What Are Those Senators Doing?

"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts," stated Will Rogers.


Consider Senator John Kerry, in the midst of a spiraling national debt, social security and medicare crisis, decided to use his position for more important things: to lash out against the NFL Newtwork and demand that the nation be able to watch his beloved Patriots for free across the nation.


Lets see. Social security, medicare, medicaid, exploding debt, sinking dollar, free trade, war on terror, broken borders- not enough to concentrate on apparently. How dare we ask the Senator to concentrate on America's minor issues. After all, what the Senator surely ought to be concentrating on is holding a press conference condemning the NFL Network and demanding that other free stations carry his favorite football team's last game of the season?


Mark Twain quipped, "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself."


How idiotic is the following?


Hard-working Americans face a Congress unrelenting in their pursuit to infringe upon the people's rights. Just today the Congress chose to withhold returning refunds to American citizens for an extra thirty days. Why? To draw interest upon the money that is not theirs, of course.


Since when does the Congress of the United States have the right to withhold the extra money you pay to government that belongs to you?


And of course, government has additional plans for your life that involves your bedroom. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Ted Kennedy have slipped new legislation in to be signed by President Bush. Mercury-laden lightbulbs must, by law, be phased into the homes of all Americans. You wanted the old Thomas Edison lightbulbs? Too bad- its illegal. The liberals want an energy efficient nation. So you are now required to fit mercury laden bulbs in your homes. When they break, call your local environmental company. For only $2000, they will clean up the mess, you aren't supposed to touch.




Barry Goldwater stated, "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution........And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents ``interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."

It was Patrick Henry who cried, "Give me liberty or give me death!"

Are we not so sure that a swath of Americans including elected officials would rephrase the Patrick Henry Doctrine:

"Give me entitlement or someone else will!!!"

Global Warming Jihad

"Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world," declared Thomas Carlyle.

Enter Al Gore. A privliged Senator's son, a former Vice President, a Global Warming Jihadist, and of course - a Nobel Peace Prize winning statesman right next to Yasser Arafat, who now more than ever -

Mr. Gore has a popular opinion.

This superstar global doomsayer has put on his green cape traveling the world preaching global jihad against industrialism. It is possible that no man today will effect such a profound change in politics, religion, and economics since Einstein's Manhattan Project or Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or Guttenberg's printing press. And thats after losing his presidential bid!

Yet, it is rather difficult to buy the whole enchilada that the sky is falling, the earth is crumbling, and mankind is nearly beyond a point of no return unless he acts now to save himself. Isn't this Al Gore's message to America? And to the world?

An excerpt of an interview with Grist Magazine in May 2006, this caped green crusader provides an answer:

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

An over-representation of the facts? This is what we get from Al, the environmentalist? That maybe we aren't in a heap of trouble yet- but why wait to get there when we can yell fire in a crowded theater where the Americans are watching their movie? So apparently lying to the American people; not telling them the version of the story that is most accurate is justifiable for personal political gain???

A man's words is the test of his character. Note how often this global crusader of Green Jihad has exaggerated or outright lied through his career, according to The Free Republic:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38dbb84a2e85.htm) shows an amusing 16 lies or exaggerations are tied to this green caped crusader of global warming.

What's the point of dredging up a closet full of old bones?

Because the famous Green Caped Crusader is famous for not leveling with public!

Gore may have written "An Inconvenient Truth". But the real "inconvenient truth" occurs when Gore's test of character is quesitoned concerning his honesty. Superman's weakness was cryptonite. Gore, the green caped craseder's cryptonite is his imaginative fabrications that have come so naturally over the years.

Whether it was Love Canal, creating the internet, or the Buddhist fundraising scandal, trusting Gore is like trusting "Slick Willie" to honor Hillary all the days of his life. Does anyone believe that Gore can honor the truth to a greater degree than his former boss can honor Hillary?

Strange as it may sound, when Gore was just Vice President we were OK. But now as the international coronated king of Jihad against Carbon Emissions, the world has panicked. The effect may well be felt in our wallets with significantly higher taxes.

Single-handedly Al Gore has propelled the world of nations to act upon the desperate global warming issue whether or not the facts support action. A world hero, Gore, has taken the mantle to mock and taunt the Bush administration's perceived failture to act to save the world from mankind. The Green Goracle™, never one to miss a chance to blame the United States in general and George Bush in particular for just about anything, told the delegates that the U.S. was “principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali.” (Redstate.com 12/23/07)

So what are we to do with a former Vice President who has a Messianic Complex to save Americans and the world from global warming? What can we do? Let the foolish dribble their opinions; let the facts illuminate the truth. In thirty years Gore may have found a new cause: global cooling???

Fighting A Christless Christmas

In the fourth century A.D., the Catholic church made a big mistake. Acceding to the popular tradition that Jesus Christ had been born on December 25 and wishing to keep Christians from participating in the infamous orgies of the year-end pagan festival of Saturnalia, the Church established December 25 as the feast of the birth of Christ. Thus, for seventeen centuries, Christmas and Saturnalia have competed for the attention of the public. By now, I think we must admit that Saturnalia has won and that Christmas has been thoroughly de-Christianized.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/fighting_against_a_christless.html

Democrats and Religion?

Joe Biden, Democratic candidate for President of the United States, in a live debate paraphrased his church-going hymn before the American people. On stage with the other Democratic candidates, Biden's words drew utter contempt and disapproval. Electric pulses wired to Democratic voters in a FOX News polling venue caught the truth about 21st century Democrats.

Religion is off limits. Don't speak it. Don't appeal to it. The earthy modernists of FDR's enlightened 1930's party have progressed far beyond God apparently.

So who are these Democrats that so despise the words that came from Senator Biden's mouth? The ACLU, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, feminists, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance, the Tree Hugger Environmental Wackos, the PITA crowd, and of course NAMBLA to round of the star-studded cast of winners. Aren't these just your good old-fashioned apple pie American organizations?

Oh! Dare we forget: The newest club in town know as the God Haters of America belong here as well- right?

The mere mention of God apparently boils the blood of Blue State voters. Just ask Joe Biden. Mention Jesus and all hell breaks loose! Cross the line by quoting scripture and end up with a pink slip at the door losing your right to be a card carrying Democrat.

What would today's Democrats do with "The First Great American", Benjamin Franklin?

"God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 original manuscript of this speech

Can you imagine the blowback from progressive liberals in the Democratic party hearing the first great patriot expounding on stage before the nation? Do John Jay, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Webster, etc... have any meaning to this hardened group of Americans other than being a bunch of dead white guys?

And what if---we were to compare patriots of old with our enlightened Democratic politicians today?

Wasn't it presidential candidate John Kerry in the 2004 election who needed a spiriutal advisor to tutor him on the religious phrases to use before the American people concerning God? Can we imagine Washington, Jefferson, or or Jay seeking a refresher course on how to speak to fellow Americans about God? Of course the spiritual advisor chosen was none other than the same lady who stood before the Supreme Court fighting to strike down religious references within our school system.
Wasn't it Howard Dean, former presidential candidate and head of the DNC, when asked what his favorite New Testatement book was provide Job as his certain answer? Maybe shades of Patrick Henry or Daniel Webster are not to be found here either?

How about lead tree hugger of the world and Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore running for President in 2000 discombulating Jesus' words completely by telling his audience "where your treasure is there your heart is" as he was blathering about global warming? James Madison I'm sure would have been proud of Mr. Love Canal's command of biblical referencing.

Is it any wonder that smart Democratic strategists in early 2007 cooked up a "faith summit" scheme. Senator Clinton, John Edwards, and Barak Obama gathered to convince Americans that Republicans aren't the only ones who have faith, God, and spirituality. Somehow these Democratic candidates with a straight face wanted desperately to tell us all that they believed in God just as much as the Republican candidates did.

But questions do abound beyond their trite words-

Aren't these Democrats the ones who believe in aborting babies by the millions? What would Jesus do? Aren't these enlightened democrats the ones who defend the upright practice of gay marriage and abandon traditional marriage? Where would Jesus land on this issue?

Aren't these holy Democrats the ones that go around planting condomns, sex-education, and transgender homosexual teachings to our kids? Aren't these godly Democrats the ones who appoint liberal judges that release hardened criminals such as murderers, rapists, and pedophiles out on early release programs?

And these saintly Democrats on the 7th day- then hold a summit to tell Americans that God is on their side too!!!!

Presidential candidates may try to revive God in their own party without being tarred and feathered leaving an auditorium. But while God remians dead with most of these serious Democratic progressives, he is alive and well amongst the American people.

Unspoken in American politics is a simple rule:

Feeding the soul is as much the job of a politician as feeding the belly!!!

Obama's favorables, Huckabee's favorables, Reagan's favorables, Bush #43's favorables, Clinton's favorables, and yes - even Carter's initial success reveals that Americans look to be inspired; not lectured with policies, numbers, and charts.

Americans listen to men of faith. Democrats have starved America's soul by talking human talk instead of inspirational talk linked to God. Only when Democrats get this message will they begin to succeed drawing the American people to their side.

It was President George Washington who stated, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible."

Will it be Washington's words or the Democrat's words which will resonate with America's voters in 2008?

Huckabee: 2 Fish & 5 Loaves???

When asked how to explain his meteoric rise to frontrunner amongst the Republican heavyweight candidates for presidency including Juliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson in Iowa, Governor Huckabee of Arkansas declared that the rise is unexplainable in natural terms. Outspent by 100 to 1, little name recognition, and no big-time supporters- these are qualities the former Governor of Arkansas is sporting.

So what exactly has turned the Republican primary race into an undecipherable slugfest?

While the Republican candidates Juliani, Romney, Thompson, and McCain scramble to decode the Huckabee mysterious rise to fame, one thing is clear:

No Republican candidate prior to Mike Huckabee's rise has captured the hopes and aspirations of the Republican base.

Pundits, experts, columnists, pollsters, and every big party machine veteran has been in the business of telling the American people who their choices should be since 2005. The inside the beltway powerbrokers have taken sides within various campaigns in the Republican primary skirmish, and are fighting for dear life on behalf of the horses they have chosen. But the American people have intelligence and patience and are fighting back telling the pollsters, pundits, and party machine favorites about the dark horse, who only Chuck Norris among the media elites has endorsed.

A snapshot on December 12th, 2007 tells us what? First place in Iowa, and neck and neck in the New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida, and Nevada polls, the Huckaboom Train is sweeping the nation.

Overthrowing popular wisdom, the traditional hard-working Republicans in small town America have begun listening to the political discourse for their future. And the results?

Thompson, the late-coming saviour king of the Republican masses who arrived to take his place with scepter in-hand as a Reagan wannabe and the "last best hope" of the Republican party has failed to ignite the people anymore than a cow grazing in pasture.

The skeletons of Juliani are apparently so numerous and heavy that they are busting open the closet door that was supposed to remain closed from the American people. One by one, drip by drip like Chinese water torture, Juliani is spending overtime attempting to shove back the skeletons inside the closet.

McCain, the compromiser, has shown little promise for change for traditional Republicans with his "Straigth Talk Express".

And of course Romney's precision-based campaign, not a hair out of place has done much to garner the attention of America. Yet, even he as a Goliath must be scratching his head exasperated with the biblical "David" from Arkansas who bears only a little sling shot and a good aim.

So how far can a little sling shot and a good aim can do?

Maybe as far as 2 Fish & 5 loaves can carry him?

As Thompson grazes in the pasture with old cows confused and dazed, as Juliani plays 9/11 Hero in a post 9/11 world, as McCain straight talks his way to retirement, and as Romney re-organizes his message again, the American people are talking back:

the no-name former Governor of Arkansas is enjoying the 2 Fish and 5 loaves of bread campaign, no doubt praying for more of the same.

So what are the polls telliing us about this "2 Fish 5 Bread" surge by Huckabee?

Americans are not done dreaming. Americans are not about to be told who they have to vote for. Roosevelt's 1912 Bull Moose Party, Jesse Ventura's 3rd Party, Ross Perot's 1992 near brush with greatness, William Jefferson Clinton's "Comeback Kid" campaign, and Howard Dean's near victory in 2004 tell us that Americans are not brain dead, but alive and listening for the best candidates.

What media pundit would have considered the simple but well-spoken Baptist minister from Arkansas to be a top tier candidate through any of the campaign cycle?

But then again- no one asked the American people, did they?

A notice to all pundits who get paid lots of money to predict the choice of political candidates:

The establishment candidates with all of the money and name recognition may well win the day in the end. But then again, the establishment has never faced a little David with his slingshot who also carries 2 Fish with 5 Loaves.

Mortgage Help: A Fascist Ploy Being Hached!

With 1.2 million Americans locked out of their homes for failure to meet their mortgage obligations, America's government plans to act. How you ask?

As FDR coerced corporations in the 1930's to maintain high wages and give pink slips to no one, our elephant and donkey leaders in D.C. are scrambling to help Americans out again. The problem is that FDR turned a recession of a couple of years into a full blown depression of 12 years by meddling in the affairs of free enterprise with big government programs. Anyone care to guess what happen today when President Bush and the Washingtonians get finished with their strong-arm techniques of re-writing mortgage contracts?

So you are about to lose your home? Don't worry about it... Missed a few more payments and the government will subsidize your failures? Kicked out to the curb? Not on your life...the Federal government is concocting the "Save a Home" plan- we'll kick the teeth in of those institutions and investors that risked their money to provide previously unqualified homeowners the opportunity to own their home. So what do these risk-takers get in return?

The loss of their private property rights, the loss of return on shareholder investment, the drying up of commercial credit, the destruction of contract law, a disregard of individual responsibility, etc...so what are contracts worth now? Not even the paper that they are written on-

How dangerous is this?

What lender should run the risk of loaning money to questionable borrowers if he cannot have a superior return on his investment? If you have to eat your investment because government forces you to hold the investment at reduced returns, is this the America we want? Take note: Even the government FHA programs are created to avoid the dirt clods who fail to make their payments.

So why blame lenders of last resort who provided the American dream to low qualified buyers? Isn't this what the Community Reinvestment Act of the Clinton years was all about? Giving a chance to renters to own a home? And if these low quality buyers fail to meet their obligations, why not let foreclosures take their course for those who failed to uphold their contractual obligations? Why not let apartments and houses be rented again by these individuals instead of destroying contract law? Is there any shame in renting for a while?

Be assured...government bail-outs, coercion tactics, price and interest rate controls will only extend the pain of Americans. It will not reduce the pain. It will make the pain more costly.

Do you remember the last big government plan to help the American people? Richard Nixon's price and wage controls of the early 1970's produced stagflation of the middle and late 70's that paralyzed American growth, productivity, and prosperity. Government tried to help the people...but...

Wasn't it President Reagan who said, "The most feared words are: I am from the government and I am here to help you."

Can anyone blame the Gipper? Scratching the itch may make you feel good for the moment. But it makes the itch even more irritating. Government help sounds good, feels good, and looks good. But once it arrives in the form of nullifying contracts, we wonder why on earth government acted so inefficiently, ineffectively, and so wastefully-

If any of us needs an example of government invasions, then consider health care, higher education, and even the post office??? Are not these the poster children for government results? Do we really want our government invading the marketplace re-writing private contracts, since we know that the results have been historically disasterous?

How Will History Remember GW Bush?

A uniter not a divider, I am the decision-maker, a compassionate conservative, mission accomplished, bring it on, stay the course, axis of evil, etc... are all terms that will forever be etched in the minds of Americans concerning George W. Bush #43. Like him or not, this President has drawn the ire of liberals and the contempt of conservatives.

But what should this president be remembered for?

• No terrorist attacks on our soil after 9/11- credit President Bush
• Inherited a recession and employed two major tax cuts to revive economic growth - credit President Bush
• Held firm to sanctity of life issues with embryonic stem cell research - credit President Bush
• Sent 21,000 more troops into Iraq staying the course in the bleakest of moments - credit President Bush
• Appointed Alito & Roberts to the Supreme Court - credit President Bush
• 4 1/2% unemployment, record wealth creation, main street prosperity, & wall street prosperity - credit President Bush
• Peace initiatives between Palestinians and Israelis - credit President Bush

It is clear that President Bush has drawn an inside straight since November 2006, after losing the House and Senate rather embarassingly. The above achievements will go down as credible victories for a president besieged by liberals and even conservatives who left his side against the fight on the war on terror.

Pundits can rip the president apart today. But history will have the last say about President Bush. I do believe that history will receive this man more kindly than contemporaries receive him today.

