Dougs columns

Dougs columns

Doug Hagin columns
Now 75% more offensive to Democrats, Liberals, and Leftists ESPECIALLY fake hunger strikers like Cindy Sheehan Chavez!
My recent column makes World Net Daily 

Armed American in National Parks? YES! 2-25-08

There is a storm brewing in America. The storm is over controversial issues, gun rights, and gun control. This saga will play out in the next weeks, or months, or a year, who knows. At issue is whether American citizens ought to be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights by carrying their firearms in America’s national parks.

Now of course, this is a hot button issue, and it has so far been filled with the same anti-gun rhetoric proponents of self-defense and the Second Amendment have heard for decades now.

The original effort to allow Americans to exercise their God-given, constitutionally protected rights began with a proposed bill by Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. The bill would allow the application of state laws concerning the carrying of firearms to citizens visiting national parks. Seems like common sense doesn’t it? Why should a law-abiding citizen be expected to cede their rights to protect themselves in a national park? Frankly, the answer is very simple. They should not.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced his desire for a review and possible overhaul of federal regulations of carrying firearms in national parks. The National Rifle Association, to their credit, supports Coburn’s legislation, and I would argue that all Americans who see the benefit of concealed carry laws and the ultimate right of self-defense would also be supportive of this change. Americans ought never be asked, or forced to choose between being able to defend themselves and breaking laws that only benefit those intent on committing evil acts.

Ah, but, my friends, the Liberals who neither respect the Constitution nor subscribe to common sense, are, pardon the pun, up in arms over this! Yes, they are in the process of pulling out every tired, false prediction of death and doom if Americans are allowed their rightful liberties. You have heard the rhetoric before, surely you have. There will be blood in the parks, danger at every turn, wildlife will be butchered, and disputes over campsites will turn bloody, and so on. These are the same types of inane arguments used in every state that now rightly allows law-abiding Americans to carry firearms under concealed carry laws

These arguments have proven to be wrong time and time again. States that do allow concealed carry, and that is 34 states as of 2008, have NOT seen increased violence, or Wild West shootouts or the predicted “blood in the streets”. Instead, those states have consistently shown that these laws usually decrease violent crimes. The reason for this is very simple really. Criminals do not respect laws. Surely the asinine notion that creating “gun-free zones” will make us safer has been disproved with the various school shootings.

The evil people who committed these murderous acts did not see a deterrent in gun free zones. Instead, they saw easy prey. Folks, the bad guys are not hindered by feel-good, intellectually bankrupt ideals. They are, instead aided by them. The fact is the law-abiding are victimized more easily by those who do not obey laws when the law strips away the sacred right of self-defense. The Founding Fathers knew this, and any person who thinks, rather than feels about this issue knows it as well.

The fact proven by concealed carry laws is this. These laws make all of us safer, not less safe. Those opposed to this proposed legislation can whine about keeping our national parks “family-friendly” sanctuaries all day long. The fact is the presence of firearms in the hands of concealed carry permit holders does not threaten families, rather, evidence shows it PROTECTS families. The left can throw all their false stats and their emotionalistic talking points around all they want.

They can, and do with regularity, argue that very few gun owners use their guns to stop crimes. That is false and they damned well know it! They gladly quote stats showing that most gun deaths are not attributed to cases of self-defense. OK, but they exclude the fact that well over 90% of defensive gun uses do not involve the law-abiding citizen shooting anyone. Simply brandishing the weapon ends the threat. No one dies; no trigger-happy gun nut goes on a killing spree. Instead, a prepared and armed American defends themselves, or their loved ones or property, not by shooting the bad guy, but rather by showing that they are not a helpless victim. Predatory criminals, like all predators, prefer easy targets.

I speak not just from statistics or news stories on this. In 1998, as I left the restaurant I managed in downtown Dallas, I was confronted by an armed robber. There was no police, no touchy-feely gun control advocate; there was just the bad guy and me in a very dark alley. If not for my being armed with a Colt .45 I would have been robbed, and who knows what else? However, because I was armed and prepared, it was the bad guy, the criminal, that was forced to choose between retreating, which he did, and being harmed.

