The Squamata Report

Your RIGHT to Health Insurance

2010-03-23T21:28:00.000-07:00

Democrat leadership in Congress and Leftists among us believe, "Health Care is a right".
They believe in a multitude of Constitutionally protected rights that simply are not. They believe in a right to food, a right to housing, a right to a job, and a right to transportation to and from that job. They assert that we have a right to love and a right to travel.They even believe in a right to an abortion paid for by those who oppose abortion on demand. I agree we have those rights (all but the last)... so go get them for yourself! Those rights are natural rights given by God whether you believe in him or not! They are akin to the right to breathe and the right to speak. They are born from the same law giver who gave our hearts the right to beat and our eyes the right to blink. They were NOT given to us by Congress!

These rights are common to all men (except those who live in oppression) and are not granted by any man so that man may take them back. Yet when the Left uses legislative power to establish any of those rights they then give arbitrary control over said rights to the government. Do you think this new government take over of the Health Insurance industry will some how give you control over your 'Right' to health care? They will tell you which plans you must have, they will reduce Medicare pay to doctors, so-as to force doctors to drop more Medicare clients and force them on to the government plan too. They will now send 18,000 new IRS agents out to stalk and fine businesses and individuals (that's you) thousands of dollars for not having complied with their mandate. Does this sound like you are in control?

The US Constitution does not give Congress the right to force you to buy insurance! They can't force you to buy a car either, especially GM or Chrysler. If (when) they take over the candy bar industry they can't force you to buy a candy bar either, much less force you to buy THEIR candy bar. They claim that under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution they have the right to regulate insurance. In the 'Powers of Congress' section Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution it is stated plainly, "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;". There is NO way to interpret that to mean Congress can force you and I to purchase Government approved and soon government owned health Insurance. I'm sorry but it just does not fly! The clause gives Congress power to regulate 'industry' not force participation in it. (e.g.) Congress can regulate the sale of cows between states, they can (and do) overtax cattle ranchers and dealers when they trade across state lines but they can't tax me for not selling cattle! Nor can they penalize me for not buying insurance based on a right that doesn't exist! Besides, if I can't buy insurance accross state lines how can they count it as being interstate commerce??

What was done on Sunday was a rape of our Constitution; an all out assault on our liberty. Just another giant leap toward anarchy that leads to tyranny. Weaker men may buckle under this but we will not! I will join with you my fellow American. Together we will wrest the reins back from this government that seeks to rule us. We will not submit as this great Republic is strangled by a tyrannical government.

At the time of my writing this, 12 state Attorneys General (such as Texas' Gregg Abbott) have drafted suits to challenge the constitutionality of this bill. Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed and people are waking up around the country. Hopefully we can kill this thing before they can hit us with the bulk of taxes, fines and penalties set to begin immediately, while benefits (so called) don't kick in until 2014. When we are done defeating the bill we will begin voting out these liars and thieves! We must return the government to it's rightful place of representation rather than dictation. Soon we will reclaim control of our money, health care, our family and our dignity!

The 315 Year Lie!

2010-01-25T19:32:00.000-08:00

The NYTimes released a story last week that seemed to pass with little notice. It seems the IPCC has made a small error in it's reporting. Below is an excerpt from the article.

(link to full NYTimes article)
Leaders of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change apologized yesterday for making a "poorly substantiated" claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
....the IPCC report relied on news accounts that appear to misquote a scientific paper that estimated the glaciers could disappear by 2350, not 2035.

"The damage was that IPCC had, or I think still has, such a stellar reputation that people view it as an authority -- as indeed they should -- and so they see a bullet that says Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 and they take that as a fact," said, Arizona Prof. Jeffrey Kargel

Just so you know, I don't consider the IPCC an authority. I consider them incompetent fools who use fear mongering tactics to frighten us into making life altering changes both to our personal lives and our economy, transportation, food, education and employment. They work daily to steal our sovereignty and bring our citizens under the rule of a European based world governing body. So I have a bit of a problem saying that the IPCC is an authority on anything more than pure anti-Capitalist Marxism.

The problem here is not that they made a typo, the issue here is that a group of vipers who use lies of horror to force us into supporting their baleful agenda, tricked the world into thinking the melting was so rapid that it would be gone in 25 yrs. If you believe the left wing rhetoric passed along by the Mainstream media you will no doubt panic and believe or do what ever you can to stop it. However the truth is that their projections were off by 315 yrs. Not only does this make things a little less urgent but it also gives far less credence to their prediction.
e.g.: What if the local weather-man came on the news tonight and said that a huge storm with flash floods and tornados were expected on Saturday?! Would you feel a bit squeezed for time getting ready? Of course. However, what if the same weather-man warned you that the same terrible storm was imminent in 8 months?! Are you still as freaked out? Do you feel panicked? No. Of course you don't. You don't so readily believe him either. Most weather-men can't predict a storm two days away with any true accuracy so why would you believe he can tell what will happen in 8 months? I know climate predictions are different from meteorological predictions but the analogy still fits.

Leftists love to call me and others like me 'anti-Science' or 'Science Deniers'. Yet they denied science when DDT was saving lives around the world and they ignored the science and banned it anyway, resulting in the Malarial deaths of hundreds of millions of people. They were anti Science when they said heterosexual AIDS would sweep the nation and used similar scare tactics to force people into not only giving money but changing their opinions about social degradation and the natural abnormality of intravenous drug abuse and homosexuality. The left was anti science when they said we came from apes who originated in pond scum instead of supporting evidence that we are a unique being with direct ties to our creator. They are the Science Deniers when they say that man produced CO2 emissions caused the climate to warm. Then when 10 years of steady cooling occurred they said the interregnal, life sustaining ingredient to our Earth, 'CO2', was causing cooling also; so they re-named it, 'Climate Change'. And finally when we point out that life is sacred and should be protected at all stages in life they deny science and say the fetus is not a person and the old woman does not have an acceptable quality of life and both may be thrown away at the whim or convenience of others. So remember the next time a long haired smelly hippie crawls out of his 'flower power' van and says 'You' are anti Science or that you deny science.... it's ok to give him a swift kick to the groin.

Grover Cleveland on socialist welfare

2009-12-03T21:39:00.000-08:00

A quote from a Democrat President before Dems were overthrown by socialist doctrine.....
Grover Cleveland:
"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan as purposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the approriations of public funds for that purpose. I can find NO warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to extend to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the government should not support the people...The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the
expectation of parental care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

Big Tent Republicans

2009-11-03T21:12:00.000-08:00

There has been a lot of talk lately about the Republican need for a 'Big Tent'. What they mean is that if the Republicans want to win they have to do as Reagan did and win the moderate vote. An elusive task for the McCain-Palin campaign. Logic would then lead one to believe the only way we can win is to pacify and appease those who teeter on the fence. But I have another idea, perhaps a less popular idea but I am not dissuaded.

Big tent politics wins elections, Obama more than proved that. However, I believe it is as useless to the moral fiber and direction of this nation as chocolate cake is for the health of our bodies. Sure it's filling but its nutritionally vapid and ends up rotting your teeth. If a party such as the GOP begins to be all inclusive they become weak in the face of legislative and judicial evils. Conservatives have been the majority in the Republican party for many decades. It is our party! If we decide that our principals mean nothing and political power means everything we become as venomous as the Democrats. We must win people to the Republican party by winning them over to Conservatism not watering down Conservatism.

What if your local church decided that to boost revenue they would now begin supporting the strip bar across town and every Sunday during offering instead of heavenly voices from the choir, strippers do a live show. Hey, have you seen the kind of money guys spend at these bars? The church could be rolling in cash! Then they could denounce the first books of the Bible so evolutionists would join. The Main Stream media would come and film it and Obama would join as soon as we made Rev. Jeremiah Wright our new pastor. Yes the coffers would grow but the message and the goal would be lost. Christ threw out the gamblers and bookies! The church has a duty to grow by winning hearts and minds through teaching God's word. Conservatives must also grow the Republican party by winning hearts and minds! They too must get out there and take the word of Capitalism and Liberty to the public. We must grow our party as we grow our churches, one convert at a time. So quit sitting there in the pews nodding your head and saying 'Amen!' every few seconds, get out there and preach the virtues of Conservatism. Teach people that a less intrusive government, states rights and individual Liberty is better than tyranny and serfdom offered by the Left!
We don't need a bigger tent, we need a knowledgeable public that recognizes tyranny and bands together to defeat it.

Obama to cede American Sovereignty

2009-10-19T21:12:00.000-07:00

He is the British Benjamin Franklin of our time. Instead of dispatching him to France as revolutionary America did; today's Great Britton has sent 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (Lord) Christopher Monkton to rally America to the cause of defending freedom!Please Watch the video and/or read the transcript below.

Transcript:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!

Sail on, O Union, strong and great!

Humanity with all its fears,

With all the hopes of future years,

Is hanging breathless on thy fate.

The American Trinity

2009-10-16T21:42:00.000-07:00

1961 Reagan speaks out against Socialized Medicine!

2009-08-14T18:47:00.000-07:00

On the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign, Ronald Reagan Speaks out against Socialized Medicine.

New Order

2009-08-10T23:25:00.000-07:00

In her 1938 novel, 'Anthem', Ayn Rand wrote about a futuristic form of totalitarianism in it's truest most virulent form. She was worried that what happened to her homeland of Communist Russia would take root here. She wrote Anthem to warn Americans and other free nations that tyranny is just a breath away from any generation and that loss of the individual and our sense of self rests in the ashes of a Communist\Socialist based dictatorial rule. Rand understood that the strangling of Capitalism and the 'Snuffing out' of free enterprise lends to the rapid loss of freedom and liberty.

Obama and his cohorts in Congress may wear faces of incredulity when they hear us compare their recent initiatives to the undertakings of the world's most vicious tyrants, but they know full well what they seek is no different from the 'Utopian Society' prophesized by Karl Marx and Engels in 'The Communist Manifesto'. They seek equality through the involuntary egalitarian law of wealth redistribution. They seek consolidation and arbitration of Financial, Governmental, Medical and Private institutions while using junk science like 'Global Warming' to regulate all aspects of the citizenry. These are not mere extrapolations of the Manifesto's penumbra, these are text and verse, line for line, adherences to Marx, Goering, Alinsky, and Mussolini.

The indubitable Pelosi called Townhall attendees "un-American" and claimed they were wearing swastikas. Conservatives are regularly derided and disregarded by this new brand of leftist. Regardless, we continue to raise our voices, not because we are partisan or religious zealots, but copiously frightened! We are not acting and speaking out as bigots, racists or xenophobes. We are driven to unambiguously state our opinion on these matters because we have learned the lessons of history, we have read the writing on the wall and we know our very lives depend on stunting the growth of this new more powerful strain of socialism! We do not want to walk down Hayek's 'Road to Serfdom' and end up being Rand's lead character....'Equality 7-2521'.

Poverty Redistribution

2009-07-26T23:06:00.000-07:00

Early 20th century writer Hilaire Belloc wrote in his book, 'The Servile State', that "To control the production of wealth is to control human life itself. To refuse man the opportunity for the production of wealth is to refuse him the opportunity for life..." Belloc was right and this quote reminds us that the freedom to succeed or fail is intrinsic in all people. Some nations are led by governments who do not understand or respect this right. America survives only due to it's respect for this right of the individual to succeed or fail.

Yet some, like our President, believe you have neither the right to succeed or fail. This is an absurd and dangerous belief. Leftists believe it is the duty of government to redistribute wealth by punishing successful hard working Americans and rewarding the non-contributing masses; they call it equality.

Thomas Jefferson wrote that, "All men are created equal". President Jefferson would have been disgusted by the defiliation of his words by President Obama at his inaugural address, where he announced that we have, "..the God-given promise that all ARE equal.." Obama did not mis-speak, he meant what he said. He believes equality is possible. But all are not equal. A hard working 45 yr old CEO is not nor should he be equal financially to the twenty year old high school drop-out who spent the last five years getting high and sleeping on his mom's couch. Should we hobble the superior athlete or blind fold the faster reader in the name of equality? Should the government be given the power to decide the winners and losers by turning winners into losers?

Let's consider this line of thinking for a moment. All people are NOT equal. All Americans are born with the same rights but none are intrinsically equal. The idea that all can be 'MADE' equal through government regulation and redistribution is an impossible task. Any attempt to implement this philosophy will result in great loses of liberty and the producers in our society must be robbed of their personal property and their lives!

Americans must come to understand, tyrannical growers of government like Obama, must take liberties, properties and wealth from individuals to procure this growth. Absolute despotic governmental power to redistribute wealth is only obtainable through a large scale rape of individuals and private business. Leftists never argue that everyone should be rich; they seek to make everyone poorer not richer. When the government redistributes wealth they take more than money, they take away your ability to succeed in life.

FA Hayek referred to this as a 'Planned or Controlled Society'. In order to dictate fairness and equality the President must control every aspect of our lives, not only monetarily. It is a great misconception of the Left that wealth redistribution and legislated fairness or equality only effects our economic situation. Wealth redistribution is actually a misnomer. When neo-Marxist/ Socialist leaders like Obama gobble up the private sector and begin to control more and more of our economy, they don't then give that power and wealth to poor people, the government absorbs it. There is no wealth redistribution, only poverty redistribution.

If you have two cars and your neighbor has none, a controlled government would seize your second car and give it to your neighbor. Did that make your neighbor richer like you? No, it made you poorer like your neighbor; while making government the arbiter of your possessions and your life.

So when you hear Obama continue to tout equality and fairness remember what President Ford once said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have,".

Justice Clarence Thomas like him or love him!

2009-07-13T20:30:00.000-07:00

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is one of my all time favorite justices and a true Constitutional Conservative. watch the interview on 60 Mins then watch what Obama said about him below. When you are done, ask yourself if you oppose this man like Obama does. If not, you must admit Obama is the one on the wrong side!

Does Obama like Clarence Thomas?

Happiness is a Moral Obligation

2009-07-07T10:00:00.000-07:00

~Watch Video Below~

Obama's Pay-Go

2009-06-09T22:41:00.000-07:00

"It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved from record deficits to record surpluses in the 1990s -- and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt," Obama today at the White House.
There is an often used leftist tactic that has scientific roots. It's a common sense law that states simply, 'correlation does not imply causation'. For example if I were to walk past a window and the window broke, some may claim my walking past caused the breakage. Often the assumption means that all the variants in the case may not have been considered. For instance another outside force such as a thrown rock may have caused the glass to fall from the sill.
Al Gore used this tactic in his movie, saying C02 rise causes increased warming, leaving out an important variant, 'The Sun'! It is the Sun that caused an increase in warming and C02.

So Obama wants you to think that Pay-Go is what caused budget surplus and that the absence of it caused record deficits. This does not take into account that in 1990 we were still benefiting from increased tax revenue caused by Reagan's tax cuts and the statement also ignores that in 1998 spending went back up because Congress found a loop hole in Pay-Go. They learned that since mandatory spending could be increased with legislation, all they needed was to redefine what was mandatory and attach the 'Emergency' tag to any legislation possible. Pay-Go was a joke and it acted only to increase entitlement spending and allow the government to freeze welfare programs and guard against any reduction in such spending.

So no one told you that Pay-Go not only fails to decrease spending but actually ads a floor to entitlement spending? Well, I am sorry to be the barer of bad news but these are facts. You see Obama wants you to think he is doing something noble and wise by tightening the reigns but he is actually stomping on the accelerator! Pay-go will insure that no matter what happens to the economy, welfare checks and entitlement programs will not reduce.... they will only grow larger. So what will Obama do to pay for this faster paced spending? He will raise taxes exponentially and create many new ones with regulation such as 'Cap and Trade'.

Obama is adding more to our deficit than every president since Washington combined! He is spending more than we can print and borrowing to federalize the private sector and fund massive bailouts! Add to this Obama's next objective, government owned and operated 'socialist' health care and you have a debt we can only pay for with our liberty and freedom!
No amount of taxes can pay for this recklessness! We will be drained of our livelihoods and like good serfs be forced to rely on Obama's wealth redistribution to feed our families!
Just SAY NO to Obama's Pay-Go!