Pilgrims and Capitalism

Thanksgiving conjures up images of turkeys, football, family, and thankkfulness across the American nation. Pioneers of early America bore the brunt of unmerciful oceans and rickety boats with faith and hope driving them past their fears. And of course, Jamestown became a lesson for all people with aspirations that not all circumstances turn out well.

In retrospect, historians have analyzed the reasons for so many tragic deaths in the early days of the pilgrims' quests. Already in America with plenty of time to plant, grow, develop, and store food and goods, why did such smart people have such brutish outcomes? Was it the weather? Was it the Indians? Was it lack of supplies? Was it lack of food?

Or could it be that the lack of capitalism might have something to do with the lack of prosperity and death endured by the early European settlers?

The early finance and shipping companies exacted heavy prices upon citizens of the "Old World" as these citizens boarded to start a new life. Seven years of labor and toil creating product and goods in the new nation was a standard-type contract for early settlers crossing the ocean. As indentured servants, seven years was a long time. Of course, as is human nature, how much toiling would you and I do to receive our stamp of freedom in the new world?

With hundreds of families having trekked to the East Coast in newly established colonies, what happened? According to Thomas Dilorenzo's "How Capitalism Saved America", early settlers began producing crops and goods for sure. But there was no incentive to be wise, creative, or industrious. After all, weren't the bulk of the products already promised to the financing and shipping companies for the next seven years in payment for being transported to the new world?
Colonists found themseleves in the unenviable position of working hard labor for others with no incentive to provide a significanly better life for themselves of their families. Thus, when working, maximum output was not the goal. Getting by with completing as little work as possible was most likely the goal.

The results were disasterous. Starvation set in. Production was lacking. Many individuals presumed that others would bear the brunt of laboring in the fields. If only ten percent of settlers chose to be lazy, the colonies might succeed during the hard days of winter. What if 30 or 40% of settlers tended to family matters and other issues instead of crop production? Absolute disaster ensues.

So poorly did the finance and transport corporations get paid under the indentured servitude model, that changes were made to incentivize better work ethic. Ten acrese of land was granted to all individuals colonizing the east coast. Neither the king, the finance companies, nor the shipping companies could touch the productive capacities of labor employed in the "new ownership" model. A colonist could earn as much has he could produce!

Capitalism was born in the colonies. The results were nothing short of spectacular. The finance and shipping business began receiving much larger payments once the ownership model was created over the seven year agreement. And now the settlers had huge incentives to produce large quantities of goods so they could be sold and wealth created.

The lessons drawn from the early Pilgrims are immense. The burden of taxation and oversight when overdone is destructive to ingenuity, creativity, and the spirit of living. Modern day socialism borders on such destruction.

The liberal Democratic party bears the insignia of these designs:

America's greatness has been formed in the womb of faith in God and through the employment of capitalism as the modus operandi. Dreams, desires, and incentives were the engine of economic growth then just as they are today. Destroy a person's incentives to produce and he will quit producing for everyone. Grant the man freedom to create wealth and prosperity for himself and you will Economic growth is a sign of freedom and choice.

Today we celebrate this season of Thanksgiving. We are thankful for our Lord and His hand of Providence that grants us faith, freedom, and choice to employ our talents and abilities in the pursuit of commerce and peace. On this day, let us remember how capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions of humans from sheer poverty, something that world government has never been able to accomplish.

Three Quarters of a Trillion $ & Counting

Three quarters of a trillion dollars later prosecuting George Bush's war, and we have Secretary of Defense Robert Gates with cup in hand pleading before the U.S. Senate for 42 billion$ more to fund the war in Iraq for the remainder of the year. Nearly 10% of the entire national debt at 8.9 trillion$ will have been placed on the backs of American citizens-

Fiscal insanity has set in. Printing presses run wildly. Democrats have not the guts to say "No" to defunding the war, though they believe Americans swept them into office to end Gulf War II. Cut back spending? Not on your life- every Democrat has every intention of expanding government programs across the land-whether we like it or not.

What about Republicans? Have they not played Benedict Arnold toward the American people? The party of Taft, Goldwater, and Reagan have abandoned the financial responsible ship becoming irresponsibly complicit with their donkey friends racking up more debt in six years than all the debt accumulated from the first 200 years of this nation. Nearly 10% of the nine trillion dollar debt has been racked up by Bush's liberal "global crusade" for freedom in six years.

The President describes himself as a "compassionate conservative." Yet, how different is President Bush's record to that of LBJ's "Guns and Butter" campaign that shoved down the American people's throats war in Vietnam and war on poverty? Didn't LBJ promise to win the Vietnam War and erradicate poverty-neither which has come true? Didn't Bush #43 promise to win the "war on terror" while spoonfeeding Kennedy-like prescription bills and No Child Left Behind bills to the American people to keep them silent strapping the citizens with 9 trillion dollars in debt instead of the 5 trillion he came into office with?

How different is Bush's Education Department to Jimmy Carter's Education Department of 1977? Whereas Reagan sought to abolish Carter's famed Department of Education because of waste, government control, and inefficiency, George Bush #43 heralded the enlargement of federal bureacracy- more employees, greater regulation, greater tax dollars, and anemic scores in a one size fit all program. If this is fiscal conservativism, who needs the likes of Ted Kennedy, Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, and Reed?

Where are the Andrew Jackson's, Harding's, and Coolidge's of America? These were great presidents, contrary to popular belief.

Didn't Warren Harding spearhead a return to prosperity championing tax cuts, paying down the debt, and restraining "The Great Leviathan" with a new Bureau of Budget? So vital was the Bureau of Budget, that President Harding had Charles Dawes report directly to the President about the slashing of government spending and eliminating waste in government. Was Harding not "elected on a platform calling for cutbacks in government?" (Sobel R., Coolidge p. 225)

President Harding hastened America's global crediblity. With Charles Dawes appointed as the ax man Congressional officials were put on notice as Harding "promoted thrift, economy, and efficiency." Dawes succeeded. And Americans were grateful.

And dare we forget President Harding's courage six weeks before election in 1924? The "Bonus Bill" giving billions of dollars to WWI American soldiers was vetoed by President Harding. The reason given? Such a give-away "would be a disaster to national finances" placing America in further debt. Harding risked everything for the principle of financial responsibility, an "America First" attitude.

What of Calvin Coolidge's record, his successor in 1924? Mr. small government himself managed to captain American prosperity, limit federal government involvment in the lives of our citizens. "Lower taxes and reduced government spending..." was President Coolidge's mantra. Politicians did not like him. After all, less government means draining the swamp in Washington. Slashing of programs, departments, and jobs was his goal.

What historian ranks Coolidge highly? None. He purposefully exerted no grand ideas except to let Americans govern their own personal lives, while reducing their taxes and eliminating federal spending. Pretty boring stuff just the way Coolidge thought the presidency should be run.

"Boring character displayed in the long run outlasts what is temporarily spectacular," said Claude Fuess. Mr. Fuess was Mr. Coolidge's biographer. President Wilson's "bureaucracy gone mad" was remedied by "Silent Cal", the President whom historians will never highly regard because he imposed no great ideas or heavy yoke upon the American people-only a steady hand in a time of need.

History records that it was President Cooolidge who pounded away at liberals time and again with his "Government and Business" speech? Great ideas in New York produce capitalism, wealth, prosperity, and hope for all Americans. Big ideas in D.C. enslaves our citizens to centralized command and control policies - socialism, facism, and communism that are likely to destroy American ingenuity, prosperity, and hope. Limit D.C.; unleash New York. "America's business is business" said President Cooliddge.

George Bush, sadly enough, has masqueraded as a conservative to win votes. He has governed liberally to win his legacy. He will not be ranked with "Silent Cal" or even Harding who worked to reduce the size of government. Instead, Bush #43 will go down as the LBJ and Wilson of the 21st century having piled up more debt that the first 41 presidents of our nation combined.

Only one question remains for our republic:

Where will we find our next Andrew Jackson, Harding, or Coolidge that will fight the good fight reigning in the evils of spending?

Patriot's Coach Fumbles the Ball of Life?

Bill Belichek has won 3 Superbowls in the last 6 years. A genius by any account when it comes to football. And here we have the scandal of his life brewing. Cameras in the press box taking pictures of the other team's signals? He's caught red-handed. Is this what the genius coach will be remembered on earth for: as a cheater?

All's fair in love and war is the old saying. In war, the British broke the enigma codes with the Americans during WWII against the Germans which helped turn the tide of the war. We celebrate the heroic cracking of codes in war precisely because war is an issue of life, death, and freedom.

Football is neither about love or war; nor life, death or freedom. Its a game with rules meant to entertain us all on an even playing field. Yet, our age has watched the Barry Bonds, Sosa's, McGwire's, Ben Johnson's, (allegedly Lance Armstrong), and countless others wrecklessly abandoning integrity and honor for the easier road of cheating - just to get the slight advantage.

All men are created equal. But not all men forge character through decades of living. Can any of us imagine Tom Landry or Don Shula pulling a cheating stunt like that of Bellichek's?

Its far too easy to chalk this event up as just another incident of overzealous coaches or players looking for an edge. Though it is over-zealotry. It is also cheating. It is wrong. And now it must be explained to our children, our athletes, and aspiring coaches why Belichek's actions are wrong, even if the man had never been caught.

Courageous parents who believe honor and integrity are more important than winning at all costs will do the following:

We tell our children that breaking the rules (cheating) like Coach Bellichek is wrong. Your child will ask the proverbial question: "Why is it wrong?"

The only answer that carries any merit is as follows:

Son, cheating is wrong on tests, the football field, or anywhere else because you were created in the image of God. Therefore, your life in His image should reflect, not cheating, but honesty and integrity. Your mission on earth is to honor God through your life. This is true, son, even if it means you won't win the Superbowl.

To the rest of us adults the corollary that should follow-

To the man who climbs, cheats, and swears his way to the top:

"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?"

If Mr. Belichek searches his soul before God, he would likely give up even his treasured Superbowls to regain the integrity and character that has been lost which will mark him for life.

Why Latinos Are Going Democrat?

Why should the Spanish vote go Democratic? It shouldn't.

Everything natural about Spanish families: work ethic, entrepenuership, faith in God, sanctity of life issues, and marriage issues point toward Republicanism. Yet, the 40% of votes that GW Bush received may well be the highwater mark for Republicans for decades to come.

What do the Dem's have working for them that steals the Latino vote from the natural home of the Republicans?

• Immigration


• Sanctuary Cities


• Employer Sanctions


• Health Care


• Education

Every Democratic candidate running for President promises the following:

not to deport Spanish speaking people, not to shut the borders down, not to leave anyone uninsured (illegal or not), and to spend more on education (for legal or illegal citizens)-

Senator Harry Reid calls hard-working illegals "undocumented Americans". Nancy Pelosi declares those who cross the borders at night to be "Great citizens of humanity".

In a strange twist of fate, this Latino voting block is more Republican than most Republicans. After all, what Latino community in America is not defined deeply by their devotion to faith, family, marriage, sanctity of life, and a hard work ethic? Are these not the basic values Republicanism at the core? They certainly are not values of the Democrats.

These good people don't abort babies; they have large families. They don't look for handouts or excuses. They work grueling jobs. Spanish folks love family life, marriage, children- everything that Republicanism and traditional Americans value highly.

So why are Latinos en masse jumping ship that cast their votes with wishy washy liberal Democrats?

Republicans, outside of the Bush's Jeb & George, have made few strides to cast a big net capturing the hearts and minds of Latino citizens. Democrats, on the other hand, have promised welfare programs and the moon for Latinos including more government spending...but this is un-American.

The magic of the American republic has always been to assimilate the hard-working citizens of the world by promising an equal opportunity; not an equal outcome. Its the promise of hope and a future; not a government that will care for the social needs of the people. America is the land of personal freedom and liberty to faithfully pursue dreams, ambitions, and desires without red tape, bureacracy, and politicians getting in your way.

It was President Reagan who spoke about "Shining city on a hill" with its allure of prosperity, hope, and faith that so captured the imaginations of Americans. Work hard and aspire to be our best being proud to be American was his message. And let government do little for you, since you are capable of achieving the dreams God has placed in your heart.

Is this not the message every immigrant falls in love with when coming to our America?

Republicans & the Spanish Vote!

If you had asked my wife, the former President of the Southwest Broward Republican party, campaing manager for local Republicans in Miami, Davie point person for the re-election campaign for George Bush's 04 campaign in a part of South Florida, what is the one thing Republicans would have to do to win in the future, her answer was clear.

Win the hearts and minds of Spanish citizens.

A political health checkup ought to scare any GOP voter. With mastermind Karl Rove out of picture, the President in lame duck mode, and Jeb gone from Florida, whatever inroads for the Spanish vote made during 2000 and 2004 election cycles, are quickly vanishing.

When Univision in Miami decided to have a Spanish American Presidential debate recently. Did the Democrats show up? Every single one of them. The Socialist Queen indicated, "it was a great privilege" to be before the Spanish constituency. Barak Obama stated "it was an opportunity" to reach another group of Americans in the political process. The other Democratic candidates groveled before the Miami crowd wholeheartedly promising to retain the illegal aliens in America rather than deport them. Maybe this is un-American? But it is effective for a democratic primary. Maybe even a general election?

And what about the Republicans? John McCain accepted the invitation to debate the critical issues important to Spanish constituents. Stunningly, not another Republican candidate dared to face the fire before these Americans. Need we ask what the legitimate reasons were for choosing not to show up in a Spanish forum? Of course, Republicans would have to speak about immingration, healthcare, and education- the very issues most important to the Spanish constituency and the achilles heel of these Republican candidates who remain flat-footed on these important issues.

How many of our Spanish brothers and sisters are there in the Unitied States? Can you say 44 million? Although Bush #43 received over 40% of this vote as a compassionate conservative, it is likely this number will plummet into the 20's.

What will be the effect in November 2008? Game - set - match for the elephants fighting for lower taxes, lower government intrusion, limited spending, and securing the borders.

No party can win without evenly dividing this crucially important voting block of constituents. And the Republicans candidates aren't even giving the time of day to the surging and sophisticated block of voters. Didn't George Bush need chads to win even though he had a huge 44% of Spanish voting block? What are Republicans to do now winning only 25 to 30% of this vote? They going to watch the next inaugural address from home.

High taxes, open borders, weak defense, socialized medicine, alternative lifestyles, gay rights - is this the Socialist European model that awaits us all in our great Land of Liberty after November 2008?

Who Will Win Space War I

Have we been fooled again? Americans in particular, who believe that the "war on terror" is the gravest threat to American security in the years to come. Was it not President GW Bush who stated, "Depending on what we do in Iraq, the west hangs in the balance"?

Surely a bit of zealous overkill, wouldn't you say?

Indeed, isn't the grave threat to American security interests to be found in the race taking place in outerspace? Don't most Americans believe that we won the Sputnik race; flag on moon, Neil Armstrong, Apollo, Columbia, Challenger, etc...?

Take note:

• Beijing shocked the world by being the first Asian nation to place astronauts into orbit in 2003
• Early 2007 the Chinese military blasted to pieces from earth an orbiting satelite 200 plus miles into space
• The Chinese military space program is mapping the moon as we speak
• President Clinton's 8 years watched untold top-secret levels of military information disappear into Chinese hands
• The Chinese leaders boast that August 2008 will reveal special rockets specifically designed to alter the weather and disperse rain clouds
• The Chinese military has acquired stealth-like submarines virtually undetectible, according to American naval officials
• The Chinese military leadership remains deeply covert and non-sharing concerning its capabilities, designs, and logistics
• The Chinese military is designing first strike capabilities to render U.S. satelite, global mapping, and hi-tech communications impotent
• Chinese military budgets are growing by 10 to 12% annual pace; on the books- off the books no doubt this number is much larger

Meanwhile...Tokyo has already floated four military satelites orbiting the earth. Lunar modules are being prepared this month for space mapping and a soon to be moon walk in just a number of years. The articles of Japan's Constitution are being prepared to be re-written to allow a beefed up defense of the nation...nuclear defense. With Kim Jong I'll's South Korea floating missiles over the Sea of Japan and Beijing remembering the rape of Nanking during WWII, the world's 2nd largest economy is preparing for the Information War as Tokyo jockeys for space supremacy itself.

The race to the North Pole is on again. While the Phutin's Russia is planting titanium flags on the floor of the North Pole claiming the territory and firing their longest and most accurately tested ICBM's during Bush's second term in office, Americans are pursuing SDI for Europe and America.