I can also speak from the perspective of a person who has hiked many miles in national parks. I have never been threatened, or harmed, but I have come across some individuals that made me uncomfortable. Perhaps, I had nothing to fear from these few individuals. Perhaps, my considerable size, and confident, prepared style prevented them from trying anything. However, what if I was a woman, hiking alone? What IF I was obeying the laws and was not armed? What IF one of those people who made me uneasy WAS a predator? Tell me, do you really think THEY would not try to harm me? Do you really think a law would stop them? No, indeed not. However, an armed woman, hiking alone? That would be much more likely to stop them.

McCain? McCain? Are you kidding me? 2-7-08

OH BOY! Am I dreaming, or is John McCain going to be the GOP nominee for president? Please tell me I am dreaming and wake me up, please! Senator McAmnesty? Senator Gang of 14? Senator Tax Cuts for the Rich? How did this befall Conservatives in 2008? After the 2006 elections we Conservatives made it clear we were tired of being shortchanged by the GOP didn’t we. Tired of sellouts, RINO’s, and moderates. Surely, we would get a great candidate in 2008 wouldn’t we? Surely, we would not allow the next nominee to be one of the most glaring examples of our frustration with the GOP. Surely, we would not be stuck, yet again, with holding our noses while voting yet, here we are.

So, how did this happen my friends? How is it that the two least Conservative candidates are still running while two candidates that are more conservative and one other less-than-Conservative flamed out? Well there is plenty of blame to pass around. First, there is the process we have allowed to be foisted upon us. This current media-driven way of choosing a nominee stinks frankly. It is not about ideals, issues, principles and it damn sure is not about substance.

Instead, it is about 30-second answers, quips in debates, and reducing candidates to raising their hands to questions as if they are third-graders! It is all about style, a popularity contest if you will. Consider the success of Barak Obama for example. He gives eloquent speeches, filled with talk of change, change, and more change. Of course, he is completely devoid of anything even remotely resembling plans for how to implement his changes. Ah, but the media loves this stuff, and they just fawn over Obama.

The media’s obsession with style does not fully explain the GOP situation though; there are other factors, some of them the fault of no one but failed campaigns. Rudy Giuliani, for example, saw his strategy to ignore the early primary states destroy his candidacy. Sure, he led big in Florida, California, New York, and other key states early, but other candidates, won Iowa, and New Hampshire, and South Carolina, and Giuliani, was forgotten frankly. His leads in later states evaporated, and he was doomed.

Then there is the Mike Huckabee factor to weigh. Huckabee was a non-factor early, but his strategy of courting Evangelicals by promising to do everything they wanted to hear sapped support from Fred Thompson early. One of the keys to Fred’s failure was Huckabee’s surge, which, the media, who despised Thompson, and did all it could to destroy him, made sure was front and center. Later, in Florida and especially on Super Tuesday, Huckabee really damaged Romneyy's chances. Huckabee, who should have dropped out after Florida, and Romney split Conservative voters while McCain, who bombed among Conservative voters, cleaned up on moderates and independents. In my estimation, Huckabee is, and has been playing for a VP slot on the ticket, he knew he could not win, but he also knew he could derail Romney.

The third factor to weigh is the media’s coverage of the campaigns. The media did its level best to eliminate Thompson, and they were successful. They built Fred up to standards he could never attain. They beat the “Fred waited too long” drum, then they beat the “Fred has no fire in the belly drum”. Then they beat the “when is Fred dropping out” drums. They reported nothing but negative news about his campaign, even when they had to spin like tops to do it. When Fred was doing well in national polls the media told us that those polls did not matter, yet when other candidates did well in those polls, the media fawned over them. The media spun their line and too many voters bought it. Thompson was a candidate of substance, and too many Americans have been conditioned to look at style, not substance.

Romney suffered from media bias as well. When he was leading in delegates, he was never called the front-runner was he? Yet McCain received far better treatment didn’t he? Once Fred was gone, Romney was the next most Conservative candidate, and the media turned their spin machine on him. The media had great influence on voters with their spin on Romney, just as they did with Thompson. Those voters who do not take time to study candidates, or their campaigns can be swayed easily. They glance at headlines or polls, and they see McCain doing well, labeled the front-runner, even when he really was not, and they jump on the bandwagon, or at the very least, they give up on other candidates.

There is one more key factor in McCain’s looming coronation. The early states do not favor Conservative candidates. New Hampshire is an open primary, as is South Carolina. McCain cleaned up in the Granite State not because Conservatives came out for him, not at all. It was independents, and moderates that gave him a win. The same in South Carolina is true. An open primary favors less conservative candidates. McCain won those while more Conservatives candidates spilt up the Conservative votes. Had the early States been closed, and held in Conservative states, McCain likely would have been eliminated.

So, add up all the factors. The media campaigning against Thompson, then against Romney. Huckabee taking votes away from Thompson early and really hamstringing Romney on Super Tuesday. Giluiani imploding, allowing McCain to garner all the moderate and independent votes. Add it all together, and you know why Conservatives are left with the lesser of two evils option yet again.

So now what? Do you stay home? Hold your nose? Frankly, I doubt it matters; McCain will lose enough of the base to be run over in November. Get ready for four years of a Liberal administration. God help us!


Lerarning how to DRIVE in Election Season 1-17-08

OK my friends, the races for the GOP and Democratic nominations are up in the air. We could, as of now, end up with any one of eight different presidents. Watching the blogs, the main stream media, the polls, the focus groups, and the bloated talking heads, and listening to talk radio, I have imagined how very tough it might be for young voters to decipher which way to vote.
There are literally a hundred opinions, some even coming from reliable sources, directing us to vote for this candidate, or NOT vote for that candidate. It is quite a challenge to vote the right way, and not be unduly influenced by all of these forces of bloviation and spin.
Therefore, as a sort of public service, I am going to offer some hints to all voters, especially first-timers, undecided voters, and Americans who intend to vote but who do not spend tons of time studying issues, and candidates. I have come up with Doug’s Rules of Intelligent Voting in Elections, or DRIVE and everyone who follows these will benefit from it. Yes, I made sure to do the politically cool thing and insure that a word was formed from the letters of my rules! Take that MADD, and NOW!
Now, I am sure most who go to my site, GatorSense, know whom I am fully endorsing for President, but I will not even mention Fred Thompson’s name during this column. Instead, I will offer my best advice on how to choose your candidate, and let your choice be, well yours, not the media’s choice, or some blogger’s choice, or a talk host’s choice , but YOUR choice!
So, let us begin this crash course in what to do, and what not to do, this political season.
First, understand that almost every source you get information from is biased in one way or another. For instance, if you visit my site understand that I am committed to one particular candidate. It is no different with most other columnists, bloggers, pundits, or talk hosts. Listen to their takes, read their pieces, but verify on your own. Take a little time to use YOUR mind to determine if their endorsement ought to become yours.
Second, ignore much of what the “unbiased” media feeds you. There are many examples of various networks, papers, and blogs painting candidates they do not favor in a negative light. For example, as a Thompson supporter, I have been amazed at how easily a speech or campaign stop can be portrayed in a false light. Do not get suckered into taking one opinion of a candidate and writing them off over that. Likewise, do not jump on a bandwagon based on one or two opinions. This is far too crucial to make snap judgments.
Third, do not get caught up in the hype. Take the media’s coverage of the race so far. One primary does NOT a nominee make, but the media still likes to dramatize every primary, and poll, like it is November already. So far, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, Fred Thompson, Barak Obama, John McCain, John Edwards, and Mike Huckabee all have been declared inevitable and dead on arrival, depending on the latest poll, or the four primaries we have had. Relax folks, walk away, and do not buy into the media’s hyperbole. Examine the polls carefully; they can be as misleading and biased as any talking head can. Deciding the nominees will take a bit of time; no matter how badly some want to hit the fast forward button.
Look for substance. This is so very crucial. Sound bites are nice, and can be funny, but we are electing a leader, a president, not a standup comic here my friends. In this age of YouTube, and blogs, and on-demand video, there are numerous opportunities to listen to the candidates on the issues facing America. Listen to what they say if they promise to solve this problem, or fix that problem listen for substance. Do they actually have a plan? Are they just spewing hot air? Visit their websites; see who has plans, and who does not.
Examine those plans. Are they feasible? CAN they be implemented? Is the candidate just saying what they think voters want to hear? Promising is one thing, having a workable plan is quite another. Examine the candidates’ records. Have they changed their positions AFTER announcing their candidacy? Are they consistent? If they have changed, does their record indicate it? Are they just talking the talk, or are they walking the walk too? Remember consistency is crucial. We want someone with principles and a record of standing by those principles.
Next, do not be an identity voter. If you are a Mormon, do not vote for Romney because he too is Mormon. Support him on his record and vision, not on the common religion you both share. Same with Fred Thompson do not vote for him based on his accent. Sure, we Southerners love that sweet Southern accent, but examine Thompson’s record and stance on issues, THEN decide if he is your guy. Rudy Giuliani might get your vote, but vote on issues, not because he was mayor of New York, and you are from New York. Apply this rule to all the candidates. Vote issues, not gender, support principles, not skin color.
There you are my friends, the very best advice I can give. I have used this process ever since I voted for Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter in 1976. OK, I was only 11, but I did help Ford carry Mrs. Donahue’s 7th grade class so there! Seriously, though, this is too important to vote on hunches or media spin. We owe this great nation our best effort to elect the best to the highest office. We must not settle for less in our candidates, or, my friends, from ourselves.

Let the Real Election Season Commence 12-15-07

Ok kids, it is almost time for the real presidential campaign to get going. Enough of three new polls seemingly being released every hour. Enough of the pundits who have been acting like the election is next week for months now. Everyone knows the rubber starts meeting the road when the Iowa Caucus goes down, so allow me to offer my humble take on where the leading Republican candidates stand as of now.

Yes, I know, I am not looking at the Democratic candidates am I? Why should I? Does it really matter which one of them we face next year? They are all proponents of huge government, huge spending, huge taxes, and huge entitlement programs. They all want desperately to leave Iraq before we achieve victory, and they all still are far closer to the Communist Manifesto than to the Constitution. Same old Leftists my friends.

So, let us forget the three Neo-Marxists and take a long gander at the GOP field. Now, while I realize that currently nine Republicans are vying for the presidency I also realize that four of them have zero chance to get there without an invitation from the president. So sorry, there is not enough time to discuss Ron Paul, who has at least partially lost his mind it seems, Alan Keyes, who sadly has absolutely no chance at all, Tom Tancredo, a great Conservative, or Duncan Hunter, who, I hope might be a solid pick for VP next year.

So without further ado, let us get to the five guys with a chance. And yes, to let y’all know, I will be listing them in order of how I rank their Conservatism, starting with the least conservative first.

First, or last, depending on your take is former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who is currently surging in every poll you can find. Yes, Huck is hot, he is definitely solidly pro-life and, he has Chuck Norris to back him up, but there are some serious holes in Huckabee’s conservative resume.

There are serious questions about his toughness on crime. He issued over 1,000 clemencies while serving as governor for ten years. One of those men killed again after his release. Many fear Huckabee is confusing Christian forgiveness with making violent criminals pay for their crimes.

Then there are issues with Huckabee’s toughness on terrorism. He has recently opposed water boarding, and has made it clear he thinks the United States should close Gitmo because it would look good to the rest of the world. He also has harshly criticized President Bush’s handling of the war on terror. Writing in Foreign Affairs Huckabee blasted away. “American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out. The Bush administration's arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive at home and abroad. My administration will recognize that the United States' main fight today does not pit us against the world but pits the world against the terrorists.”

Then, of course, there is still the issue of taxes. , which many Conservatives point to as another weakness for Huckabee. The average tax burden increased 47% ($933) for the average Arkansan while Huckabee was governor. The club For Growth gives Huckabee poor marks for his economic policies while governor.

Now let us look at Rudy Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York. Certainly, he was tough on crime, and he seems to be a pretty good fiscal conservative, but it is social issues that might damn Rudy with the Republican base. He is pro-choice, he has called it one of his core beliefs, his personal life certainly raises serious character issues, and he certainly showed no lack of love for illegal immigrants as mayor either. Now, as a presidential candidate, Rudy has vowed to end illegal immigration, but in a speech to business, owners he also promised not to punish them for hiring illegal aliens so there are doubts as to his intent to follow through.

Perhaps the most serious flaw in Giuliani’s record is his stance on gun control. It seems he was a big proponent of it as mayor. He has said he was just trying to reduce crime, but not many Conservatives believe gun control ever helps reduce crime. If Rudy has, an Achilles Heel this issue is it.

OK, now for Senator John McCain, who is a genuine wear hero who has sacrificed much for this nation. Seemingly, more Conservative than Huckabee or Giuliani, McCain clearly sees the threat of Islamic terror, no doubt about it. The biggest knock on McCain might be that he has moved left over recent years on guns, taxes, and especially immigration issues. He was front and center on “comprehensive” immigration reform, a term many Conservatives thought was just a nice way of saying amnesty. McCain has said he got the message over the immigration issue, but one must ask if enough Conservatives believe that.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, has a very good record on being pro-business, and appears very ready to be president. His main weaknesses are not his current stated position, but his past ideology. Romney has changed position on abortion. He was definitely pro-choice, but has said, quite passionately, that he was wrong, and has changed. The question is how many believe his professed conversion. In all, Romney appears to be a solid Conservative who would be a good leader.

Finally, there is Fred Thompson, actor, and former Senator. Thompson has no real issues with consistency as far as I can tell. His speeches today pretty much sound like his campaign speeches from 1994. If Thompson has a weakness, it is two-fold. First, he supported Campaign Finance Reform, which most Conservatives find ill advised at best and unconstitutional at worst. In addition, Thompson has been branded, mainly by the media, as lazy, and a poor campaigner, it is worth noting that some conservatives share that view.

Thompson might have “style” issues, but on substance, most Conservatives I have talked to say Fred is easily ahead of the pack. Thompson has released white papers on immigration, border security, taxes, social security, education, and rebuilding the military. He has been highly praised by several prominent sources for his specificity and substance on these issues.

As a Conservative Thompson has the most credible record in my estimation. I can personally find no other candidate as uniquely qualified to lead America in January 2009. Now, my friends the question is in our hands, the American people, beginning with the Iowans must take up the fight to ultimately defeat the Democratic nominee. But first, let us choose carefully the best candidate to lead our nation in next year’s election.

My first choice is clear, I humbly submit Fred Thompson as the best-qualified person to lead us. Now my friends, I ask that all of you choose wisely. Look carefully at all the candidates, weigh their strengths, their weaknesses, their ideals and principles. Pour over their records, speeches, and plans, and then make your choice.


Conservatives Must Not Settle in 2008! 12-09-07

Is it just me, or are some other Conservatives a bit stunned at some of our fellow Conservatives attitudes concerning the field of Republican presidential candidates? I mean, I could have sworn I have heard, for a few years now, a growing discontent amongst Conservatives as to the direction of the Republican Party. Particularly, it seems I can recall a glaring dissatisfaction with so-called RINOs (Republican in Name Only). Yes, yes, there has been a very consistent cry from the political right expressing our grave displeasure with those Republicans who have been, shall we say, less than concerned with the ideals of their base. So answer some questions for a confused Conservative, namely me, if you can.

Why is it that we Conservatives, after often expressing our complete and utter discontent with RINOs are suddenly afraid, or unwilling to reject certain Republican candidates whose records are clearly far less than Conservative? Further, why are many of us not getting solidly behind the one candidate, who is head and shoulders above the rest of the leading candidates in terms of being consistently conservative?

Let me pose the first part of my question. Can anyone, any Conservative, explain to too many others and me the infatuation some Conservatives have with Mayor Rudy Giuliani? I mean let us be serious here for a moment. This is a man who has severe character issues, and yes, excuses me, but I still think character does indeed matter. In addition, this man never seemed to meet a piece of gun control legislation he did no like. Moreover, never forget his lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Never forget either, that New York was, in fact a sanctuary city under “America’s mayor”!

So again I must as why the support for this man? Yes, I get that he did a good job after 9-11. I get that, we all get that. Moreover, if we even thought about NOT getting that, Giuliani would surely remind us, repeatedly! He seems to me to be a one trick guy, who has ridden his “look at me I was New York mayor during 9-11” horse into the ground. Clearly if we want a Conservative in 2008, Rudy Giuliani falls well short my friends.

Then there is Mike Huckabee. I think Huckabee is a good and decent man, and although his number one fan Chuck Norris can likely kick my behind, I will risk bodily injury and ask my fellow Conservatives the same question. WHY? Why support this man? Why support a man who never batted an eye about raising taxes? Why support a man who has said, and still says, we, the taxpayers ought to give tuition breaks to children of illegal aliens. Why support a man who thinks water-boarding terrorists is a bad thing? Why support a man who thinks Gitmo should be closed because of what the rest of the world thinks? Why support a man who said, during a recent debate that we ought to stay in Iraq because we broke it? Not because we must defeat Al-Qaeda, or keep Iran from taking over Iraq, but because we broke Iraq? That sounds like a statement Obama or Edwards would make. Why support a man who recently admitted that he was not aware of the NIE report on Iran? Please, someone clue me I here!

Now on to the second part of my question. Why are more Conservatives NOT excited and pumped over the candidacy of Fred Thompson? All we seem to hear is that Thompson is lazy, does not really want the job, or lacks a fire in his belly, or is not exciting enough. Sorry, but it is troubling to hear this coming from Conservatives. We are the thinkers are we not? We go for substance over style. We support or do not support candidates based on ideals, not style points. At least that is what I have always believed. Sadly, though, if you listen to the criticism of Thompson, it is not issues based at all. Do we want a Conservative or not?

Thompson is the only candidate, of either party, who has detailed plans for saving social security, reforming the tax code, revitalizing and rebuilding the military, securing the border by enforcing the laws, and improving education. He espouses rock solid conservative ideals, and that ought to be extremely exciting to the Republican base. Especially since that is precisely what we have been calling for.

Thompson is also the only candidate addressing issues by thinking of what our Constitution says. Take the issue of abortion for example. Governor Huckabee is talking about a Human Life Amendment to our Constitution. Sounds great in theory doesn’t it. Of course that would never pass the rigors constitutional amendments must pass. So while Huckabee is promising the unattainable, what is Fred Thompson saying?

Well, Fred Thompson is taking the common sense approach. His ideal is that if we place originalist justices on our Supreme Curt, then Roe V Wade can be overturned. Then, the states can actually enact restrictions on abortion. Imagine that my friends, a common sense approach instead of a grandiose scheme that has zero chance of success. Sure, Huckabee is saying what some Social Conservatives want to hear, but he might as well be promising free cars for every American.

Look at any other issue and it becomes very clear that Fred Thompson is talking like a Conservative! More importantly, his record shows he has not only talked the talk but he has, and continues to walk the walk as a Conservative.

Look back at his stance on guns, abortion, taxes, spending, immigration, the war on terror, and you will find something you will not find with Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani, or Romney. That something is consistency! Moreover, his consistency has been as a Conservative! As Conservative icon Rush Limbaugh, speaking about the Republican YouTube debate said recently, Fred Thompson was the ONLY true Conservative on that stage. Rush also said something extremely important about the current infatuation over finding not the most conservative, but the most electable candidate. Rush said that either you are a Conservative or you are not. Why are we willing to settle for less than a real Conservative?

There is only one consistent Conservative running for the presidency my fellow Conservatives. His name is Fred Thompson! Please do not let the opportunity to elect such a remarkable man to the White house pass us by. Please do not settle on the best speaker, the person the media has anointed, or the person everyone says is the only one that can stop Hillary. A true, solid Conservative can and will defeat Hillary Clinton next year. That man is Fred Thompson!

Here are some links to learn why Thompson IS the real deal we have been looking for.

Audio- Fred interviewed on mark Levin Show


The Thompson Border Security Plan 10-27-07

Since Fred Thompson officially entered the presidential playoffs, I have been fascinated by some of the criticisms of him by the media, and even by some Conservatives. You know the main card played against Thompson has been the lazy card. Lazy? No, Thompson is laid back; he is not a rah-rah kind of person. Frankly, I enjoy that about him. I have worked with many rah-rah types and many laid-back types as well. Give me the steady, calm, laid back person any day.

Another criticism of Thompson has been that he has offered no specifics on any of his ideas. Well, we can lay that fallacy to rest now my friends. This past week Fred Thompson laid out his plans for securing the border. This is clearly one of the most important issues facing America and its next president. A look now, at the Thompson plan for getting illegal immigration under control.

The first point addressed in the Thompson plan is amnesty, or as, Thompson says, NO AMNESTY! Thompson nails the essence of why we should not even consider amnesty.

Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States.

There you go, simple and accurate, no baloney, no dancing around with verbal gymnastics or political correctness. This is the essence of Conservatism my friends. Amnesty is wrong; therefore, we must not consider it.

The second major point of Thompson’s plan is attrition through enforcement. Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty.

Again, Thompson goes straight to the most essential point of the debate. Enforcing laws works, it is the quickest way to begin to face up to our illegal immigration crisis. Illegal immigrants are drawn here by jobs. If we work seriously to remove that attraction, the problem will, in part, begin to correct itself. Instead of falling into the tired old rhetoric of choosing mass deportations or blanket amnesty Thompson chooses to lead on this issue. Moreover, he does so with simple, common sense approaches. That is what America needs common sense leadership, not talking points.

To help with the attrition through enforcement approach, Thompson lays out plans to give our country the tools to achieve that goal.

Doubling ICE agents handling interior enforcement, increasing the Border Patrol to at least 25,000 agents, and increasing detention space to incarcerate illegal aliens we arrest rather than letting them go with a promise to show up later for legal proceedings against them.

Adding resources for the Department of Justice to prosecute alien smugglers, people involved in trafficking in false identification documents, and previously deported felons.

Maximizing efforts to prosecute and convict members of criminal alien gangs, such as MS-13 and affiliated gangs. These gangs have brought unusual levels of violence to more than 30 U.S. states and have also become very active in drug smuggling, gun smuggling, and alien smuggling.

Once again, my friends we do not see rhetoric here, we see a clear vision on how to fix the problem with an eye to protecting America first. Thompson is looking at our interests first instead of paying lip service to it. In this plan, Thompson illustrates his faith in America, and in the nation’s ability to address the problem. As he has said, it is not a matter of “can” it is a matter of “will”.

Now on to perhaps the most promising portion of Thompson’s plan. Addressing “Sanctuary Cities”, those cities which refuse to follow federal laws regarding illegal immigration.

End Sanctuary Cities by cutting off discretionary federal grant funds as appropriate to any community that, by law, ordinance, executive order, or other formal policy directs its public officials not to comply with the provisions of 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644, which prohibit any state or local government from restricting in any way communications with the Department of Homeland Security regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.

Deny discretionary Federal education grants as appropriate to public universities that violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens without also offering identical benefits to United States citizens, regardless of whether or not they live in the state, as required by 8 USC 1623.
Deny discretionary Federal grants as appropriate to states and local governments that violate federal law by offering public benefits to illegal aliens, as prohibited by 8 USC 1621(a).

Can I get an amen? This is exactly the correct approach in dealing with cities that thumb their noses at our federal laws and our national sovereignty! Ultimately, the immigration debate comes down to one crucial question. Are we to be a sovereign nation or not? Clearly, Fred Thompson grasps this point. Instead of trying to appease the race mongers and cheap labor addicts Thompson is, again, looking at what is best for this nation.

This issue is not racial; it is about law, order, and America’s sovereignty. Conservatives see this, and by golly all those Conservatives who have been looking for a leader that also understands better look at Fred Thompson. There is a lot more to Thompson’s plan and it is all very promising. Anyone questioning my endorsement of Thompson should check out the entire plan at Thompson’s campaign site.

30 Things Conservatives Know 8-25-07

1- America was founded upon the principle that we are Created, by a Creator, and our liberties are bestowed upon us by that Creator. It is not necessary to be a believer to be a Conservative, BUT Conservatives do realize that America was founded upon this principle all the same.

2- Conservative realize that the liberties we enjoy come not from any governmental body. The government can protect liberty, as our Constitution states, it cannot, however, grant liberty.

3- Far from relying upon government too grant our freedoms, Conservatives realize government, no matter how liberal tends to erode liberty and restrict freedom.

4- Conservatives realize the money we make is indeed our money. It is earned and belongs to us.

5- Conservatives realize that increasing taxes upon working people curtails our liberties rather than strengthening them.

6- Conservatives realize the government fails us miserably when it attempts to perform duties that are, by nature, the duties of sovereign people. The more we rely on the government, the less self-reliant we become. This path, instead of leading to greater benefits, leads to less liberty.

7- Conservatives realize guns are inanimate objects. They are tools, and their uses for good or evil, depend on the actions of those wielding them.

8- Conservatives realize self-defense is not only our responsibility, but our solemn duty as well.

9- Conservatives love every one of the rights listed in our Constitution. We also grasp that it is the right to keep and bear arms which all the others depend on.

10- Conservatives realize that freedom is not free, it is a gift, a blessing, but one that must be jealously defended.

11- Conservatives realize that our Founders, far from being just a bunch of dead White guys, are owed a debt by every living American. Without them, their intellectual pursuits and the risks they took, we would all be living not in liberty, but in slavery to some form of totalitarian government master.

12- Conservatives realize that it takes parents, not a village to raise children.

13- Conservatives recognize there is absolutely no right not to be offended.

14- Conservatives realize that freedom of speech means we will sometimes hear things we dislike. We also grasp that trying silence our ideological opponents by intimidation (Political Correctness) hurts everyone’s liberty.

15- Conservatives realize that evil cannot be appeased. It must be met, restrained, and defeated.

16- Conservatives realize that Marxism, in all its forms, has failed and will always fail.

17- