Thursday, July 26, 2007

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.

How free is free? Open borders...broken 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?

Monday, July 23, 2007

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, 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.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

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, 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 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?

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

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, 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

Saturday, July 14, 2007

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.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

300 Million Babies & Counting?

As America celebrations her 300 millionth lottery baby this past year, across the oceans in Europe celebration is not the mood. Heads of State across the EU are wringing their hands of the grim actuarial tables that face the “Old World”. Europeans are dying faster than they are birthing and have swung open the immigration door for all Muslims to enter. The results will not be promising:

Old Man Europe has lost three of its empires and tens of millions of the best and brightest boys through the hellish wars of the last 100 years. The hope of Europe’s future has been crushed on the wheels of war. Lost children, hopes crushed, and brokenness of spirit have permeated the Continent and has all but vanquished Europe’s traditions.

Europe has a sickness: dead man’s disease. All the qualities that make nations great are lacking on that continent:

-a lack of traditional family values
-a lack of faith in God
-a lack of pride in nation
-a lack of optimism about the future

Europe’s lacking stems from ghastly and unnecessary wars. But the cracks were not evident until the onset of post-modern French street marches of Jean Paul Sarte’s college kids of the 1960’s.

Rebellion to faith, family, birth rates, and optimism gave way to philosophic nihilism in Europe in the 1960’s forward. The only hope modern states of Europe had in perpetuating their traditions was to
band together under one banner of laws and social conventions called the EU.

Is there irony? The EU was De Gaulle’s and Adaneur’s last ditch effort to bring peace to blood-stained Europe. It was also Europe’s last desperate attempt to jump start family, faith, and hope in creating a future for their children. What Adaneur of Germany and De Gaulle of France determined was to bind Europeans together so that war would not tear them apart again.

Institutions, however, don’t create families. What European leaders failed to recognize is that without faith, there is no perpetuation of family. European leaders have sterilized Paul, Jesus, Peter, Augustine, the monks, Charlemagne, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Barth, and Bonhoffer off their continent on their way to creating their union of states.
These saints of old and the Messiah himself, provided the faith that gave life, virtue, hope, and purpose to Europe and family.

But what do we have now? Elevated are Rousseau’s contract, Hume’s skepticism, and a modern
EU Constitution that eliminates God, the Christian heritage, and the light of truth that drives faith.

Enlightened Europeans have replaced churches with abortion clinics. Sterile needles for recreational highs and Euthanasia for unwanted parents are the banners of pride for Chirac’s prideful Europe. In the meantime, Mohammed’s children have embarked on a demographic invasion of Europe bringing Allah, the Koran, and a distaste for Europe with them.

Without the drive for strong marriage and family ties, Europe will not multiply and be fruitful. The cause of which can be traced to Europe’s suicidal wars that destroyed hundreds of millions of families. The gloom of war struck the hearts of Europe’s children like Macbeth’s tragedy.

With no Christian hope on an atheistic European continent, is there any reason husbands and wives would commit to bringing children into their world?
The intellectual giants of Europe have answered: No!

Angry protests by Sarte’s college students across France, and Camus’ strange and meaningless works of fiction have mesmerized have brainwashed the boys and girls of Europe. Purpose and life’s meaning have been stripped from the land where Whitfield and Wesley captured the hearts of men.

And so the result is? “Old Man Europe” is orphaning his children in the glory of 20th century war. The children of Europe would rather cohabitate than marry. She will not don the wedding dress; he will bypass the groom’s attire. The steeples will ring empty. They will die the death of quiet desperation, barren, and no legacy worth telling.

As Europe’s children embrace slow death, European governments have swung their borders open. A new citizen in Europe must fill the slot of European jobs and family. Could cosmopolitan Europe now be importing millions of Islamic citizens from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East?

The results are nothing short of frightening. With Denmark, England, and France housing these new Islamic citizens in their democracies, politicians are accommodating Islamic citizens to get re-elected. So powerful is the Islamic voice in Europe today, that Europeans are finding it difficult to assimilate the Islamic population. Instead, in the vein of traditional Islamic influence, Europe is being overrun by Saladin’s people who want jobs.
But they do not want to be classical Europeans.

Allah’s laws, culture, and hopes are clashing with “Old Europe”, the War on Terror, and western values. The 7/11 attacks, Spain’s train bombs, French street riots, Danish atrocities, and German underground plotters are all but tiny examples of an emboldened foreign population preparing to siege the gates of Vienna.

Revitalized Islamic citizens smell blood. The Old Man’s carcass is being circled by the vultures preying on the death of western tradition. Without apology, the force of Islamic immigration is bringing about a perceptible change of the guard in Europe.
What the sword of Sulieman “The Great” could not do to overrun Europe, Europe’s own children did to itself in a suicide pact through continental warfare in the 20th century.