Live Free or Die- Mark Steyn at Hillsdale

2009-05-31T20:54:00.000-07:00

Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism, Hillsdale College

MY REMARKS are titled tonight after the words of General Stark, New Hampshire's great hero of the Revolutionary War: "Live free or die!" When I first moved to New Hampshire, where this appears on our license plates, I assumed General Stark had said it before some battle or other—a bit of red meat to rally the boys for the charge; a touch of the old Henry V-at-Agincourt routine. But I soon discovered that the general had made his famous statement decades after the war, in a letter regretting that he would be unable to attend a dinner. And in a curious way I found that even more impressive. In extreme circumstances, many people can rouse themselves to rediscover the primal impulses: The brave men on Flight 93 did. They took off on what they thought was a routine business trip, and, when they realized it wasn't, they went into General Stark mode and cried "Let's roll!" But it's harder to maintain the "Live free or die!" spirit when you're facing not an immediate crisis but just a slow, remorseless, incremental, unceasing ratchet effect. "Live free or die!" sounds like a battle cry: We'll win this thing or die trying, die an honorable death. But in fact it's something far less dramatic: It's a bald statement of the reality of our lives in the prosperous West. You can live as free men, but, if you choose not to, your society will die.
My book America Alone is often assumed to be about radical Islam, firebreathing imams, the excitable young men jumping up and down in the street doing the old "Death to the Great Satan" dance. It's not. It's about us. It's about a possibly terminal manifestation of an old civilizational temptation: Indolence, as Machiavelli understood, is the greatest enemy of a republic. When I ran into trouble with the so-called "human rights" commissions up in Canada, it seemed bizarre to find the progressive left making common cause with radical Islam. One half of the alliance profess to be pro-gay, pro-feminist secularists; the other half are homophobic, misogynist theocrats. Even as the cheap bus 'n' truck road-tour version of the Hitler-Stalin Pact, it made no sense. But in fact what they have in common overrides their superficially more obvious incompatibilities: Both the secular Big Government progressives and political Islam recoil from the concept of the citizen, of the free individual entrusted to operate within his own societal space, assume his responsibilities, and exploit his potential.
In most of the developed world, the state has gradually annexed all the responsibilities of adulthood—health care, child care, care of the elderly—to the point where it's effectively severed its citizens from humanity's primal instincts, not least the survival instinct. Hillary Rodham Clinton said it takes a village to raise a child. It's supposedly an African proverb—there is no record of anyone in Africa ever using this proverb, but let that pass. P.J. O'Rourke summed up that book superbly: It takes a village to raise a child. The government is the village, and you're the child. Oh, and by the way, even if it did take a village to raise a child, I wouldn't want it to be an African village. If you fly over West Africa at night, the lights form one giant coastal megalopolis: Not even Africans regard the African village as a useful societal model. But nor is the European village. Europe's addiction to big government, unaffordable entitlements, cradle-to-grave welfare, and a dependence on mass immigration needed to sustain it has become an existential threat to some of the oldest nation-states in the world.
And now the last holdout, the United States, is embarking on the same grim path: After the President unveiled his budget, I heard Americans complain, oh, it's another Jimmy Carter, or LBJ's Great Society, or the new New Deal. You should be so lucky. Those nickel-and-dime comparisons barely begin to encompass the wholesale Europeanization that's underway. The 44th president's multi-trillion-dollar budget, the first of many, adds more to the national debt than all the previous 43 presidents combined, from George Washington to George Dubya. The President wants Europeanized health care, Europeanized daycare, Europeanized education, and, as the Europeans have discovered, even with Europeanized tax rates you can't make that math add up. In Sweden, state spending accounts for 54% of GDP. In America, it was 34%—ten years ago. Today, it's about 40%. In four years' time, that number will be trending very Swede-like.
But forget the money, the deficit, the debt, the big numbers with the 12 zeroes on the end of them. So-called fiscal conservatives often miss the point. The problem isn't the cost. These programs would still be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month. They're wrong because they deform the relationship between the citizen and the state. Even if there were no financial consequences, the moral and even spiritual consequences would still be fatal. That's the stage where Europe is.
America is just beginning this process. I looked at the rankings in Freedom in the 50 States published by George Mason University last month. New Hampshire came in Number One, the Freest State in the Nation, which all but certainly makes it the freest jurisdiction in the Western world. Which kind of depressed me. Because the Granite State feels less free to me than it did when I moved there, and you always hope there's somewhere else out there just in case things go belly up and you have to hit the road. And way down at the bottom in the last five places were Maryland, California, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and the least free state in the Union by some distance, New York.
New York! How does the song go? "If you can make it there, you'll make it anywhere!" If you can make it there, you're some kind of genius. "This is the worst fiscal downturn since the Great Depression," announced Governor Paterson a few weeks ago. So what's he doing? He's bringing in the biggest tax hike in New York history. If you can make it there, he can take it there—via state tax, sales tax, municipal tax, a doubled beer tax, a tax on clothing, a tax on cab rides, an "iTunes tax," a tax on haircuts, 137 new tax hikes in all. Call 1-800-I-HEART-NEW-YORK today and order your new package of state tax forms, for just $199.99, plus the 12% tax on tax forms and the 4% tax form application fee partially refundable upon payment of the 7.5% tax filing tax. If you can make it there, you'll certainly have no difficulty making it in Tajikistan.
New York, California... These are the great iconic American states, the ones we foreigners have heard of. To a penniless immigrant called Arnold Schwarzenegger, California was a land of plenty. Now Arnold is an immigrant of plenty in a penniless land: That's not an improvement. One of his predecessors as governor of California, Ronald Reagan, famously said, "We are a nation that has a government, not the other way around." In California, it's now the other way around: California is increasingly a government that has a state. And it is still in the early stages of the process. California has thirtysomething million people. The Province of Quebec has seven million people. Yet California and Quebec have roughly the same number of government workers. "There is a great deal of ruin in a nation," said Adam Smith, and America still has a long way to go. But it's better to jump off the train as you're leaving the station and it's still picking up speed than when it's roaring down the track and you realize you've got a one-way ticket on the Oblivion Express.
Indolence," in Machiavelli's word: There are stages to the enervation of free peoples. America, which held out against the trend, is now at Stage One: The benign paternalist state promises to make all those worries about mortgages, debt, and health care disappear. Every night of the week, you can switch on the TV and see one of these ersatz "town meetings" in which freeborn citizens of the republic (I use the term loosely) petition the Sovereign to make all the bad stuff go away. "I have an urgent need," a lady in Fort Myers beseeched the President. "We need a home, our own kitchen, our own bathroom." He took her name and ordered his staff to meet with her. Hopefully, he didn't insult her by dispatching some no-name deputy assistant associate secretary of whatever instead of flying in one of the bigtime tax-avoiding cabinet honchos to nationalize a Florida bank and convert one of its branches into a desirable family residence, with a swing set hanging where the drive-thru ATM used to be.
As all of you know, Hillsdale College takes no federal or state monies. That used to make it an anomaly in American education. It's in danger of becoming an anomaly in America, period. Maybe it's time for Hillsdale College to launch the Hillsdale Insurance Agency, the Hillsdale Motor Company and the First National Bank of Hillsdale. The executive supremo at Bank of America is now saying, oh, if only he'd known what he knows now, he wouldn't have taken the government money. Apparently it comes with strings attached. Who knew? Sure, Hillsdale College did, but nobody else.
If you're a business, when government gives you 2% of your income, it has a veto on 100% of what you do. If you're an individual, the impact is even starker. Once you have government health care, it can be used to justify almost any restraint on freedom: After all, if the state has to cure you, it surely has an interest in preventing you needing treatment in the first place.
That's the argument behind, for example, mandatory motorcycle helmets, or the creepy teams of government nutritionists currently going door to door in Britain and conducting a "health audit" of the contents of your refrigerator. They're not yet confiscating your Twinkies; they just want to take a census of how many you have. So you do all this for the "free" health care—and in the end you may not get the "free" health care anyway. Under Britain's National Health Service, for example, smokers in Manchester have been denied treatment for heart disease, and the obese in Suffolk are refused hip and knee replacements.
Patricia Hewitt, the British Health Secretary, says that it's appropriate to decline treatment on the basis of "lifestyle choices." Smokers and the obese may look at their gay neighbor having unprotected sex with multiple partners, and wonder why his "lifestyle choices" get a pass while theirs don't. But that's the point: Tyranny is always whimsical.
And if they can't get you on grounds of your personal health, they'll do it on grounds of planetary health. Not so long ago in Britain it was proposed that each citizen should have a government-approved travel allowance. If you take one flight a year, you'll pay just the standard amount of tax on the journey. But, if you travel more frequently, if you take a second or third flight, you'll be subject to additional levies—in the interest of saving the planet for Al Gore's polar bear documentaries and that carbon-offset palace he lives in in Tennessee.
Isn't this the very definition of totalitarianism-lite? The Soviets restricted the movement of people through the bureaucratic apparatus of "exit visas." The British are proposing to do it through the bureaucratic apparatus of exit taxes—indeed, the bluntest form of regressive taxation. As with the Communists, the nomenklatura—the Prince of Wales, Al Gore, Madonna—will still be able to jet about hither and yon. What's a 20% surcharge to them? Especially as those for whom vast amounts of air travel are deemed essential—government officials, heads of NGOs, environmental activists—will no doubt be exempted from having to pay the extra amount. But the ghastly masses will have to stay home.
"Freedom of movement" used to be regarded as a bedrock freedom. The movement is still free, but there's now a government processing fee of $389.95. And the interesting thing about this proposal was that it came not from the Labour Party but the Conservative Party.
That's Stage Two of societal enervation—when the state as guarantor of all your basic needs becomes increasingly comfortable with regulating your behavior. Free peoples who were once willing to give their lives for liberty can be persuaded very quickly to relinquish their liberties for a quiet life. When President Bush talked about promoting democracy in the Middle East, there was a phrase he liked to use: "Freedom is the desire of every human heart." Really? It's unclear whether that's really the case in Gaza and the Pakistani tribal lands. But it's absolutely certain that it's not the case in Berlin and Paris, Stockholm and London, New Orleans and Buffalo. The story of the Western world since 1945 is that, invited to choose between freedom and government "security," large numbers of people vote to dump freedom every time—the freedom to make your own decisions about health care, education, property rights, and a ton of other stuff. It's ridiculous for grown men and women to say: I want to be able to choose from hundreds of cereals at the supermarket, thousands of movies from Netflix, millions of songs to play on my iPod—but I want the government to choose for me when it comes to my health care. A nation that demands the government take care of all the grown-up stuff is a nation turning into the world's wrinkliest adolescent, free only to choose its record collection.
And don't be too sure you'll get to choose your record collection in the end. That's Stage Three: When the populace has agreed to become wards of the state, it's a mere difference of degree to start regulating their thoughts.
When my anglophone friends in the Province of Quebec used to complain about the lack of English signs in Quebec hospitals, my response was that, if you allow the government to be the sole provider of health care, why be surprised that they're allowed to decide the language they'll give it in? But, as I've learned during my year in the hellhole of Canadian "human rights" law, that's true in a broader sense. In the interests of "cultural protection," the Canadian state keeps foreign newspaper owners, foreign TV operators, and foreign bookstore owners out of Canada. Why shouldn't it, in return, assume the right to police the ideas disseminated through those newspapers, bookstores and TV networks it graciously agrees to permit?

When Maclean's magazine and I were hauled up in 2007 for the crime of "flagrant Islamophobia," it quickly became very clear that, for members of a profession that brags about its "courage" incessantly (far more than, say, firemen do), an awful lot of journalists are quite content to be the eunuchs in the politically correct harem. A distressing number of Western journalists see no conflict between attending lunches for World Press Freedom Day every month and agreeing to be micro-regulated by the state. The big problem for those of us arguing for classical liberalism is that in modern Canada there's hardly anything left that isn't on the state dripfeed to one degree or another: Too many of the institutions healthy societies traditionally look to as outposts of independent thought—churches, private schools, literature, the arts, the media—either have an ambiguous relationship with government or are downright dependent on it. Up north, "intellectual freedom" means the relevant film-funding agency—Cinedole Canada or whatever it's called—gives you a check to enable you to continue making so-called "bold, brave, transgressive" films that discombobulate state power not a whit.
And then comes Stage Four, in which dissenting ideas and even words are labeled as "hatred." In effect, the language itself becomes a means of control. Despite the smiley-face banalities, the tyranny becomes more naked: In Britain, a land with rampant property crime, undercover constables nevertheless find time to dine at curry restaurants on Friday nights to monitor adjoining tables lest someone in private conversation should make a racist remark. An author interviewed on BBC Radio expressed, very mildly and politely, some concerns about gay adoption and was investigated by Scotland Yard's Community Safety Unit for Homophobic, Racist and Domestic Incidents. A Daily Telegraph columnist is arrested and detained in a jail cell over a joke in a speech. A Dutch legislator is invited to speak at the Palace of Westminster by a member of the House of Lords, but is banned by the government, arrested on arrival at Heathrow and deported.
America, Britain, and even Canada are not peripheral nations: They're the three anglophone members of the G7. They're three of a handful of countries that were on the right side of all the great conflicts of the last century. But individual liberty flickers dimmer in each of them. The massive expansion of government under the laughable euphemism of "stimulus" (Stage One) comes with a quid pro quo down the line (Stage Two): Once you accept you're a child in the government nursery, why shouldn't Nanny tell you what to do? And then—Stage Three—what to think? And—Stage Four—what you're forbidden to think . . . .
Which brings us to the final stage: As I said at the beginning, Big Government isn't about the money. It's more profound than that. A couple of years back Paul Krugman wrote a column in The New York Times asserting that, while parochial American conservatives drone on about "family values," the Europeans live it, enacting policies that are more "family friendly." On the Continent, claims the professor, "government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable tradeoff-to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family."
As befits a distinguished economist, Professor Krugman failed to notice that for a continent of "family friendly" policies, Europe is remarkably short of families. While America's fertility rate is more or less at replacement level—2.1—seventeen European nations are at what demographers call "lowest-low" fertility—1.3 or less—a rate from which no society in human history has ever recovered. Germans, Spaniards, Italians and Greeks have upside-down family trees: four grandparents have two children and one grandchild. How can an economist analyze "family friendly" policies without noticing that the upshot of these policies is that nobody has any families?
As for all that extra time, what happened? Europeans work fewer hours than Americans, they don't have to pay for their own health care, they're post-Christian so they don't go to church, they don't marry and they don't have kids to take to school and basketball and the 4-H stand at the county fair. So what do they do with all the time?
Forget for the moment Europe's lack of world-beating companies: They regard capitalism as an Anglo-American fetish, and they mostly despise it. But what about the things Europeans supposedly value? With so much free time, where is the great European art? Where are Europe's men of science? At American universities. Meanwhile, Continental governments pour fortunes into prestigious white elephants of Euro-identity, like the Airbus A380, capable of carrying 500, 800, a thousand passengers at a time, if only somebody somewhere would order the darn thing, which they might consider doing once all the airports have built new runways to handle it.

"Give people plenty and security, and they will fall into spiritual torpor," wrote Charles Murray in In Our Hands. "When life becomes an extended picnic, with nothing of importance to do, ideas of greatness become an irritant. Such is the nature of the Europe syndrome."
"The key word here is "give." When the state "gives" you plenty—when it takes care of your health, takes cares of your kids, takes care of your elderly parents, takes care of every primary responsibility of adulthood—it's not surprising that the citizenry cease to function as adults: Life becomes a kind of extended adolescence—literally so for those Germans who've mastered the knack of staying in education till they're 34 and taking early retirement at 42. Hilaire Belloc, incidentally, foresaw this very clearly in his book The Servile State in 1912. He understood that the long-term cost of a welfare society is the infantilization of the population.
Genteel decline can be very agreeable—initially: You still have terrific restaurants, beautiful buildings, a great opera house. And once the pressure's off it's nice to linger at the sidewalk table, have a second café au lait and a pain au chocolat, and watch the world go by. At the Munich Security Conference in February, President Sarkozy demanded of his fellow Continentals, "Does Europe want peace, or do we want to be left in peace?" To pose the question is to answer it. Alas, it only works for a generation or two. And it's hard to come up with a wake-up call for a society as dedicated as latterday Europe to the belief that life is about sleeping in.
As Gerald Ford liked to say when trying to ingratiate himself with conservative audiences, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have." And that's true. But there's an intermediate stage: A government big enough to give you everything you want isn't big enough to get you to give any of it back. That's the position European governments find themselves in. Their citizens have become hooked on unaffordable levels of social programs which in the end will put those countries out of business. Just to get the Social Security debate in perspective, projected public pension liabilities are expected to rise by 2040 to about 6.8% of GDP in the U.S. In Greece, the figure is 25%—i.e., total societal collapse. So what? shrug the voters. Not my problem. I want my benefits. The crisis isn't the lack of money, but the lack of citizens—in the meaningful sense of that word.
Every Democrat running for election tells you they want to do this or that "for the children." If America really wanted to do something "for the children," it could try not to make the same mistake as most of the rest of the Western world and avoid bequeathing the next generation a leviathan of bloated bureaucracy and unsustainable entitlements that turns the entire nation into a giant Ponzi scheme. That's the real "war on children" (to use another Democrat catchphrase)—and every time you bulk up the budget you make it less and less likely they'll win it.
Conservatives often talk about "small government," which, in a sense, is framing the issue in leftist terms: they're for big government. But small government gives you big freedoms—and big government leaves you with very little freedom. The bailout and the stimulus and the budget and the trillion-dollar deficits are not merely massive transfers from the most dynamic and productive sector to the least dynamic and productive. When governments annex a huge chunk of the economy, they also annex a huge chunk of individual liberty. You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of junkie and pusher—and you make it very difficult ever to change back. Americans face a choice: They can rediscover the animating principles of the American idea—of limited government, a self-reliant citizenry, and the opportunities to exploit your talents to the fullest—or they can join most of the rest of the Western world in terminal decline. To rekindle the spark of liberty once it dies is very difficult.
The inertia, the ennui, the fatalism is more pathetic than the demographic decline and fiscal profligacy of the social democratic state, because it's subtler and less tangible. But once in a while it swims into very sharp focus. Here is the writer Oscar van den Boogaard from an interview with the Belgian paper De Standaard. Mr. van den Boogaard, a Dutch gay "humanist" (which is pretty much the trifecta of Eurocool), was reflecting on the accelerating Islamification of the Continent and concluding that the jig was up for the Europe he loved. "I am not a warrior, but who is?" he shrugged. "I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it." In the famous Kubler-Ross five stages of grief, Mr. van den Boogard is past denial, anger, bargaining and depression, and has arrived at a kind of acceptance.
"I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it." Sorry, doesn't work—not for long. Back in New Hampshire, General Stark knew that. Mr. van den Boogard's words are an epitaph for Europe. Whereas New Hampshire's motto—"Live free or die!"—is still the greatest rallying cry for this state or any other. About a year ago, there was a picture in the papers of Iranian students demonstrating in Tehran and waving placards. And what they'd written on those placards was: "Live free or die!" They understand the power of those words; so should we.

“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.”

Memorial Day 2009

2009-05-25T06:55:00.000-07:00

We as Americans hold dear to our hearts the memories of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and safety. For many of us Memorial Day is a day for reconciliation and it conjures thoughts and emotion for soldiers who died to afford us freedoms that we ourselves are responsible for protecting.
Many of us realize that if we lose those freedoms or act in ways undeserving of them, we undermine their sacrifice.

Many families are rich with military tradition and see numerous loved ones pay the ultimate price in service to this Country. Their loved ones are our loved ones, and a part of a broader family.....AMERICANS !
They are our brothers and sisters too. These are our heroes, these lives are ours to celebrate and ours to memorialize.

One hundred and forty three years ago the people of Waterloo, New York set aside a special day to remember the dead of the Civil War. They called it ' Decoration day'. On this day the community would show respect and reverence for fallen heroes by lavishing their graves with beautiful flowers and ribbons. Many other communities nationwide hold emotionally charged claims to the title of ' place of origin' for this great day, however in 1966, President LBJ sanctioned Waterloo as the "official" birthplace of Memorial Day. It was said that the more than 100 years of completely planned observances were unprecedented and none of the 23 other towns could show proof to the contrary.

Not even Waterloo can dispute however, that while the Civil War was still being fought, Southern housewives were documented as having participated in setting aside a day to remember and decorate graves in unison. Regardless of the origin, the spirit of Memorial day is alive and strong in many American's hearts.
In 1868 the Commander of the GAR (Grand Army of the Republic), General John Logan, proclaimed in his 'General Order no.11' that May 30th would be the 1st 'official' day of observance when they placed flowers on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery.

Later, in 1882, the name was also changed by the GAR. The new name for Decoration Day would be 'Memorial Day' !

In 1971 Congress declared Memorial Day to be a national holiday. The Bill (P.L.90-363) established Memorial Day to be the last Monday of May, thus insuring a three day holiday.
Many people argue that the day should be returned to May 30th. They say that the three day weekend is becoming the focus and not the true reason for the day. This sentiment is reinforced by the laxed participation in memorial celebrations. Many towns have not seen a Memorial Day parade in over half a century. Bar-B-Ques have replaced graveside services and lake fun has replaced traditional parades. Many young folks don't even know why we observe the day. Some think it is to remember everyone who dies or everyone who has served. It is not! Over time the day has gone from a day for the Civil War dead, to include WWI and WWII. Eventually, it has come to include 'All' of our war dead. In 2002 the VFW said, "Changing the date merely to create three-day weekends has undermined the very meaning of the day. No doubt, this has contributed greatly to the general public's nonchalant observance of Memorial Day."

The Poem
Memorial Day was changed forever in 1915. Drawing from her love of the poem, "In Flanders Fields" Moina Michael chimed in with her own poem about fields of red poppies.....

While writing this poem she had an idea to show support for the fallen soldiers by wearing a red poppy on her lapel. Soon the tradition spread and a lady started making artificial poppies. In 1922 the VFW sold them to benefit the families of fallen soldiers. In 1924 they started the "Buddy" program to distribute the poppies. In recent years, I have not witnessed a single American wear one. Some traditions were not meant to die. It is up to us to see to it that our children learn of these historic traditions. We should make time on 'Memorial Day Weekend' to educate our children. Make sure they realize that this day is a special day for military memorial. Then teach them what to memorialize. This Memorial Day, make it a point to bring everyone you can together to observe the National Moment of Remembrance. It was started in Dec.2000, and calls for a moment of silence while Taps is played.

God bless you America, have a meaningful Memorial Day, and to those who are risking all for us this very moment....

Thank you.

YOU are my Hero!

Memorial Day Poem 2009

2009-05-25T04:59:00.000-07:00

Moina Michael, November 1918

Conservative Individualism

2009-05-11T20:46:00.000-07:00

"The Collectivists have not abandoned their ultimate goal - to subordinate the individual to the state- but their strategy has changed. They have learned that Socialism can't be achieved through Welfarism quite as well as through Nationalization." Barry Goldwater, 'The Conscience of a Conservative' 1960.

Goldwater's words were never so relevant as today. Liberals, or Statists as they are more accurately described, have learned that to gain power sufficient to build a totalitarian Marxist utopia they must nationalize all fundamental aspects of the economy and private industry. When Welfarism and Nationalism seats government as the arbitrator of our education, employment, housing, transportation, security, financial institutions and agriculture it is only a matter of time until you, the individual will find yourself in the position of Ayn Rand's 'Anthem' character, 'Equality 7-2521'. We will have become the royal we. There will no longer be individuality. An individual in a country of Nationalized Marxism is doomed to succumb if not to the state, then to exposure and starvation. In an America where government pulls all the strings we will no longer have a government of the people by the people and for the people but a people of the government by the government and for the government. We will have no need for religion because the State will be our religion and government our god.

Some pseudo Conservatives believe we should not call out the Statists and reveal their agenda. They say it is too divisive. They believe the leftist propaganda that, in order for Conservatives to win, we must open our movement up to the moderates and pseudo Centrists. But that is the path of certain destruction. No, we will not water down our core philosophy just so we can be a more inclusive big tent. We are a big tent! Those of us who believe in family values, the right to personal property and the liberty to work for our own wages and build our own future, are the majority! We must not compromise in this world of desperation and exaggerated despair, we the majority must be silent no more!

We have no intentions as Conservatives to open ourselves up to those who believe in abortion on demand, the redefinition of marriage, the re-writing of history nor the godless secular notion that government can arbitrate our lives better than we or God can. The strongest economy on Earth has been so because of it's economic reliance on Free market Capitalism not Big Government Socialism. We are the strongest military on Earth because our Conservative principals required it. That level of security is possible only in a Capitalist society that breeds individualism not collectivism. It is the individual who makes the whole of society thrive not the state, and it is the Conservative who seeks to preserve and empower the individual.

So when some one says that in order to land Conservatives in power nationally we must relax our principals and embrace centrist and leftist ideology, we say with a loud voice, "NO!" We know that to win for Conservatism we must first be conservative. If we become Liberal to defeat Liberals we have won a victory for Liberalism not Conservatism! Our agenda is clear, our morality intact and our task is at hand. We must articulate our beliefs and fight for our liberty as did our forefathers! As long as we hold steadfast and remain faithful we can preserve this the greatest nation on God's green Earth for the next generation. If we become diluted by compromise our children's children will know nothing of the land of the free and home the brave!

Pandemic

2009-04-30T19:41:00.000-07:00

Six months ago Obama's Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said of the financial decline, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste ....Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

Obama certainly shares this sentiment regarding the economy and the current 'Swine Flu pandemic'. The absolute bone rattling fear being peddled by the media and Obama's administration is one more instance of oportunistic partisan politics.

Obama's VP Joe Biden, In an interview today on NBC said, “I would tell members of my family — and I have — I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now. It’s not that it’s going to Mexico. It’s [that] you’re in a confined aircraft. When one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft. That’s me. … So, from my perspective, what it relates to is mitigation. If you’re out in the middle of a field when someone sneezes, that’s one thing. If you’re in a closed aircraft or closed container or closed car or closed classroom, it’s a different thing.”
Later Biden came out and tried to downplay his statement but it was too late. The damage was done, and I believe they intended it this way.

Obama knows the danger of panicing the public. He knows that Biden's words will cause many people to stop using mass transit like buses, trains, subways, monorails and airplanes. Is this a wise tactic when we are hurting finacially? How much revenue will be lost when all of these industries see a sharp decline like the pork industry did recently? How about foreign travel to destinations other than Mexico? Are all nations equal in this egalitarianism being fostered by Obama? Is North Korea morally and humanely equal to America or Switzerland?

This fearmongering is costing the economy in a way that's certain to provide more oportunity for 'Change' by the administration. In case you're unable to find perspective that's not drenched in pesimism, I'll give you a few facts about the current 'Swine Flu Pandemic'.

First and foremost the title 'Swine Flu' is a misnomer. The strain is actually called H1N1. It is only refered to as 'Swine Flu' because it contains strains of Human, bird and swine influenza. It is not directly contracted from pigs. However, the imediate lableing incited Egypt to slaughter it's 300,000 pigs, leaving farmers greatly harmed financially.

Secondly, the initial numbers of cases and deaths were absurdly overstated. It seemed anyone who sneezed had the swine flu and anyone who died from the flu died of the swine flu. Headlines seemed to suggest people were dropping dead in the street and no one was safe.

Yet yesterday the WHO (World Health Org) released new numbers. This is an excerpt from the WHO website: "The United States Government has reported 109 laboratory confirmed human cases, including one death. Mexico has reported 97 confirmed human cases of infection, including seven deaths. The following countries have reported laboratory confirmed cases with no deaths - Austria (1), Canada (19), Germany (3), Israel (2), Netherlands (1), New Zealand (3), Spain (13), Switzerland (1) and the United Kingdom (8)." For those who are counting that is a total of 257 cases worldwide and 8 deaths. Not a very massive pandemic by any standards.

"Let's not lose track of the fact that the normal seasonal influenza is a huge public health problem that kills tens of thousands of people in the U.S. alone and hundreds of thousands around the world," said Dr. Christopher Olsen, a molecular virologist who studies swine flu at the University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine in Madison.

During a typical flu season in the U.S., between 5% and 20% of the population becomes ill and 36,000 people die. That's just the nature of the flu virus. Scientists reported to the LA Times today that this outbreak will not be as bad as the typical flu season in the average winter.
You cannot get H1N1 from eating pork or breathing air. So don't listen to the sky is falling crowd. Don't freak out and cancel trips or keep your kids home from school. Treat this virus as you would any virus during flu season. Keep your hands washed, don't passionately kiss random strangers and live your life.

Janeane Garofalo calls Conservatives at TEA Parties racists and more!

2009-04-19T16:34:00.000-07:00

I just felt people needed to hear what passes as popular oppinion in the Mainstream Media and Hollywood liberal cliques. Are you a Liberal? Do you see Conservatives like Garofalo and Olberman?If you do I suggest you get to know a Conservative!

Susan Roesgen-CNN at Chicago TEA Party

2009-04-16T21:06:00.000-07:00

TEA Party in Wichita Falls Texas

2009-04-15T21:59:00.000-07:00

Today I joined with 1500+ fellow citizens from Wichita Falls, Tx at a 'TEA Party' on the steps of our courthouse! Many people gave speeches even nationally syndicated talk show host/FOXNews' Glenn Beck gave a brief word of encouragement via satellite. We held signs and we cheered. We did not riot. No one was spouting hate or racism as so many are now reporting. We simply gathered together for a common cause, not along political, racial or ideological lines but as concerned patriots who love our country and wish to preserve it's foundation not rebuild it in a Marxist fashion!

Yet still many in the mainstream media are reporting our intentions as a nefarious gathering of right wing extremists who are simply coming together to express our racist and anti Obama beliefs. They say we are just mad because Obama won and we can't get over it. They are dead wrong! We rallied today for something noble and just! I will tell you why we rallied!

George Mason refused to sign the US Constitution. He refused because he wanted the judiciary to have the weapons found only in a Bill of Rights to enable it to repel the assaults of the Federal Government upon the liberties of men. He knew that the Constitution as it stood would leave the federal government a way to use the Constitution against the States.
As we all know, George Mason, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Randolph, and Elbridge Gerry got their way in 1791 when the 'Bill of Rights' was ratified. Important if not chief among the original 10 amendments was the 10th.

Plainly stated it reads, "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." Yet our new President has trampled over this Constitutional decree! He has said to corporations, banks, private industries and corporations and even states that they MUST accept tax payer funds, tied to which are stipulations and mandates; many not pertaining to the allocation of the 'Bail-out' funds.

He has begun the most aggressive spending campaign in history and has promised to allow the Bush Tax cuts to die (effectuating a massive tax increase), extending the government's reach into our lives while redistributing the wealth. All this while perpetrating a ferocious private sector feeding frenzy by the federal government.

These are the reasons millions of us met today in more than 700 cities and and protested in what we have dubbed 'TEA Parties'
(Taxed Enough Already) We are not, as the New York Times article cites, protesting Obama! We are not all Republicans we are correct thinking people who want the federal government to keep it's hands out of our pockets and leave alone our states and individual rights guaranteed us by the 10th amendment! Our protest is not anti Obama and it is not anti government....it is anti-TYRANNY!

The Tea Party on KAUZ

-Here's a video I took at the WF TEA Party-

IMPRIMIS

2009-03-06T22:03:00.000-08:00

Imprimis, which in Latin means "in the first place," is Hillsdale's national speech digest. It publishes presentations delivered at the College's many seminar and lecture programs. Begun in 1972 (the year of my birth) with a circulation of 1,000, it now reaches over 1.7 million readers monthly, the largest thing of its kind. Imprimis promotes the principles of individual rights, limited government, free market economics, personal responsibility and strong national defense. It is part of Hillsdale's commitment to "pursuing truth and defending liberty."
I have mentioned Imprimis to most everyone I know. It is a FREE publication sent out by the preeminent Conservative University in New Jersey, Hillsdale College. Imprimis (current and past issues) can also be read and free PDF copies downloaded at their website http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp
When a guest gives a speech at Hillsdale, the transcript is published in that month's Imprimis.
With such guest speakers as the late Paul Harvey, Ronald Reagan, Margret Thatcher, Clarence Thomas, Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, Larry Arnn, F.Lee Bailey, Fred Barnes, Bill Bennett, Gary Bauer, Rush Limbaugh, James L. Buckley, Sarah Palin, Steve Forbes, Milton Freidman, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Charles Krauthammer, Michelle Malkin, David McCullough, Michael Medved, Benjamin Netanyahu, Walter E. Williams, George Will, J.C. Watts, Cal Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Fred S. Singer, Tony Snow, Shelby Steele, Hillsdale President George Roche, Dan Quayle, Grover Norquist, Edwin Meese and many others having graced the pages of Imprimis issues, you can understand why I recommend this priceless publication.

I began reading Imprimis in high school. I subscribed to my own copy in 1990. I then began subscribing to two copies in 2002 so I could share it with friends and neighbors. I have given away dozens of copies and have personally contributed to more than 100 subsequent subscriptions by those I recommended it to. However, I first heard about Imprimis from Paul Harvey and over the years his advertisement and support of the monthly digest has resulted in a great many of the now 1.7 million current subscribers!

I have many favorite issues and among them is the February 2009 issue by Rush Limbaugh.
Surely you are aware of the current controversy surrounding him and the comment made regarding his desire for President Obama to fail in implementing his Marxist agenda of wealth redistribution and government consumption of the private sector. In his speech to Hillsdale he addresses the popular movement by confused Conservatives who say the era of Reagan is over and that we should embrace the centrist and Leftist ideals espoused by the current Democrat party. In true Imprimis fashion and only as the legendary Limbaugh can do, he explains what Reaganism really is, why it is not dead and why Conservatives MUST NOT turn away from those principles!

Thanks to Hillsdale, I have permission to reprint this speech and I hope it inspires you to join your fellow Conservatives in taking back the Republican party.

You can start by calling 1-800-437-2268 or click here to apply online.

January 2009
Rush Limbaugh
Do Conservatives Need to Get Beyond Reagan?
THERE ARE ongoing discussions and debates among conservatives about the kind of president Barack Obama will prove to be, and about how they should react to him. But there is a larger and more important debate going on within conservatism-a debate about what conservatism is. Remarkably, we are hearing from a lot of people who are thought to be conservatives that conservatives need to "get beyond Reagan." After all, these people say, "The Reagan era is over." And the liberal media love to print their articles and broadcast their pronouncements to this effect. My response is, well, yes, the Reagan era is over in the sense that it has been 20 years since Reagan was president. But the funny thing is, I never heard the liberals saying that because the era of FDR was over—it ended in 1945—that they needed to "get beyond FDR."

They didn't say that 35 years later when Reagan was first elected, or when he was reelected in 1984. They didn't say that when the liberals lost Congress in the 1994 election. Nor did they say it after the 2000 or 2004 elections. Instead, they kept arguing and fighting for the ideas they believe in. And now Mr. Obama is plausibly promising to revive the era of FDR.

So why are some so-called conservatives today arguing that we need to "get beyond Reagan," by which they mean that we need to abandon the ideas that Reagan stood for? To understand the roots of this argument, I think we only need to look back to the years when Reagan first emerged onto the national scene. There was a lot of resentment at that time among many of the elites in the Republican Party because Reagan hadn't gone to the right schools, he didn't come from the right part of the country, he had been an actor rather than a lawyer, he was a bumbling dunce, he was an extremist who was too far outside the mainstream to win, and so on.

People have been making these kinds of arguments for a long time. They were saying that conservatives needed to get beyond Reagan even before the Reagan era began. A few of them are the same people. Many of them are new. But what they have in common is that none of them agree with the principles that Reagan stood for. And I would argue that this means that they are not conservatives.

Today the get-beyond-Reagan arguments are often put in so-called pragmatic terms of needing to create blocs of voters who will support the Republican Party. And in order to accomplish this, all that conservatives have to do, these self-proclaimed smart people say,iis embrace the idea of big government, because that's what the American people want and because only so-called big-government conservatives will be able to create blocs of voters by spending money to do them favors. But in answer to this, one has to ask the question—and I'm being a real pragmatist myself here—what's left for government to spend these days? It's already bailing people out right and left with taxpayer money that the government doesn't have.

The spigot has been turned on under President Bush. The Obama administration, we can presume, is going to be even more generous in terms of bailouts. But honestly, when we look at auto executives being grilled on TV by liberal members of Congress about their irresponsibility, can we take it seriously? Has anyone ever been as irresponsible with money—and in their case other people's money—than these very same self-righteous members of Congress?

As history has amply demonstrated, down the line the kind of central planning that Mr. Bush has begun and that Mr. Obama plans to escalate isn't going to work. Although it may succeed in increasing the control of government over people's lives—which is how many liberals these days seem to define prosperity—it will fail miserably in restoring economic health to America. So in fact, during a time of economic trouble like this when liberals are in charge of both elected branches of government, conservatives have a golden opportunity to reintroduce to the American people the free market ideas and policies that have made our country the greatest and most prosperous country in human history.

My first point, then, is that there is no pragmatic reason today for conservatives to abandon the ideas of Reagan. It is worth remembering, after all, that despite the warnings of Republican "pragmatists" in the economically bleak 1970s that Reagan was too far outside the mainstream ever to be successful politically, Reagan won the presidency in two landslides—and that in 1994, his party took over the House of Representatives, for the first time in 40 years, using Reagan-like arguments.

But there is a second and more important point to be made in response to the argument that conservatives should get beyond Reagan. The main idea that animated Reagan wasn't anti-communism or supply side economics. Reagan's main idea was the main idea of the American founding—the idea of individual liberty—and the policies that he supported, both internationally and domestically, grew from that. America was founded on the idea that our individual freedoms derive from God, not from government, and that government should protect those freedoms and never violate them. Reagan argued, and history has shown, that America does best when it is true to its original idea. It does best when its people are left free to work in their individual self-interest—not meant in the sense of being selfish, but in the sense that they are left free to work to improve their own lives and the lives of their families, and for the good of their communities and of the nation at large.

The biggest problem with the argument that conservatives should get beyond Reagan, then, is that the idea of individual liberty will never go out of style as long as America exists. To argue that the Reagan era is over is to argue that the era of freedom is over. And to argue that conservatives should abandon Reagan's principles is to argue that they should stop being conservatives.

There is no such thing, at least in America, as "big-government conservatism." A government that abides by the Constitution and protects our God-given freedoms is by definition limited. Rather than carving out blocs of voters by surrendering their principles, conservatives need to continue to tell the American people as a whole that the ideas of individual liberty and limited government are right and that the policies that come from those ideas work best to produce prosperity. Conservatives don't need to reinvent themselves. They need the courage to be once again who they were.

Download PDF- 01/2009

Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.
Copyright © 2009 Hillsdale College

The Fairness Doctrine- ACT II

2009-02-12T23:25:00.000-08:00

In 1949 the 'Fairness Doctrine' was introduced. By 1969 the ruling on Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC codified the Fairness Doctrine in American law. The doctrine demanded that radio broadcasters lose the right to freely choose the format for their shows.
It demanded that broadcast radio and mainstream publications present a controversial issue and allow opposing views.
This doctrine was further strengthened by the Communications Act of 1934 which demanded equal time for candidates on radio programs.
When the Fairness Doctrine was introduced it took away freedom of speech but more-over it took away an even more valuable right. It took away the right of a private businessman to develop the product he wishes to sell. It took away the entrepreneur's autonomy and took a socialist step toward suppression of a vital tenant of capitalism and free enterprise!

In the 1980s President Reagan and his cabinet repealed the Fairness Doctrine and gave rise to thousands of Conservative talk radio formats and hosts.
None of these hosts would shine quite as bright as the ever so talented and 'always Right' Rusty Sharpe, better known as Jeff Christy.
This radio sophomore was allowed, thanks to Reagan's burial of the Fairness Doctrine, to be cast in a format that would transform and inform the political world while turning the Leftists' world upside down.

Of course when Jeff Christy began his own show he refused to go back to the old way of broadcasting, instead he decided there would be few guests on his show, this show was going to be about expressing and teaching Conservative values and principals. And one more thing; he was NOT going to continue to use a pseudonym.
He was born Rush Limbaugh III and he would henceforth be known as such.

Rush Limbaugh has built a mighty outreach to many people in America and around the world. He reached this status of greatness by simply utilizing free market Capitalist freedoms. He did it his way. The four time Marconi award winner and Radio Hall of Fame and National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame member, found what worked and identified what the consumer wanted, then marketed it. Without those freedoms Rush Limbaugh and his descendants in national syndication would be out of work and Conservative America would be spoon fed liberal government sanctioned radio to accentuate their heap'n help'n of leftist TV and print media.
If Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, The Clintionistas, and most every prominent Democrat get their way later this year or next, they will have murdered talk radio and taken one more giant bite out of our freedom!

So let me just say this about freedom and Capitalism. Every day this viperous congress holds session, we lose another constitutionally protected or God given right. They are misguided by the notion that fairness is achievable. They either don't know or don't care, that to be fair to some requires you to be unfair to others.
Attempts to be fair to all results in cruelty to all and fairness and equality can never be achieved. That's why Orwell's classic tale of Communism in Stalinist Russia found the swine leaders changing the Farm Motto from "All animals are equal" to,"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others". Egalitarianism never works, is never fair and ultimately intensifies classism and grows governmental power.

If leftists are able to suppress the Conservative view by re-implementing the Fairness Doctrine, we will surely see Conservatives doomed to wonder in the desert for 40 years as they did in the 40's, 50's, 60' and '70s until the Reagan presidency and Republican congressional majority of the 80's. However, I fear that with a Marxist President and Socialist majority rulers in Congress, blood-thirsty for total government take over of the private sector, we could be in for stormy weather!
What can you do?
Be aware, when you hear people talking about the fairness doctrine politely inject yourself in the conversation. Let them know that this only seeks to suppress speech and prevent 25 to 50 million people, every day, from hearing a conservative point of view. Tell them that we don't win political, theological or ideological debates by censoring our dissenters. We win by presenting the best solutions and educating the citizenry regarding our agenda and purpose.
Then you can stay informed and when the day comes that Congress plans to entertain the Fairness Doctrine, call and write to your congressmen and tell them the same thing!
Pass this along and tell your friends to stand beside you as fellow sentinels over American freedom and liberty!

You Want Change? Try These Ideas

2009-01-07T20:39:00.000-08:00

A friend recently sent this email to me. It is an article published in an Amarillo paper last October.
The 'Guest Columnist' spouts one lie after another and no one seems to realize it.
The facts she gives are ripped from the text of a hoax email that has been passed around for ten years!
I am angry at Congress too. I want to change some things too.
But this lady is a liar, she has been fooled or she has an agenda.
No matter the reason, the fact is she is DEAD WRONG!
Read her column first and then read my rebuttal below!

You Want Change? Try These Ideas
Each presidential candidate is giving his rendition of the changes he wants for America.
Here are a few that I believe all Americans want.
Limit Congress from serving more than two terms. That is all that presidents are allowed.
Stop Congress from voting for their own raises. How did that ever get started?
Stop paying for lawmakers' high-priced insurance premiums. After all, they are only part-time employees. They might pass some law changes on the insurance companies, if they had to find one.
Stop paying lawmakers their full salary after serving just one term, or at retirement. We need to get rid of that pension plan; they've let other companies get rid of theirs. You were lucky to get 40 to 50 percent of your salary after working somewhere for 35 years, but they get 100 percent.
Make Congress pay into the Social Security system. They make laws for it. If they spent some of their own money, they might be interested in making it solvent.
Stop handing out aid to illegal aliens. If we did, then Medicaid and the food stamp program would have enough money to aid the aged and the poor.
Secure our borders.
Stop allowing babies born to illegal aliens in the United States automatic U.S. citizenship.
Stop the abuse of our benevolent welfare system. We feed children free meals three times a day until they are 17. Churches give away good, clean clothes. Companies buy and donate school supplies. Emergency rooms provide health care at taxpayer expense and the food stamp program is buying food at home. What are parents doing for their children?
Have a computer program that cross checks Social Security numbers with fingerprints to stop fraud on many fronts. Use it on voter registration, too.
Stop bailing out mortgage companies and banks that give loans to people who cannot afford them.
Stop companies from paying CEOs and other executives outrageous salaries and bonuses while doing away with workers' pensions.
Stop all unnecessary spending so we will have the money for our nation's security, and to help needy and elderly Americans.
Stop permitting anyone to have a photo with their face covered on driver's licenses.
Whoever wins the presidency will not be able to make these changes.
Only members of Congress can do this, as they are the lawmakers.
I don't believe Congress is interested in changing anything, do you?

1) If we enforced term limits on our congressmen we would be cutting our
throats to avoid a hang-nail!
I can't stand people like Reid, Pelosi, Feinstein,Franks etc. I believe they are ruining our country, However if I take away the right of Massachusetts to keep Kennedy and Kerry in the Senate for decades, I also keep Texas from retaining someone like John Cornyn as long as we need him.
Congress does not need to be regulated the same as the President, they are our face and voice in Government.
This is a pet trick of the left! They make you think you are limiting government but you are really limiting the people's right to have their say in who represents them. Term limits are a bad idea for other reasons too. But I have more to say about this email.

2) Congress does NOT receive 100% of their pay at the time they retire after serving only one year! That is another wacko lie. Congress gets paid a retirement based on the length of their service. Only those who have been in service for 25 years or more generally receive the maximum the law will allow 80% and that is based on many factors including how much they paid in and their salary at the time they retired. They pay 1.3% of their annual income into FERS or 'Federal Employee's Retirement System'.

3) It is a BIG LIE that Congress does not pay into Social Security!
Before 1983 Congress paid into what was called CSRS or 'Civil Service Retirement System'.
In '83 they scrapped CSRS (see Public Law 98-21) and began paying into Social Security.
Congress currently pays in to Social Security 6.2% of their income.

4) The Food Stamp and Medicaid system does not serve illegal aliens. That is another LIE.
They will be able to help the disabled and poor if Liberals would stop using them as tools to
keep poor people poor and lazy people lazy! Illegals are not the ones ruining welfare and government handouts..... Liberals are! She actually gets around to agreeing with me in her next bullet point.

5) She proposes that Congress stop companies from paying CEOs exorbenant salaries!
How does she propose we do that? Is she suggesting that the Federal Government come in and
dictate wages paid by private industry? Perhaps Stalin would like government to have such power over the people but as for us 'free people' we like limited Government not monster dictatorships! Sure it is outrageous, but so are many things people do.... we just don't need Uncle Sam being Big Brother!

6)If Government wanted to do something about the subprime mortgages they should
scrap CRA 'Community Reinvestment Act' signed by Carter in '79. It has been added to
and added to over the years and has become a goliath that threatens banks with anti defamation lawsuits if they don't loan to poor blacks! Once again the solution resides in limited not all encompassing government!

7) NO ONE has ever been permitted to have a driver's license with their face covered!
She picked this one from the story two years ago about the Muslim woman in Florida who filed suit claiming discrimination because she couldn't wear her hijab for her driver's license photo.
She lost her case and NO ONE before or since has been permitted to cover their face on their DL photo! This lie doesn't make sense. What agenda or purpose is she serving by telling this whopper? Is she really this mal-informed?

Is the Amarillo Paper really so ignorant they would print this?

Over all I find this E-Mail hoax to be disgusting and a flagrant attempt at passing off multiple lies and hoaxes in on fell-swoop!
It is designed to reduce faith in our leaders and ultimately in America. Sure we have some problems and any one with half the sense God gave a bull-gnat knows the majority of Liberals in Congress are Socialists and Marxists.
They also know true Conservatism is under represented in Congress and THAT is the root of all our Congressional problems.
If you receive this or any E-Mail you are unsure about, send it to me squamata22@gmail.com
I will gladly respond ASAP.

Gay Activists

2008-12-18T22:05:00.000-08:00

When Proposition 8 in California, defining 'marriage' as a union between a man and a woman, upheld the will of the people recently, thirty year old personal trainer and stand-up comedian Sean Hetherington's world began to crumble. All he wanted was to be free to express his love for his boyfriend in the ultimate way..... marriage.
Is that too much to ask?

~A Sit-in with Service~
So Sean got on board the burgeoning, 'Day Without a Gay' protest. In loud unison the gays of America would rise up and proudly proclaim, "I am Gay and I'm not ashamed!" So across America the word got out. Gays and those waiting to come out of the closet were poised to call in to work on Wednesday the 10th of December and announce that they were gay and that this was an official protest of obvious oppressive treatment! However, Hetherington added a twist to the group he organized. He asked that everyone not only call in to work but that they do community service so the world would know despite the hate from right wing Christians, gays are not bad people!

~Silent Success~
I want to talk to you a little about the gay movement, their tactics and their misguided, emotion driven goal.
However, I must first wrap up the 'Day without a Gay' protest and Mr. Hetherington.
Hetherington's rally, in his mind was a success. However, actual or true data on the results of the protest is unobtainable and no report suggests community service saw a peak in participation nationally. I certainly didn't notice a big impact in my town, but then again I do live in Texas and you know how many hateful bigots live here.

~ Daddy, Papa and Me ~
What I did take away from the 'Day without a Gay' protest was that once again gay rights activists will stop at nothing in their quest to redefine marriage and make homosexuality acceptable mainstream social behavior. They will not be impeded by dissent from vile religiously intoxicated conservatives! Recently Mr. Hetherington and friends have taken a play from the Secular Humanists and begun a campaign to teach pro-gay lifestyle as a matter of choice to elementary and high school students. If you think it's wrong to teach about homosexuality in grade school you are a bigot and your opinion does not count, Mr. Hetherington told Michael Medved on Dec 10th's Day w/o a Gay. To him, the only voice to be heard with all impunity is the voice of the martyred gay rights activists.(heretofore:'Gayists' )

When confronted in debate, gayists side-step the issue and go directly for the bigoted homophobe defense and the debate is over.
They declare us hateful and biased so our argument can't be heard. Well, I'm going to give it a shot anyway, maybe some who differ will gain some understanding but certainly, I will anger many.

~ I support Gay Marriage ~
That's right; I support gay marriage! I know that's going to catch some of my friends off guard but it's just too bad. I don't think my beliefs can be swayed. I have given a lot of thought to the matter and I believe gays should always be allowed to marry the opposite sex just as we do! So I support gay marriage! I do not, however, support same sex marriage. See, I told you some of my readers would be upset.
I do not support changing the definition of marriage. It is and has always been defined as a sacred union between a man and a woman. Every culture and religion has defined it as such. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and others agree on marriage's proper definition. Yet we are told that if we want to preserve the definition of marriage we are bigoted, ignorant and fearful of gays.

~Join the Union~
If a gay couple wants to join together in a legally recognized 'Civil Union' they should be provided that right and they are in some states.
A same-sex union serves every need a gay couple would see from the redefinition of traditional marriage.
The only perceivable difference would be religious and most who would be so radical as to demand same sex marriage do not seek the approval of a god who disapproves of their lifestyle! So the issue is obvious, those who fight to redefine marriage (a minority of gays) do so for purely political and ideological reasons. It is an attack on family values and it is a reproach to religious tradition.
Those campaigns do not support the interest of homosexuals, they support a warped minority of gayists who are true vipers.

~Gay suffrage = Slavery~

Gayists claim now that opposing same-sex marriage is akin to slavery. They say banning gays from the clergy is like slavery and they say that if you oppose homosexual curriculum in schools you are oppressing them, just as whites oppressed Rosa Parks and Dred Scott!
Now I want to say, I am neither black nor gay but as a fellow human being I am disgusted by this hurtful comparison!
It is vile to compare the real life oppression, suffering and abuse experienced by black Americans under slavery to a political quarrel over what to call a homosexual union. The two are not similar in any manner. The comparison of interracial marriage and gay marriage doesn't hold true either. The first is an issue of racial differences (which I discount greatly) and the other is the issue of sexual differences. There is a clear and definite contrast between man and woman but barring superficial skin tone there is no fundamental difference between a black Asian or European Caucasian! Certainly you are sufficiently cognitive to agree, right? I mean if Obama can understand it certainly you can!

~Barrack Obama opposes redefining marriage~
Obama has stated many times that he supports keeping marriage's true definition intact. However, in true Liberal fashion he has not supported Prop 8.
So what do you believe Obama truly supports? The world may never know but one thing is for certain, Obama's choice of Rick Warren to administer the inaugural invocation has set the gayists ablaze with anger.
I don't know what the gayists expected, the vast majority of black Americans oppose same sex marriage. It was NOT the Mormons in California who put the Prop 8 vote over the top. The largest demographic to vote for Prop 8 were blacks!

So let's recap: Hetherington's 'Day without a Gay' protest went vastly un-noticed while his fellow gayists fight to undermine family values and minimize the results of slavery. With this knowledge, can you continue to lend a sympathetic ear to gayists' cries of oppression and their half-witted attempts at protests?
Can you as a mom or dad, grandparent or religious leader afford to sit back and let the activists on each side battle it out?
Liberals and gayists may compare us to slave owners but the only slavery here is their own subservience to their agenda!

December 7th 1941

2008-12-07T11:47:00.000-08:00

All winter peacocks screamed, strutting the same
slow pose. At dawn, we smashed the ice with hammers,
dumped pots of boiling water steaming into troughs
for beaks of preening peacocks. They shoved each other off
like cousins bunched at the only mirror at church.

My logger father whittled a forest with buzz saws,
the roar and buzz of steel and mosquitoes
more than my ears were tuned for.
My sister and I played keep-away with feathers,
dazzling the surly turkeys and peacocks with footwork,

lobbing frozen dirt clods like grenades,
until our father called us. When roads were frozen,
I jockeyed the throttle of a John Deere
rusted before the war, hauling logs and hay bales
to farmers miles away. The war was almost lost

when my father enlisted, Pearl Harbor bombed,
the fall of Bataan all we heard for hours
on every station at night, except for our parents
talking softly after bedtime
and peacocks screaming in the dark.

Let it never be said, that we don't remember.
What Submariners have done, since that day in December.
The sun shown bright, on that Pearl Harbor morning.
When the enemy attacked, with little or no warning.

The Tautog was there, with no time to think.
And splashed one Japanese plane, right down in the drink.
She sent twenty-six ships, to the depths of the sea.
And came to be known, as the "Terrible T."

The Sealion at Cavite, was the first to be caught.
She was moored to a pier, but bravely she fought.
Two bombs exploded, through the hull they did rip.
And many brave submariners, died in their ship.

There were many proud boats, like the Perch and the Finback.
The Kraken, the Haddock, the Scamp and the Skipjack.
We remember the Halibut, Blenny and Darter.
And never forget, Sam Dealey in Harder.

Cutter and Seahorse's, torpedoes ran true.
She targeted the enemy, and sank many Marus.
And although the enemy, was quite filled with hate.
"Red" Ramage and Parche, showed many their fate.

"Mush" Morton and Wahoo, never backed down from a fight.
Fluckey and Barb, entered Namkwan Harbor one night.
Many airman were saved, by O'Kane and the Tang.
Some owe their lives, to Seafox, Tigrone and Trepang.

We remember the honorable, boat called Barbel.
Before she was lost, she gave the enemy hell.
The Sturgeon, the Trigger, the Pollack had heart.
The Torsk, made the last two frigates depart.

