charts derived from ice-core samples to prove it…he even shows us a huge blown up image of a graph of that ice-core data…nevermind that he misrepresents what those data tell us, we must believe him.

Al Gore is the new messiah of the global warming movement.

What a joke!

We already know. Through a close examination of those same data, that increases in CO2 levels lag behind increases of global temperatures by 800 years, not precede it. They occur as a result of increased temperatures and have no causative effect whatsoever.

If, as enviro-mental wacko's and their naive adherents claim, solar, gravitational, and geophysical effects contribute only a small percentage to the phenomenon of global warming and the accumulation of CO2 (caused by "evil" man) in the atmosphere is the primary causative factor, then there would be little evidence of massive climatological changes occurring on other planets, but there is.

"Long-time greens" (as at least one has presented himself to me), are so twisted in their thinking that they view mankind as (to quote from the movie Matrix) "a virus" which infects our planet.

They willingly adhere to any theory which predicts the imminent destruction of mankind in a sort of convulsive purging of itself by Mother Earth which they believe is a living organism called Gaia (didn’t Bluebonnet or Parkay already do an ad about that?). “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.”

The fact that these consummate "neo-Malthusians" are invariably and repeatedly proven wrong by science and by the continued stubbornness of mankind in refusing to "go quietly into that good night," deters them not one whit.

Apparently reality impinges but little into their world.

Global warming has already stalled for the past decade and last year was the coldest in a decade.
According to the geological record, we are not even close to the warmest temperatures Earth has seen over the past few hundred-thousand years.

In past interglacials, temperatures rose considerably higher than they have in the current inter-glacial...and yes we are still in the midst of an inter-glacial, so periods of warming are to be expected.

If these facts elude you, try reading some works of genuine science instead of these politically motivated diatribes written by people with a social agenda.

One of the more recent observations to send a tremor of fear through the global warming alarmists, is a report that subsurface ocean temperatures, as directly measured by over 3000 robotic probes have shown no rise in global oceanic temperatures. In fact those same probes have shown a small but statistically significant decrease in subsurface oceanic temperatures.

These results were so unexpected that, even now, the little Gorebots are scrambling to alter their models to account for what simply have to be anomalous data.

It is an immutable truth about Liberal dogma that, as they are proven wrong in their pet theories, the tenor of the conversation (such as there is) approaches hysteria. The level of hyperbole and the number of predictions of “doom and gloom” rise.

The fevered pitch of the comments coming from those alarmists and the more and more dire predictions of our approaching demise, serve only to prove their desperation as once more one of their pet theories falls onto the ash-heap of history.

AGW is yesterday's news and over the next 10-20 years, people in these organizations will be warning us, once again, of an impending ice-age or some other dire prediction, with the requisite imminent end of civilization as we know it.

I am not a part of the "pro-carbon" lobby, I am a part of the pro-science, pro-reality lobby, a voice of sanity standing in defiance of the raging tide of alarmism emanating from the Left. I am a green’s worst nightmare, a Conservative with a strong knowledge of science and the ability to know Leftist BS when I see it.

I am far from being alone. Most individuals of good common sense (mostly Conservatives) see AGW for the con-game it is. The arguments, as put forward by AGW alarmist, offer neither compelling scientific nor logical reasons to react impulsively to each spate of tornadic activity reported on the evening news.

The most compelling scientific evidence and arguments rest with AGW deniers like me.

It is individuals such as those I have described above who, through their blind following of false profits of doom like Rachel Carson (author of one of the deadliest lies in history, the book "Silent Spring") and Albert Gore, Jr, represent the most pressing danger to the world’s population.

Rachel Carson (after Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and the 1973 Supreme Court through its ruling in Roe v. Wade) is the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century. She and her gullible little army of adherents are responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans from malaria. By demanding and achieving the a ban on the manufacture, distribution and use of DDT, one of the most innocuous chemicals ever invented by mankind, they have caused unimaginable suffering by those in developing nations.

That book and the “science” upon which it was based is one of the most horrendous (in consequences) mistakes of the faux scientists in the green movement. Her theories were flawed and the science upon which they were based was bad and, in spite of her full knowledge of this prior to the precipitous actions her work generated, she persisted in her campaign.

The story of Rachel Carson and her egregious error of arrogance should be an object lesson for all who now heed the siren call of the greens in this AGW campaign, but that same arrogance, the arrogance inherent in the Left, will prevent them from paying attention.

AGW is a monstrous scam and any action taken by congress or any government will most certainly have grim unintended consequences, just as all poorly thought out and ill-conceived laws have, throughout our nation’s history.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Hyperbole and Lies Dominate Debate on Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill

Following close on the heels of the coldest year of this century and a growing "consensus" among non brain-washed scientists that man-made global warming is a Leftist hoax and in a continuation of the United States Senate's tradition of being a day late and a dollar short, that "august body" of mental defectives will begin debate on the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill.

This bill is a mare's nest of faux science, half-truths and outright lies...beginning with the name of the bill. Properly it should be called the Boxer-Warner Bill as, according to H. JOSEF HEBERT of the Associated Press, the bulk of the 500 page Leftist assault against capitalism and our economy was authored primarily by Senator Babs Boxer, not Joe Lieberman or John Warner. They are merely the chief co-sponsors. Why isn't Barbara's name on the bill...take a guess. How far do you think such a bill would get if it was sponsored by one of the dimmest bulbs in Congress and one of the most Liberal?

One of the stand-out features of the Lieberman-Warner Bill is a concept resurrected corpse of the McCain-Lieberman Stewardship Act which, happily, was defeated in 2003, the so called "cap and trade" (more properly called "bait and switch") policy dealing with so-called "carbon units."

The key of this proposal is that every corporation and other "entities" (that means you and I) would be given an base allotment of "carbon units" (or credits). Any of these "entities" that exceeded their base allotment of credits would be required to purchase additional credits from those "entities" consuming less than their base allotment. Or as described by the PEW Center on Global Climate Change:

An entity that was in a covered sector, or that produced or imported synthetic GHGs, would be subject to the requirements of this bill if it (a) owned at least one facility that annually emitted more than 10,000 metric tons of GHGs (measured in units of carbon dioxide equivalents – MTCO2E); (b) produced or imported petroleum products used for transportation that, when combusted, would emit more than 10,000 MTCO2E; or (c) produced or imported HFC, PFC and SF6 that, when used, would emit more than 10,000 MTCO2E. Each covered entity would be required to submit to the EPA one tradeable allowance for each MTCO2E directly emitted. Each petroleum refiner or importer would be required to submit an allowance for each unit of petroleum product sold that, when combusted, would emit one MTCO2E. Each producer or importer of HFC, PFC, and SF6 would be required to submit an allowance for each unit sold that, when used, would emit one MTCO2E. The Administrator would determine the method of calculating the amount of GHG emissions associated with combustion of petroleum products and use of HFC, PFC, and SF6. [Emphasis added]

The net result of this con-game system would amount to a "carbon tax" on all American citizens. The beneficiary of this carbon-tax would, of course, be the United States government, which would then disperse these additional revenues to those industries favored by the environmental wackos (a.k.a. the EPA).

Reading further from PEW:

The Secretary of Commerce would determine the amount of allowances to be given away or "grandfathered" to covered entities and the amount to be auctioned. The Secretary's determination would be subject to a number of allocation factors identified in the bill. Proceeds from the auction would be used to reduce energy costs of consumers and assist disproportionately affected workers. [Emphasis added]

There you have it folks, classic socialism; the redistribution of wealth, as directed by the government, from the profitable to the unprofitable, or energy providers to the governmentally blessed "alternative energy" industry.

Just as it is for every problem facing America, the Left's solution to our energy problems then is "let the government provide the solution, not the free market."

The oil market is steadily tightening as the demand for the known oil supplies continues to grow. The obvious solution is to expand exploration and production. The obvious solution to high gasoline prices is increased refining capacity. Yet these intuitively obvious solutions somehow escape those on the Left.

Is the Left's response to this so-called crisis expand the oil supply? No, it's "let's find more difficult to develop, more expensive sources of energy," and let the government do it, not the free market. As a result, money will be diverted, by the government, to such useless endeavors as wind energy, bio-fuels, and solar power.

These sources would be developed as a natural result of market forces, by private industry, as soon as the expense of developing them became commercially viable. The problem with this sort of government imposed "energy plan" is that it encourages groups to spend tax-payer money to develop commercially unviable energy sources.

The natural result of these policies is the creation boondoggle projects at tax-payer expense.

Today's (Tuesday, June 03, 2008) floor debate varied from the patently dishonest - Bill Nelson (D-Fla) admitting that the markets and supplies are tightening but saying that additional exploration won't solve the problem - Go Figure), to the surreal - Diane Feinstein (another intellectual midget) giving a lecture on the science of "Anthropogenic Global Warming," warning us the Al Gore (now there's an expert opinion to hang your hat on) told her that "Greenland and Antarctic glaciers may melt sooner than expected and raise ocean levels by as much as 20 feet" ( Lions and Tigers and Bear. Oh my!) and Babs Boxerstein declaring in her opening remarks from the floor of the Senate (as related by The Canadian Free Press:

“Why do this [the Lieberman-Warner bill] now? We’re in a recession. Precisely because we’re in a recession is why we should be doing this. This bill is the first thing that brings us hope.”

Sheer genious Babs. Raise taxes and energy costs during the early stages of a recession and drive more jobs overseas. I am certain that your proposal will bring a great deal of "hope" to the workers in China and India as they are hired by companies which will no longer be able to afford to conduct their business in America.

For that proposal alone, Babs should be drawn and quartered. Anyone with half a brain - that let's Barbara Boxer and her fellow Liberals in Congress out - knows that raising taxes during a recession, or near recession will destroy the economy.

The auction of Carbon "allowances" Babs proposes will "bring in" $3.26 Trillion in revenue by 2050. No doubt that Liberals are salivating over this huge influx of tax-payer dollars. It gives them more money to buy the votes of the fools who believe what they are saying.

What? You think only corporations will pay these additional taxes? Where do you think those corporations will get the money for those Carbon Units? Higher prices of course; higher prices that you, the consumer, will pay and pay and pay. You will pay higher food prices, higher fuel prices, higher medical costs, higher clothing costs...well you get the picture.

Of course that $3.26 Trillion is only the beginning. "Madamn" Boxer expects that revenues will eventually reach twice that amount; all of it to be handed out by Congress and the government to those who can best help these slugs get re-elected.

This is the ultimate tax-payer funded boondoggle and it will destroy our economy.

We are safe this year, because President Bush will veto any bill remotely resembling the McCain/Lieberman/Warner/Boxer/Sanders/et al Bill, and congress lacks the votes to overturn a veto or even force a vote. Next year is not so hopeful.

With McCain falling prey to the wiles of Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, Americans will be forced to rely solely on the few strong Conservatives in Congress to obstruct and delay any future Global Warming Boondoggles coming from the Left.

What a bunch of crooks and liars. There is no redeeming feature in any of this legislative activity beyond the entertainment value of watching idiots like Boxer, Feinstein, and The Gigolo act like they know anything about what they are discussing.

There were a few bright spots in today's debate, some heroes of the debate. Pete Domenici (R-NM) found the fire once more blasting the Democrats, freshman Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) put in a great performance and of course James Inhofe (R-OK) loosed a few broadsides.

The fun is supposed to last the remainder of the week. Some of the Senators will turn your stomach if you have a minimal understanding of the absurdity of the entire AGW scam, but there will be some very bright spots.

Break out the popcorn and enjoy the show. There should be (judging by today's debate) some real fireworks.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Political Correctness: When the Absurd Becomes Dangerous

Will Malven
May 24, 2008

Political Correctness is one of the most absurd, offensive, and now dangerous concept in America. What used to be laughable, the idea that some words and ideas should be quashed because someone in society might be offended, has become the battle cry for an Orwellian - Stalinist/Maoist - attempt to control all thought and ultimately the freedom, long enjoyed by Americans, to say anything they wish about any subject without fear of government repression or suppression.

We're talking about the First Amendment here folks, not some silly law passed by a bunch of corrupt politicians, but the first statement of protected rights in our nation's founding document.

It has become increasingly obvious over the past two decades that the Political Left, armed with such nebulous concepts as "fairness" and rights made up out of whole cloth, such as "the right not to be offended," neither of which can be found in our Constitution, is on a campaign to control what may and may not be said and ultimately, thought.

It’s very reminiscent of North Korea today, or of Maoist China and Stalinist Russia; societies in which simply using the wrong words could send you to a Gulag or your friendly neighborhood death squad.

In this atmosphere of absurd concepts, Liberal Democrats are increasingly attempting to control what may or may not be said...by those whom they oppose...while embracing any and all offensive and threatening words directed at their opponents as simply exercising their right of free speech.

What results is a bizarre mixture of socially enforced rules of speech culminating this week in the instant and insane rebuke of Hillary Clinton (once the darling of the Left) by the Obama camp and the Left in general for simply invoking the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in explaining her choice to pursue the presidential nomination in spite of all of the calls from the elite Left, in the press and in the Democrat Party, to step aside.

What Hillary said was neither threatening, nor likely to invoke a desire to kill Barack Insane Obmouse by any Hillary supporter. Yet one would have thought from the reaction within the Obama camp that Hillary had called for an assassination squad.

This kind of hypersensitive over-reaction to speech is one of the gravest threats we face in an Obama victory. Liberals love to throw verbal bombs at their perceived political enemies (and in some cases, say Obama’s close friends, William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn for example, they throw literal bombs) yet they are, like a little spoiled child, surprised and outraged when their opponents return the favor.

They react to those “in kind” responses by crying out in rage that somehow unlike they, who are merely indulging in their constitutional right to free speech, the other side is using "hate-speech" or is, in some strange twist of (I hate to use the word logic or reason as Liberals lack any of either) understanding, being “unfair.”

Thus we return to the Hillary - Bobby Kennedy story. There is some delicious irony in all of this hoopla surrounding Hillary's run for office and the attempts by those on the Left to portray her as, what we on the Right have known her to be for almost 20 years, an insufferable, intolerant, imperious, hypocritical, hateful bitch.

One might say that the Clintons are being hoisted on their own petard...settle down Liberals…I said "petard" not "retard," so don't get your P's and C's in an uproar. If you don't know what "petard" means, look it up in your dictionary...assuming you have one. Don't be niggardly (better look that one up as well) in your use of your dictionary

The problem with all of this nonsense is the far more serious implications associated with this laughable concept of political correctness. These run the gamut of possible consequences, from costing you your job because some co-worker has been offended by what you said, whether the insult was intended or not, to the far more dire concept of "hate crimes" in which the legal system has proclaimed themselves capable of determining not just guilt or innocence, but what the perpetrator was thinking as he was committing the crime, and that some murders are worse than others because some form of social bias was involved.

Simply hating the victim does not qualify the murder as a hate crime; go figure.

However, if the victim was a member of one of the specially anointed (by the Liberal social agenda) groups, i.e. he was gay, he was black, or he was (a fill-in-the-blank social designation), then and only then is it a hate crime.

The, very much to be enjoyed, castigation of one of their own, Hillary Clinton, by the Illuminati of the Left, while fun to watch, is a dire warning of what our society could become should they, Liberals, actually gain control of our nation's government.

Liberals routinely indulge themselves in what they would call hate speech when discussing those with whom they disagree. They may call President Bush "Chimpy," "dumb," ”a liar,” "a murderer," "a terrorist," "a Nazi," or any hateful thing they choose; they may make fun of his daughters, his wife, his father and mother, his siblings, and members of his cabinet. All political enemies are fair game for the most hateful and derogatory descriptions and implications.

They do this with impunity as the dying Mainstream Media says nothing. They will object to none of it and, in fact, will encourage it by describing such behavior as "Liberals exercising their First Amendment rights."

Yet any comment, however benign, they can construe in any way (no matter how convoluted their thinking) as hateful toward one of their sacred few, becomes a rallying cry for their lynch-mobs. They will leave no stone un-turned to destroy that targeted source of that objectionable statement.

The fate of former Virginia Senator George Allen serves as an object lesson for all Conservatives. His career and his Presidential aspirations were destroyed by a controversy constructed entirely out of whole-cloth by the Left and the mainstream media.

The Alphabet networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN act as cheerleaders, repeating their baseless allegations again and again until what was created out of whole cloth seems to be a statement of fact.

That is the danger in what would be normally considered the uproariously funny way in which Hillary Clinton is now being treated by the press and her Liberal colleagues.

This is the "dream" that Liberals offer America, a society of skulking finger-pointers yelling "Hate speech!" or "Bigot!" and ultimately the dreaded "J'accuse!" of the police state.

This maybe the society for which Liberals yearn, but it is not my "American Dream."

Therefore, as much as I detest the Clintons and the havoc they have wreaked on our society during their ascendancy, I must defend her against this ravening mob.

Words are words. They may be variously inspiring, dispiriting, depressing, offensive, enlightening, entertaining or simply boring, but they are ultimately just words. The only power they hold is that which we ourselves give them.

Today we live in a society in which it has become fashionable for one to take offense anytime anyone says something they don't like. We have become a society of hypersensitive wimps, unable to deal with anything unpleasant, likely to take offense at nothing more than what we imagine is being said about us, incapable of dealing with opposing opinions without being offended by them.

The ultimate response to Obama's much (some would say overly) praised response to the comment that his campaign was just based upon "words and hopeful ideas" and that he lacks the "substance" that would enable him to be an effective leader (an undeniable and profound truth if I ever heard one) when he interspersed the phrase, "Just words?" while spouting quotations from some of the great leaders in our nation's history, is "Yes Senator Obama, just words."

Words alone have no power. Words don't feed the hungry, stop a bullet, or put gasoline in the car. They don't solve the world’s problems and quite often they exacerbate them.

Yes words do have the power to inspire, but that is only a good thing when the cause to which they call people to rally is a worthy cause. Like Obama, Hitler too was a great orator. Many Leftist dictators are great orators, but only fools and the un-educated can be entranced by their words.

Hillary is a distinctly unsympathetic figure, but in this case she is being given the bum’s rush simply because she is bucking the Democrat Illuminati and interfering with their agenda.

Someone, maybe George Soros, maybe some even more nefarious figure (Chavez?, Bin Laden?, Ahmadinejad?) is behind the Obama train pushing it forward with astounding force even though the candidate himself is absurdly unqualified for the office he seeks. To whom does he owe “special allegiance” for his meteoric candidacy?

The idea of Obama as President is laughable. The Liberals and Democrats made fun of George W. Bush as unprepared and unqualified for the office of President of the United States, but compared to their anointed one, George W. Bush is a political and intellectual heavy-weight.

What President, then candidate Bush, lacked and still lacks is Obama’s glib speech and easy style. On substance there can be no comparison. Obama falls short in every conceivable category.

Have you ever wondered why Obama, who is every bit as white as he is black, is being advertised as a black candidate?

Why is it that race is only a legitimate topic for Liberal Democrats, who kept blacks oppressed for over a century and not Conservative Republicans who fought to free them for just as long?

Why is it still the Liberal elite of the Democrat (and Republican) Parties who seek to classify, quantify, and judge people according to their race and the Conservatives who seeks to free all Americans from categorization and any restrictions?

Why is it that the first piece of information of interest to Liberals about a person is how they can be classified?

Why have these elitists turned their backs on the words of one of Black America's greatest leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his dream that his

"four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?"

Just a few questions for readers to ponder.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Jimmy Carter-Our Very Own Neville Chamberlain...Without the Intellect

The Presidency of Jimmy Carter is the most embarrassing moment in our entire checkered national history. He was the most bumbling, incompetent, failure ever to "grace" the White House with his presence and like a bad case of food poisoning; he is the Democrat gift that keeps on giving.

Witness his abominable "Nukiyer" weapons agreement with North Korea. The Democrats in Congress, and Hillary, Mrs. William J. "Bubba-1," Rodham Clinton in particular persistently attempt to portray the failed attempt to bribe the North Korean government into abandoning their aspirations to posess nuclear weapons, as somehow being President Bush's fault.

Yet to any who choose to examine the facts, it becomes readily apparent that the North Koreans negotiated in bad faith, completely "bamboozled" the "Great Negotiator," former and still reigning "National Champion Idiot," Jimmy "the Peanut" Carter, and so slickered "Slick Willy" Clinton that he was caught with his pants down in signing the Agreed Framework between the United States of America and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Of course, that's not the only time Bill Clinton got caught with his pants down, but we don't really need to go there.

The failure of the "Agreed Framework" was due entirely on the typically Leftist willingness to believe anything any enemy of America says in preference to anything loyal Americans may say in opposition.

This failure...really a weakness of Liberal thinking processes...to comprehend that there are "bad actors" out there (no I'm not talking about Sean Penn or Keanu Reeves) who really are intent on doing harm to other people and who are not interested in anything those targets have to say short of "I give up."

This "do-gooder" behavior is generally associated with the insouciant (one might as easily describe it a insipid) arrogance that only a Liberal can truly exemplify. It is an arrogance born of being insulated from the real world, which is why it is so often found in "Ivory-Tower" Liberal professors who live in enclaves of people, all of whom think the same and who hold similar values.

So certain are they that they have the wisdom and reason to make these bad actors see reason, that they are doomed to failure from the outset. People like Jimmy Carter live in a fantasy world in which "the perfectibility of mankind" is taken as an immutable fact.

Because of that belief, they are vulnerable to the lies of leaders like Kim Jong-Il and Kim Il-Sung. They believe the lies of the Communist Chinese leaders because they want to believe them rather than be seen as "rude, boorish, and (worst of all) unsophisticated...or as we Conservatives say, "realists."

So now this former President of Our United States of America is "treating" with another avowed enemy of our nation, the Islamic terrorist organization, Hamas.

In an unauthorized, unsanctioned, and potentially illegal visit to the leaders of Hamas, this Mighty Warrior for Freedom and survivor of the Battle of Plains, Georgia (in which he single-handedly defeated a Killer Bunny-Rabbit), has once more placed himself in between American foreign policy and the goals of our avowed enemies.

Carter found his voice as he spent the 25th anniversary of the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, honoring our fallen diplomats and Marine guards by meeting with Hamas chief Khaled Meshal and his deputy Moussa Abu Marzouk in Damascus, after embracing a Hamas leader in the West Bank and meeting with Hamas leaders from Gaza in Cairo on Wednesday and Thursday.

Yep, old "Jimmy the Bunny-Slayer" had his diplomatic tin-ear in full view for the people of Israel and all of the other victims of Hamas' reign of terror.

Carter was warned repeatedly by the Bush Administration and by over 50 members of Congress that his visits with members of the Hamas leadership would be seen as a victory for Hamas and lend them further legitimacy.

Sure enough, in a statement before several thousand supporters, Mushir Masri, declared the visit by former President Carter as proof that Hamas was not a terrorist organization, but a legitimate political organization. He cited the meeting as "lending legitimacy" to their group.

Hmmm, isn't that precisely what Carter was told would happen?

Jimmy Carter is like the sit-com character who is constantly the butt of the jokes of his fellow cast members. The guy who is gullible enough to believe anything that those around him tell him, rushes off on whatever inane mission upon which they send him, and as soon as he leaves the room, his co-workers burst out in laughter at him.

One can easily imagine members of Hamas breaking out in hysterics as soon as Jimmy Carter left the "talks" with his head full of empty promises and flattery.

Carter came out of these "discussions" announcing that "Hamas was ready to declare Israel's right to exist," only to have his announcement immediately contradicted by Meshaal in a press conference he held in Damascus.

Nothing so strengthens my willingness to trust Democrats with our national security like brilliant diplomatic moves such as this feckless, grandstanding attempt at assuaging the anger of our avowed enemies by "The Great Bunny-Rabbit Slayer," "Hero of the Battle of Plains, Georgia" and former President of the United States, Jimmy "the Joke" Carter.

With incompetent louts such as Carter, Clinton and their newer clones, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton running the nation's foreign policy for the next four years, I am not certain the America I grew up in, born of and dedicated to freedom, free enterprise, and individual responsibility, conceived of by men of principled, Judeo-Christian heritage, and defended by the blood of men and women in whom those principles were ingrained, will survive.

"Saints and Ministers of Mercy Preserve Us."

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Global Warming: It Ain't What It Used To Be

As with all hoax theories, the more real science is brought to bear on Human Caused Global Warming, the more the false science falls apart.

1. The first myth to fall was the incorrect conclusion that as atmospheric CO2 levels rise, global temperature rises. Al Gore famously stood in front of a huge graphic in his paean to his ego and the myth of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), An Inconvenient Truth.
   
   The truth was revealed that atmospheric temperature increases precede increases in atmospheric CO2 levels by about 800 years. Now Al Gore, that is a real "Inconvenient Truth."
   
   Of course the hack "scientist" who make their living off of the AGW gravy train attempted to rationalize this inconvenient fact by claiming that "Maybe the initial temperature rise was due to non-greenhouse gas causes such as solar variations, but these temperature increases were then snow-balled by the increases of atmospheric CO2 which resulted." Of course this fails to explain why global temperatures eventually began to drop...well have no fear, these same hacks explained that, "Of course those same non-greenhouse gas affectors, like solar variations, eventually reverted to their original levels, causing global temperatures to fall which in turn caused CO2 levels to begin to drop as CO2 was reabsorbed by the oceans.
   
   These are interesting arguments considering that one of the most vociferous claims of the AGW hoaxters has been that solar variations and orbital variations were miniscule in their effect compared to the effects of greenhouse gases.
   
   Sooo...these "minor actors" are so potent that they can set the entire Global Warming machine into motion, but are not powerful enough to cause the phenomenon itself.......OHHH-KAAY, if you say so.



2. The second assertion to fall is the claim that temperatures have been increasing at an alarming rate over the past 60 years.
   
   Well, it is warmer than it was 60 years ago, that's an undeniable fact, but the truth is that temperatures over the past 10 years have ceased to increase and have leveled off.
   
   Not only that, but this past year was a record setting cold year with snowfalls throughout the world setting new records.



3. The third blow fell just last week when NASA scientists reported that deep sea probes intended to measure variations of temperature at varying depths are reporting data that don't support the expectations of AGW "scientists."
   
   As reported on NPR and on the pages of our own houston conservative The data from the over 3000 probes which can dive and measure ocean temperatures as deep as 3000 feet are proving that oceanic temperatures have fallen, not risen.
   
   The "scientist" hacks' explanation? We just don't know how to interpret the data. Uhhh...guys, it's temperature data. It only tells you if it warmer or cooler. It just ain't that complex.
   
   I'll interpret it for you...your pet theory is severely flawed...it's wrong.



4. Finally we have this report on research being done by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski.
   
   Zbigniew Jaworowski, past chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, a participant or chairman of some 20 Advisory Groups of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Environmental Program, and current chair of the Scientific Committee of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw is now debunking the data from ice-core samples which have been used as the lynch-pin of the AGW myth.
   

   The ice-core man
   
   Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post
   Published: Friday, May 04, 2007
   
   Once upon a time, and for millennia before then, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere were low and stable. Then came the industrial revolution and CO2 levels began to rise. The more man industrialized, the more that CO2 -- and the temperature -- rose. In the last half century, with industrialization at unprecedented levels, CO2 reached levels unprecedented in the human history. This is the story of global warming.
   
   ------------snip------------
   
   Dr. Jaworowski agrees that CO2 levels rose in the last half century. Starting in 1958, direct, real-time measurements of CO2 have been systematically taken at a state-of-the-art measuring station in Hawaii. These measurements, considered the world's most reliable, are a good basis for science by bodies like the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the agency that is co-ordinating the worldwide effort to stop global warming.
   
   But the UN does not rely on direct real-time measurements for the period prior to 1958. "The IPCC relies on icecore data -- on air that has been trapped for hundreds or thousands of years deep below the surface," Dr. Jaworowski explains. "These ice cores are a foundation of the global warming hypothesis, but the foundation is groundless -- the IPCC has based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
   
   Ice, the IPCC believes, precisely preserves the ancient air, allowing for a precise reconstruction of the ancient atmosphere. For this to be true, no component of the trapped air can escape from the ice. Neither can the ice ever become liquid. Neither can the various gases within air ever combine or separate.
   
   This perfectly closed system, frozen in time, is a fantasy. "Liquid water is common in polar snow and ice, even at temperatures as low as -72C," Dr. Jaworowski explains, "and we also know that in cold water, CO2 is 70 times more soluble than nitrogen and 30 times more soluble than oxygen, guaranteeing that the proportions of the various gases that remain in the trapped, ancient air will change. Moreover, under the extreme pressure that deep ice is subjected to -- 320 bars, or more than 300 times normal atmospheric pressure -- high levels of CO2 get squeezed out of ancient air."
   
   Because of these various properties in ancient air, one would expect that, over time, ice cores that started off with high levels of CO2 would become depleted of excess CO2, leaving a fairly uniform base level of CO2 behind. In fact, this is exactly what the ice cores show.
   
   "According to the ice-core samples, CO2 levels vary little over time," Dr. Jaworowski sates. "The ice core data from the Taylor Dome in Antarctica shows almost no change in the level of atmospheric CO2 over the last 7,000 to 8,000 years -- it varied between 260 parts per million and 264 parts per million.

So what we are beginning to see is that those of us who have been branded and excoriated as "Global Warming Deniers," a term intended to create a comparable emotional reaction as that encountered by Holocaust Deniers, are being proven to have been correct all this time.

AGW is and always has been a money-making, job security scam created entirely out of whole-cloth to frighten the people of the world and increase the Left-wing's control over Western Society.

The Socialist/Communist movement of the twentieth century failed in its attempt to bring down the great capitalist societies of the world, so they have switched tracks from a purely philosophical economic argument, to an attempt to frighten, intimidate, and bully the free world into adopting their confining and limiting restrictions on freedom that caused so much misery in the former Soviet Union.

As more and more free thinking scientists turn their attention toward the "science" being proffered as evidence of AGW, the more tenuous and ridiculous their claims and efforts to control our society become.

The biggest lie of our time is being debunked by exposure to the cold clear light of serious, objective scientific evalutation.