Today Europe’s Armada’s, Royal Navy’s, etc…have merged into some murky EU federation designed to strengthen the people of Europe. But military has little relevance in the war against abortion, Euthenasia, and the culture of death. This battle remains the domain of Christ, his church, and faith in God. But faith is rare commodity these days in Europe.

As Europe’s carcass is encircled by the birds of Islam and its borders being overrun by Saladin’s children, optimism has been replaced with an existential pessimism. King Ferdinand’s optimistic explorers of the future are nowhere to be found. England’s Royal Navy has conquered and receded. France’s 18th and 19th century glory has glimmered and burned to ashes. Holland, Portugal, Poland, and Sweden have had their fifteen minutes of fame as well. Wars of the 20th century have broken the back of Europe, depressed the family structure, and eliminated the births necessary to ward the end of traditional Europe.

Is it any wonder that the whole of Europe remains silent as the War on Terror marches on? Their war on terror began with Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination. And Hitler’s Nazi’s carried the final death blow. Millions were dead.

Is it any wonder that Europe’s policies and politicians so often diverge from America’s as the decades move away from WWII? America carries in its bosom optimism. With the “House of Europe” being silently sacked, “America Alone” stands again by itself to carry the values of the west and its Christian traditions to the next generation.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Liberals Eliminating Our Freedoms Again!

How crafty are liberals in Washington? While their pet open border amnesty bill was crashing to the ground, Pelosi, Reed, Kennedy, and the gang of big spenders flew an "energy bill" under the radar screen as Americans were watching the open border debate.

The "energy bill", so called by Washington insiders, mandates that all vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States must meet a minimum fuel standard of 35 mpg by 2020.

Sounds great--until you ask...

Since when did the Constitution grant Pelosi, Reed, Kennedy, etc...the king's scepter to invade your life to eliminate your freedom to choose the type of vehicle you can drive? I thought we elected these officials to Washington to fight the "war on terror", secure our borders, and to be fiscally responsible??? Oh-but then again, the Constitution has never stopped liberals from invading our lives, has it?

Is that the job of the Congress to tell private business and private citizens what kind of vehicles they are allowed to drive? The SUV, minivan, Ford Truck, and Hummer have been all but practically eliminated from the assembly line. The favorite vehicles for Americans to drive have just been given their death sentence by the imperial Congress.

Can you imagine what the American people's reaction in the 1830's to a Congressional mandate that large wagons were going to be outlawed because the strain was found to be too difficult on the horses?

Good ole' cowboys would have rustled up the 1830's paltry Sierra Club, the Tree Huggers Association, and the Global Warming crowd (if there were any of them oddballs)- hog tied them- rode them to Washington in the largest wagons possible. These conservative cowboys would then have barged into the representatives offices demanding to know who voted to eliminate the large wagons that were being used.

These cowboys would have then dropped these cooky environmentalists they drove to Washington into the offices of the liberals that were elected.

These American cowboys would have left one message for these liberal types attempting to restrict the freedom of the people: try enforcing your laws and see if you won't end up like King George III"s tarred and feathered tax collecting goons of the Revolutionary War--

Liberals are famous for ramming through legislation that is intended to help the citizens. Better gas mileage and less use of oil is no doubt the motive of "Nanny" Congress.

But what business is it of our elected officials in Washington to tell me what kind of car I should drive? If I want a 12 mile per gallon SUV crossing the country with a camper tied to the back for my family vacation, am I not wise enough to weigh the costs?

Detroit was in trouble before this legislation. These private businesses may well file bankruptcy because of the enormous R&D that will be employed to get larger vehicles to 35 mpg. It won't happen!

Lets be clear what liberals gleefully just did to us:

  • liberals imposed their will on private business
  • liberals eliminated our choices to buy the cars that we want to buy
  • liberals hiked the R&D costs to build and purchase the next generation of trucks
  • liberals may have sent the auto industry to its grave in America as result of its meddling

If liberals really cared about what American citizens paid at the gas pumps, liberals would do what conservatives have been fighting for. Liberals would bulldoze mother earth tree huggers and open up Anwar, the continental shelf of California, Florida, and the east coast. With greater supply of oil comes serious relief at the pump for all Americans.

Will liberals see the error of their ways? Not on your life- Liberals love tree huggers, the Sierra Club, PETA, and the global warming crowd more than the American family.

Liberals got their dream vote passed. Your freedoms have now been restricted, the auto business has now been commandeered, and Americans will pay again for liberal good intentions.

Huckabee on Taxes