Nowadays the cold war, seems to be a big factor.
And submarines are powered, by nuclear reactors.
The proud names are still there, the Tautog did shine.
But her hull number by then, was Six Thirty Nine.

Many boats gave their all, with heroic namesakes.
Like Thresher, Scorpion, Nautilus and Skate.
The Seadragon, Swordfish, Richard B. Russell and Dace.
Have all stood out to sea, and heard the enemies trace.

We remember "Forty-One For Freedom," whose patrols couldn't fail.
The George Washington, Andrew Jackson and Nathan Hale.
Now the Alaska and Nebraska, and other Tridents are here.
They patrol the deep oceans, so aggressive nations have fear.

There are new boats on the line, called Cheyenne and Wyoming.
They will all do us proud, like the old Gudgeon and Grayling.
So take time each day, and think of the past.
Then toast the new Seawolf, for she's quiet and fast.

Let it never be said, that we don't remember.
What submariners have done, since that day in December.
The sun still shines bright, every Pearl Harbor Morning.
But never forget, the enemy attacks without warning.

President Obama the Marxist

2008-11-16T23:22:00.000-08:00

Saul Alinski, "Rules for Radicals":
"Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution."

First let's go over the good news. Two thirds of the Senate seats up for election this cycle were Republican. Yet the Dems did not get the filibuster proof majority they sought.
They did not pick up 25 more seats in the House as they expected.
In 2000 we learned from the Democrats that the Electoral College doesn't matter, so since the popular vote is all that counts, we can be reassured that a Centrist RINO like McCain was able to bring in 56 million votes to Obama's 63 million votes! That means 46% of those who voted chose a Republican who acts more like a Democrat over a Black man who embodies Marxism.

That's Right the Saul Alinski radical may have fooled uninformed people into electing him but there are 56,000,000 of us who will not be fooled! We are not a minority that will be defeated and trod upon by a radical Marxist leader! We will grow in strength and number! We will fight in the arena of ideas until we whittle away at his support. The truth of free market dominance and peace through strength will prevail!
Judeo-Christian family values and our right to bare arms will not be denied us. All the Dems proved was that you can lie cheat and steal your way into power but what they have forgotten is that power is fleeting.

You see the Democrats learned in 2000 and 2004 not only that the country has a center right majority but they also learned that there is a large demographic that never votes. They are not ideologically engaged, they are merely 'emotionally driven'.
They used the emotionally charged issue of race to obfuscate Leftist ideology and drew in the support of the willfully ignorant masses. It was a masterful approach. One laid out sicinctly by Saul Alinsky's, 'Rules for Radicals' which instructs Communists to appeal to the ignorant self absorbed middle class and lower class. Turning them against the demonized upper-class.
Obama was a great student of Wright, Alinski, Marx, Khalidi, Farrakhan, Ayers and Engels.
He was indoctrinated by these radicals and will espouse and support their agenda.
Of course some damage will be done to our great nation while he is our president but the good news is that like Carter's liberal failures gave us Reagan, Obama's failures and coming attacks on our fundamental rights and traditions, will strip Democrats of support and invigorate true Conservatives to retake the leadership roles in the Republican party and eventually, when a champion is found, retake power.

So you are right to lament this defeat at the hands of anti American radicals, but remember, we have yet begun to fight!
Now is the time for courageous conservatives to step up and espouse TRUE Goldwater/Reagan Conservatism, not this watered down lefty style Republicanism! We need to transform the GOP into a vehicle of strength and ideological resolve. The Dems are being driven by extreme leftism and if we do not meet them head on with strong unwavering Conservatism, we will continue to fail!

Obama will let the Bush Tax Cuts die

2008-11-04T20:19:00.000-08:00

Tonight America will elect 35 Senators, 435 House seats, 11 Governors and a President.
If that president is Obama he will let the Bush tax cuts die. When the tax cuts are gone you will be left with a tax increase! As simple as that sounds, somehow people still don't seem to grasp it.
So are the Bush tax cuts worth saving?
Are they only for the rich at the expense of the poor?
Perhaps this, my favorite analogy, will help you understand.

Over lunch two friends were discussing the government's recent round of tax cuts: - "I'm opposed to those tax cuts," yelled one person, "because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair." "But the rich pay more in the first place," the businessman argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back." He could tell that his friend was unimpressed by this meager argument. This is an example of someone who is prisoner to the myth that the "rich" somehow get a free ride in America.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day ten men go to a restaurant for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve.

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 1 + 3 + 7 + 12 + 18 + 59 = 100 cost of dinner

"Since you're all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80.
The first four are unaffected; they still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share? The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay under the same assumptions: Now the fifth man also paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, and the ninth paid $12 leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out the $20," complained the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, "and he got 7!"

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 2 + 5 + 9 + 12 + 52 = 80 reduced cost of dinner

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + (-1) + (-1) + (-2) + (-3) + (-6) + (-7)= (-20) savings on dinner

"That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor."
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys, girls, and college instructors, is how America's tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table any more.
After all, there are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean.

November 4th 2008!

2008-11-03T19:56:00.000-08:00

As a Judeo/Christian Conservative I don't agree with John McCain too often!
For a while I had trouble voting for the left leaning centrist from Arizona.
He doesn't agree with Conservatives on how to solve some of the problems with the Republican party, primarily because he is part of many of those problems.

The problem is not just with overspending, earmarks and the 'Bridge to nowhere' as he so heroically battles.
Sure these are important issues but they are issues prevalent in both parties.
No, the problem with McCain, for Conservatives, goes much deeper than that.
We are not a party of scandal and debauchery any more than the Democrats are.

We are however, a party that owes it's success to men like Grant, Goldwater, Coolidge, Buckley, Roosevelt, Harding, Eisenhower and Reagan. Men who had great vision and moral conviction tempered by conservative values! Sure there have been scoundrels within the movement but the Conservative movement cannot be defined by these rotten few. It also cannot be advanced, as it was by those great leaders, by placating Democrats and reaching across the isle as McCain touted in his primary speeches.

When you are reaching across the isle to people like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid you are not advancing Conserativism, you are advancing Liberalism. The kind of big government, tyrannical tax code, anti morality, abortion on demand Liberalism we battle in our everyday lives. That's right, Marxist Left style Liberalism is all that benefits from McCain's 'Maverick' reaching across the isle!

So no, I have not been a McCain supporter to this point. I don't believe we should be gentle playground pals with Leftists, I believe we should defeat them in the arena of ideas! They are our ideological enemy and if you are not prepared to go to battle with them you must then be prepared to support or adopt aspects of their agenda! For so long McCain has done just that. But then he gave us new hope.

When McCain chose the most Conservative person in national politics since Reagan to be his VP, the game changed for me and so many others.
We now have a candidate who espouses and embodies those core Conservative values!
Palin is the sugar that helps the medicine go down. Because face it friends we are better off taking a cyanide elixir than sitting back and letting Obama take our country down the Marxist-Socialist road to Communism! Certainly McCain is less than what we want but he does not seek to ruin our country!

Obama whether wittingly or not plans to ruin our nation with his Sol Alinsky style ideals.
Forget the fact that in four years we have learned that Obama surrounds himself with the most radical anti American racist bigots on Earth. Forget even that he will devastate our economy with exorbitant taxes and government will grow exponentially to a power great enough to bring about serfdom.
If possible set aside even the fact that he supports partial birth abortion and voted three times to kill a bill to protect born alive victims of botched abortions!
Instead understand that this man will weaken our military, cut nuclear and ballistic capabilities. While weakening our defenses he vows to support Europe in their
quest to bring the US under UN auspices in the name of global restrictions on carbon emissions.

Each step greatly weakens our ability to defend ourselves, prosper in a free market and support other nations against despotic rulers like Iran in it's pursuit of Israeli desolation!
If Obama wins today, terrorists and despotic leaders will chant his name and dance in the streets! The US Communist party will cheer and radical racist groups will see it as a radical mandate.

Sure we are disappointed with McCain and you know I have never been aligned with his middle to left leaning stances, however, McCain was a war hero and committed his life to service to his country.
McCain believes in a fair resolution to Roe v Wade and Same Sex Marriage by allowing states to determine the law for themselves. He recognizes better than most that we MUST win in the Middle East and that our soldiers need better armor, greater numbers and better pay and benefits! McCain and I differ in some crucial areas but on the most important ones we see eye to eye!

Folks we must pray today this frightful storm passes over us! If you don't like McCain get in line, we all have our differences. But you cannot with good conscience give absolute authority to a power hungry extremist and an inept and morally vapid Democrat Congress! Our great grandchildren will rue the day we followed blindly an empty suit into serfdom.
If we elect this Socialist, the first Leftist EVER to be our President, we deserve the ruin that follows! However, I don't know how to say I'm sorry to my great grandchildren for hoisting such a life of communist ruin upon them.

Obama's dangerous CHANGE

2008-11-02T08:08:00.000-08:00

Is Obama's plan to CHANGE America anti-War on Terror?
Enemy nations certainly think so.
They cheer his nomination!

Obama Ayers connection

2008-10-20T22:37:00.000-07:00

Obama mocks Joe the Plumber

2008-10-17T17:47:00.000-07:00

First Obama says he wants to take Joe's money and "spread the wealth around". In case you are wondering, YES that is Socialist! Then, in this video Obama mocks Joe the Plumber. Listen for Obama's mind numbed robots, (the crowd) to bursts into laughter. Socialism is sick! Watch video below.

In case you missed it, here is a clip of Joe the Plumber on FoxNews.

ACORN registers Mickey Mouse to vote!

2008-10-14T19:36:00.000-07:00

Click HERE to read how ACORN tried to register Mickey Mouse to vote.

The Democrats have planned this all along.

It's why they pushed for early voting, same day voting and no ID voting.

You see if they can get all these fake registrations in under the radar they can later have anyone walk in and vote under that fictitious name. They can steal the election and curse America with it's first Marxist Leftist President!

The election is likely to take more than one night or even one week to sort out!
Please read the article and make sure your friends read it. Everyone should know that the organization Obama worked with as an attorney almost twenty years ago forcing subprime lending on banks and helping cause the current financial crisis has been working hard to steal the election for Obama!
People this cannot stand!!!

Dallas Cowboys register to vote in Nevada

2008-10-12T09:07:00.000-07:00

The Nevada Secretary of State's office recently noticed that most of the Dallas Cowboys starting line-up either lives in Nevada and really loves Obama or Obama's former employer ACORN is at it again!
Tony Romo, Marion Barber and Terrell Owens are not the only ones to find themselves registered in multiple states. ACORN has registered thousands of dead people, celebrities, fictional characters and many college students and young people have been registered dozens of times!

One young man who was caught registering multiple times said,
"Sometimes, they come up and bribe me with a cigarette, or they'll give me a dollar to sign up," said Freddie Johnson, 19, who filled out 72 separate voter-registration cards over an 18-month period at the behest of the left-leaning (ACORN) Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

"The ACORN people are everywhere, looking to sign people up. I tell them I am already registered. The girl said, 'You are?' I say, 'Yup,' and then they say, 'Can you just sign up again?' "

Lateala Goins similarly remarked, "You can tell them you're registered as many times as you want - they do not care,"
ReviewJournal.com

State authorities on Tuesday raided an organization that registers low-income people to vote, alleging that its canvassers falsified forms with bogus names, fake addresses or famous personalities.
The secretary of state's office launched an investigation after noticing that names did not match addresses and that most members of the Dallas Cowboys appeared to be registering in Nevada to vote in November's general election.
"Some of these (forms) were facially fraudulent; we basically had the starting lineup for the Dallas Cowboys," Secretary of State Ross Miller said. "Tony Romo is not registered to vote in Nevada. Anyone trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot."
Agents with the secretary of state and state attorney general offices served a search warrant on the headquarters of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, at 953 E. Sahara Ave. shortly after 9 a.m. They seized voter registration forms and computer databases to determine how many fake forms were submitted and identify employees who were responsible.
They also sought information regarding current and past employees and managers.
"We don't know how many (falsified forms) are here; there may be two, or there may be thousands," said Bob Walsh, spokesman for the secretary of state's office.

Does it matter to people that Obama worked for these fraudulent people and used their political power to bully banks into accepting sub-prime loans under threat of being sued for human rights violations under Carter's Community Reinvestment Act?
That's right, ACORN the same org that registered the Dallas Cowboys in Nevada and thousands of others around America, forced banks to engage in the very practice that started the current financial practice!

ACORN is obviously corrupt and Obama is inextricably tied to them! Yet during the primary season, the Obama campaign paid another group, Citizen Service Inc., $832,598 for various political services, according to Federal Elections Commission filings. The secret Obama didn't tell is that Citizen Services and ACORN share the same board of directors.

Obama and Bill Ayers

2008-10-10T18:00:00.000-07:00

Obama's Best Friends

2008-10-06T23:24:00.000-07:00

Bill Maher pokes fun at Sarah Palin and God on 'The View'

2008-10-02T19:19:00.000-07:00

Bill Maher is promoting his new movie that attacks Christians as fools and idiots while mocking God. So he went on 'The View' and the topic went quickly from Sarah Palin bashing to God bashing.
I can't stand 'The View' or Bill Maher's show!
It's typical Liberal 'hate TV' yet some people still sit and watch these twits and agree with their anti-God diatribe. All I can say is I hope Maher has his flame retardant suit on when he dies!

List of Senators who voted against bailout!

2008-10-02T10:46:00.000-07:00

15 Republicans, 9 Democrats and 1 Independent voted against the heavily pork laden Senate bailout bill.
Some senators like DeMint, Sessions, Vitter, Inhofe and Brownback voted against it on principal. Because they are Conservatives. Others like Dole, Feingold Landrieu and Cantwell voted against it because their pork projects didn't make it into the bill or because they are cowardly in the face of their upcoming re-election bid.
Allard (R)

Barasso (R)

Brownback (R)

Bunning (R)

Cantwell (D)

Cochran (R)

Crapo (R)

DeMint (R)

Dole (R)

Dorgan (D)

Enzi (R)

Feingold (D)

Inhofe (R)

Johnson (D)

Landrieu (D)

Nelson (D)

Roberts (R)

Sanders (I)

Sessions (R)

Shelby (R)

Stabenow (D)

Tester (D)

Vitter (R)

Wicker (R)

Wyden (D)
Regardless of their reasons we should remember that at least they had the integrity to vote against such a monstrosity! Remember these brave senators in November. They should stay the others not on this list need to go!
The House votes on it tomorrow so we'll pray they do the right thing and send the message that we can fix this problem but we cannot use Karl Marx's agenda to do so. The free market MUST be allowed to do it's job.

Is the Congress Bail-out like Marx's #5

2008-09-30T10:27:00.000-07:00

If you've read much of my website you know I like to do 95% of the writing or more.
I rarely post someone else's work.
However, since I am busy at work and unable to put into words how I feel about the still debated bailout, I decided to share with you one of the best worded articles out there against the bail-out. He draws a clear correlation between Marx's 5th proposal and the bailout proposal.
It is exactly what I have been telling people. We had better wake up and realize where this could take us.
The article can be found HERE
Or read below

Bailout marks Karl Marx's comeback
Posted: September 29, 2008, 8:03 PM by Jeff White
Marx’s Proposal Number Five seems to be the leading motivation for those backing the Wall Street bailout
By Martin Masse
In his Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Karl Marx proposed 10 measures to be implemented after the proletariat takes power, with the aim of centralizing all instruments of production in the hands of the state. Proposal Number Five was to bring about the “centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”
If he were to rise from the dead today, Marx might be delighted to discover that most economists and financial commentators, including many who claim to favour the free market, agree with him.
Indeed, analysts at the Heritage and Cato Institute, and commentators in The Wall Street Journal and on this very page, have made declarations in favour of the massive “injection of liquidities” engineered by central banks in recent months, the government takeover of giant financial institutions, as well as the still stalled US$700-billion bailout package. Some of the same voices were calling for similar interventions following the burst of the dot-com bubble in 2001. “Whatever happened to the modern followers of my free-market opponents?” Marx would likely wonder.
At first glance, anyone who understands economics can see that there is something wrong with this picture. The taxes that will need to be levied to finance this package may keep some firms alive, but they will siphon off capital, kill jobs and make businesses less productive elsewhere. Increasing the money supply is no different. It is an invisible tax that redistributes resources to debtors and those who made unwise investments.
So why throw this sound free-market analysis overboard as soon as there is some downturn in the markets?
The rationale for intervening always seems to centre on the fear of reliving the Great Depression. If we let too many institutions fail because of insolvency, we are being told, there is a risk of a general collapse of financial markets, with the subsequent drying up of credit and the catastrophic effects this would have on all sectors of production. This opinion, shared by Ben Bernanke, Henry Paulson and most of the right-wing political and financial establishments, is based on Milton Friedman’s thesis that the Fed aggravated the Depression by not pumping enough money into the financial system following the market crash of 1929.It sounds libertarian enough. The misguided policies of the Fed, a government creature, and bad government regulation are held responsible for the crisis. The need to respond to this emergency and keep markets running overrides concerns about taxing and inflating the money supply. This is supposed to contrast with the left-wing Keynesian approach, whose solutions are strangely very similar despite a different view of the causes.
But there is another approach that doesn’t compromise with free-market principles and coherently explains why we constantly get into these bubble situations followed by a crash. It is centered on Marx’s Proposal Number Five: government control of capital.
For decades, Austrian School economists have warned against the dire consequences of having a central banking system based on fiat money, money that is not grounded on any commodity like gold and can easily be manipulated. In addition to its obvious disadvantages (price inflation, debasement of the currency, etc.), easy credit and artificially low interest rates send wrong signals to investors and exacerbate business cycles.
Not only is the central bank constantly creating money out of thin air, but the fractional reserve system allows financial institutions to increase credit many times over. When money creation is sustained, a financial bubble begins to feed on itself, higher prices allowing the owners of inflated titles to spend and borrow more, leading to more credit creation and to even higher prices.
As prices get distorted, malinvestments, or investments that should not have been made under normal market conditions, accumulate. Despite this, financial institutions have an incentive to join this frenzy of irresponsible lending, or else they will lose market shares to competitors. With “liquidities” in overabundance, more and more risky decisions are made to increase yields and leveraging reaches dangerous levels.
During that manic phase, everybody seems to believe that the boom will go on. Only the Austrians warn that it cannot last forever, as Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises did before the 1929 crash, and as their followers have done for the past several years.
Now, what should be done when that pyramidal scheme starts crashing to the floor, because of a series of cascading failures or concern from the central bank that inflation is getting out of control? It’s obvious that credit will shrink, because everyone will want to get out of risky businesses, to call back loans and to put their money in safe places. Malinvestments have to be liquidated; prices have to come down to realistic levels; and resources stuck in unproductive uses have to be freed and moved to sectors that have real demand. Only then will capital again become available for productive investments. Friedmanites, who have no conception of malinvestments and never raise any issue with the boom, also cannot understand why it inevitably leads to a crash.They only see the drying up of credit and blame the Fed for not injecting massive enough amounts of liquidities to prevent it.But central banks and governments cannot transform unprofitable investments into profitable ones. They cannot force institutions to increase lending when they are so exposed. This is why calls for throwing more money at the problem are so totally misguided. Injections of liquidities started more than a year ago and have had no effect in preventing the situation from getting worse. Such measures can only delay the market correction and turn what should be a quick recession into a prolonged one.
Friedman — who, contrary to popular perception, was not a foe of monetary inflation, but simply wanted to keep it under better control in normal circumstances — was wrong about the Fed not intervening during the Depression. It tried repeatedly to inflate but credit still went down for various reasons. This is a key difference in interpretation between the Austrian and Chicago schools.
As Friedrich Hayek wrote in 1932, “Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place; and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success, from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this deliberate policy of credit expansion. ... To combat the depression by a forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which brought it about ...”
The confusion of Chicago school economics on monetary issues is so profound as to lead its adherents today to support the largest government grab of private capital in world history. By adding their voices to those on the left, these confused free-marketeers are not helping to “save capitalism”, but contributing to its destruction.

Government Bail Outs!

2008-09-25T23:31:00.000-07:00

I am reminded of a quote from Lord Falkland II, Lucius Gary, 'When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change'.
It is one of the tenets of Conservatism. It is what I have felt all along regarding the financial decline we are in.
I believe it was NOT 'necessary to change' when the Government began these bail-outs. Some times it is wise to allow those who fail to fail.
What if, when people got in over their heads and banks extended loans to those who obviously could not afford it, we simply did nothing and allowed the bank and the homeowner to suffer the consequences of their bad judgment?

Some times letting the crying baby cry causes the baby no real harm, in fact it can do him some good! What if when these corrupt Government chartered institutions and billionaire CEOs went belly up we stepped aside and bid them a fond adieu.
Many say it would cause certain recession and possible depression. They run around in circles with their hair on fire ripping and tearing at their clothes!
It is absurd that these institutions operated unethically for years while contributing heavily to Chris Dodd, John Kerry, Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton more-so than any other politicians, all the while with the understanding that if they began to fail, Papa Congress would be there to bail them out. Fannie and Freddie are not being bailed out they're getting taken over by the very liberals in government that created them!

I know its not a popular view but I must hold fast to my Conservative and logical proclivities and support the government's removing it's hand from my DAMN wallet!
They say the sky is falling and the world is on fire!!!
If we do not dump 700 billion dollars on the fire we will all be consumed!
I say, they are both crooked liars and complete idiots!
The American GDP is almost $14 Trillion strong.
If 700 Billion will fix the problem and fund a bunch of Democrat's pork projects, I say let them fail and let the Democrats eat cake!
Keep the 700 Billion and reduce the Capitol Gains tax and promote capitalism by cutting Corporate income tax!
700 Billion is a drop in the ocean of our $13.8 trillion economy! There are other competitors in the free market out there. Let them compete for the top spots! Let Fannie and Freddie die. They were a big socialist creation of Leftists anyway. They were going to have to go eventually why not now?
Instead the government has plunged it's stinking hand further into our pockets to take over these bad loans.
HEY Washington!! Stop dumping your failures on the rest of us. We work hard and live our lives as honestly as we can. We don't need to be saddled with the failures of crooked investors, fat cats and home owners who should be renters!

If someone is hungry I say lets change their situation. When I see someone in need of a place to stay or a job, I say go ahead and take my tax money and change their circumstances. But when bankers and lenders insure loans they can't afford in anticipation of home prices increasing, the American people needn't be responsible for their gambling debt when the housing market takes a dive.
If we allow nature to take it's course the free market will fix the problem. Good ole Supply and Demand coupled with lower taxes will strengthen the dollar and soon new and improved, more sound entities will fill the voids. The only problem for Democrats is that the companies brought to the top by the free market will not contribute millions of dollars to their candidates like Freddie and Fannie.
See if you find this view out there in your mainstream media!

McCain's Right Hand Woman

2008-08-31T22:44:00.000-07:00

Obama has led a campaign under the mantra of 'Change'. While he isn't specific about the kind of change, he has mentioned that he wanted to bring an end to politics as usual and career politicians. Then as he is so adept, he 'changes' his mind and chooses a career politician who has been in the Senate longer than McCain.

Sen. McCain however shocked the world with a pick that cannot be better. I wanted him to pick Romney because he was my favorite.
Knowing then what I know now I would have been upset if he had chosen Romney over this lady!
Gov. Sarah Palin (AK) is an all- American gal. She has 5 kids, she loves to fish and she loves being mom. She was a News Sportscaster and in highschool she was a star athlete.
She was born in Idaho to a high school teacher/coach and high school secretary. The family moved to Alaska when she was still a baby. Before long she and her father went moose hunting and running 10K races.
Her basketball team called her Sarah 'Barracuda' because she was quick to the steal. She even threw the winning shot at the buzzer despite a fractured ankle!
She was the first woman Governor of Alaska almost two years ago. She is experienced but not a career politician.
One story I thought really helps explain who she is politically was that when elected, she went straight to the task of cutting wasteful spending.
The former Governor, Murkowski, left behind a personal jet. What did she do? Sent her staff to take pictures of it and post them to EBay. Yes, she sold it saying that the Governor's office has no need for such waste!
She has been a staunch supporter of the 1st amendment and she is decisively pro life!
Her faith will never come into question, unlike Obama, because her strong faith is evident in her life.
She has a masterful political prowess yet she is all about her family. She recently gave birth to a wonderful baby boy with Downs Syndrome.
There was never a decision to keep or abort. She said when she first saw him she knew he was perfect.
Many Leftists have already started pointing fingers at her and saying it was a selfish choice to bring a child in the world with such disadvantages! They find it morally acceptable to snuff out the life of children who have special needs. They could never understand Sarah and countless others like her who were not selfish but selfless! Prolifers know children are a blessing not a punishment like Obama referred to them as!

Sarah Palin is a tax cutter, a spending slasher and corruption hunter! She believes in American Oil independence (fights for drilling in ANWAR) and victory in the middle east. She is a compassionate and loyal supporter of the troops and proudly offers up her own son to defend America. He will deploy on September 11th! One of my pet peeves with McCain is his belief in anthropogenic global warming but Sarah...... doesn't buy it! That reason alone makes her my favorite candidate.

Over the next month and a half we will learn more about this fantastic lady and I have a feeling it will mostly endear her to us even more.
While we learn more, I implore you who are Conservative and unable to vote for McCain, to change your minds. You no longer have an excuse. Sarah Palin should be enough for any Conservative no matter how confused. Consider this, Sarah could be the Republican nominee against Hillary in four years! This is your chance to vote for the woman who will be the first woman to work at 1600 Pennsylvania ave. and she could be the first woman president.
Take a minute and watch the video below of Sarah Palin's acceptance speech.
Please drop an email or comment below and tell me what you thing about Mrs. Palin.

Vulgar Liberal Protestors attack Fox News Reporter

2008-08-25T23:19:00.000-07:00

Before you watch the video here, I must warn you it is filled with vile and disgusting profanity and vulgarity. It represents a clear distinction between Liberals and Conservatives.

Have you ever seen or heard of a group of Conservatives who gather round a Liberal and scream at him or her? I'll take it a step further, do you recall a time in American history where Liberals were attacked by a small crowd of Conservatives who were chanting, using crude and vulgar language??
Maybe you can cite an example but I can't think of a single instance. I can, however point out dozens of examples by Liberals engaged in such instances within the past year.

They gathered around former Atty General John Ashcroft's house and screamed vile and hateful things, following him and his wife down the drive way accusing him of murder. They threw pies at Coulter when she came to speak at a college. They protest outside court houses and Congress daily. These people who preach love and tolerance are the most hateful and intolerant people on Earth. Hillsdale College has Liberal Speakers all the time and UC Berkley calls Conservatives evil and refuse to accept a single one as a guest speaker.

Conservatives are called racist because we disagree with Obama, yet when libs disagree with Conservative blacks like Justice Thomas, JC Watts, Walter E. Williams, Ken Blackwell, Roderick Paige, Thomas Sowell, Janice Rogers Brown, Ken Hamblin and Wallace Jefferson, they call them uncle Toms and say they are not true blacks. They say they are sell outs to their race. So to them to be black is to be Liberal and to think otherwise is to sell out your race! Is that not the most unfair prejudice you've heard of? We are racists because we disagree with a black liberal, and if we agree with Conservative blacks we are using them to attack the interests of 'true' blacks!

Yet these are the compassionate types. They would that you believe when they are in control everyone will be accepted and all view points will be allowed. Yet they are the ones who stifle debate. They are the ones who are unfair and unbalanced. Pelosi and the Democrats want to bring back the fairness doctrine and ruin talk radio because it is the one place they are confronted with Conservative argument. The Left monopolizes every media outlet in America except Talk Radio, so naturally they attack it. They say it's because they want both sides to be fairly represented. Yet we see how they treat Fox News.
Fox News is not a Conservative News Channel they are a balanced news channel that features opinion shows from the Left and the Right. For every Hannity there's a Colms for every OReilly there is a Rivera and Van Susteren. When Liberals say balanced they mean Left leaning all the time. Anything less than that is unacceptable. So understand, they don't attack Fox News because Fox is Conservative. They attack them because they break the Liberal media tenet of 'Left only reporting'.

These people are not interested in fairness. They are interested only in stifling debate and declaring themselves arbitrators of truth.
Any disagreement is met with vehement anger and vicious attacks. also, this vulgarity thing..... Come on folks, you have to admit it is awfully telling that whenever you hear a crowd screaming and cursing and displaying all manner of vulgarity you can safely assume the demonstrators are on the Left.

Man in the Arena

2008-07-31T23:06:00.001-07:00

John McCain's courageous service!

2008-07-31T22:57:00.000-07:00

The Obama Iraq Documentary

2008-07-31T22:37:00.001-07:00

The truth about the South!

2008-07-27T20:30:00.000-07:00

A stroll through the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) website will result in your learning that, if the ADL had their way, all whites who live in the south would be branded racists.
The ADL site HERE defines the Confederate Battle Flag as, "A general Racist symbol".
They describe it as a flag used by white supremacists and say it means or symbolizes white southern pride. They got it half right. The flag has always stood for Southern pride as well as a reminder of what bravery and sacrifice must be needed to overthrow an opressive federal government!

The ADL describes the flag's history thusly, "Although the flag is seen by some Southerners simply as a symbol of Southern pride, it is often used by racists to represent white domination of African-Americans. The flag remains a subject of controversy because some Southern states still fly the flag from public buildings or incorporate it into their state flag’s design. The flag is also used by racists as an alternative to the American flag, which they consider to be an emblem of what they describe as the Jewish-controlled government."

So is it true? Are southerners racist and does the Confederate Battle Flag stand for slavery and hatred of Jews and Blacks?
If you ask your school teacher or professor that question you will get a hardy, 'Absolutely' !
The truth, no matter what the academic 'elite' say, is that the flag does not stand for racism at all!
The flag they refer to has many variations. First there was the Stars and Bars flag, but it looked too much like the Union's flag so they changed it to the Battle Flag, fashioned, to a degree, after the British 'Union Jack'.
Contrary to popular propaganda the Battle flag never flew atop a slave ship!
The flag was designed by General P.G.T. Beauregard as a battle flag for the Confederates. It is a Christian symbol meant to represent St. Andrew's Cross.
We must remember that half of America's soldiers fought and died for that flag. It represented Country, family, home and God to those soldiers who fought under it's majestic wave. It reminded them of their struggle for independence and freedom, much like those who fought for independence from Britton in 1776. a war the South actually started and finished.

The great leaders such as Lee and Jackson who flew the flag are not just confederate soldiers, they are American heroes!
The 'Rebel Flag' is an American icon and one that should be flown with Southern and American pride. It is not to be used as an idealistic or political football, those men and women, slave and free, who fought and died for the values that flag stands for, do not deserve to be dishonored and they do not deserve the label of racists.
The fact that some hate groups use/used the Confederate Battle Flag does not make the flag a symbol of hate. So a bunch of idiots who dress up like fools and dance around a burning cross adopted the Rebel flag. That does not by fiat or association change what the flag stands for. These very same losers in the KKK and white supremacist groups use Bibles and claim to read them. That does not, in the same line of reasoning, mean Christ was racist.
The oft referred to 'Rebel Flag' or confederate battle flag is not the only icon from the south that has come under attack by Northeastern Liberals.
There are countless examples. I'll share a few with you.
Racist Ole Miss?
'Colonel Reb', the mascot of 'Ole Miss' (University of Mississippi) is the target of the PC crowd. The charge is that he too much resembles a slave owner or plantation owner and his appearance promotes racial inequality.
Yet the symbol is, ironically, of a black man. He was an old Black Colonel who was blind. They called him 'Blind Jim Ivy'.
Ivy moved to Mississippi in 1890 and attended every Ole Miss game.
His iconic silhouette graced the memories of Ole Miss students and faculty until 1938 when his image graced the school yearbook.
By 1979 his image, confederate uniform and all, pranced the sidelines as the school mascot.
However in 2003 they removed Colonel Reb from the sidelines to appease those who were offended.

You aint just whistling Dixie!

Have you ever tried to stroll through Boston whistling 'Dixie'?
The song was originally part of Dan Emmett's minstrel play in New York. However, the original writers of the song were two sons of slaves named Lou and Ben Snowden. Yes, black sons of slaves wrote the song so many now deem racist.

So I want you to take one last look at the song's lyrics. While you read and hum along with the popular 'walkabout' tune remember the song you are reading is banned from football games in both the North and the South. The politically correct left says the song is racist and offends black Americans. They say that those who even sing or hum the tune are acting in a racist and hateful manner!
How can this be?
Here are the lyrics:
DIXIE
I wish I was in the land of cotton

Old times there are not forgotten

Look away! Look away!Look away! Dixie Land.

In Dixie Land where I was born in Early on one frosty mornin'

Look away! Look away!Look away! Dixie Land.

I wish I was in Dixie!Hooray! Hooray!

In Dixie Land I'll take my stand

To live and die in Dixie

Away, away,

Away down south in Dixie!
Terribly racist right?
Any sane person can look at those lyrics and understand that they have no racial undertones.
Yet because they are attributed to the Confederate south people assume they are racist.
I just wonder if any who feel it is a racist song realize that Abraham Lincoln, the poster child for leftists who paint the south as racist, counted it among his favorite songs, when the White House band set up to serenade him, he promptly said,
"I have always thought 'Dixie' one of the best tunes I have ever heard..... I now request the band to favor me with its performance." (April 10, 1865) The song none-the-less carries the stigma that so many icons of the south are unfairly burdened with.

Southern White = Racist
It seems the best way to be categorize as racist or have your symbols labeled racist is to love and respect, or God forbid be proud, of Southern Heritage. To publicly announce or espouse respect and admiration for those American sons and daughters who died in defense of their homeland during the 'War for Southern Independence or 'Civil War', is to the Politically Correct crowd, participating in hate speech!

There are a lot of lies being told regarding the south and why it fought in the war. I will try to dispel a few in the space I have remaining.

As a disclaimer I must first make it clear that I don't seek to denegrate Abe Lincoln. I believe Lincoln to have been a great President who held one of the most challenging offices during one of our most challenging times. However, the re-writers of American history would like you to think he was morally above the evil southern leaders. That he was fighting to free slaves and bring about equality while Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson fought to keep the black man in chains.
It just was not the case. Our schools neglect to tell us the truth.
It should make us wonder

Why we don't all know........

The South started and won the American revolution!

Southerners Madison and Jefferson chose the nation's capitol.

Southerners won the war of 1812.

Even after it was outlawed- New York remained the hub of the slave trade.

The first prominent slave owner was Anthony Johnson..... a black man in Jamestown, Virginia.

Northern states-New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New York and Delaware were the chief importers of slaves.

20% of all the slaves in America, more than 100,000 were brought in to Rhode Island ports!

The Emancipation Proclamation was not signed to free slaves, most slaves were not freed by it and those that were freed were only temporarily freed . It was not until Dec of 1865, eight months after the war ended and three years after the proclamation that slaves were 'freed' in America.

Lincoln said:"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

Lincoln also said: "I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man."

Southerners did not fight to keep slavery, they fought to be free of what they saw as a King George-esqe tyranny.

The Emancipation Proclamation was given to keep Europeans from recognizing the Confederacy as a legit trading partner.

Lincoln sought to colonize American slaves in Liberia. He said, "It's better for us to be separated.....for the good of mankind"
He suggested....."Colonizing free colored persons, with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States."

Pick up any history book and you are not likely to find reference to these facts but they are all true and verifiable.

The 'CHANGE' of Obama

2008-07-09T20:20:00.000-07:00

Lately we have watched Obama follow Nixon's lead and move away from his ideological base toward the position of his opponent.

So could it be that Obama is more Conservative than we thought?
Some are waiting for his new stance on the war. Will Obama begin to 'CHANGE' his stance on the war? Will he leap-frog from the far left to the moderate right?
If he does, please remember this comment he made a short time ago!

What happened to the Kelo house?

2008-06-25T21:16:00.000-07:00

Remember the Supreme Court case in New London Connecticut where the court ruled that the city had a right to seize land from one private owner and give it, for economic redevelopment, to another private land developer.
Surely you remember that dreadful day when a huge bite was taken from our liberty by ever-more power hungry, leftist judicial activists.

If not CLICK HERE for 2005 Squamata Report article on Eminent Domain.

It was a horrible rape of our Constitution, specifically the Eminent Domain clause.
The ruling forced Suzette Kelo to sell her home despite the fact she never wanted to leave.
She was the first of many to come. These Americans who have raised families and built memories in their homes are being kicked to the curb to watch their memories torn apart and hauled away in the backs of dump trucks.
So what happened to Suzette Kelo's home?

As you suspected the Victorian style home she fought so hard to keep has been bulldozed down and now, three years later, an empty lot can still be found. Why?

It seems the land developer has been unable to secure financing because interest in the project is minimal!
Can you believe this folks?

Aren't you even more outraged at the US Supreme Court? I certainly am.
We have four good men on that court; Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito. The other five justices (a majority) are left wing activists who seek to rewrite our Constitution and take away the liberties so many thousands of Americans gave their lives to preserve!

There is only one way to fix this friends, we MUST hold our noses and vote for McCain over that Marxist Obama. Most importantly though, we must return the Congressional balance of power back in the direction of Conservative Republicans.
Nothing short of a Congressional majority and a Republican president will stop this judicial oligarchy in their ruinous tracks.
So let this story be another reminder of what's at stake. They are taking our land and our homes now, they are after our guns and they want our children! How much farther must they go before we wake up and vote these leftists out of our government?

America the hated !?!

2008-06-25T17:02:00.000-07:00

All you need do is open a newspaper or turn on your television to hear how America is despised and hated around the world. Recently the Pew research center has released their report on just how much the world hates us.
I however must remind you that it is not the world who hates America but the Liberals and Leftists of the world who hate America. Sure you can throw radical Islamists in the mix but that one is obvious.
It is monumental to come to understand that America is not hated by other countries. We mustn't dwell, as the main stream media do, on the fact that liberals and leftists hate America, but understand that even though they say thousands of people in Istanbul hate us, the conservatives there adore us.

As a microcosm to the world, America's Left and liberals hate America! They may love the America they wish to 'Change' us into but they hate the America that is. Well I have news for you libs who support Obama, I don't want CHANGE! I want America to remain the beautiful place it is. The place both my grandfathers fought for in WWII and Korea. The America our brave men and women are working, fighting and dying for this very minute! Sure I would like to have fewer snakes out there pushing socialism, Marxism and Leninism on us. Sure I would love to weaken the grip leftists have on the throat of Christianity and Judaism in America but for the most part I LOVE AMERICA just like she is!

Like minded Conservatives around the world feel the same. They love America and they seek to emulate all that is traditionally American. Among Liberal Americans, being like Europe is the goal and among Conservative Europeans, being like America is the goal.

There was a great piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that said things just as I would..... if I were as talented as Fouad Ajami. I have posted an excerpt below. Click HERE to read it in it's entirety at the WSJ website.

By FOUAD AJAMI
June 23, 2008;
WSJ Page A17

So America is unloved in Istanbul and Cairo and Karachi: It is an annual ritual, the June release of the Pew global attitudes survey and the laments over the erosion of America's standing in foreign lands.
We were once loved in Anatolia, but now a mere 12% of Turks have a "favorable view" of the U.S. Only 22% of Egyptians think well of us. Pakistan is crucial to the war on terror, but we can only count on the goodwill of 19% of Pakistanis.
American liberalism is heavily invested in this narrative of U.S. isolation. The Shiites have their annual ritual of 10 days of self-flagellation and penance, but this liberal narrative is ceaseless: The world once loved us, and all Parisians were Americans after 9/11, but thanks to President Bush we have squandered that sympathy.
It is an old trick, the use of foreign narrators and witnesses to speak of one's home. Montesquieu gave the genre its timeless rendition in his Persian Letters, published in 1721. No one was fooled, these were Parisian letters, and the Persian travelers, Rica and Usbek, mere stand-ins for an author taking stock of his homeland after the death of Louis XIV and the coming of an age of enlightenment and skepticism.
"This King is a great magician. He exerts authority even over the minds of his subjects; he makes them think what he wants," Rica writes from Paris. "You must not be amazed at what I tell you about this prince: there is another magician, stronger than he. This magician is called the Pope. He will make the King believe that three are only one, or else that the bread one eats is not bread, or that the wine one drinks is not wine, and a thousand other things of the same kind." Handy witnesses, these Persians.
The Pew survey tells us that some foreign precincts show a landslide victory for Barack Obama. France leads the pack; fully 84% of those following the American campaign are confident Mr. Obama will do the right thing in foreign policy, compared with 33% who say that about John McCain. There are similar results in Germany, and a closer margin in Britain. The populations of Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan have scant if any confidence in either candidate.
The deference of American liberal opinion to the coffeehouses of Istanbul and Amman and Karachi is nothing less than astounding. You would not know from these surveys, of course, that anti-Americanism runs deep in the French intellectual scene, and that French thought about the great power across the Atlantic has long been a jumble of envy and condescension. In the fabled years of the Clinton presidency, long before Guantanamo, the torture narrative and the war in Iraq, American pension funds were, in the French telling, raiding their assets, bringing to their homeland dreaded Anglo-Saxon economics, and the merciless winds of mondialisation (globalization).
I grew up in the Arab world in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and anti-Americanism was the standard political language – even for those pining for American visas and green cards. Precious few took this seriously. The attraction to the glamorous, distant society was too strong in the Beirut of my boyhood.
It is no different today in Egypt or Pakistan. And what people tell pollsters who turn up in their midst with their clipboards? In Hosni Mubarak's tyranny, anti-Americanism is the permissible safety valve for Egyptians unable to speak of their despot. We stand between Pharaoh and his frustrated people, and the Egyptians railing against America are giving voice to the disappointment that runs through their life and culture. Scapegoating and anti-Americanism are a substitute for a sober assessment of what ails that old, burdened country.
Nor should we listen too closely to the anti-American hysteria that now grips Turkey. That country was once a serious, earnest land. It knew its place in the world as a bridge between Europe and Islam. But of late it has become the "torn country" that the celebrated political scientist Samuel Huntington said it was, its very identity fought over between the old Kemalist elites and the new Islamists.
No Turkish malady is caused by America, and no cure can come courtesy of the Americans. The Turks giving vent to anti-Americanism are doing a parody of Europe: They were led to believe that the Europe spurning them, and turning down their membership in its club, is given to anti-Americanism, so they took to the same fad.
Turkish anti-Americanism is no doubt fueled by the resentment within Turkey of the American war in Iraq that gave protection and liberty to the Kurds. No apology is owed the Turks; indeed, it is they who must reconsider their intolerance of minorities. If the Turks were comfortable with the abnormality of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, it is they who have a problem.
CLICK TO READ FULL ARTICLE

Bush Meets with Rolling Thunder Memorial Day 2008

2008-05-26T12:06:00.000-07:00

Memorial Day 2008

2008-05-26T06:39:00.000-07:00

We as Americans hold dear to our hearts, the memories of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and safety. For many of us, Memorial Day is a day for reconciliation and it conjures thoughts of emotion for soldiers who died to afford us freedoms that we ourselves are responsible for protecting.
Many of us have realized that if we lose those freedoms or act in ways undeserving of them, we undermine their sacrifice.

Many families are rich with military tradition, and see numerous members pay the ultimate price in service to this Country. Their loved ones are our loved ones, and a part of a broader family.....AMERICANS !
They are our brothers and sisters too. These are our heroes, these lives are ours to celebrate and ours to memorialize.

One hundred and forty two years ago the people of Waterloo, New York set aside a special day to remember the dead of the Civil War. They called it ' Decoration day'. On this day the community would show respect and reverence for fallen heroes by lavishing their graves with beautiful flowers and ribbons. Many other communities nationwide hold emotionally charged claims to the title of ' place of origin' for this great day, however, in 1966, President LBJ sanctioned Waterloo as the "official" birthplace of Memorial Day. It was said that the more than 100 years of completely planned observances were unprecedented and none of the 23 other towns could show proof to the contrary.

Not even Waterloo can dispute that while the Civil War was still being fought, Southern housewives were documented as having participated in setting aside a day to remember and decorate graves in unison.Regardless of the origin, the spirit of Memorial day is alive and strong in many American's hearts.
In 1868 the Commander of the GAR (Grand Army of the Republic), General John Logan, proclaimed in his 'General Order no.11' that May 30th would be the 1st 'official' day of observance when they placed flowers on the graves of Union and Confederate soldiers at Arlington National Cemetery.

Later, in 1882, the name was also changed by the GAR. The new name for Decoration Day would be 'Memorial Day' !

In 1971 Congress declared Memorial Day to be a national holiday. The Bill (P.L.90-363) established Memorial Day to be the last Monday of May, thus insuring a three day holiday.
Many people argue that the day should be returned to May 30th. They say that the three day weekend is becoming the focus and not the true reason for the day. This sentiment is reinforced by the laxed participation of many. Many towns have not seen a Memorial Day parade in over half a century. Many young folks don't know why we observe the day. Some think it is to remember everyone who dies. It is not! Over time the day has gone from a day for the Civil War dead, to include WWI and WWII. Eventually, it has come to include 'All' of our war dead. In 2002 the VFW said, "Changing the date merely to create three-day weekends has undermined the very meaning of the day. No doubt, this has contributed greatly to the general public's nonchalant observance of Memorial Day."

The Poem
Memorial Day was changed forever in 1915. Drawing from her love of the poem, "In Flanders Fields" Moina Michael chimed in with her own poem about fields of red poppies.....

Thank you.

YOU are my Hero!

Poem for Memorial Day 2008

2008-05-26T04:03:00.000-07:00

Moina Michael, November 1918

Obama Campaigns in 57 states!

2008-05-10T09:54:00.000-07:00

We constantly hear Libs cry about how stupid Conservatives elected a stupid President. They say Bush is dumb because he mis-speaks and sometimes mis-pronounces words. So how do liberals explain this video? Would they say Obama is stupid? Shouldn't the President of the United States at least know how many states there are in our country? Most respectable Conservatives would never say Obama is stupid.
Most, like myself, would say he simply mis-spoke. I realize the campaign trail is a long arduous and mentally taxing endeavor. So we give him the benefit of the doubt. How come Liberals can't do the same?

I'll tell you why. It's because Liberals think Conservatives are evil and stupid while we think Liberals are misguided and wrong.

Planned Parenthood targets black babies!

2008-04-24T00:33:00.000-07:00

~Click picture above to play~or~Use player below to listen online~

The FACTS:
For the fiscal year July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007, the organization earned revenues of more than $1 billion and recorded 289,750 abortions - 24,807 more than the previous year. Last year, the organization received $336.7 million of taxpayers' money. That's $31.4 million more than the previous year. If Planned Parenthood were a publicly traded company, they'd be celebrating, The stockholders would be screaming, 'Wow, what a good year we had!'

Change!

2008-04-01T22:22:00.000-07:00

I am here to offer you an apology. I was wrong....so wrong.

The housing slump is turning into a housing sink hole and the people who need help after being swindled and tricked by fat cat bankers and real estate brokers need, no.... deserve our help. The recession is quickly turning to a depression perhaps one like America has never experienced. So I believe I was wrong about tax cuts. Perhaps now is the time for rich people to understand that nothing in life is free and it is their moral duty to reach out to those less fortunate. So I say with no equivocation it is time to raise taxes. Not necessarily across the board but perhaps for those rich enough to afford it. I believe the stated economic line at which you can be considered rich ($50,000 annually) is a good starting point. We must do something or we will all fall victim to the greed of the filthy rich. The government needs desperately to support legislation that will penalise these greedy individuals among us who feed on the poor. It is true when they say the rich get richer and poor get poorer! Let's put a stop to this and level the playing field for all Americans. More tax revenue is needed to support these worthy welfare programs so we MUST raise taxes now before it's too late.

Also, during my weekend long introspection, I learned I am wrong about a host of other issues. For example; what gives me the right to suggest that a woman can't do with her body what she wills? Who am I (a man) to make such intimate decisions for women I don't even know? I am now officially Pro Choice.

Once I started I couldn't stop! I admit I am so messed up! I can't believe I have been so blind! Did you know that while guys like me write entire websites or blogs on global warming.... I'm sorry...... Climate change, the Earth's oceans are rising in elevation and temperature giving fuel, in turn, to blistering hot temperatures in some places and cold temps in others. Our ravenous greed and lust for comfort and convenience is leading to a certain catastrophic end! The very car I drive, electricity and gas I use at home harm the environment and the chemicals I use at work are responsible for the killing of hundreds of plant and animal species per day!

Most importantly though, in my blind fervor to push my religion on others by mentioning the oft hurtful name of Jesus to people who may chose not to believe in him, I have helped cause undue pain and suffering for my fellow human. I have opened my mind and hope you do too. We must think of ourselves as not American citizens but citizens of the world! I must allow other religions to have their say. I have been running around spreading my version of the truth so long, it's time now for me to be quiet and let others have their turn. Perhaps I can learn from others when I stop being so closed minded. Perhaps even, we may learn that the Bible is just a collection of religious remedies, analogies and anecdotes not meant to be taken literally! Who am I to claim the Earth is as young as the Bible says it is? It is entirely possible that the Earth is billions of years old. There certainly is more hard evidence from scientists to support this theory. Yet I have always supported the whimsical writings of long dead ordinary men fanaticizing about and even constructing a God who would, if he existed, obviously be a sadistic entity or else there would not be such suffering in the world. Evil regimes like America and Israel would not slaughter innocent women and children just because they are of a different religion if we all just gave a little and learn tollerance!

I have grown a lot after my weekend of introspectional meditation. So I can no longer call myself a Christian, Conservative, Republican, Constitutionalist or Creationist because, I now see how much harm I have caused. So I hope you will come to accept the new me.
I hope you will forgive me and I hope you will understand when I offer you my warmest wishes for a happy April Fools Day!

2008-03-17T19:47:00.000-07:00

~Click picture above to listen to podcast~

~Click picture to listen online~

~Right click link below then 'Save as' to download~ RIGHT CLICK HERE

Haleigh Poutre-Update

2008-03-02T13:30:00.000-08:00

Jessica Fargen
Boston Herald
Thursday, February 28, 2008

William F. Buckley Jr

2008-02-27T20:51:00.000-08:00

William F Buckley died today. The news of his demise after achieving the age of 82, sitting slumped over at his desk caused me to think back to some of the Conservative pioneer's earlier quotes, articles and books.

His first book was titled, "God and Man at Yale....The Superstitions of Academic Freedom.". It was thick with youthful and jubilant Conservative precepts and delved into the hazards of liberalism in US university. This book, as would be expected, was kindling for fire storms of liberal admonition and vicious attacks.
However much Buckley's book enraged the left it could not compare to the vile hatred and sheer rage instigated by his second book (the only one I have read all the way through) "McCarthy and his Enemies".
Liberals hated this book because they were implemented as Communist sympathizers at a time when Communist sympathizers weren't cool. This book made it clear that even if McCarthy was misguided he was on the right track.... liberalism IS a friend of Fascism and many liberal Democrats and Republicans need to be exposed for the fascists they are.

He went on to start a TV show in 1966 called, 'Firing Line'. It lasted for 33 years.
As with so many long and enduring marriages Bill joined his wife at their home in heaven a short 10 months after her passing.
Dying soon after your spouse is romantic to some and I don't argue with that sentiment, I think sometimes we soon follow our spouse to heaven because we have little will or need to live with out them.

Despite the many issues Buckley and I disagree on (lately he seemed less than adept at discerning right from left) I can't help but share a few of his quotes that I do agree with.
Enjoy the quotes and may his family and friends find comfort in their time of loss.
Thank God for William F Buckley!

"My guess is, that the last man to corner the soybean market, whoever he was, put at least as much time and creative energy into the cornering of it as, say, Norman Mailer put into his latest novel and produced something far more bearable -- better a rise in the price of soybeans than 'Why Are We in Vietnam?'"

“I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would affront your intelligence.”

“I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word "fair" in connection with income tax policies.”

“The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.”

“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.”

"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."

In a famous exchange with Gore Vidal in 1968, Vidal said to Buckley: "As far as I am concerned, the only crypto Nazi I can think of is yourself."
Buckley replied: "Now listen, you queer. Stop calling me a crypto Nazi, or I'll sock you in your god**mn face and you'll stay plastered."
In 1985, Buckley recalled of the incident: "We both acted irresponsibly. I'm not a Nazi, but he is, I suppose, a fag."

2008-02-07T20:06:00.000-08:00

Romney said his farewell today. It was a moving and inspirational speech. That's why I am sharing the video with you. I believe it is one for the ages.

It only makes me wish our (Texas) primaries were earlier on in the year. March 4th comes after the race is decided and I have a feeling we would have gone to Romney.

As it stands, we may not see Judeo/Christian Conservatives back in any form of power or leadership for quite sometime. Perhaps as long as 20 years. Do you want to imagine what damage they could do in that amount of time?

Abortion will become funded by Government again, Taxes will smother us, Social Security will suffer, we will lose the war on terror and we will se more and more of our liberties and freedoms SNATCHED away from us. The Global Warming Hoax is, as of today, destined to be used by the new President to tax us for our sins against the environment such as throwing away trash, driving cars, flying in planes, using electricity and eating meat. Now if those reasons aren't enough, realize that Gore and his Global Warming clones will work to shut down the cattle industry and attempt to set up a universal/international GLOBAL body to over see the compliance with green standards. But most frightening about global warming is that it demands population reduction! Can you say abortion and sterilization on demand? It is not far fetched........ it is likely!
I am greatly saddened by Romney's loss because now that Romney is gone three Liberals and a Huckabee remain.
Ron Paul is holding on till the end. Then he will run as an independent and draw votes away from McCain making our next President a Democrat!
God help us!
I'd love to hear from you regarding your questions, comments, arguments and even sarcasm.
email me at squamata22@gmail.com

A Giant Win!

2008-02-03T23:44:00.001-08:00

Now I am a die hard Dallas Cowboy fan. I hated to see the Giants beat us in the playoffs. However, because I am a Cowboy fan I had to morph, if only for one game, in to the world's biggest Giant fan ! Because if any team is going to be the first to win it all, Dallas is destined to be that team. Besides, if three rings in four years was good enough for Tray Aikman it's good enough for Brady.

Then there's the father son/brothers story. Beginning with Archie, the tough as nails pint sized QB who always seemed to be cursed with horribly inept team mates. He played fifteen years for the Saints, Vikings and hopeless Houston Oilers. As good as papa Manning was, he never played in a Superbowl. As a matter of a fact, he even failed to get any of the teams he played for into the playoffs. Take some time to watch some old film of Archie and you will see the cruelest thing ever to happen to a football player, an incredible athlete with superb talent, forced to drag like a ball and chain, seriously awful teams. Now that both his sons have won the Superbowl, it seems the karma debt has been paid to old man Manning. It seems like a 'Thank You' from the league for putting forth such effort.

It was good to see Peyton watching his little brother follow in his footsteps and achieve the greatness their father fought so valiantly to attain. To know the Manning family, as well as we can though media, is to love them. Who wasn't pulling for them? Oh that's right......East Coast Libs!!! (Snicker)

2008-01-12T00:00:00.000-08:00

The Gratitude Campaign

2007-12-11T17:55:00.000-08:00

~Click picture above and watch the video~

The gratitude campaign is a great idea.
It may sound silly or awkward at first, but it's actually very practical. If you're like me, you may have approached members of the military to express gratitude for their service to our nation, only to have them respond negatively.
Usually it is because these men and women often feel embarrassed to be singled out. They spend their lives in service learning to be identified as a group. Individuality is not the military's goal. However, this method of communication relays our gratitude and love for them without putting them on the spot. Try it a time or two and see what you think.

Flags attempt to stop Hillary on Veteran's Day!

2007-11-12T11:01:00.000-08:00

Heroic American Flags attempt to pre-empt Hillary's Presidential nomination on Veteran's Day!
But they missed by inches!!!!!
Better luck next time 'Ol Glory!!

Watch video of this heroic Veteran's Day attempt to preserve freedom!
ABC Report-
November 12, 2007 9:05 AM
ABC News' Eloise Harper and Rick Klein Report: It's been a rough stretch for Hillary Clinton -- a tough debate performance, a lost voice, and the revelation that the Clinton campaign had been coaching questioners at events.Then, on Sunday, everything started falling down around her. After a very Presidential-esque news conference - Clinton turned around to leave the reporters and their peppering questions. A staffer swooped open a curtain, and chaos ensued. Four large American flags came crashing in front of Senator Clinton as she headed for the door. In a controlled panic, the staffers and the Senator attempted to catch the flags before they fell to the ground.Watch the i-CAUGHT VIDEO HERE."I think the bases are not weighted enough," Clinton said as she propped flags back up. One of Clinton's aides quickly summoned the advance man in charge to assist in the crisis. Clinton's spokesperson shifted back and forth between the cameras and the flag commotion before looking right at the cameras and saying, "Thanks everyone."There were no planted questions to worry about, but on this Veterans Day the flags dropping all around the Senator created quite a stir among the press before Clinton fled the scene.There's more on Clinton's recent woes -- and whether the former first lady is looking more vulnerable than inevitable these days in The Note.

SR Podcast-My 'Dream' Interview with President Reagan

2007-11-01T05:08:00.001-07:00

Listen to my dream Ronald Reagan Interview, plus audio from Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Rush Limbaugh and more!

~Right click picture and 'save as' to download~
~Use player below to listen online~

Click here to get your own player.

Are you a Liberal?

2007-10-24T20:31:00.000-07:00

Dennis Prager has a great quiz. Take it below. Afterwards if you have disagreements or questions please write to me and let me know, or comment below.
It is my belief that about half of the Americans who call themselves liberal do not hold the great majority of positions held by mainstream liberal institutions such as the New York Times editorial page, People for the American Way, and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. So here is a test of this thesis to be given to anyone who believes he or she is a liberal.
Dennis Prager

You say you are a liberal.
Do you believe the following?
1)Standards for admissions to universities, fire departments, etc. should be lowered for people of color.
2)Bilingual education for children of immigrants, rather than immersion in English, is good for them and for America.

3)Murderers should never be put to death.

4)During the Cold War, America should have adopted a nuclear arms freeze.

5)Colleges should not allow ROTC programs.

6)It was wrong to wage war against Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War.

7)Poor parents should not be allowed to have vouchers to send their children to private schools.

8)It is good that trial lawyers and teachers unions are the two biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.

9)Marriage should be redefined from male-female to any two people.

10)A married couple should not have more of a right to adopt a child than two men or two women.

11)The Boy Scouts should not be allowed to use parks or any other public places and should be prohibited from using churches and synagogues for their meetings.

12)The present high tax rates are good.

13)Speech codes on college campuses are good and American values are bad.

14)The Israelis and Palestinians are morally equivalent.

15)The United Nations is a moral force for good in the world, and therefore America should be subservient to it and such international institutions as a world court.

16)It is good that colleges have dropped hundreds of men's sports teams in order to meet gender-based quotas.

17)No abortions can be labeled immoral.

18)Restaurants should be prohibited by law from allowing customers to choose between a smoking and a non-smoking section.

19)High schools should make condoms available to students and teach them how to use them.

20)Racial profiling for terrorists is wrong -- a white American grandmother should as likely be searched as a Saudi young male.

21)Racism and poverty -- not a lack of fathers and a crisis of values -- are the primary causes of violent crime in the inner city.

22)It is wrong and unconstitutional for students to be told, "God bless you" at their graduation.

23)No culture is morally superior to any other.

Those are all liberal positions. How many of them do you hold?

Ken Ham

2007-10-09T21:35:00.000-07:00

I want to introduce you to Ken Ham, his 'Biblical' Museum and the people who protest it.

See what CBN did to promote Ken Ham and the Creation Museum. It is one of the better interviews with Ham.

A group of Highschool kids did a video documentary featuring a couple Christians who, despite their good intentions, did not have their facts straight. Then they interview a group of Leftists camped outside the Museum protesting the Museum's right to teach that God and not Man is the authority!

Click on the photo below to visit the Creation Museum website and see for yourself.Then be sure to visit answersingenesis.org
This cartoon reveals just how misled the atheist movement is. Disease and death are products of our sin cursed world not the design of God.

Who's the Authority? God or Man?

2007-10-07T07:52:00.000-07:00

~Repost from 2006~
Answers in Genesis
Many Christian people think that the Earth was created millions or billions of years ago. They think this because they have been indoctrinated by a secularist school system that openly discriminates against the teachings of the Bible. This is just one of the many beliefs Christian Americans have that are inherently opposed to the truth in the Bible. In this column I am going to explore some of the things that Christians believe as a result of indoctrination by an anti-Christian/secularist portion of society as illustrated in Ken Ham's teachings.

When was the Earth formed?

According to God's word it was created a little more than 6 thousand years ago. In Mark Chapter ten verse six Jesus said. "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female."
He was referring to the fact, plainly stated in Genesis, that Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day of creation. Now if the Earth was created and then five days later God made man, then this verse makes sense.
But if man came along millions of years later, Christ's words were incorrect and misleading. I'll let you decide who to believe, Christ or Scientists.

If you believe that God is the authority and not man, you have to believe that the genealogies recorded in the Bible are true and complete. Scientists say that the Earth is millions or billions of years old. They can't fit the millions of years in after Adam because the Hebrew scholars have proven the genealogy between Adam and Abraham to be true and complete. So scientists say that dinosaurs existed millions of years before Adam. By this they are saying that death and disease was found on the Earth millions of years before Adam sinned. Yet we know that death and disease came as a result of man sinning. If you believe that fossils studied by scentists date back millions of years, you must also say that there was death and suffering on Earth before Adam sinned. That simply can't be. That is if you believe that God is the authority and not man.

Dinosaurs, did they live with man?

The Bible tells us that all land animals were created on the sixth day. That means that dinosaurs were made along side Adam and Eve. Because of the sin of man, God sent a flood to destroy the inhabitants of the Earth. The dinosaurs and all other land creatures were kept safe in Noah's Arc. That means that they came off the ark and lived among other animals and man. Now, some dinosaurs didn't go on the arch and many were drowned. That's why we find fossils of them. We have many records around the world by people who claim to have lived among these creatures. Many countries have history books that are filled with images of huge dragon like creatures that fit the dinosaur description well. Some became extinct and some are still living on Earth today.
There have been dinosaur bones found with soft tissue in them, even containing blood vessels, viable cells and fluid. Dinosaurs did not die out millions of years ago, to believe so, you would have to truly be blinded by men who place themselves as the authority over God!

Atonement or Evolution

You may ask, what does atonement of sins and evolution have to do with one another? actually....a great deal.Let me explain.
When Adam and Eve sinned, God killed an animal and clothed them. This was symbolic of what was to come in Jesus Christ's atonement on the cross. It was the first blood sacrifice. After that their son Able often made blood offerings to God. The Israelites sacrificed sheep for years until the ultimate and final blood sacrifice... Christ's. If death came before sin, then death and bloodshed have nothing to do with sin then Christ's sacrifice was in vain. For Christians to believe as evolutionists do, that there were millions of years worth of death and disease before sin, they cannot view any atonement, even Christ's, as meaningful. The very foundation of the gospel, which is why Jesus died on the cross (for our sins), is dependant on the fact that death only came as a result of sin. To believe otherwise is to make man...not God the authority.

A twisted God

According to men like Carl Sagan, even if God did exist he could not be a loving God because of all the death and violence, man's inhumanity to man and so on. According to their beliefs the Earth was rife with carnage and death from the beginning. This belief undermines scripture that says that sin is the cause of death, that God made a perfect world and we messed it up. The Earth is on a downward track not upward. God did not make our world full of pain and disease. He made it perfect and our sin brought about the decay. Regardless, these scientists claim pain, sickness and disease is due to a deviant God or no God at all. You see if man does good in spite ofa twisted God, he is the authority not God.

Did we all come from Eve?

Many opponents to Biblical authority contest that man could not have come from one man and one woman. This despite a recent scientific acceptance of Eve as the first mother. Through Mitochondrial (female only) DNA, scientists have determined that not only did we all come from one woman, but due to recent calculations of the rate of mutation in humans, which is said to be 20x the original rate used to calculate hundreds of thousands of years, the first mother had to have lived about six thousand years ago. Supporting Genesis. Secularist scientists refuse to believe in this because of their bias against God, but even they cannot discredit or disprove the findings! This shows that the Bible's foundation is certifiable and we did all come from one woman.

How did Cain find a wife?

This issue was dealt with in the 1925 'Scopes trial'. It was an effort by the ACLU to disprove an existence of God. A man named William J Bryan was put on the witness stand and forced to show that the Bible was factual.
Now, Bryan was not prepared to debate these mega-lawyers such as the famed Clarence Darrow. So when asked about Cain's wife, he stumbled and could not answer. But there 'is' an answer, it is found in Genesis 5:4. It explains how Adam and Eve had sons and daughters. Then Leviticus 18-20 tells us that the law against close relatives marrying did not come about until the time of Moses. Many Christians are uncomfortable with this fact and think it means man would be genetically unclean or defiled in some way. If incest happens today we see the genetic consequences because of the mutation history of human genes. These genetic consequences did not exist six thousand years ago when our genetic thread was young. You can accept the theory championed by the sham that was the Scopes trial (read this for proof that it was a sham) and count man as the authority or you can believe that God is the Authority and prove it with real Answers in Genesis.

Here is a sample of Ken Ham's sermons.

Reagan's Evil Empire Speech

2007-09-28T10:40:00.000-07:00

Read Transcript HERE
Listen to this historic speech below!

Click To Play

Enviropaths Ban Water!

2007-09-24T22:06:00.000-07:00

Click To Play

Submission-The Movie

2007-09-16T18:28:00.000-07:00

Watch The Movie

A few months back I brought you stories of women like Noni Darwish and Brigitte Gabriel. You can find their stories in The Squamata Report Archives. They are among a handful of the 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world who tell the truth about Islam and risk their lives doing so. It is with great anticipation that I bring to you a story about a lady named Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Born in Somalia, Ali was subjected to the cruel rituals and traditions of an Islamic doctrine which mandates female subservience. This nightmare was all she knew for many years.

Much of the mistreatment she (like most women in Islam) received was at the hands of her own family. They believe that sexuality in women must be suppressed. So they hide them at home, they ostracize them from the very religion that keeps them bound by restricting them from fellowship among those in mosques. As children, genital mutilation, like that suffered by Ali and many women in Islam, consists of such evils as clitoridectomy.They are forced to hide their entire bodies when they are allowed (rarely) in public, as if they were an abomination.

The women of Islam are not considered to have full human rights. Just as racists in our own American past believed the black man constituted only half a man, Islam refuses to even give women the rights of half human. They are relegated to being slaves of their husbands and simple tools or instruments for breeding and pleasure. These women are compelled to believe the best path for their young son is to die in a suicide attack. They bow willingly to promulgated doctrine that demands a life of servitude and ownership for their daughters. Ayaan Hirsi Ali endured all this injustice only to be sold by her own father into marriage at a young age, to a man in Canada she did not know.

In her new book she tells of her daring escape and the subsequent perils that forced her into refugee status many times in many countries. She was utterly appalled at the vulgar rise of Muslim and Islamic extremists in the Netherlands where she eventually settled.Soon she was elected to Holland's Labor Party. She began to preach to the people of Rotterdam, Amsterdam and many others. She told them that the brutal treatment of women in Islam should no longer be tolerated and that the rest of the world, Western and European Leftists in particular, were to blame for not standing up to Radical Islam and instead using 'Multi-'Multiculturalism' as an excuse to stand by and watch this evil continue.
In her first book, 'The Caged Virgin', Ali had some harsh words for Liberals in western nations like America. She said, "In certain countries, 'left wing,' secular liberals have stimulated my critical thinking and that of other Muslims, but these same liberals in Western politics have the strange habit of blaming themselves for the ills of the world, while seeing the rest of the world as victims."
She is exactly right! The first question out of 90% of the American Left's collective mouths after 911 were, "What did we do to deserve this attack?" or to be more precise, "What did George Bush do to warrant this attack?" Of course they later progressed to cut Radical Islam from the blame altogether and developed a conspiracy theory blaming America and the President of perpetrating the attack.

Now for me, a big mouth, pudgy white man from Podunk Texas to say Liberals are to blame for abetting and facilitating Islamic terror and the torture of their own women and children, I am easily dismissed as a racist, bigoted white trash cracker who holds no credibility. But coming from a black woman who lived in the talons Islam's Sharia law to say these things, leftists must stand up and denounce their twisted ideology and stop giving aid and credence to this warped religion and it's practitioners who find no fault in the abuse and mistreatment of religion.
So what has Ayaan Hirsi Ali to teach us? Well, for starters she has helped bring many sick rituals of the 'Sharia Cult' to light. She and a handful of others have been teaching the Left of Western Society that in Islam if a woman is raped she must have four male witnesses who are willing to stand and testify on her behalf. These men must risk ostrisization or worse. So it is not likely there will be any witnesses. If you make an allegation of rape and you are married you can be convicted of adultery and dragged to a hole where you will be buried to your chest and the towns people will throw stones at your head until you are dead! They don't pick big rocks either. They chose medium sized ones so as to maximize the pain before death.

In Sharia coverings must be worn, dehumanizing women. To be in public without a related male at your side could warrant a severe beating or you may even be killed. American blacks have a semi-satirical saying that eludes to a perceived and sometimes real form of racial profiling, "Driving while Black." Well, in much of Islam, "Driving while female" carries a stiff penalty.
The Prophet Muhammad took a bride named Aisha who was nine years old. Female children in Islamic states are often taken as brides. Not many are as young as Aisha, however 12 to 14 year olds are taken as brides and concubines regularly.
The great prophet also told his followers that, "a man shall not be asked why he beat his wife!" When discussing the constant complaints he received from women who were beaten to a bloody pulp and some near death, He said, " Many women go around Muhammad's family complaining about their husbands beating them. These women are not the best among you." He was unhappy with their complaining, not their husbands abuse!
These are just a small number of things Islamic women endure at the hands of an angry religion.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has brought to light many more gruesome and horrifying realities of the life she escaped from. That is why I have provided you with the movie she and Theo Van Gogh made. It can be seen right here by clicking on the photo of the ravaged woman. Warning, there is some nudity. I also have provided in this column articles and video interviews with Hirsi Ali. be sure to watch them by clicking on the other pictures in this article.
By clicking on the picture of her most recent book you can order your own copy or pick it up at the library.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brigitte Gabriel and Noni Darwish have one thing in common. they all escaped to America to tell their stories of struggle, pain, abuse and eventual victory over Islam. Each has a distinct perspective and each lady is standing up despite fatwas and constant death threats just so they can spread their message. When their very important message of truth is told at such a high risk to their life, I think we owe it to them to listen.

I hope to publish a podcast relating to this story this weekend so watch your iTunes subscription and remember to send me an email if you want to disagree with, discuss or debate anything I have said. Or if you find calling me names cathartic then by all means keep 'em coming. Because when fringe leftists disagree and foam at the mouth while hurling empty headed insults at me I get a little chuckle.... and I feel more secure in my beliefs. Anytime crazy libs disagree I know I am on the right track.