Freedom will win out.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Time to Make Left-wing Municipalities Pay for Anti-Military Policies

Following the "bicycle bomber's" attack against the recruiting station in New York's Times Square, it is time for the Bush administration to make those on the Left who, "support the troops, but hate the war," to pay the price for their anti-military incitement activities.

Yes, Code Pinkos, I'm talking about you...and the others of your ilk who so hate our nation and out troops that you interfere with our military's ability to recruit young men to serve in our military.

The Left has been allowed to get away with the same old canard, "We support the troops, but not the mission," for long enough. Why don't you find the "guts" to tell the truth for once?

What I find so contemptible in Liberals is that they lack the courage of their convictions. People like Cindy Sheehan and Nancy Pelosi always open their attacks against our young men and women in uniform with that meaningless affront to veracity.

What do Liberals mean when they say "I support our troops?" Just pay attention. What they think about our military is evident from their every action...

"Our troops are thugs and I have absolute contempt for their intelligence, their morals, their belief system, their values, their actions, the nation for which they fight, and everything for which they stand, but I don't have the courage to say so publicly."

What you get as a result is the inane blather of someone whose words are self-contradictory such as Madame Speaker in a Left-wing love-fest on the Charlie Rose show on PBS, March of last year (before the troop surge really took hold). Here is part of the transcript from "A conversation with Nancy Pelosi"

CHARLIE ROSE: Some argue that the sacrifice had been primarily by the men and women in the armed services and their families. And part of the reason that we ought not go to war, in which the American people are not asked to sacrifice behind the military.

NANCY PELOSI : Well, the one percent of our population is feeling this in a very personal way. And that`s just not fair. The shared sacrifice -- what did we do? We went to war, and the president gave a tax cut to the wealthiest people in America instead of saying we’re going to have a shared sacrifice here so everyone knows what the cost of this war is.

But we have -- the long-term costs of this war in Iraq are tremendous. You can`t even quantify them when you talk about the breakup of marriages, the mental challenges that many of our troops are coming home with, the domestic violence that is occurring, the divorce rates in the military. This is -- this is a different flavor than we have seen before.

How nice. Here we have the Speaker of the House, second in line for the Presidency of the United States, who "supports our troops," calling our returning troops wife-beaters and crazies. Isn't that just so special. She is so concerned for the welfare of our troops that she has chosen to slander them with lies which are simply not supported out by the data.

What else is one to conclude, but that this woman, our very own Wicked Witch of the Left, has nothing but contempt for our men and women in uniform. Pelosi is only one of the most visible of the many Liberals who have such contempt for our troops that they aren't even aware that it shows.

You know them. They are the people who tell the lies about our returning war veterans. That our troops rape and kill at random, that they are "going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs." [courtesy of John F. Kerry-Heinz] Lies about our troops committing "atrocities" are perpetuated by those on the Left, because they fit the Liberal paradigm of who our troops are.

Liberals are so filled with hatred for our nation and everything for which it stands that it colors their opinions of any who disagree with them...including those who choose to serve in our armed forces, whether out a sense of obligation, patriotism, or for more mercenary motives, such as an opportunity to gain a better education.

In the Liberal paradigm, the only people who serve in our armed services are "poor people who have no other prospect for employment," or "ignorant people" who can't get a job anywhere else and who are too stupid to see that they are being "duped" by their government, so Liberal contempt for them flows easily.

Of course they do reserve a third category of veteran; Liberals who want to burnish their credentials before running for office. Most of those serve in the rear echelon and make up tales of heroism about themselves...you know the type, Al Gore and John Kerry come to mind.

Well, I say it is time for President Bush and what few Conservative Republicans remain in Congress to make these jerks pay for their hate and the best way I can think of is for President Bush to issue an executive order that any municipality which through action or inaction allows the business of our federal government to be hindered by individuals acting illegally would immediately be stripped of all federal funds. And when I say all, I mean all. No education funds, no grants, no highway funds, no construction projects, no federal funding for police or fire protection, nothing whatsoever, until that municipality enforces the law and protects those recruiting stations.

The fact is that although congress has appropriated funds for various projects, the Executive branch is not required to spend the money, or at least, wasn't required to do so for almost 200 years. From Jefferson to Nixon, the President had the power to "impound" monies, i.e. the President could simply refuse to spend all of the money congress appropriated.

In 1974 congress, facing a president who was not afraid to impound monies, passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricting that previously constitutional authority.

I would urge the president to re-assert that executive power and allow the challenge to reach the Supreme Court. It is time for the usurpation of power by the post Watergate congress to be reversed. This administration did a good job in the first term in rolling back some of that congressional overreaching, but those efforts seem to be on hold now.

I can think of no greater legacy President Bush could leave than the complete reversal of the congressional imperialism of the 1970's. He should ignore the 1974 law as unconstitutional and allow congress to sue his administration. Let the SCOTUS decide this issue once and for all.

I believe that the Executive Branch could make a very good case based on historical precedent and on the fact that Congress provided no viable alternative to impoundment. The 1974 law does allow for a "rescission" of appropriated funds, but congress must affirm the rescission within 45 days or it becomes moot, and congress has never even bothered to bring a presidential rescission up for an affirmation vote.

The other alternative provided by the 1974 Act was the power of "deferral," but in 1987 The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that a 1983 Supreme Court decision, which declared that all "legislative veto" provisions authorizing congress to override Presidential decision by means short of passing legislation were unconstitutional, effectively wiped out the deferral provision of the 1974 law.

Therefore the 1974 law leaves the president without recourse. Given that the power of impoundment was a long standing accepted power or had, using the Liberals favorite legal phrase, considerably well established stare decisis, and given that congress' actions in 1974 were an effort by the Legislative Branch to restrict the powers of a separate and independent Executive Branch, I believe that there is substantial grounds for overturning the 1974 congressional power grab.

If Berkeley and Lawrence among others don't see the need to support our military, then let's withhold all of their discretionary funds. Perhaps this "whiff of [fiscal] grapeshot" will bring these Left-wing loonies to their senses...or knees. Either way it would be a good thing.

Let's allow these ingrates, who revile our military and all for which it stands to foot the bill for their hostility and impound all funds allocated to towns such as Berkeley, California and Lawrence, Kansas. Perhaps that would get the attention of these so-called representatives of the people and encourage them to perform their duties.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

On Voting John McCain: Pragmatism Is Not a Conservative Principle

I was recently asked by one of those who has resigned himself to voting for John McCain because it is the “pragmatic” thing to do:

“What's your solution…sit home and don't vote? Vote for Hillary or Obama? Vote for a third party candidate which will only benefit Hillary or Obama? Have a temper tantrum because [you] didn't get [your] way?” Thanks, but I'll stick with my pragmatism."

It’s a fair question; what should a Conservative do if he can’t vote for McCain for president?

First thing you don't do is cower in fear of a prospective defeat at the hands of a Democrat Party candidate.

Too many people in the Republican Party appear to be suffering from Hillary Derangement Syndrome (HDS) or Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS)...or maybe it's just Democrat Derangement Syndrome (DDS). They are filled with dire predictions of our future demise should a Republican…any Republican not be elected to the White House.

There is no proof of, or even any evidence to support, the absurd proposition that losing the Presidency in 2008 will mean the end of the world, the histrionics of the "lesser of two evils" touts in the punditry notwithstanding.

The “Conservative” pundits in the press and on television tell me that, no matter how far McCain strays from the principles in which we purportedly believe, he can’t be as bad as Hillary or Obama.

They speak to me of “pragmatism,” of facing the reality that I must support John McCain, regardless of how flawed he may be. I must be “pragmatic.”

Don't speak to me of pragmatism!

Pragmatism gave us David Souter on the Supreme Court.

Pragmatism is McCain/Kennedy giving us amnesty for 20 or 30 million illegal aliens and the end of our culture.

Pragmatism is an excuse for accepting the unacceptable rather than fighting for that in which you believe.

What would America look like had our Forefathers decided to "be pragmatic?" If General George Washington had been “pragmatic,” he would never have attempted to stick it out in Valley Forge, Pa. He would have simply shrugged his shoulders and told his troops, “Well guys, we gave it a good go, but it’s over now so let’s all go home.”

What if Abraham Lincoln had simply shrugged his shoulders and said, “Well, this war is too costly, I think I’ll ‘be pragmatic’ and let the South secede?”

What if Americans had decided to "be pragmatic" and allow the Germans to conquer Europe uncontested?

What if Reagan had decided to "be pragmatic" and cave in to the unilateralist movement in the early 80's?

All of those possible choices were available at the time and they would have been the easier course.

What would America look like had “pragmatism” prevailed over ideology whenever adversity raised its head? “Pragmatists” (like Jimmy Carter) told President Reagan, and all Americans, that our best times were over, that it was all downhill from then on. They told him it was impossible to defeat the Soviet Union.

Ronald Reagan confronted the “pragmatists” who told him that the best we could hope for is to reach an accord. Ronald Reagan took President Kennedy’s question, “Why not?” and threw it in the “pragmatist’s” faces. Ronald Reagan refused to look at the world through the eyes of “pragmatism” and chose to look at the world through the lenses of optimism and moral courage.

Pragmatism is for weaklings and cowards. It’s the snake's voice that says, “Give up, you can’t win. Why even try?”

Perhaps I’ve been alive too long for the rest of the people who are writing about this election, but I lived through the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton administrations.

Guess what folks, I'm still here. I'm still a Conservative, and I still have my guns, my freedom of speech, free enterprise did not die out, the Communists did not take over America and...Surprise!...we still have private health care.

If all of the dire predictions coming out of our “Conservative” punditry class today were correct, then according to them, I should already be living in a People’s Socialist Republic of America rather than the greatest, freest, most productive and inventive nation in history.

Certainly socialism has made some progress in our nation, but America today is less socialist than it was in the 60’s and 70’s. One wonders how that could possibly be.

It didn’t come about because we Conservatives gave up on our principles and voted for whomever the Grand Old Party told us to. It came about by Conservatives standing firm on their principles and asserting their power…or withholding their power when necessary.

Are these supposed Conservatives seriously proposing the absurd suggestion that either Barack Obama-sama or Hillary Clinton are any more corrupt, Liberal, or incompetent than Lyndon Johnson or Jimmah Cahtah? If so then they need to revisit their history lessons.

Conservatism is based upon the principles set forth by our founding fathers 230 years ago. Do you believe them to be any less worth fighting for today than they were then?

Maybe old George Washington was mistaken and should have given Benedict Arnold a pardon and asked him to assume the Presidency. That's what all of these so-called Conservatives appear to be advocating now. They tell us that because John McCain is going to be the Republican nominee, we should abandon our principles and capitulate to the powers that be within the Party.

John McCain is no Benedict Arnold in the historical sense, but in the political sense he is every bit as much of a traitor to the Conservative principles he now claims to support. Voting him into the Presidency is no different from taking the easy path.

John McCain does not stand for the principles to which I have dedicated my life and in which I believe. Therefore voting for him would be betraying all that I have spent my life defending.

He does not believe in the sanctity of life, the right of Americans to secure their borders, the right of Americans to keep more of their incomes, the right to freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment, or in the free market as a solution to our energy problems. He believes in the false religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming. He opposes the exploitation of our nation’s natural resources in ANWR and off the coasts of Florida and California.

John McCain does not believe in and has never supported any of the Conservative principles in which I believe with the exception of the defense of America against our enemies and, truth be known, neither Hillary nor even Obama will abandon America to the terrorists.

Throughout our history, the weight of office has moderated each and every President once they achieved office and understood the burden they carried. Many, like Bill Clinton were uninspired and chose to play at being President rather than doing the job to which they were elected. Many others were just completely incompetent, as was Jimmy Carter, but none of them, not even FDR was able to destroy our nation either through incompetence or carelessness.

FDR had Soviet agents working for him in the White House and our State Department was teeming with communist sympathizers.

Harry Truman had Alger Hiss (Soviet Agent) create the United Nations, and Harry Dexter White (Soviet Agent) was put in charge of the World Bank after he had been advised by J. Edgar Hoover of White’s sympathies. Yet we survived and the Soviet Union eventually perished.

Our forefathers were wise and built a governmental system which is proof against the kinds of mismanagement, incompetence, and yes even malicious mischief in which any president might engage. There are natural counter-balancing forces which prevent extremism from succeeding in our system. Regardless of who occupied the White House, forces within and outside of the White House and the Capitol building worked to normalize any extremism.

There is no form of government as messy and as stable as a Republic such as ours, as our history has proven.

Yes the pendulum swings both Left and Right and at this time it is not swinging in my direction. Fine, I can live with that, I have before, but I never abandoned my principles just to prevent a catastrophe however chimerical, from occurring.

I am proud of every vote I have made and at the time, I believed in the person for whom I was voting...yes, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and both George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush. I had positive reasons for supporting all of them.

Now I am told that I must forgive John McCain’s political treachery and Liberalism for the good of my party, or else disaster will strike America. What utter nonsense. Why should I forgive McCain for being a traitor to his own party? McCain doesn't forgive or forget anyone who has ever crossed him...except for his good buddies the North Vietnamese.

Why is it that McCain was so eager to make nice with his former captors that he sold his fellow MIA-POW's down the river? Why was it so urgent for America to “normalize” relations with Communist Vietnam? I am forced to ask if McCain is “the Hanoi Candidate.”

I would never trust him in the White House. He's emotionally unstable. It was clearly visible on his face during Mitt Romney's speech telling his delegates to vote for McCain. The guy is an emotional time-bomb.

Better a Marxist than a man of questionable emotional stability in the White House. Anyone voting for McCain is endangering our future generations far more than those who have chosen to sit this election out.

I was not shocked by George W. Bush not being a hardcore Conservative; I knew that before I voted for him. It was obvious to any who was paying attention that he was no Conservative, though I must admit that I did not know the extent to which he leaned Left.

Ultimately I would vote for McCain in spite of his Liberalism, if party supremacy was my only obligation and concern in this election, but it is not, I owe my fellow citizens the careful consideration that I would expect of them…even if they don’t display the same concern for me.

The good of the nation comes before the good of my Republican Party and I do not thing that having an overreacting angry man in the White House would be good for my party.

Not voting in the Presidential election is a right just as is voting. I am not obligated to vote for a candidate just because my Party has chosen to commit suicide. Not voting in the Presidential Election is not the same as not voting. It is making a conscious choice to concentrate my efforts on the candidates who are running down ballot and for whom I can generate enthusiasm. I have a full slate of local, state and federal candidates who are running and they will, if they adhere to Conservative standards, get my vote.

Be “pragmatic?” Not me folks. “Pragmatism” is becoming a linguini-spined, faint-hearted, fair weather Conservative. “Pragmatism” is the antithesis of what being a Conservative means.

Since when do we Conservatives give up on the universal truths and eternal principles on which our nation was founded? Since when is acquiescing to the siren’s song of returning to the demonstrably failed principles behind socialism, collectivism and “shared responsibility, shared suffering, and shared prosperity” a Conservative principle?

I will be voting for Republican candidates, but I will not be voting for this pariah, or anyone I consider to be a pariah, for the Presidency.

I believe it would run counter to all in which I believe, and would be counter-productive for my Party for me to vote for McCain simply because he is all the Left-wing of my party and the Republican Party’s "Leaders” have given me.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Still Not Voting for John McCain: My Hypocrisy as a Republican Goes Only So Far

I have been the target of some fair amount of grief from some of my fellow Republicans who disagree with my choice not to support John McCain for the Presidency. Again and again, I hear the argument made (and I am not in disagreement with it) that McCain’s Liberal tendencies are not nearly as dangerous for America as are those of Barack Hussein Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton.

It’s true that John McCain is not, as some Conservatives have portrayed him, a clone of the Democrat’s candidates. He is strong on the War Against the Global Islamic Jihad. He will not abandon the Iraqi or the Afghani people to their Islamist enemies. McCain will not try to play nice with Iranian President Ahmadinejad and allow him to gain access to a nuclear arsenal. I have no fears on those counts.

I also acknowledge his persistent record of being a budget hawk. I believe he would make vigorous use of the veto pen in an effort to rein in federal spending.

It is true that he has a pro-life record, though perhaps not as strong a one as some of his supporters claim, and it is even possible that he is sincere in his promises to keep taxes low and our borders secure, though I do have my doubts on those issues (especially that last one given his new partnership with Juan Hernandez, a close advisor to Vicente Fox and former head of Mexico’s “Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad”).

I admit that all of the above is a compelling argument for supporting John McCain, given the potential for causing havoc our Democrat opponents present.

Then I look at the impressive array of men and women for whom I hold great respect who have lined up to support John McCain. Some of them, I can ignore RINO’s and Conservative light, but when you start mentioning names like Ted Olsen, John Bolton, Bill Bennett, Thad Cochran, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and John Cornyn, it gives me pause. He is beginning to pile up a formidable array of genuine Conservatives, people for whom I have great respect, and whose opinions I value.

It does give me pause…but…

No, for me, it is not McCain's Liberal leanings that concern me. I've been through Nixon and Ford, besides the two Bush Presidencies. My quandary lies in the question of McCain's fitness for command.I do not believe the man is mentally stable.

I believe that there is one qualification for the Presidency which over rides all others. The President of the United States must be rational and I do not believe that McCain is rational.

I fear that he might, in some peak of ire, take some precipitous action that would have dire and lasting consequences for us all. I also am not certain that he is not some sort of “Manchurian Candidate” (or perhaps Hanoi Candidate would be more appropriate).

He spent five years in a prison camp being alternately tortured and treated well, all the while being subjected to brainwashing techniques. It is impossible for anyone to undergo this kind of extended brutality without suffering lasting emotional scars and without it affecting his psyche.

McCain’s eagerness to "normalize" relations with (now fully communist) Vietnam is unnerving. Especially in light of his apparent refusal to pursue the MIA issue with his new found friends.

Turning one’s back on his fellow soldiers and embracing his enemies is not what I would consider to be the actions of a sane man. McCain, has regularly supported the political moves of his former captors; normalization of relations, re-establishing trade and membership in the WTO.

Here is an interesting photo I picked up at A Proud Infidel blog.

It is of John embracing one of the Vietnamese men (Mai Van On) who pulled him from the water after his aircraft went down.Were he some Bible thumping Christian, someone who was more demonstrative of a strong religious belief, I might well chalk it up to some strong belief in forgiving ones enemies, but I have observed John McCain in the past and I have found him to be one who appears to carry his grudges around with him like badges of honor (or of martyrdom), not someone who forgives and forgets.

His history is replete with legendary examples of this undisciplined temper, a number of them involving his colleagues in the Senate and others with pundits who are simply asking him questions.

I have already in a previous article mentioned his Captain Queeg-like repetition of key phrases like “Hide in the weeds,” during the last Republican debate. His was such a bizarre performance that even Mitt Romney, whom McQueeq McCain was quoting was forced to ask him “what does that mean?”

Unfortunately it was not an isolated incident, but illustrative of a pattern of behavior that can only be described as abnormal. In an interview with Michael Reagan, McCain became obsessed over Michael Reagan’s observation that it was Warren Rudman who first recommended David Souter to President George H. W. Bush as a possible nominee to the Supreme Court. It was a gross betrayal of trust by Rudman.

Said observation led to an almost maniacally obsessive rant defending Warren Rudman who was at that time, March of 2000, McCain’s overall campaign manager. The entire transcript is available here and makes for a disturbing read. Here is an excerpt of it.

John McCain: Ah, Warren Rudman did not appoint Judge Souter, President Bush did, remember he was the president.

Michael Reagan: Yes, but ...

John McCain: Second of all, Warren Rudman is a fine, decent man who served his country in the Korean War, Attorney General of his state, and a Senator who was highly respected. It was, it was President Bush that appointed Justice Souter.

Michael Reagan: Right, but Warren Rudman...

John McCain: Warren Rudman is 70...let me finish, please, could I finish? Ah, ah, Warren Rudman is 70 years old, he's been, he had a serious illness. He's not interested in playing any active role in a McCain administration and I resent enormously phone calls that were made by Pat Robertson saying that he was a vicious bigot. I think that one might be...

Michael Reagan: Senator, Senator, Senator, Senator, Senator...

John McCain (talking over Reagan): ...well worth talking about as well...

Michael Reagan: Senator!

John McCain: I'm not...

Michael Reagan: Senator!

John McCain: I asked you, Michael, if I could finish, can I finish?

Michael Reagan: But you did finish... [McCain interrupts]

John McCain: Can I Finish? Can I finish? Yes or no?

On another occasion, an incident which was captured on film, Maria Shriver, current First Lady of California and a reporter for MSNBC at the time, was on the receiving end of McCain’s infamous temper when she asked him how he felt as he prepared to concede the California primary to rival George W. Bush on Tuesday night, March 7, 2000.

A very testy, "Please get out of here," was all McCain could muster in response.

Maria Shriver, was clearly taken aback by this abrupt response, and said moments later, "All I did was ask ... I doubt I'll be speaking to him again in the future." She later told the Washington Post: "I was doing my job. And I did what any other reporter would do."

McCain is notorious for his unpredictable outbursts of temper; sometimes railing uncontrollably at anyone having the temerity to disagree with him. This comes from NewsMax.com:

“In a July 5 NewsMax.com article, former Senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican who served with McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said,

‘I have witnessed incidents where he has used profanity at colleagues and exploded at colleagues . . . He would disagree about something and then explode.

‘It was incidents of irrational behavior. We've all had incidents where we have gotten angry, but I've never seen anyone act like that.’" [Emphasis added]

I do not believe that I can vote for him. Better a sane Socialist in the White House, against whom Republican Conservatives can rally, than some half-baked RINO time-bomb against whom our Republican members of Congress would be reticent to take a stand.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that McCain as president could pop off to a foreign leader as Bob Smith described and do irreparable harm to our relations, our trade, or even cause a military incident, if say that foreign leader was Vladamir Putin or Hu Jintao.

This will be the toughest decision I have ever made since I began voting and since I acquired an interest in politics. Right now I am determined to sit this Presidential Election out and concentrate on the down ticket candidates.

I am very supportive of John Cornyn and my representative John Culberson. Both men are good strong Conservatives as are my state senator Dan Patrick (the man who brought Rush Limbaugh’s program to Houston radio) and Dwayne Bohac, my state representative.

In addition, with Kay Bailey Hutchison announcing her retirement at the end of her term in the Senate, it is time to begin examining the records of our state politicians for a suitable replacement.

When political parties fail on the national level, it is time to redouble your efforts at the local level. After all, our national political candidates got their start at the state or local level.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Our Faltering Housing Market: It's the Democrats, Stupid

The time has come to tell the truth about the collapse of the housing market and the approaching recession, brought on largely by the congressionally mandated sub-prime mortgage industry and so-called predatory lending practices of financial institutions seeking to comply with those mandates.

The Democrats in Congress now seem bent on attacking the very industry they forced into existence. Throughout the 1970’s, the Democrat Party controlled Congress pushed financial institutions to extend ever more credit to low income home buyers and created overly generous tax incentives to encourage low income families to take out mortgages. Their aim was to increase minority access to private home ownership.

In 1977 this misguided effort motivated Congress to pass the Community Reinvestment Act which forced lending institutions to loan money to residents in poorer neighbourhoods, who by their very circumstances represented greater credit risks. This was done under the guise of stopping “mortgage discrimination” or as it was then called, “red-lining.” Red-lining may not have been a politically correct practice, or a “compassionate” business practice, but it was a sound business practice.

Of course the do-gooder Liberals in Congress didn’t care about “sound business practices,” their only concern was pandering to special interest groups. Therefore, prodded by Congress, regulators began operating on the principle that increasing the number of homeowners by extending more loans couldn't possibly damage the economy. These actions by a Liberal Democrat controlled Congress thus created the sub-prime mortgage industry.

Bad credit? No Credit? No down payment? No problem!

First let’s set a couple things to right. Home ownership is normally a desirable situation, when the family or individual buying the house has the financial wherewithal to afford the loan payments. The family buying the house makes a substantial down payment (normally a significant percentage of the total cost of the house) and then obtains the balance of the cost of the house by taking out a loan; a loan which was restricted historically to those capable of meeting the financial burdens such a large purchase places on them.

The most interesting (and apparently surprising to Liberals) fact about home ownership is that IT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!

“Sub-prime” loans, for the uninitiated, are not loans given at interest rates below the prevailing market rates (or "prime" rates), they are loans given to individuals who otherwise would not qualify for a mortgage based on credit history, income, and employment prospects. Those factors make them greater ("sub-prime") risks to the lenders and they are therefore required to pay much higher interest rates. These loans have come about largely because some members of C0ngress wrongly assume that home ownership is an entitlement and by some bizarre twist of logic guaranteed by the Constitution

Thanks to the politically motivated congressional interference mentioned above, loans were made to the people who were and still are the least likely to be able to meet the terms of those loans...in other words, Liberals forced lending institutions (banks, private holding companies, and other lending institutions) to make loans to bad risks and because of those bad risk loans and the inability of those borrowers to keep up with their payments, we are now facing a collapse of the housing market and even worse, a recession similar to that we experienced in the early 90’s.

These sub-prime loans created a huge demand for single family dwellings. This demand created artificially high prices in the real estate industry and sparked an explosion in the home construction industry.

As housing prices rose, so did the expectation of buyers and sellers. Those who owned older homes saw an opportunity to realize large profits by selling their homes which, in turn, allowed them to move into larger, more expensive homes, thus placing them in a less tenable financial position. As a result, individuals who were financially balanced in their old homes placed greater stress on their finances by taking out loans with payments above those they could reasonably afford.

The buyers of those older homes were new homeowners; individuals who had never owned a private home before. Many of these new homeowners were unprepared for home ownership and the fiscal burden home ownership places on the owner. Additionally many of these new homeowners were sub-prime buyers; thus loaning them money for their homes placed the loaning institutions at greater risk.

Now that we are faced with a congressionally manufactured crisis in the housing market, the prevailing thought in congress is to…you guessed it…throw more tax-payer dollars at the problem in a multi-billion dollar bailout of people who used poor judgment and bought more than they could afford.

Yep folks, get ready ‘cause here it comes. Once more it is the taxpayer who is being asked to pay for other people’s mistakes. We (the tax-payers) are victims of the Liberal philosophy in Congress which is all too eager to say "ego te absolvo" to individuals who make bad financial decisions and "j'accuse" to lending institutions for what they deem "predatory lending practices" (practices which have largely come about because of Congress and the unsustainable demand for new housing they created) as they don their green tights and feathered caps while doing what they imagine is their best imitation of Errol Flynn. In actuality, they more closely resemble the evil Sherriff of Nottingham (Basil Rathbone); imposing upon their subjects onerous taxes at sword point to give the money to their constituents.

Now, lest you think that I am blaming Congress alone, those in the lending industry bear their fair share of the responsibility for this crisis. Bowing to the demands from Congress to make mortgages available to those who would under normal circumstances not qualify for such loans, banks and lending institutions have been overly creative in devising means for high risk borrowers to afford loans their incomes could not justify.

These high risk loans, being issued at higher than market interest rates and often carrying substantial premiums over and above the price of the dwelling, make for a very lucrative investment vehicle with high yields and great returns on investment. Two of these financial instruments are particularly nasty; ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) and IOLs (Interest Only Loans). Both have contributed a great deal to the rapidly collapsing "marginal" housing market.

And here is the final rub, This situation is not new. It is, to quote Yogi Berra, “déjà vu all over again.” ARM's became notorious during the Carter years when interest rates, then in double digits, made obtaining a loan to buy a house virtually impossible. Lenders began to offer loans at low nominal rates to attract borrowers. These loans began with what appeared to be bargain payments and lured many unsuspecting victims into buying houses when they shouldn't have.

The idea was that the payments would later “balloon” as the borrowers salary increased. In reality, as interest rates climbed, so did the monthly payments, but incomes failed to keep pace and the economy began to tank, the monthly payments on those houses began to escalate at an alarming rate. Just as we are seeing today, people began to default on their loans because the new higher rates outstripped the homeowners’ ability to pay them.

The pressures of double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and the fruitless and unjustified interference in the mortgage industry by Congress during the 80’s in an attempt to prevent the defaulting of loans (deregulation of the Savings and Loan industry by altering the limitations and margin requirements which had been placed on those institutions) ultimately led to a collapse of the Savings and Loan industry.

Throughout the mid to late 80's and early 90's, people began simply to walk away from their houses and default on their loans. Congress, through their constant intervention and interference, had created a market which never should have existed, or as it is called in tort law, a "moral hazard;" luring people into buying houses they should never have bought.

Of course ultimately it was, as it will be this time, the tax-payer who wound up footing the bill for the poor judgment of Congress and the poor business practices of Banks and Savings & Loans. As a recession became inevitable, businesses contracted and jobs disappeared.

Just as the "dot-com" explosion of the mid 90's led to unreal expectations and artificially inflated (and unjustifiable) stock prices as each highly anticipated new IPO (Initial Public Offering) was announced, these unsound policies have once more led to our “housing boom” and just as the IPO boom of the mid-90’s resulted in the recession of 2000, this housing boom has, as was inevitable, led to the rapidly approaching housing bust which we are now beginning to witness.

As George Santayana famously said, “Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.”

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

References:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070227.wxibworld27/BNStory/Business/home

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021600813.html

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

What Happens In New Hampshire Stays in New Hampshire...Maybe

Well first, congratulations to Hillary and McCain for snookering the MSM Pollsters and exceeding expectations in winning the New Hampshire Party Primaries. Looks as though we are in for a real race this year...in both parties.

There are a couple of caveats to be considered here. First, the unique rules under which the New Hampshire Primary system works: You can move to the state one day and vote in the primaries the next. So-called independents don't have to decide to which party they are going to throw their vote until they enter the voting booth.

I believe both of these factors were very influential in what occurred last night. First the cynical aspect. There were various reports of a large influx of out cars with out of state licenses being shuttled in by Hillary Clinton to "work" on her campaign. I believe that there may have been more than a little skullduggery going on...oh, nothing illegal, as I said the rules allow for newcomers to the state to vote in the primaries, so if these "campaign workers" chose to remain and cast their ballots for Hillary, it was completely legal if somewhat questionable morally. Nothing new in ethical flexability when it comes to the Clinton political machine.

Second a more practical and predictable phenomenon...and I saw this danger approaching when the lopsided poll numbers in Obama's favor began to appear two days after the Iowa caucuses concluded...the dangers of overly high expectations for Obama being created by the MSM polling data. It was well known that both Obama and McCain were the favorites of the independent voters. They were very strongly influential in generating the poll numbers for both Barrack Obama and John McCain.

When the independent voters entered the voting booths last night, they were given a choice of voting for Obama as predicted, or for McCain. I believe that many of the independents who would normally have voted for Barrack Hussein Obama in the New Hampshire primaries, decided at the very last second that they would vote for McCain so that he would defeat Mitt Romney because Obama's victory was, in their minds, "a done deal."

In New Hampshire we have witnessed the dangers of generating too high an expectation for victory in your polling data and allowing your ego to embrace those numbers too enthusiastically.

When the results from last night's primary began trending in the direction they did, I knew that both of my scenarios were true. I believe that there was some vote stacking in key precincts by the Hillary campaign, by bringing in a large number of out of state voters to vote for her...again completely legal, if not particularly ethical, and I believe that a great many of those who would have voted for Obama under ordinary circumstances, made a last minute decision to change their vote and pick McCain, who has always had a very strong following in New Hampshire.

Neither of these factors lessens the impact of what occurred last night for both candidates, I merely offer them as an explanation...as I see it.

I would also add that I believe, being the cynic that I am, Hillary's little emotional display Monday and her little contrived, cutsy, "Well I'm hurt by that" reaction in Saturday's Democrat debate when she was told that she was not as attractive a candidate as Barrack Obama; both clear and cynical playings of the feminine card, played an important role in her surprise victory.

Hillary simply pulled another "Lazio" moment and generated a sympathy vote.

Silly me, I was hoping that New Hampshire voters would see through Hillary Clinton's "poor little me" charades, but I guess I overestimated their intelligence. I should have known better, afterall they are "undecideds." How intelligent do you have to be to not be able to see the very clear differences and flaws of each candidate well ahead of casting your vote.

I would call it a "lack of convictions" rather than "undecided" vote. As a result of all of these factors, New Hampshire wound up with an unexpectedly large "independent" vote for McCain and an unexpectedly small "undecided" turnout for Obama.

It's still a race out there folks!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Fred Thompson's Washingtonian Declaration: Fire in the Belly Is Not a Requirement

Fred Thompson's response in his interview on Fox News Sunday over his "fire in the belly" comment is a refreshing change from the hurly-burly, dog-eat-dog, political infighting now occurring in Iowa and New Hampshire primaries.

Goerge Washington only reluctantly returned to the Capitol from his home in Montecello Mount Vernon [edited 01/05/08 thanks to observant reader, Thomas Jefferson was at Montecello...duh!], to become our first president. Washington was one of, if not the, greatest of our presidents. He was not a man of great personal ambition, he was a man with a sense of great personal responsibility.

He fought the British because he felt he had to fight them. He fought for an ideal, not for glory. He led for victory and freedom, not for fame and accolades. When offered a crown following our hard won battle for independence, he humbly declined saying he did not fight a war to remove one tyrant merely to replace him with another. From the Souix City Journal comes this:

Thompson: 'Not particularly interested in running'

WASHINGTON, Iowa (AP) -- Fred Thompson acknowledged Saturday he's not especially fond of running for president, but he thinks he'd be a good choice for the White House.

Asked at a town hall meeting in Burlington whether he had the desire to be president, Thompson said it wasn't his idea to seek the office, and he wasn't enamored with campaigning.

"I am not consumed by personal ambition. I will not be devastated if I don't do it," he said. "I'm not particularly interested in running for president."

How can this be? A man seeking the Presidency who doesn't have any personal ambition to be President? I am told that the Democrat Party is laughing at this statement...they would. Such a concept as sacrificing oneself for the good of the nation rather than out of personal ambition is a foreign idea to the party of Senator Hillary Rodham, Mrs. William J., Clinton and John Edwards.

What a strange concept...service to the nation, not self service and self-seeking. For people who put the good of their Party and their ambition for power above the needs of the nation...and the security of their nation, this statement must truly be an "Undiscovered Territory."

Democrats have, over the last half century or more, invariably placed their personal ambitions and lust for power over the good of the nation. They have pandered to special interest groups and proffered a philosophy of victimization as their answer to the problems of our society.

Democrats have offered a blameless society in which no one is responsible for their own predicament, rather it is always somebody else's fault, whether it is "rich Republicans," greedy corporations, or "non-inclusive," "non-diverse" policies. The concept of merit and duty are lost on the Democrat voters and their Party leaders.

That is what is so refreshing in Senator Thompson's words. They echo of duty, responsibility, and not of ambition. Here are some of the rest of Fred Thompson's historic words. Words which are beyond the understanding of Democrats, but which would ring familiar in the ears of Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Adams and Hamilton.

"I'm offering myself up. I'm saying that I have the background and capability and the concern to do this."

"I and my family have made sacrifices for me to be sitting here today. I haven't had any income for a long time because I'm doing this. I guess a man would have to be a total fool to do all those things and to be leaving his family, which is not a joyful thing at all, if he didn't want to do it."

"Nowadays, it's all about fire in the belly. I'm not sure in the world we live in today it's a terribly good thing that a president has too much fire in his belly."

"I like to say that I'm only consumed by very, very few things and politics is not one of them. The welfare of my country and my kids and grandkids are one of them," he said. "But if people really want in their president a super type-A personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night thinking about for years how they could achieve presidency of the United States, someone who could look you straight in the eye and say they enjoy every minute of campaigning -- I ain't that guy."

Now those are the words of a man I could enthusiastically support. Those are the words of a statesman, not a callow self-absorbed, life-long politician. Not a woman who believes herself to be the annnointed one.

To have a President who is doing the job out of a sense of duty rather than out of ambition...Now that really would be a change.

Democrats claim to be offering change, but the ideals they espouse are the same tired old disproven ideals of socialism. Fred Thompson as a man of duty and "foolish idealism" as President of the United States, now that really is change.

Democrats will never comprehend what I am saying, but hopefully Fred Thompson's words will resonate with the Republicans and the independent voters both in Iowa and around the nation.

GO FRED, GO!!!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated! A Tragic and Unnecessary Loss

Will Malven
houston conservative
8:30 AM 12/27/2007

Today, at about 6:15 PM Pakistan time (6:15 AM EST), Benazir Bhutto the former Prime Minister of Pakistan was killed by an assassin/suicide bomber.

Early reports say the the former Prime Minister was shot up to five times, including once in the neck, by an assassin who then detonated a bomb strapped to himself.

The assassination took place immediately following a rally being held in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, for Bhutto's election, in advance of the upcoming elections.

Bhutto reportedly died at the hospital from loss of blood following a reported 30 minute trip to the hospital. She was alive and conscious at the hospital and said she would be back, but surgeons reported that she had suffered too much blood as a result of her wounds and died shortly after entering surgery.

Bhutto has been a controversial figure in Pakistani politics from the time of the assassination of her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, in a 1977 military coup staged by General Mohammad Zia ul-Haq.

Benazir Bhutto was elected the first female Prime Minister of a Muslim nation in 1988, but was removed from office by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan for corruption after less than 2 years in office.

Mrs. Bhutto was again elected in 1993 and remained in office until Pakistani President Farooq Leghari had her removed...again for charges of corruption.

She then went into self-exile for eight years before returning to Pakistan last October with the encouragement of the Bush and Blair administrations.

Initially following her return, there was much speculation of a "power sharing" arrangement with Musharraf, but after negotiations fell apart, she actively campained against President Pervez Musharraf and chose to run for the Presidency herself.

Though current speculation abounds about the possibility of Musharraf's involvement in her assassination, the former Prime Minister has long been a target of the Taliban and other Muslim extremist groups within Pakistan.

Her pro-Western attitude, long campaign for modernization, and her brazeness as a female politician have long been considered an affront to the hardline Islamic fundamentalists who have caused so much trouble in Pakistan and in neighboring Afghanistan.

Though considered a real Pakistani Patriot by her supporters, both within and outside of Pakistan, her rash actions after arriving in Pakistan and her apparent arrogance were a constant source of conflict with the Musharraf Government which was charged with the responsibility of protecting her.

Bhutto wielded dictatorial control of her Pakistani Freedom Party, even while in exile and she arrogantly considered herself to be the annointed leader of Pakistan.

While her death is tragic, even more tragic is the chaos which will now inevitably ensue, and the inherrent risks to the surrounding nations as Musharraf's control of the nation is now more tenuous than it ever has been. Rioting has been reported throughout Pakistan as word of her death began to spread.

As a result of being forced to resign as commander of the Pakistani Military following a ruling by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that one man could not be both President and Commander of the military Musharraf, who has demonstrated himself to be a strong ally of America in the war on terror, now has less control over the Pakistani Nuclear arsenal and over the nation.

In the end, it was a combination of a blundering unwarranted intrusion into the internal politics of Pakistan by President Bush and Condaleeza Rice attempting to force Musharraf to relinquish some of his power, the powerful Islamic extremist faction in Pakistan's Northwest territories, and Benazir Bhutto's own arrogance which led to this tragedy.

President Bush and the Liberal idiots in State and Congress should have paid attention to former UN Ambassador John Bolton's admonition to stay out of Pakistan's internal affairs and allow Musharraf to run his own nation without American interference.

More Later.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Where's Quanell X? Protested Joe Horn, What About Damon Barone?

I guess Black Racist Agitator and Race Baiter, Quanell X, only objects when it's a white man who kills dark-skinned burglars.

Exactly one month after the Joe Horn shootings caused an international uproar when a 61 year old white grandfather (Joe Horn) gunned down two dark-skinned burglars after they had burgled his nextdoor neighbor's house, Harris County experienced another fatal shooting of a burglar, which barely caused a rustle of notice in the media. Why, because this time the shooter was an African-American. The burglar he shot was just as dark-skinned as the two burglars Joe Horn shot, but the story passed almost without notice. Here is the Houston Chronicles article:

Suspected burglar fatally shot at Harris County home

By KEVIN MORAN
Dec. 14, 2007, 4:14PM
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

A southwest Harris County homeowner shot and killed a man he discovered climbing into a window of his house at about 2:15 a.m. today, investigators said.

Steven Dunbar, who apparently lived several blocks away, died in the window of the home in the 3400 block of Cascadia, Harris County sheriff's homicide Det. Rolf Nelson said.

The 33-year-old homeowner, Damon Barone, was asleep in the house with his wife, a son, 6, and an infant daughter when he heard a loud noise, Nelson said.

"The homeowner says he heard a loud noise, possibly a gunshot, that startled him out of bed," Nelson said. "As he got up, he said he heard another loud noise and he said the house was shaking."

Carrying a pistol, Barone was on his way to investigate the noises when he heard glass breaking in a bedroom.

"When he entered that bedroom, he said he saw a burglar coming through a broken window," Nelson said. "He shot several times and struck the burglar several times, killing him at the scene."

How do we know this shooting wasn't racially motivated? Do we know if the burglar was armed or not? Where exactly is Quanell X and why isn't he protesting this killing? Why isn't Quanell X calling for the FBI to investigate this shooting?

Clearly the circumstances are more clear cut here, the burglar was breaking into Damon's house, and Damon was protecting himself and his family. The shooting occurred at night which is clearly within the Texas Penal code, so this shooting was certainly justified, but...where are all of those people who were so upset with Joe Horn? Where are the idiots who said that Joe Horn should have just shot Ortiz and Torres (a.k.a. DeJesus) in the knees, or in the arm, or just should have shot to "disable" the two burglars? Where is the uproar over the "tragic loss of life?" Where are all the whining Liberal idiots who so loudly proclaimed that burglary shouldn't be a capital crime? Where are they who have so loudly and hatefully attacked Joe Horn? I thought "material things weren't worth a person's life."

Funny how this whole story attracted no national attention and apparently has escaped Quanell X's attention. I guess he's too busy ordering more silk suits and stirring up hatred to be bothered by a black man killing a black burglar...no press value in that story, no way to demagogue that case.

But that's not the half of it, yesterday, three Hispanic burglars knifed a white woman (a retired teacher) to death, in her home while in the process of "burgling" (actually since they forced their way into the house at gunpoint, it was robbing). Where's Quanell X? Why isn't he leading a protest to denounce the killing of an innocent school teacher by these three criminals? Why is there no outpouring of compassion for this white woman who was killed for no reason? Here is the story of this tragedy from the Chronicle:

Teacher's killers were looking for $500,000
Sheriff says men who stabbed the retired educator thought she had the money in a safe

By ERIC HANSON
Dec. 18, 2007, 12:34AM
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

RICHMOND — The men who fatally stabbed a retired schoolteacher in her gated community home near Fulshear were looking for $500,000 in cash they thought was hidden in a safe, police said Monday.

Fort Bend County Sheriff Milton Wright said there was no large stash of money in the home of Martha Fields, 54, who died last week at Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston.

"There was no safe in there. We don't know why they thought there was," Wright said Monday. "They had bad information."

Sheriff's detectives arrested Angela Lara, 24, of Victoria, believed to be the getaway driver, and Kevin Chase Cypher, 19, of Houston, in the attack that occurred about 11 a.m. Dec. 11 in the 32800 block of Waltham Crossing.

Wright said police are searching for a third suspect.

The truth is, I'm not surprised that Quanell X is missing in action in the wake of these two stories. There are no headlines to make in showing up for these two crimes. No profit for Quanell X and his New Black Panthers. No press coverage, no demagoguery, no race baiting he can conjure up; only tragedy. He's not really interested in providing solace or showing compassion, only in demagoguery and self-promotion.

Actually I cite these two examples because they illustrate why what Joe Horn did was the right thing to do. They also illustrate why I would like to see a rash of Joe Horn type shootings in our suburbs. There is not deterrent to criminal behavior like the risk that the house into which you break will be the one in which the resident has a firearm and is prepared to use it.

Mrs. Marsha Fields could have used a neighbor like Joe Horn. He might have saved her life. He might have prevented the third suspect from escaping...preferably by shooting all three criminals. I'll bet Marsha's husband wishes he had had Joe Horn for a neighbor last week.

There is nothing worse in this society than those who talk about burglary being "simply a crime of property." In Richmond last week, a "crime of property" cost a 54 year old retired school teacher her life. This time she happened to have been a white woman, but next time it might be an African American woman or an Asian woman, or a Hispanic woman. Their skin color doesn't matter, nor does that of the criminals.

What matters is that everytime one of these so-called "property crimes" occurs, their is always a very real possibility of violence. No burglar can be 100% certain that the house they break into is empty. Failing to get an answer from a persistent knock or doorbell is not a guarantee that no one is at home, many houses in Houston house elderly people who will not answer the door to a stranger, and in some there are individuals who are unable to respond due to illness or infirmity.

It is that possibility which makes burglary a potentially capital crime and it is that possibility which makes Joe Horn's actions absolutely reasonable and necessary.

If you believe that I am not a nice person because I applaud the killing of burglars by homeowners and their neighbors, then so be it. I am not a nice person...when it comes to criminals. I don't shed tears when criminals are killed in the process of breaking the law. I'm not concerned that their "civil rights" might have been violated. I don't care if they are juveniles or adults, if they commit such a crime, they are by definition endangering the community and the residents.

There is no way of knowing whether burglars are armed or not. The probability is high that they will be armed in some way. The safest means of dealing with a burglar is to always assume they are armed and are willing to cause a person bodily harm.

Do I value human life? Yes, very much so, but I value the lives of the innocent far more than the lives of criminals and I have no hesitation in suggesting that it is better to shoot first and ask questions later when dealing with criminals. I desperately hope I never have to face the decisions that Messrs. Horn and Barone faced, but I am certain that my response in similar situations would be the same.

If Quanell X actually cared about people, he would be moving Heaven and Earth to help Mr. Fields deal with his loss. If Quanell X cared about people he would be concerning himself with the day to day shooting and crime which occurs throughout our city. He and his organization would be working daily to make lives better for all of our citizens rather than pimping his racist hatred to whatever news camera he can find.

The true measure of a "civic leader" as the press have labled Mr. X, is his willingness to respond to all crises and tragedies, not just those with will garner him the most press coverage.

I know the measure of Quanell X and I find him wanting.

God Bless and Comfort Mr. Fields in his grief.

Hoorah for Joe Horn and Damon Barone for doing what was necessary and right!

#&%# Quanell X and his race baiting, hate filled, storm troopers!

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."
- Ted Nugent

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

More on the Joe Horn Shootings

Will Malven
11/24/2007

In America we are not subjects of a government which has the power to control our lives or which grants us our rights. We are a nation of free people with inherent rights and liberties from whom all governmental powers flow.

We are not required to sit cowering in our dwellings waiting for the police to come to our rescue; we are a free people who possess an inherent right to defend ourselves and our property. It is not the citizens who should live in fear in such a society; it is the criminals. Our Founding Fathers fought a war to ensure that we would never have to live lives of subjugation; a fact that those on the Left have never quite been able to fully grasp.

All citizens have the right to make a "citizen's arrest" if they are witnesses to the commission of a felony (and in some state jurisdictions, misdemeanors as well) with the exception of North Carolina (where that right is restricted to “detainment”). It is a power historically held by the people as a holdover from English Common Law, upon which our laws are based and it has been confirmed in numerous court cases.

The only caveat to that right is that the individual making such an arrest must answer to the courts (both civil and criminal) for his actions. [Source: Wikipedia; citizen’s arrest]

Joe Horn's intervention was a citizen’s arrest.

• He witnessed a crime taking place.
• He immediately notified the police by making a 911 call.
• He maintained contact with the 911 operator at all times, even during and following the shooting.
• He could clearly identify the criminals.
• He waited for the police to arrive for at least 6 minutes.
• He chose, I believe correctly, to exercise his inherent right to stop the criminals.
• He took his shotgun, legal both to own and to carry in public, outside to stop and detain the perpetrators of the crime he had witnessed.
• He verbally challenged the perpetrators of that crime as they were crossing his yard in their attempt to leave the crime scene.
• He fired only when, after over a second and a half had passed, the criminals failed to heed his warning and continued to approach him.
• He fired in self-defense, not because they had burglarized his neighbor’s house.

Mr. Horn was under no obligation either to obey the instructions of the 911 operator or to allow these two burglars get away with their crimes because he was told “the police are on their way.” In fact I would argue that any good citizen, physically capable and mentally prepared to do so, owes it to himself and his fellow citizens to act as Joe Horn did. Had he failed to do so, it is highly likely that these two would have escaped the scene of the crime and having done so the likelihood of their being apprehended would have been nil.

There was no guarantee that the police would arrive in time to stop the crime and in fact they did not. At any given time in a city of roughly 4 million people there are from 200 to 250 police on the streets.

Joe Horn made the decision to intervene only when it became apparent that the police would not arrive in time to stop the crime. He made the decision to fire only when the criminals refused to obey his order to stop. Whether or not his actions were justified, will be determined by our justice system and, if necessary, a jury of his peers.

My arguments in his favor are strictly a result of the information which has been made available, so far, and an unshakeable belief that as a people we have the absolute right not to be victims in our own neighborhoods. No American citizen should have to fear the simple act of walking out of his front door.I find his every action to be completely justifiable and I celebrate the fact that a citizen chose not to allow his neighborhood be victimized by these two criminals. Messrs. Ortiz and DeJesus were in the wrong in this shooting. They had no business being in that neighborhood, they had no business breaking into the neighbor’s house, and they had no business stealing another person’s property.

I do not celebrate the death of anybody, but I do believe that killing is a reasonable action in certain circumstances and in most jurisdictions, the laws agree with that opinion. The instant Ortiz and DeJesus chose to commit a felony they became legitimate subjects for a citizen’s arrest and because they refused to obey Mr. Horn’s challenge to stop, they paid the ultimate price. According to the law, Joe Horn was absolutely within his rights to stop Ortiz and DeJesus. Should he have felt threatened by the two perpetrators? In classes mandated by the state of Texas for obtaining a concealed carry license, one of the first lessons they teach you is how fast an assailant can close distance if they are intent on doing you bodily harm. According to most CCL instructors, anyone within seven yards or less should be considered an immediate threat to your life if they are armed and aggressive.

The criminals were only 5 yards from him when he confronted them. It takes the average person 1.5 seconds to cover a distance of 7 yards. That is approximately the same amount of time that passed between Mr. Horn’s challenge and the firing of the first shot. That means that if the two criminals made an aggressive move toward Mr. Horn, he waited until the very last instant to make his decision to fire. Given the information publicly available, it was not unreasonable for Joe Horn to feel threatened. The perpetrators were bigger than he, at least one was armed with a crowbar, and they had already proven their willingness to use violence when they broke both a window and a glass brick wall to gain entry to his neighbor's private property.

As you listen to the 911 tape you can clearly here Mr. Horn’s agitation and anger at the brazenness of Ortiz’s and DeJesus’ actions and his growing frustration as the police failed to arrive. Such anger is not only a natural response, but a perfectly justifiable reaction to what he was witnessing.

Much has been made of his (unfortunate) statement, again very clear on the tape “I’m gonna kill em.” Does this statement amount to prima facie evidence of premeditation or is it a simple expression of anger and frustration? It was said in the midst of a string of statements such as “I’m sorry. I’m not gonna let them get away with this.” “This ain’t right man.” “I can’t believe this.” “I’m gonna stop ‘em.”

I’ve never met anyone that could honestly say they haven’t at some time in a fit of anger made a similar statement, but never had any intent to carry out such a threat.

Having listened to the recording repeatedly, I believe he made that statement in the same way most of us have said it when we’re angry about something. Since he issued a direct warning to the two men before he fired, I believe that the shooting was not only not premeditated, but justified under the law as self-defense.

Were the words “Move, you’re dead,” sufficient warning? I believe so. Perhaps they were not the optimal words to use, but when a man has a shotgun leveled at you, his meaning should be clear enough. It is readily apparent that he would not have shot them had they obeyed his command and not moved. My guess is that they believe he was bluffing and didn’t have the nerve to shoot them. Clearly they were in his yard. So the threat was to him and the shooting no longer a case of killing over property, but of killing in self-defense.

Yes, Mr. Horn was the initiator of the confrontation, but only in executing his right to making a citizen’s arrest, a right that has been confirmed repeatedly in our courts.

So was there a threat to his person which would justify his use of deadly force. According to Subchapter C. Sections 9.31-9.32 of the Texas Penal Code:

Deadly force is permissible if:

• the individual believes himself threatened by physical force.
• the individuals actions can meet the standard that “a reasonable person” would not have retreated.
• The individual believes deadly force is “necessary.”

This is a rather vague standard. Under what circumstances would “a reasonable person” retreat? Is it sufficient justification simply to stop a crime? Once having intervened in the crime, would a “reasonable person” then retreat? If so, then to what purpose was the intervention and under what circumstances would the concept of citizen’s arrest be considered reasonable?

I do not believe that Mr. Horn was under any obligation to retreat. I believe that as a neighbor, he could rightfully assume that he was under some obligation to prevent these criminals from getting away with their crime by making a citizen’s arrest. Was it reasonable for him to feel threatened? I believe so. The men were larger than he and at least one was armed with a crowbar.

What the grand jury must decide is:

1. Did Joe Horn’s actions legally meet the definition of a citizen’s arrest?
2. Were Joe Horn’s actions the actions of a “reasonable person?”
3. Were the two criminals, once he chose to confront them, an imminent threat to Joe Horn?
4. Was it reasonable for Joe Horn to believe that his life was in imminent peril?
5. Was Joe Horn justified in killing these two men?

I believe the answer to all of these questions is yes, given what I know.

I continue to believe that Joe Horn is a hero deserving of our support. He epitomizes the spirit of everything in which our Founding Fathers believed and held sacred. He is a true American.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

American Hero Joe Horn: Pasadena Shootings Justifiable and Praiseworthy

Will Malven
11/16/2007

Friday afternoon, the 14th of November, 2007, 61 year old grandfather Joe Horn was working in his home when he heard glass breaking at his next door neighbor’s house. He investigated the sound and saw two men in the act of breaking into and then entering his neighbor's house. What happened next was a textbook example of how every American citizen should behave.

When Mr. Horn saw the two men breaking into his neighbor's house, he called 911 to alert the police. Over the next six or seven minutes, he conversed with the 911 operator as he waited for police to arrive. Mr. Horn was outraged at this act of brazen criminal behavior and rightfully so, would that every law-abiding citizen felt such outrage when a crime is being committed. Mr. Horn was absolutely determined that he was not going to allow these two criminals to escape and he told the 911 operator of his intention.

Having waited for the police to arrive, Mr. Horn then did what I would hope every citizen would do, he acted to defend his neighbor's property and very possibly his own. When he witnessed the perpetrators leaving the crime scene and it became apparent that the police would not arrive in time, Joe Horn grabbed up a pump shotgun and went outside to stop them and hold them for the police. He warned them not to move. They moved and he shot them.

Here is the Houston Chronicle’s article about the shooting:

Nov. 15, 2007, 9:58PM
Shooting of theft suspects may test self-defense law

By RUTH RENDON and PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

In a case legal experts say may "stretch the limits" of the state's self-defense laws*, a Pasadena man shot and killed two suspected burglars during a confrontation as they attempted to flee his neighbor's property Wednesday afternoon.

In the minutes before the fatal shootings, Pasadena police said the man called 911 and reported that he had heard glass breaking next door and saw two men entering the home through a window. Still on the phone with police, the man, believed to be in his 70s, saw the suspects leaving from the back of the home.

"I'm getting my gun and going to stop them," the neighbor told the dispatcher during the 2 p.m. call, according to Vance Mitchell, a spokesman for Pasadena police. "The dispatcher said, 'No, stay inside the house; officers are on the way.'

"Then you hear him rack the shotgun. The next sound the dispatcher heard was a boom. Then there was silence for a couple of seconds and then another boom."

Our forefathers believed that every citizen capable of handling and using a firearm could and should possess one. They also believed that it was the duty of every citizen to protect themselves and their communities. They expected men to intervene to prevent these crimes rather than cowering helplessly waiting for the police to arrive and watching helplessly as the criminals make good their escape because the police are can’t get there.

Any society so cowed by their government that they are afraid to defend themselves, their property, and their neighborhood is no longer a free society. In this case these criminals were stopped by a man who refused to allow himself and his neighbor to become victims. They encountered a man who refused to live in a completely lawless society. We should all be angry that criminals feel perfectly safe in committing a crime like this. As Americans, we should not be forced to live in fear because some people don't respect the property of others.

Our population is increasing at an alarming rate, due in large part to a massive influx of people (illegal aliens) who feel no compunction at violating our nation’s laws to enter our country. If one uses the logic of Rudy Giuliani’s “broken window theory,” by looking the other way as we have been doing for decades as these law breakers violate the integrity of our borders, we are encouraging criminal behavior of a more serious nature.

The fact is that police forces across the nation are increasingly undermanned, over worked, and underpaid. It is apparent for all who will see that American citizens must begin to depend more upon their neighbors for security than on the police. The average response time in Houston to a “Priority One” (life threatening ) emergency call is now in excess of five minutes. This, as reported by Channel Two News:

Local 2 Investigates analyzed three years worth of police response times, breaking down Houston neighborhood by neighborhood, we discovered more and more parts of the city are waiting longer than five minutes for police to respond to these life-threatening, "priority one" calls.

"What I hear from officers is we are short and could we get some help out here," outgoing Houston Police Officers’ Union president Hans Marticiuc said.

In 2004, police were taking longer than 5 minutes to respond to a third of Houston's neighborhoods. Two years later it was 43%. Through the first quarter of this year it was half the city.

"Any given shift you probably don't have more than 200 to 250 officers out on the street," Marticiuc said.

"For the entire city?" Arnold asked.

"Uh, huh," Marticiuc said.

Ironically that news story was published just nine days prior to this shooting. Since “a burglary in progress” is not considered a life threatening call under ordinary circumstances, it is a safe bet that, short of Mr. Horn making his intention to intervene clear to the dispatcher, the police would have arrived 5-10 minutes or more after the criminals had left the crime scene and were well out of the neighborhood.

Every action Mr. Horn took was textbook citizenship. Citizenship is not a state of being; it is a state of action. Citizens vote in elections, serve on juries, and help their neighbors when asked. Real citizens care enough about their communities to be willing to risk their lives to make sure their neighborhoods are safe for their children, their neighbor's children, the elderly, and all of those who are incapable of protecting themselves. Real citizens do not sit and let bad things happen out of fear of injury or legal action.

Our society is slowly devolving to a point where our justice system is more concerned with the rights of criminals than it is with the rights of law abiding citizens. Our judges appear to care more about how our criminal population is being treated than the fact that they are in prison for a committing criminal acts against the people those judges are elected to protect. Those to whom we have entrusted our domestic order and tranquility have become advocates of chaos rather than enforcers of order. Why should the American people be forced to endure living in a lawless society because the lawyers of the ACLU and a bunch of Leftist Judges believe that criminals’ rights supersede the rights of law-abiding citizens to be secure in their neighborhoods and homes?

What happened on Wednesday was both heroic and tragic. Mr. Horn’s actions were heroic. It was the courageous thing to do and it was the right thing to do. That these two men had to die is tragic, but their deaths were of their own choosing.

The criminals Dejesus and Ortiz were solely responsible for their own deaths. Mr. Horn was not looking for someone to shoot that day; he was minding his own business. It was the two perpetrators who were looking for trouble and unfortunately for their families, they found more trouble than they bargained for. We must never allow ourselves to forget, DeJesus and Ortiz were criminals and were caught in the act of committing a crime. Had they surrendered to Mr. Horn rather than ignore him, they would be alive today. Had they not been intent on breaking the law, they would be alive today.

Our Founding Fathers believed passionately in every man’s right to own and protect his property as well as his person by any appropriate means. They also believed in the right of people to protect their communities. That is precisely what Mr. Joe Horn did when he confronted Ortiz and DeJesus. The survival of our Republic depends on the citizens’ right to do so.

Our society has blessed us with lives of abundance and liberty due, in main part, to the laws we have passed which define how we are supposed to relate to each other. Those blessings also derive from the rights and liberties we claim as our inheritance from our "Creator" and from the traditions and laws handed down to us by our forefathers. Our freedoms and liberties have been bought and paid for many times over by the blood of our forefathers and our fellow citizens and to the extent that we allow our government to usurp those freedoms and liberties, we dishonor those who have gone before us.

Criminals should be afraid to commit crimes. They should live in terror that every time they go out to commit a crime, they will encounter a man like Joe Horn. When criminals are more afraid of committing a crime than they are in gaining from their brazenness, then crimes decrease. It has been proven time and again; the more likely it is that criminals believe that they will encounter a homeowner armed with a firearm; the less likely they are to attempt to enter that house. That is why those cities and states in which they have passed the most draconian gun laws have the highest violent crime rates and those which have enacted concealed carry laws and the castle doctrine, have the lowest violent crime rates.

The reaction from those on the Left was easily predictable. They are immediately more concerned with the deaths of two felons than they are with the fact that they were caught committing a crime. Once more we are shown an object lesson that Liberals are incapable of comprehending human nature. It is the same people who advocate tighter restrictions on gun ownership, who advocate an international policy of appeasement over confrontation. Once more we are shown why allowing Liberals to govern our society is dangerous for our citizenry.

When a society becomes so afraid that it surrenders its citizens’ rights to do exactly what Joe Horn did; when a society allows itself to be disarmed by its government and police are the only people in that society who are allowed to possess firearms, it is precisely at that moment that a free society becomes a “police state.”

Mr. Horn is not happy that he was forced to kill those two men. Their deaths will haunt him for a long time, but he should never doubt that what he did was right and justified. And as for those in our society who condemn him, they are wrong and unjustified in their criticism. Until they find themselves in the same situation and are forced to make the same decisions, perhaps they should withhold their judgment.

I don’t know if Messrs. Ortiz and DeJesus deserved to die for their crime, but once they made the decision to cross the line from citizen to criminal, once they chose to ignore Mr. Horn’s order to stop, they became responsible for their own fates.

I for one will pray for Mr. Horn, that he can find some solace in the fact that what he did was the right thing to do. It was and is what every good citizen should be prepared to do. He is a hero in the greatest traditions of our Founding Fathers.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

*NOTE: I have provided a link to the relevant portion of the Texas Penal Code for what is considered justified self defense and defense of property on the "News and Commentary Page" right-hand column. You will be most interested in sections 9:42 and 9:43.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Is Waterboarding Torture? or Who Is this Daniel Levin and Who Cares What His Opinion Is?

Will Malven
11/05/2007

Recently a former member of the Department of Justice made a big splash when he announced that, having personally experienced the interrogation technique known as “waterboarding,” it was his opinion that it constituted “torture” as defined under the federal criminal prohibition against torture codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A. [I believe he wrote this opinion just before he went to get his [triple-caf, double mocca, amaretto, low-fat, latté with extra foam.]

“That statute prohibits conduct "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." This opinion concludes that "severe" pain under the statute is not limited to "excruciating or agonizing" pain or pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions, or even death."

The statute also prohibits certain conduct specifically intended to cause "severe physical suffering" distinct from "severe physical pain." December 30, 2004 [Emphasis added]

Now Danny boy is or was the “Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel.” Quite a mouthful, his being the “Acting” Assistant blah, blah, blah. That means that he was not appointed to that position, he more or less stumbled into it. This opinion is simply that, his opinion. In this case it is the opinion of a probable “dead-ender” whose career under George W. Bush’s administration had gone about as far as it would ever progress and then suddenly he lucked into the next highest position. Now I'm no lawyer (thank God for that) but it is my opinion that the statute means predisely what it says, no more, no less and what it says is that conduct that is "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" is forbidden.

The definition of all of this is in fact given in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A:

As used in this chapter—
(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

Folks, even a blind pig finds an acorn every once and a while. So what is a blind pig to do once he finds his last acorn? Well one choice is to make a name for himself by becoming a “whistle blower.” Which is precisely what Daniel Levin did. He made himself an instant hero to the President Bush haters by declaring that the technique known as “waterboarding” is a form of torture. This is not a new claim; John McCain has been saying that since the issue first came up. What is different, is that this claim comes from someone from the Department of Justice with an impressive sounding title.

For Liberals, having a fancy title gives Mr. Levin’s claim “weight” and “standing.” Well the Department of Justice does have a mission statement for the office of Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel:

"The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel assists the Attorney General in his function as legal advisor to the President and all the executive branch agencies. The Office drafts legal opinions of the Attorney General and also provides its own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President, the various agencies of the executive branch, and offices within the Department. Such requests typically deal with legal issues of particular complexity and importance or about which two or more agencies are in disagreement. The Office also is responsible for providing legal advice to the executive branch on all constitutional questions and reviewing pending legislation for constitutionality."

All Executive orders and proclamations proposed to be issued by the President are reviewed by the Office of Legal Counsel for form and legality, as are various other matters that require the President's formal approval.

In addition to serving as, in effect, outside counsel for the other agencies of the executive branch, the Office of Legal Counsel also functions as general counsel for the Department itself. It reviews all proposed orders of the Attorney General and all regulations requiring the Attorney General's approval. It also performs a variety of special assignments referred by the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General.”

So from that rather long winded job description, we can boil it down to this, Daniel was one of the legal advisors to the President. His opinion bore absolutely no weight in law and has no legal stating. The “Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, is not a judge and his opinions, no matter how much press they may attract, are not facts but opinions.

Kind of like it’s my opinion that this guy is looking to make a name for himself and is probably working on a “book deal” right now. Or, it is my opinion that the technique known as waterboarding is a time tested means of breaking down the resistance of an enemy without causing any permanent damage to the subject. In my opinion, that is not a description of torture it is a description of falling asleep in the bathtub, except that there is someone present to make sure you don’t drown (not necessarily the case if you should fall asleep in the bathtub).

Well here is a chart of the hierarchy of the Department of Justice, and if you look real hard at the middle branch, the second box on the right hand side of the middle branch (highlighted in yellow) you will find the Office of Legal Counsel.

That means that Daniel was the temporary replacement of one of thirty-eight Assistant Attorneys General. Not exactly the “numero uno” top position that the Leftist, pseudo-journalist, posers at MSNBC, like Keith Olbermann (one of many employed by MSNBC) are attempting to paint him as having held. As a matter of fact I believe he has the office right next door to the Assistant Attorney General for Janitorial Services. I’m not real certain of that last, but it sounds about right.

As far as waterboarding being torture, I watched Steve Harrigan’s report on Fox News and he said that as frightening as he found the experience to be (and he said that he was ready to say answer whatever questions those guys administering it asked him, what really amazed him was how quickly he recovered once the technique was terminated. Steve Harrigan said he believed it was torture, but what I saw and heard did not sound like “torture“ to me, it sounded like a very unpleasant experience, but unpleasant experiences are not the same as torture, if they were, then every dentist and physical therapist in the country would be guilty of torture.

Over and above anything else, I don’t care if waterboarding is torture. When it comes to protecting our nation and out citizens from outside threats, I am in the Goldwater Camp…the original Goldwater, not the later senile Goldwater the Left loves to quote…the Goldwater that famously said,

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

I do not care if the world views us as “barbarians.” The French and most Europeans have done so for years and we have suffered no ill effects. The decadence of Old Europe, which lives in the perpetual delusion that it is more civilized than America or is more sophisticated than America, doesn’t impress or intimidate me. They have killed far more of each other over the past 250 years within their own continental borders, than America has killed throughout the world, in its entire history, including our own “Civil War.”

Apparently I am not as sophisticated as Liberals and Europeans. I still believe in God as the Supreme Being and our Creator. I still believe that Liberty and Freedom are more important than safety, and I believe that anyone who willingly surrenders their individual rights to the government is foolish and suicidal. I believe that the individual should be responsible for their own welfare, not the state. I believe that private charities were created to do what the Left’s socialists and communists want the state to do, and I believe that a life centered around a loving God would do more good for the American people than a life centered around a paternalistic state. If that makes me unsophisticated, then so be it.

I don’t mind being regarded as a barbarian; I do mind being killed by a barbarian because of the stupidity of someone who equates being civilized with allowing murderers and terrorists to run around killing their fellow citizens because “profiling is wrong.” I don’t care what Liberals and foreigners think of me or my nation, and for those on the left who criticize me, I will throw their words back at them by paraphrasing one of their favorite statements:

"One nation's torture is another nation's interrogation technique"

America is the greatest, strongest, most compassionate nation in the history of mankind. We have spilled more of our own blood, spent more of our nation's treasury and sacrificed more of our comfort for the needs of others than any nation on Earth throughout our history. As a reward for our sacrifices, we are hated by most of those we have helped, or at least by their leaders. This was predicted long ago by a very wise American President:

"The world will never love America. We will be feared, respected, or loathed, but never loved. Let America be strong and respected."- President Theodore Roosevelt

As for the rest, my self esteem comes from within, not from those around me. It is dependent upon what God thinks of me and what I think of Him, and that is between Him and me…and nobody else.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Voting Democrat by Not Voting Republican

These days I am hearing and seeing things from the mouths and keyboards of well known Conservatives that, up until now, I have only seen on the most extreme Left-wing websites such as those run by the DNC, Media Matters and the even more extreme Left-wing blogs, hatred directed toward a person for their political stands.

I have always believed that one true sign of a Conservative is the use of reason rather than emotion to make political arguments. It used to be that unreasoning hatred directed at an individual rather than an ideal or philosophy was the sole province of the Left. We Conservatives have always been those who hate the message not the messenger. Apparently that rule no longer applies.

The kinds of words being used in ordinary discussion on Conservative web pages from those who are allegedly Conservatives are violations of the iconic Conservative of our time, Ronald Reagan’s, "eleventh commandment," “thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican.”

Apparently these men who claim to revere Ronald Reagan only revere what they choose to revere and ignore the rest. Well, I can’t blame them for that. I too revere Ronald Reagan for what he accomplished, but I also remember his failings as well-his withdrawal from Lebanon, his failure to appoint strong Conservatives to the Supreme Court, including Sandra Day O’Connor who was chosen for her gender rather than her Conservative credentials.

Shakespeare’s Marc Anthony was wrong in his claim that “the evil men do lives long after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” For the political animal, it is often quite the opposite and the mistakes that our former Presidents made are ignored and only their successes remembered. It is thus with Ronald Reagan among Conservatives.

The level of hatred I am seeing directed toward a number of our Republican Presidential hopefuls used to be reserved for use against President Bush by Liberal Democrats. I now see that same kind of hatred being directed toward some of our own. The sobriquet “Rudy McRomney” is being batted about to describe those Republican Presidential hopefuls with whom those on the extreme Right of the Party take issue.

These individuals claim to see “no real differences” between Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. They claim that John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and even Fred Thompson are too “Liberal” for them to support. When the very real alternative of having a Democrat President, a President Hillary Clinton, or a President B. Hussein Obama, or a President John Edwards is pointed out to these zealots, they claim to see no real difference between them and the front-runners in the Republican race.

“No real difference?” How willfully blind can a person be? How irrationally hostile toward a member of your own party can an individual be? This is sheer irrational madness from those who have always prided themselves on their rationalality.

Certainly those of us who voted for President Bush in 2000 and 2004 have, of late, been gravely disappointed in his failure to confront the issue of illegal immigration head to head. I am personally angry at his persistent refusal to immediately issue a pardon for Border Patrol agents Ramos and Campion following their imprisonment for performing their duties efficiently and effectively. I have been very disappointed by President Bush’s apparent unwavering sympathy for illegal aliens and the corporations who hire them.

Republicans in Congress are also to be chastised for their failure to reign in their natural enthusiasm for spending the tax-payer’s money on their pet pork projects, but the President in his failure to veto such pork-laden bills bears the same guilt as those who would fund the building of a bridge to nowhere in Alaska.

We need a wartime president because we are at war, a fact which seems to have escaped the attention of Democrats and, even worse, apparently the attention of some holier than thou conservatives. We all know of whom I am speaking. Rudy Giuliani is very possibly going to end up being the Republican nominee for President of the United States of America. It is undoubtedly true that Rudy is not a social Conservative. He doesn’t believe that abortion should be illegal, he has been an outspoken supporter of “common sense” gun laws (the only common sense gun law is the one that says use you guns to kill criminals), and he is on record as strongly supporting “gay rights.” We all are aware of his shortcomings, but what I am seeing these days is much worse, much more personal than what we have seen within the Republican Party today.

I have even witnessed some claiming to be Conservatives use the word “evil” to describe Mayor Giuliani. Rudy Giuliani is “Evil?” That came from the brain of a Conservative? For a moment I thought that I have inadvertently logged on to one of the hate-filled Liberal sites such as The Huffington Post or dailyKos where such statements are as common as dirt and directed towards anybody that disagrees with the author of those words, but it was not so. Those words were found on a Conservative political website.

I reject that kind of attack against Mayor Giuliani just as I reject it when used against President Bush. It should offend anyone claiming to be a Conservative, but especially a so called Christian Conservative to hear such language from within their own ranks. It is offensive and it is false. We all know that Rudy Giuliani may have done some things and taken some stances on important issues at which all conservatives take umbrage, but to label him as “evil” is going way beyond the pale.

We also know that he is on record as being very tough on criminal behavior and being close friends with and admiring justices Scalia and Alito. He has made it clear that those are the type of justices he would look to appoint to the Supreme Court of the United States. It is even more evident that of all those running, Rudy Giuliani has the strongest anti-terrorism credentials and he has managed the third largest economy in the nation during the worst disaster to have struck this nation in half a century. So now because I disagree with Rudy on some very important issues I am supposed, according to those self-righteous prigs who see themselves as the anointed deciders of what is or is not Conservative, to sit the next election out (to show the Republicans how naughty they are for selecting a “non-Conservative’) or vote for a feckless third party campaign.

It makes absolutely no sense for those who now claim for themselves the moniker “true Conservatives,” or “Christian Conservatives” to withhold their votes for the Republican nominee, whoever it may wind up being simply because they don’t agree with every jot and title of the candidate’s political philosophy. I will cast my vote on principle, but I will also cast it for the Republican candidate. I will do so not because I am a Republican, but because I wish to keep a little of the freedom and liberty that remain mine.

• I am not just an “anti-abortion/pro-life Conservative, I believe that abortion is one of the two most hateful crimes against humanity in American history (the other being slavery).
• I am not just a strong advocate that an armed populace is a free populace; I believe it is a God given right for a man to protect himself and his community by any means with or without the permission of a bunch of emasculated legislators and judges.
• I am not just a believer that marriage, such as it is today, should still remain the province of hetero-sexuals, I am a believer in the sanctity of the marriage vow and the commitment that one makes to one’s spouse is also a commitment to God and not to be thrown away lightly over some minor disagreement over money and egos.

But I am not just a social Conservative. I am more than that. I am a fiscal and a national security Conservative as well. I am a hawk, not a dove and I want a hawk not a dove as President. All I hear from the Democrats is a whole lot of cooing.

• I also believe that a strong national defense is an absolute necessity. I believe it is the paramount obligation of our federal government to defend its sovereignty, its border, and its citizens from enemies both foreign and domestic (i.e. Democrats, the mainstream media, and the ACLU).
• I believe that citizens should be able to keep more of their money than the government does and that our legislators should be treating that money as ours, not theirs.
• I believe in low taxes, small government, and justices who revere our Constitution and adhere to the intentions of our forefathers in writing it, not justices who view the Constitution as “a good starting point.”
• I believe in a government, as constructed by our founders, which respects the rights and freedoms of the people, not the government. I believe in a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people, not over the people.

In those last four, I believe that all of our Republican Candidates agree. I believe that Democrats disagree.

The primary result of the zealotry of some Conservatives, who are suggesting a third party candidacy or a “stay at home” protest, will be the anointing of a hard core Marxist as our new President, whether it be B. Hussein Obama, John Edwards, or Heaven forbid, Hillary Clinton, with all of her accompanying corruptions and perversions.

I do not believe that Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain or Fred Thompson will try to take away my guns or trample on my rights. I am far less sanguine about the Democrat Party alternatives.

As disappointed as some conservatives may be with the choice, to the alternative they are proposing, I say, “No thank-you!”

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

More Democrat Lies About the Bush Administration

You know I am really getting tired of having to listen to all the lies being put out by Democrats and their propaganda shills like Hillary Clinton's George Soros sponsored organization Media Matters and the so-called Mainstream Media...you know the alphabet soup networks and the large print media...So I am going to occasionally publish data directly refuting their claims when they are made.

I was recently informed that President Bush has been treating our Veterans poorly and "cutting back" on the funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Well here's a small graph which speaks volumes about which party and which Presidents actually do care and have always cared about the troops and our veterans.

No more BS from Bush-hating politically motivated pseudo-spokesgroups of veterans, supposed or genuine. Here are the VA funding data for the years 1994-2008:

So now all you sniping liars can go peddle your Bull on some other website where you will find a less informed audience which is less concerned with the truth and more interested in opinions and propaganda, like dailyKos.com, democraticunderground.com. and mediamatters.org. It won't sell here, Conservatives like facts, not opinions; truths, not myths.

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Perhaps Al Gore Should Have Taken His Environmental Lessons From Ronald Reagan

Shortly after Ronald Reagan became our 40th President, he made a statement which caused him to be much ridiculed for his lack of understanding of how the environment works. Among President Reagan's much maligned comments was this statement taken from a typical Liberal website "All Hat No Cattle", a site, as you might guess dedicated to deriding President Bush and any and all Republicans and brought to you by Lisa Casey, one of those who typifies arrogant and uninformed Liberals. The quote:

"The American Petroleum Institute filed suit against the EPA [and] charged that the agency was suppressing a scientific study for fear it might be misinterpreted... The suppressed study reveals that 80 percent of air pollution comes not from chimneys and auto exhaust pipes, but from plants and trees." Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, in 1979. [In typical Liberal fashion she adds this unresearched and unsupported observation] (There is no scientific data to support this assertion.)"

Our little lady Lisa also includes the following quote:

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981

Mind you, I'm not picking on Lesa in particular, I am simply and I do mean "simply," using her webpage to illustrate what passes for reaoning and intellectualism by those on the Left. Lisa is, sad to say, your typical, hate-filled, frustrated Democrat who, though she has no evidence to prove it, is still smarting form the fact that her Hero Al Gore was robbed in the 2000 election, or that George W. Bush was "appointed" President by the Supreme Court of the United States. She is a victim of the ongoing Left-wing propaganda machine commonly referred to a the "mainstream media."

She probably happily drives around in her Prius with her bobble-head statue of the Messiah of Global Warming Albert Gore, Jr. believing that she in her own narrow-minded little way is "saving the planet" from evil SUV drivers.

Now, lest I wander too far afield in my comments about the general lack of intllectual honesty among Liberals, the point of this editorial is that Ronald Reagan was correct!

No, how can this be? After so many Ivory towered Liberals invested so much of their lives deriding President Reagan, it turns out that his statement was and is correct.

Such diverse sources as The University of Helsinki, The University of California, Berkeley, and Princeton University (a study that included scientists from four universities) have clearly stated that trees are a greater source of polluting volitile organic chemicals than previously thought.

"According to a study by the University of Helsinki, coniferous forests--that is to say, those composed of trees such as pines--release nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere that combine with other pollutants to form smog.

Ozone is one of the worst of the ground level pollutants in our atmosphere. It is the primary cause of smog and it causes more breathing difficulties for those who live in polluted areas than any other single pollutant. Ozone comes from many sources, but by far, as our former President Reagan said, is...well to be blunt... trees.

As one might surmise from the date of the Late Great President Reagan's statements, this information is not new, it is not some recent discovery by a Conservative think-tank aimed at destroying Al Gore's credibility (he's already done that well enough by himself), no this information comes from studies which have been ongoing for decades now.

From the Indian publication "ChennaiOnline" comes this article published December 3rd, 2002:

Trees - cause of air pollution?

"...now new scientific research is showing that the former Hollywood B-movie star was at least partially right all along. For studies in both Britain and the United States have shown that some trees do indeed emit pollution and may even be killing forests downwind.

The news comes during the National Tree Week when the government and environmental groups are combining to extol the benefits of trees to the environment and health. Even more embarrassing, the British research, at Lancaster University, shows that the English oak, one of the symbols of nationhood, is among the worst offenders.

Others include the poplar, the red and sessile oaks and the crack, goat and white willows. The scientists say: "Most people assume that trees only benefit air quality. In fact, some tree species can have a negative effect and actually help to form pollutants in the atmosphere."

Research at the University of California at Berkeley, meanwhile, suggests that pollution from oak trees is destroying the pine forests of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. They have found that the oaks are producing between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of the ozone that is damaging and killing Jeffrey and ponderosa pines that are the dominant species in the forest."

Then there's this little bombshell from Princeton University:

News from PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Office of Communications
22 Chambers St.
Princeton, New Jersey 08542
Telephone 609-258-3601; Fax 609-258-1301

For immediate release: Sept. 27, 2004
Media contacts: Steven Schultz, (609) 258-5729, sschultz@princeton.edu

Editors: Photos are available at: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pictures/l-r/purves/

Study: Emission of smog ingredients from trees is increasing rapidly Changes in forestry and agriculture affecting ozone pollution

PRINCETON, N.J. -- Changes in U.S. forests caused by land use practices may have inadvertently worsened ozone pollution, according to a study led by Princeton University scientists.

The study examined a class of chemicals that are emitted as unburned fuel from automobile tailpipes and as vapors from industrial chemicals, but also come naturally from tree leaves. These chemicals, known collectively as VOCs, react with other pollutants to form ozone, a bluish, irritating and pungent gas that is a major form of smog in the lower atmosphere.

While clean-air laws have reduced the level of man-made VOCs (volatile organic compounds), the tree-produced varieties have increased dramatically in some parts of the country, the study found. The increase stems from intensified tree farming and other land use changes that have altered the mix of trees in the landscape, said Drew Purves, the lead author of the study that included scientists from four universities.

"There are seemingly natural but ultimately anthropogenic (human-caused) processes in the landscape that have had larger effects on VOC emissions than the deliberate legislated decreases," said Purves.

Although scientists knew that trees contribute substantial amounts of VOCs to the atmosphere, the rate of increase in recent decades was previously unrecognized. "If we don't understand what's going on with biogenic (plant-produced) VOCs, we are not going to be able to weigh different air-quality strategies properly," said Purves. "It's a big enough part of the puzzle that it really needs to go in there with the rest."

The study may help explain why ozone levels have not improved in some parts of the country as much as was anticipated with the enactment of clean-air laws, Purves said. Environmental technologies such as catalytic converters and hoses that collect fumes at gas pumps have substantially reduced human-produced VOCs. However, in some parts of the country -- particularly the area extending from Alabama up through the Tennessee Valley and Virginia -- these improvements may have been outweighed by increased VOC emissions from forests, mainly because of tree growth in abandoned farmland and increases in plantation forestry.

Once again, I urge you to check out the dates on these stories. They predate Al Jr.’s little ego-trip fantasy movie.

Go ahead all you Liberal Gore-Bots, parrots of unproven propaganda, start planting your "carbon-offset" trees, but the next time you run into someone suffering from asthma, you might give a thought to apologizing for making their suffering even worse.

Oh yeah, just another note for those of you who are jumping on the "alternative fuels" bandwagon, another quote from the Princeton article for you to consider:

"The findings also could raise questions about potential strategies for developing “green” fuels. One idea for cutting greenhouse gas emissions is to create “biofuels” from renewable tree plantations; however, these plantations may lead to increased ozone levels..."

So maybe we can back away from this insanity of using our corn crop as a source for "bio-fuels." I'm certain the peasants in Latin American and Mexico in particular would be grateful for the drop in the price of their staple food. I understand that tortilla prices have sky-rocketed since the American Congress and our President have jumped on the ethanol bandwagon.

Isn't it amazing how little of this information is being deseminated by our press? Between the pressure being applied by the anti-oil lobbies, and the Big Agra Corporations and their representatives in Congress, it's amazing any of this information is available at all.

With Liberals dominating the major news outlets telling us all how terrible we are for consuming oil and gas and the push from Big Agricultural corporations toward bio-mass based ethanol we may yet manage to destroy the planet, but it won't be from anthropogenic global warming, it will be from the overzealous pursuit of poorly thought, out unsubstantiated pseudo-scientific theories which sound wonderful but have profoundly adverse effects.

Yep, Al Gore could have learned a couple of things from Ronald Reagan, but he was too busy hugging trees and pursuing his own eco ego-logical ambitions to become a politician.

Al Gore, not just wrong, but dangerous as well. Will we be hearing more about the dangers of bio-mass based alternative fuels? Not if the Democrat Party's propaganda machine-the mainstream media-have anything to say about it.

By the way did you see this little gem? I bet not:

PRNewswire-USNewswire
DALLAS, Aug. 31

Only seven percent of published papers on climate change agree with the "consensus view" that humans were having some effect on global climate change. In an updated study of peer-reviewed works published between 2004 and 2007, 48 percent of the papers were classified as "neutral," or refusing to agree or disagree with the consensus. This lack of agreement falls in line with previous polls that showed a similar reluctance to point the finger at humans, according to H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

Liberals just can't seem to deal with the truth, even if they could ever discern the truth from ill-informed opinions.

Long Live Our American Republic!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

It's Tough Being a Liberal Out There

Lordy, Lordy, it is tough being a Liberal in this universe full of emotional inconsistencies.

Take this story about the Martin Luther King Memorial statue being sculpted for the King Memorial on the Mall:

King monument criticized over artist

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer
Sat Aug 25, 9:17 AM ET

WASHINGTON - The selection of a Chinese sculptor to carve a three-story monument to Martin Luther King Jr. on the National Mall is raising questions about what part of his legacy should be celebrated.

King promoted peace and understanding among all people. His primary fight, however, was to win particular opportunities for blacks in the United States by juxtaposing the plight of an oppressed people against a message of freedom and democracy.

A loose-knit but growing group of critics says a black artist — or at least an American — should have been chosen to create the King memorial between the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials in the nation's capital. They have been joined by human rights advocates who say King would have abhorred the Chinese government's record on religious and civil liberty.

"They keep saying King was for everyone. I keep telling people, 'No, King wasn't for everyone. King was for fairness and justice,'" said Gilbert Young, a black painter from Atlanta who has started a Web site and a petition drive to try to change the project.

Yup, another Liberal dust-up designed to confuse and amuse those of us who live in the rational world.

Now let's get this straight. Martin Luther King was closely associated with and advised by several communists, including Stanley Levison, and Bayard Rustin. King denied being a communist, but he did believe in "democratic socialism," believed in "reparations," and did not believe in capitalism. From Wikipedia:

"You can't talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can't talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You're really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong… with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism." (Frogmore, S.C. November 14, 1966. Speech in front of his staff.

"...that which we call a rose would by any other name smell as sweet."

So what exactly are we talking about here? We have a monument to a "great American" who was sympathetic to our enemies during the Vietnam War, claiming that North Vietnam didn't send any troops into South Vietnam until America entered the war. A claim easily disproved. Again from Wikipedia:

In an April 4, 1967 appearance at the New York City Riverside Church — exactly one year before his death — King delivered Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence. In the speech he spoke strongly against the U.S.'s role in the war, insisting that the U.S. was in Vietnam "to occupy it as an American colony" and calling the US government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."

Another lie and a nod to the propaganda coming from the Soviet Union and Communist China as well as our own domestic North Vietnamese sympathizers (you know, like John Kerry, Bill Clinton, and Jane Fonda).

An alleged philanderer, King has often been cited as a model for morality primarily for his stand on and fight for civil rights for "all people of color. His "I have a Dream" speech stands as a icon for those who oppose racial stigmatiztion and bias.

Now we have a committee, composed of twelve individual, ten of whom were black, who chose a Chinese sculptor, Lei Yixin, to carve a three-story monument to Martin Luther King Jr. on the National Mall. Yixen is considered by China to be "a national treasure."

But, it appears that the message that Martin Luther King was attempting to convey failed to reach a great many of his followers. Witness the above quoted words of Gilbert Young, a black painter:

"They keep saying King was for everyone. I keep telling people, 'No, King wasn't for everyone. King was for fairness and justice."

It appears that for Mr. Gibert, "fairness and justice" aren't for everyone. Certainly Reverend King couldn't object to a citizen of the Chinese Communist State being selected as the artist to bring his legacy to life. I'm telling you it has to be tough to be a Liberal. When life is run by ones emotions rather than reason, inconsistencies seem to crop up all the time.

King was about peace and forgiveness, but not for Chinese? Even when a committee that was 83% black made the decision, other Blacks and Liberals disagree. Apparently only a Black person is qualified to portray Martin Luther King. I wonder what Dr. King would have said about that.

As you can tell, I was not and still am not a fan of Dr. Martin Luther King, but the concepts he espoused in his "I Have a Dream" speech could be considered universal truths.

It's just that I'm not sure that an American citizen who spoke openly and aggressively against his own nation in a time of war (like Bill Clinton in Moscow) is deserving of being honored in this way. He was as much a traitor to his nation as he was a hero of the oppressed and down trodden.

To be sure his legacy has been squandered and buried under a pile of hatred, envy, paranoia, and crass comercialism by those who most loudly claim to honor him...Jesse Jackson immediately comes to mind.

Anytime I hear the knee-jerk claim of "racism" being used against anyone who opposes any part of the "Black agenda" (whatever that may be) I think back to the words of Dr. King:

"...I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.

I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together...

I see very little of Dr. King's dream in the leadership of todays black community and I see very little effort to pursue that dream in those same leaders, who make their living by stirring up the hatred that Dr. King sought to eliminate.

Well it's tough to be consistent and to be Liberal at the same time, you just have to spend so much time hating everyone, I guess you just lose you train of thought.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below