While American astronauts are flying drunk and wearing diapers in bizarre cross-country love feuds, the military and space programs of the Indians, Malaysians, Taiwanese, and the others mentioned above are circling the earth with new-found wealth and technology. Such are the days we live in...military challengers are laying the groundwork for a new war.

Space War I...galactic lasers, satelite defense systems, laser-like offensive weapons all hundreds of miles above the earth drawing humanity again...into war??? It was President Wilson who sacrificed American GI's, 250,000 of them, stating that WWI was the war to end all wars. Sounds rather foolish today, doesn't it? War is likely. Yet, it doesn't have to be so in our generation!

Was it not Margaret Thatcher's comments that appropriately recorded that President Reagan "won the Cold War without ever firing a shot"?

Perhaps it is President Reagan's ideas that can once again come alive as America fights to secure the Republic for generations to come in Space War I. Maybe renewing our schools to science and math as Eisenhower did and commiting America's resources to the Star Trek frontier as Reagan did, America can win the new war- the Space War.

And even better yet-maybe the next win can be Reagan-like- winning Space War I without a shot being fired.

William Jennings Bryan's Democrats!!!

They looked suave. Well dressed, well rehearsed, and smooth talk marked the CNN You Tube debates featuring the Democratic candidates on stage before the world. With your heart, they might win you over. But your mind is what matters.

If ever the Liberal Socialist Democrats (LSDer's) ever had a love fest, it was on this evening! Tax the evil oil companies, plunder the big pharmaceutical companies, tax all hedge fund managers, tax the tobacco companies, tax the rich...what's rich??? House Dem's say 200K in earnings...Presidential hopefuls say 450K...Senators say 250K in annual earnings is rich.

And liberals believe that they are for freedom of the people?

How free is free? The Socialist Queen has plans to socialize all of American medicine. She foisted this awful plan in 1993. It crashed and burned before take off. But today she believes Americans are more ready for her type of wisdom. Everyone must pay into a healthcare system that will copy the NHS of England. Long lines, doctors you don't want, health plans that don't fit, outrageous premiums, and outrageous additional medical costs-these are the freedoms The Socialist Queen thinks is best for you. Wouldn't it be better to just let yourself do the thinking instead of her about your medical needs?

How free is free? The right to use a needle to suck the brains out of a little child; call the little child a fetus; the procedure family planning; and celebrate the sacrifice of our children at the alter of a woman's convenience.

How free is free? Joe Biden, the Resume Doctor, Al the "Green Earth" Gore, and the rest of the liberal gang would salivate to eliminate the 2nd Amendment that we use to carry handguns to beat back intruders, thieves, and murderers in our own homes.

How free is free? Free enough to free hardened locked up criminals onto American streets before these perpetrators serve their full sentence....lovely words like furlough program, parole, early release programs promise us new neighbors- the kind you don't want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQJyOyg0p74

How free is free? Open borders...broken borders...an invite to all 3rd world refegugees with no skills to rush the Rio Grande so LSDer's can have a job. We don't know who is entering America. These American liberals won't lift a finger. The more poor, uneducated, non-speaking aliens that can land in America, the better liberals feel about staying in power.

How free is free? Defeat and retreat promised by the donkey candidates amongst whooping crowds. Any plans to fight terrorists? Yes- just get out of Iraq. What if the surge is working? Get out of Iraq. What if we can beat back the terrorist? Great. Get out of Iraq.

Do any of these presidential candidates care about our Republic? Or has the Democratic party been engaging in the wholesale death of America as we know to be replaced with resocially engineered America?

Liberal Playbook for Next Election???

The storm clouds are gathering. Democrats and centralized Marxist planners are resurrecting Bolshevik ideas again. This time, however, they have an upset electorate. Iraq has gone poorly and Republicans vetoed no bills and spent like Democrats love to spend. The result? Sweeping changes in D.C. in favor of liberal democrats both in the House and Senate.

The LSDers get the feeling of invincibility. The Socialist Queen, The Ambulance Chaser, and Mr. GQ (Obama) are eyeing the rich and are prepared to storm the bastille of American wealth.

Read the following excerpts:

"For the past six years, it's been like going back to the era of the robber barons," said Hillary Clinton, speaking at the Manchester (NH) Institute of Technology. Clinton called for the elimination of President Bush's tax cuts for high-income families in order to help fund a "shared prosperity" agenda whose elements would include affordable health care, expanded unemployment insurance, and universal pre-kindergarten. Her program would make it easier for workers to join unions and college students to get loans. "Her plan is wide-ranging and so ambitious it will take the determination of a Robin Hood," Sun-Times columnist Jennifer Hunter concluded.

Response: Do Liberals Really Want to Impoverish People?

Do you think Mao Tse Tung would have been proud of The Socialist Queen? Plunder the wealthy...they are the ones to blame...the poor deserve better...this is pure exploitation of the masses that must stop...the rich ought to feel guilty...

The last time I checked???

Record home ownership by all minorities and Americans, all time stock market record highs, record low 4.5 % unemployment, record equity and wealth for most Americans, easy access to credit, pail grants, education grants, low cost government loans for higher education, six weeks of unemployment insurance, IRA sheltered vehicles, free public education, record wealth creation for all in America, freedom to succeed in America, etc...housing vouchers for the needy, Medicaid for the needy, Medicare for the elderly, Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind, etc...This is the American we live in today!!!

Let us remember: the last time liberals like the Socialist Queen invaded the homes of poor Americans with "The Great Society" programs, entire swaths of urban families were destroyed because of free giveaways. Crime skyrocked, educational achievement plummetted, marriages destroyed, dreams were obliterated, and work ethic was eliminated in the urban class of citizenry.

Over a trillion dollars of federal government money spent on "eliminating poverty" from the 60's to the 2000's, and establishing equality went down the drain. The Socialist Queen is planning to give us a second round of Woodstock, welfare, and the destruction of work ethic if any of us are willing to endure it again.

Read further:

(Paul Krugman, NY Times, 4/27/07). John D. Rockefeller's income for 1894 - $1.25 million - was almost 7,000 times the national average at the time, making him "a mere piker by modern standards," according to Krugman. To illustrate, he cites the contemporary example of hedge-fund manager James Simon. Last year, according to Institutional Investor's Alpha magazine, Simons "took home $1.7 billion, more than 38,000 times the average income.


Response: Why Rich People are Good for America!!!

Why is it that liberals always are so nosy about what everyone else makes? Why does it really matter to me that James Simon makes 38,000 times more than me? Does Mr. Simon keep me from pursuing "Life, libery, and happiness"? So why should I have an ax to grind with him?

Krugman epitomizes the problem with liberals. Like good Socialists or Marxists, making too much money is unfair, dangerous, and should be outlawed according to The Socialist Queen, The Ambulance Chaser, and Mr. GQ. Those who make too much ought to be penalized. Just like a highway patrol officer pulls over a citizen for speeding on the highway, so too citizens creating wealth are to be ticketed.

But wait...what does James Simon have to do with my prospects of succeeding in the greatest land ever known to mankind? Does his wealth impede my opportunities? Free education, pail grants, low interest loans, SBA loans, IRA's, stock market, futures market, real esate, commerce ventures etc...all available to me, aren't they? Better opportunities in America than anywhere else even while Mr. Simon chases his dream-right???

In fact, millionaires and billionaires have the exact opposite effect than draining my resources and keeping me from succeeding. The greater number of millionaires and billionaires produced in America inspires the rest of us to fight the good fight. Their lives are a testimony to republican ideals of the pursuit of "life, liberty, and happiness." Can't we all chase our dreams of successful given our own God-given intelligence, creativity, and desire.

Does the income gap between the rich and the poor destroy my confidence? My ability? My hopes? My opportunities? I think not. Rich neighborly citizens, the more of them that excel, only produce more opportunity for me.

Would I rather be living in government driven ghettos or a couple of streets over from the 1.7 billion dollar James Simon? The billionaire will likely help me, my neighborhood, community, etc...much more than the average guys or the profligate spending federal government. Three cheers to Simon and the next ten Americans that crack the billionaire ranks.

Pay Careful Attention:

(Daniel Gross, Slate 1/29/07).The ultra-rich have begun to speak out against rising inequality, says Gross, pointing to recent statements by Mortimer Zuckerman, Wilbur Ross Jr., and Stephen Schwarzman, the 117th and 322nd richest Americans, respectively. Schwarzman, co-founder of the Blackstone Group" - one of the toniest hedge funds - is "an unabashed economic royalist" who "lives in a $30 million apartment once owned by John D. Rockefeller Jr." Yet, in a December interview with the Financial Times, he deplored the economy's failure to deliver more of its rewards to the struggling middle class. "What gives?" asks Gross. He answers: "The very rich are just as trendy as you and I. [T]hese guys don't need their own personal weathermen to know which way the wind blows." Gross goes on to note, however, that when hedge funds and private equity firms get into the corporate-restructuring game, "they use the same playbook" as everyone else: "Cut benefits and jobs, relocate factories to cheaper offshore locations, replace pensions with 401(k) plans, and increase co-payments for health care.


Response: Better Than Kings Today!!!

When Warren Buffett, Zuckerman, Wilbur Ross, Schwarzman, etc...talk about rising inequality, do they really know what they are talking about? The poorest of the poor today has a better lifestyle than King George III of England did 240 years ago. Air conditioning, food stamps, vehicles, plasma TV, free education, rent vouchers, Medicaid, job training programs, etc...

When was the last time Buffett, Zuckerman, or Ross walked through the projects? Its no bed of roses. But its better than kings had centuries ago. So if one American gets filthy rich and anothe one struggles in the projects, the struggling American still has it better than nearly anyone in their predicament during anytime history is surveyed.

Obama & Sex Education for 5 Year Olds???

Before a packed Planned Abortion crowd, Barak Obama pandered to another audience with promising to teach our five year olds about sex education. Of course, Mr. GQ's sex education classes would be "age appropriate".

Much like the LSD'ers (liberal socialist democrats) curriculum in Massachussetts and Vermont which promotes sex education curriculum of "Heather Has Two Mommies", "Daddies Roommate", gay marriage, condom useage, etc...in grade school and middle school, Mr. GQ has serious sex education plans for our Kindergarten kids across America, "if you elected me President", said Obama.

Lets get this straight---Mr. GQ will lead the federal government's fight for our five year olds to learn about what pedophilia is all about?

What happened to presidential candidates acting presidential? The War on Terror, fighthing in Iraq, tax cuts, streamlining government, balancing the budget, etc...aren't these the type of presidential issues we should be hoping Mr. GQ would remain focused on. Instead, he's playing sandcastle in the playbox at Planned Parenthood (Abortion) rallies, and playing hopscotch crossing picket lines on the union side of labor against management?

Can't we allow parents to remain responsible for training children about sexuality--at five years old? Not according Obama- "it takes a village" is a popular theme among the LSDers running for president nowadays. Hillary, "The Socialist Queen", wrote the book on the "It Takes a Village". The rest of the LSDers, including Mr. GQ, are running around the country like the "village idiot" pandering to the waves of disturbed liberal interest groups.

According to Obama, parents have lost that exclusive right---and schools have earned the right to foist sex education curriculum upon our five year olds! Five year olds!! Five year olds!!!!!????

I'm not sure Mr. GQ has clearly thought through the most effective solution in protecting our five year olds--after all, he's only been a Senator for two years on the national scene? He can't be that smart, can he???

So we thought we would help him out a bit with a solution or two in protecting our children in ways I'm sure he hasn't considered previously but could take the lead on. It is true that Obama's gang of liberals has a nasty habit of releasing hardened criminals, like rapists, pedophiles, and even murderers out on furlough programs (Willie Horton), parole, and early release programs into American streets. No wonder crime in liberal urban cities is difficult to manage?

Apparently playing nice nice to hardened pedophiles by letting them out of jail early has been ineffective in keeping the child molestors from destroying the lives of our children. So, smooth-talking Mr. GQ proposed his most reasonable solution.

And Obama's answer is a dialogue? Not with the bad guy-- but with guess who??? The little girls and boys of America--- Lets tell the little girls and boys in school about that bad monsters that are out there to touch them in all the wrong spots--AT FIVE YEARS OLD!?!?!?

What if....Just what if...here me out...just what if we tried to help Mr. GQ with the intelligent part of his brain by proposing a sure-fire solution to his pedophilia dilemna? He's a liberal- so he has to let these criminals out onto American streets early, or else he wouldn't be called a liberal. So instead of locking these poor victimized criminals up for a long time and throwing away the key like common sense tells us to do, lets do something just as effective.

Lets pass new legislation...liberals love new legislation so we are off to a good start.

Lets start a new Health Initiative that encompasses a win/win scenario for the pedophile, the victim, and all Americans. Mr. GQ and all the liberals like the part where you help the pedophile out especially. Mr. GQ should initiate legislation which states that any and all convicted pedophiles will lose their 3rd leg...lose their 3rd leg...again - lose their 3rd leg. Lets make them eunichs? "Castration"? you ask. All it takes is an anesthitized medical procedure. Painless and beneficial to all parties involved-right?

We will call it Obama's Law: the 3rd Leg Removal Act. Its win/win for everyone!!! Obama is seen as tough on crime...our children are no longer threatened...our former predator now can focus on Jesus, making money, and spurring the economy (liberals really like this...except for the Jesus part)...and Americans can sleep more peacefully now that fewer child molesters are out there looking for their child.

The ultimate result: The pedophile no longer has the desire to destroy the lives of boys and girls for the next 28 years of their lives. The hard crime gets hard time and a 3rd leg surgical removal technique for a new life start. And lastly, the former pedophile can now channel his energies into productive work that benefits himself and the rest of America and never feel guilty about the next victim on his radar screen. What great benefits for everyone???

"No!@#*- You can't do that!!! Cruel -thats cruel, inhumane, non-compassionate, unusual punishment!!!" sayeth the liberals like Obama, The Socialist Queen, The Chinaman Richardson, The Ambulance Chaser Edwards, and Kennedy the "hero of the poor", the Resume Doctor Joe Biden...

Do you really think LSDers would ever seriously consider protecting our little children? Liberals would have a cow! These are the same LSDers that hold candle light vigils with tears streaming down their faces for hardened convicted criminals like Tookie Williams and Jeffrey Dahmer.

Conservatives like Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Brownback, (I don't know about McCain) would say, "Seems like it would work...lets give it a shot!"

"In fact, how about any sexual crime by a man violating any woman? A two for one deal...Lets protect the females and the children all at once", would be the rallying cry of some smart conservative trying to protect innocent life.

Now if this 3rd Leg Removal Act is too repulsive for some liberals, then Mr. GQ should do what liberals are great at doing. Use euphemisms to redefine the actual procedure and try to pawn the terminology off on the American people.

Remember how liberals do this?

Its not a baby; its a fetus. Its not human life; its a piece of blob in your belly? Its not child sacrifice; its terminating a pregnancy. Its not murder; its pro-choice. Its not sucking the brains out of a child and crushing her head; its family planning.

So lets try it with pedophiles?

Its not castration; its apparatus removal technique. Its not sawing it off; its the 3rd Leg Removal Technique. Its not dehumanizing; its liberating our children. Its not castration; its an apparatus abortive procedure.

Instead of grandstanding before the Planned Parenthood crowd promising to tell every five year about all the bad guy monsters that are out there to hurt our children, maybe Mr. GQ actually get serious about solving the problem.

Lets liberate all females and children with the apparatus abortive surgery by way of the 3rd Leg Removal Act for a Safer America!

I think we've got ourselves a great campaign commercial, don't you think?

Tackling the Warren Court's Worst Decision Ever???

Why is it that the same Democratic party that celebrates the right kill babies is the same party that forced innocent and vulnerable black families to pick cotton in unspeakable conditions to enrich white families? (its not a low blow; its true)

Is this a party that we can trust- Hillary (The Socialist Queen), Mr. GQ Obama, The Ambulance Chaser John Edwards, Bill "The Chinaman" Richardson, Kennedy "The Keeper of the Poor"??? Aren't these the elitist liberals that tell us they cry for the poor, vulnerable, and innocent of our nation???

Yet--with feet, hands, fingernails, a heart, nose and mouth, little baby girls and boys are forced to endure the "sucking of their brains out" compliments of the LSDers (liberal socialist democrats) above who claim to love the poor, innocent, and the most vulnerable of us all.

So awful is the abortion procedure, that even the FCC will not allow documentaries, commercials, etc...to run on American airwaves showing the images. Do you suppose that killing live babies is just a little too disturbing for even liberals to witness? Such commercials might actually force liberals to seek treatment for mental and emotional disorders, if they witnessed their handiwork policies in action.

Why do liberals use euphemisms like:

• fetus - when we have a baby
• family planning - when an innocent todler faces death
• reproductive rights - when she chooses to be promiscuous

These sterile terms license promisuous women to eliminate life without having to think to greatly about what they are doing. Sterile, deceitful terms; thats the method used to sear a liberal's conscience from the ghastly deed.

Now with Alito and Roberts helping uphold a "partial birth abortion ban", liberals have gone verbally wild. Salivating wildly, Mr. "G.Q." Obama and "The Socialist Queen" Hillary have come out swinging demanding more abortions be allowed to take place in the final trimester of a pregnancy. Such a procedure entails the following:

Pulling a baby from mommy's uterus to puncture and crush her skull.

Oh Happy Days - the Donkeys (the dem's) reminisce about the good old days when a baby was pulled from a mommy's uterus so to have her skull punctured. Of course, even better if the procedure didn't work. The doctor would have the tortured baby placed on a cold table in a dark room allowing the baby to simply die with no food, water, or attention in the hospital.

This is women's rights? Family planning? (Next time don't call child protective services on a mommy when a child gets a spanking for acting like a brat- right?)

And the cruel Roberts court would dare keep this murder procedure illegal? What kind of an insensitive oager and male chauvenist is the Roberts fellow who dares to violate a woman's right to torture unborns?

If you didn't know it before, Liberals are a bad idea for you, your community, and our nation.

Abortion Ruling & Minnesota Supreme Court?

The Minnesota Supreme Court Overturns Convictions of Pro-Lifers Who Held Graphic Signs
Chicago's Thomas More Society Wins a Unanimous Ruling in Favor of Protestors Arrested for Standing on Overpass with Graphic Abortion Sign
Contact: Tom Brejcha, Thomas More Society, 312-782-1680, cell 312-590-3408; Drew Schadegg, TC Public Relations, 312-422-1333
MINNEAPOLIS, July 17 /Christian Newswire/ -- On Thursday, July 12, the Minnesota Supreme Court handed down an important ruling, reversing the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad for displaying large signs on an overpass on two occasions in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka, Minnesota just weeks before the 2004 national elections. One sign displayed a large color photo of the aborted infant, "Baby Malachi," while next to it was a large handwritten sign that branded a local Congressional candidate as "pro-abortion."
On both occasions the pro-lifers were arrested and jailed by Anoka police, who also took their signs. Charges of "criminal nuisance" and a violation of Anoka's sign ordinance were upheld by a trial judge. Stiff fines and prison sentences were imposed. Chicago's Thomas More Society was asked to help and underwrote an appeal, but appellate Judges upheld both convictions.
Thomas More Society reassembled its team of appellate specialists – the team that won Joe Scheidler's RICO case twice in the U.S. Supreme Court. Against "impossible" odds, Minnesota's Supreme Court allowed a further appeal. Oral arguments were held last November, and last week when a four Justice plurality ruled that the prosecution hadn't proven the signs a criminal "nuisance" or that Anoka's sign ordinance even applied. Two other Justices agreed with Justice Alan Page, former NFL star, who wrote in his concurrence that defendants' First Amendment rights were violated as the prosecution had been "content-based" – aimed at the pro-life message.
Tom Brejcha, chief counsel of the Thomas More Society states, "Graphic photos are controversial even among pro-lifers. We urge that they be used prudently and sparingly – with warning signs wherever possible. But our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage."
The Society's brief quoted George Orwell, who wrote that:
"In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuation of British rule in India, [and] the Russian purges and deportations...can indeed be defended, but only by argument, which are too brutal for most people to face…Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness…Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them…A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines and covering up all the details."
Brejcha adds, "As Orwell's quotation demonstrates, it is impossible to convey certain messages, including the message that pro-lifers Rudnick and Otterstad sought to convey – with all its emotional content – without the use of graphic anti-abortion images. The First Amendment protects political speech that is annoying and even offensive, including speech that stirs people to anger or produces deeply unsettling effects. Those who disagree with a speaker's message must not suppress or criminalize it, but answer it with more speech."
Brejcha's co-counsel were Chuck Shreffler of Mohrman & Kaardal, of Minneapolis, who was also affiliated with Alliance Defense Fund, and Alan Untereiner and Dan Walfish of Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck & Untereiner, of Washington, D.C.
To view a video of the oral arguments go here.
To view the opinion go here.
Issuers of press releases and not Earned Media™ are solely responsible for the accuracy of the content. Terms and conditions, including restrictions on redistribution, apply.
Copyright © 2007 Earned Media™. All Rights Reserved.

Turning East Toward Persia

John Wayne would've done it...Steve McQueen would have done it...Clint Eastwood would have said, "Make my day" and then done it...

This may not be the movies. But the tragedy unfolding for a beleagured President Bush is nothing short of a debacle requiring a leading actor to take charge. Our heroes above would have created an out that would save honor and credibility.

The question is: Does the President have the courage to play the cards that would resurrect his presidency from the doghouse of LBJ to the status of war hero Eisenhower? .

First, the President must turn his eyes eastward. He should catalog the crimes publicly against humanity, America, Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq that Tehran's leader, Ahmadinejad, is responsible for. The catalog is to be made public in the following format.

What do you do with a world leader that:

• threatens dozens of times to "wipe Israel off the map"


• funnels IEDs, money, soldiers, & weapons into Iraq killing American soldiers and fostering much of the instability of Baghdad


• trains, funds, and sends out Hezbollah and Hamas militias to asymetrically attack innocent citizens across an entire region of the globe


• sent specifically planned milita to overthrow Lebanon's government in the summer of 2006


• is building nuclear weapons arsenal to dominate Arab Sunnis and the Middle East

You do what "the Duke" would have done. You take out the bad guy for his bad talk, bad actions, bad threat to an entire world. The reprecussions are minimal. The world hates you already. The Russians have already bailed on the relationship. The Chinese were never with you before. The weak-kneed Europeans are just- well- weak.

Ahmadinejad's Iran would have felt the full blow of American force. F-16s, para-military troopers, blitzkrieg attacks, and precision bombings for sure would have dropped on critical Iranian infrastructure and destroyed the nuclear capabilities of this wayward nation. The surgical strikes would have done their job to push back any nuclear program.


The hot-mouthed impetuous leader, Ahmadinejad, would be hunted down like a dog. For promoting Israel's destruction, Lebanon's destruction, Iraq's destablization, and for causing the direct murder of American soldiers in Iraq via IED's, ammunition, and soldiers directed by Iranian officials, the puppet international court would have its chance at him.

A weakened chaotic Iran will have little time nor resource to badger Iraq's fledgling democratic experiment any further. Malaki will have been bought a couple of years of precious time to fight for his Iraq without the Persians breathing down his neck. American soldiers will have exited the scene in Iraq (what we've all been waiting for except for an emergency contingency). Iran's WMD program will have been demolished. Bush's ratings will have soared as the patriotic war president takes down the venomous snake of Iran. The Europeans will take over the rebuilding in Iran after we finish demolition derby in and around Tehran. And Americans will not be left to pick up the pieces, thereby to be blamed.

Strategically, neither Sunni nor Shia will have any upper hand in Iraq or Iran because of the destruction in both countries; which is good for all of us. We will begin to fund both Iran and Iraq at equal strength for decades to come, reminiscent of Reagan's arming of Saddam in the eighties to counter Tehran.

And as artist, Rodney Atkins, sings in his newest song:

If you're goin' through hell keep on going... Don't slow down if you're scared... don't show it... You might get out before the devil even knows you're there

The Rewards of a Surge?

We are told that the risk to reward ratio is well worth sending 21,500 more American troops to stabilize Baghdad’s chaos. If Maliki’s government succeeds and stabilizes Iraq because of the additional soldiers, President Bush will have saved Baghdad, his legacy, and maybe even opened the door for further pre-emptive democratic global strikes in the Middle East.

The risk will have seemed to pay off, and the cost of sending extra American boys today will have been considered minimal in a “Baghdad Final Push”. For these reasons, the risk is well worth the reward in trying to prop up a fledgling government toward stability.

What happens, however, if Iraq collapses or is commandeered by the bad guys? Will the terrorists from Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Iran, and Al Qaeda chase us down in Omaha, Peoria, or Chicago looking to “destroy our way of life” after the last helicopter whirls out of Saigon/Baghdad?

On the contrary, the Shias, Sunnis, Persians, Kurds, and insurgents from Syria, Iran, Jordan etc…will be so enthralled in a bloodthirsty battle for Iraq and the Middle East, that there will be no time, desire, or effort to chase down the Yankees across the ocean.

Such a view, though, is not consensus in Washington. The positions of President Bush, John McCain and even Pat Buchanan are such that the bloodthirsty battle of Iraq will be waged against Americans across the globe and in on the homeland after an American withdrawal.

“If we fail in Iraq,” says the President, “western civilization hangs in the balance.”

Why does this President habitually overstate the case about the “grievous” effects upon western civilization and America? Will scaring American citizens force them to buy into his erred war strategies?

“It will be a catastrophe if we pull out of Iraq,” states Senator McCain. And of course, Pat Buchanan views a premature American pullout from Baghdad as utterly catastrophic for American prestige.

History, however, has much to say about the effects of previous modern day American pull-outs, cut and runs, and retreats across the globe. Apparently, American power, peace, and prosperity have never been greatly affected by previous American military blunders and redeployments.

Was it not Vietnam that fell to Ho Chi Minh? Yet, the Domino Theory never did materialize as was so feared and American lives on the homefront remain unchanged. Ho Chi Minh wanted neither capitalists nor Soviet Communists dictating the fate of Vietnam, as it turned out. Thus, neither superpower was able to dictate to Southeast Asia much of anything. The great tragedy was humanitarian for sure; not military. Pol Pot murdered 1 in 10 of his Cambodian citizens in the early 1970’s after American forces were pulled out of Vietnam. Laos faired not so well either.

Did not Truman’s War in Korea in the 1950’s prove to be a catastrophe? Eisenhower flexed wisdom and remarkable statesmanship. He extricated our boys from what he called, “a God-forsaken peninsula where we do not belong.” Yet, no American lost sleep or liberty when American soldiers were pulled back from the Yalu River.

In which of these cases, or any other, did American citizens find themselves losing sleep, losing business deals, or losing prosperity because the American military retreated from “foreign entanglements”?

Did Mao’s 1947 revolution of 700 million Chinese destroy America’s vital interests in 1947? Did the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 harm America’s sovereign interests? Did Vietnam and the “domino theory” vitally threaten America’s existence or super power status? The obvious answer in retrospect is no.

Whatever else we say about the massive military blunders of Truman, Dean Acheson, Johnson, John Foster Dulles, or Robert McNamara, the 20th century retreats of American soldiers again and again has never threatened America’s security or position as a superpower, much less its sovereignty.

On the other hand, senseless foreign policy “globetrotting interventionism” by do good “Mother Theresa” foreign policy presidents is a dangerous 20th century phenomena. Such meddling in the affairs of other nations is a losing proposition for our republic. In fact, fostering global democratic revolution is a dangerous wish. Yet, our “entanglement” foreign policies of “reshaping the Middle East” will always be destructive; not advantageous because it is not our land. How many centuries must we study, and how many presidents must we endure to learn this bitter history lesson?

President Bush has for sure overstated the repercussions about what a pullout of Iraq will mean. “If we bring our troops back home, the terrorists will follow us here”? (Where does he get this garbage?)

Quite the opposite will occur. An American redeployment will allow terrorist groups to camp out in Iraq to fight for their version of Iraq. Terrorists will take little time to plan, nor will they have purpose, to conduct relentless attacks on the American people on American soil. So preoccupied will Islamic forces be, both Shia and Sunni, with gaining power in Iraq, Lebanon, and other parts of the Middle East, that America will not be of central interest to any of the 1.2 billion Muslims, clerics, ayatollahs, mullahs, and the like. That is if American soldiers are withdrawn from Iraq and sensitive Islamic lands within the Middle East.

The “Great Satan” will be a distant memory once his footsteps are off of Middle East soil. Americans will be tucked safely behind American borders, while witnessing the Middle East insanity of fundamental Islam in a war to destroy its own children.

Perhaps returning to Reagan’s policies of arming both sides of the Islamic battles between 1980 to 1988 to maintain a balance of power will become popular again? After all, no American wants to see either Shia or Sunni achieve complete dominance in the Middle East. Furthermore, funding the selling of arms to all parties involved would ensure a relatively stable, though bloody, protracted conflict that involves no American men in a foreign land.

What matters to most Americans is that this bloody proxy battle in Iraq between Shias and Sunnis will not involve American men and the war will not be exported to our shores. Instead, terror will be focused on innocent civilians, both Shias and Sunnis, in the barbaric Middle East cultures of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. Thus, it is not American citizens who will feel the brunt of a “broken Iraq”; but the citizens of the Middle East, as Colin Powell so predicted.

President Benjamin Harrison stated, “America has no mandate to police the globe.”

Yet, not many of Harrison’s White House descendants would buy the Harrison Doctrine.

In fact the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, and Bush #43 are the liberal types that have gotten our republic into global trouble with their naïve foreign policies. With over 780 military bases in over 150 countries across the globe during the post-Soviet collapse, is it any wonder that America is perceived as an imperialist overlording nation in Arab lands with F-16's, runways, military bases, and secret deals with peculiar Arab governments?

And until Americans recognize that it is not our “freedoms and liberties” that are so despised by radical Muslims, but it is the very presence of our military bases and intelligence operations in the holy lands of Riyadh, Istanbul, Tel Aviv, and no fly zones covering Iraq since 1990 that are the target of hatred and destruction.

In fact, if we connect the bombings from Tanzania, the USS Cole, Nairobi, Riyadh, Lebanon, World Trade Center, and 9/11, all of these wicked attacks occurred after Iraq’s invasion, occupation, and economic sanctions of 1991. The American occupation of Muslim Holy lands since the fall of communism has been the primary reason 9/11 and other terror attacks have occurred.

America’s shift toward a “New World Order” under Bush #41 became the rallying cry of all Muslims. As the Soviets were driven back, Muslims plan to drive back the Americans using asymmetrical warfare until an American president clears the Holy Land of American military personnel.

The risk to send 21,500 more American troops may well be worth the costs since we are so far into the quick sand. But Iraq’s future is not as an American friend fighting terror, most likely. Iraq instead will be a land governed no differently than that of Syria, Iran, or Palestine in its days to come.

The People Have Spoken!

Compassionate conservative, uniter-not-a-divider, humble nation, pre-emptive strike, mission accomplished, Jack Abramoff, Iraq, hubris, budget deficits, voluntary war, Enron, the Bush Doctrine, WorldCom, no-bid contracts, amnesty, Tom Foley, WMD’s, stay-the-course, pork & barrel, arrogance, war on terror, out-of-control spending, no vetoes, “bring it on…”, broken borders, illegal aliens, neoconservatives, Cheney, Rumsfeld, global democratic revolution, axis of evil, regime change, Niger, State of Denial,,,,

What else needs to be said!

The American people, like a spurned lover, have spoken. Divorce papers were issued to President Bush and the Republicans. Republicans ran as conservatives and governed as liberals.

The result:

Landslide city of 34 house seats and a change of guard in both the Senate and House have cost Defense Secretary Rumsfeld his job. And President #43 has been forced to consult the “Father knows best” strategy with Bush #41. The upshot is? A new direction in Iraq is demanded by the American people.

But there exists an issue even more stinging for those of us who are traditional conservatives. For sure GW Bush ran as a low tax man and got his plan through the Congress. He got the Supreme Court nominees through as well and defended marriage as much as any president would do. But what else can conservatives who carried this cowboy into office applaud???

The cowboy pulled a hard left as LBJ did. Guns and butter was the theme. Like drunken sailors the Republicans grabbed power and outspent the previous 80 Congresses combined during the six years of Bush’s presidency. And where was the compassionate conservative? As the first president in over 100 years, he vetoed not one bill that crossed his desk!

Like all great liberals whose egos to save the world outweigh their common sense, Wilson, Roosevelt, and LBJ have new found company. Mount Spendmore not Mount Rushmore, will mark the newest member of the “compassionate liberal” club that weakens our great nation.


For sure, the sixth year is never an easy year for a sitting president. Reagan, Clinton, and Eisenhower each endured beatings of sorts. But the cowboy who coolly rode into Washington as an outsider, quickly learned how to spend like an Washington insider, and will be left to ride back to Texas as the ultimate disappointment.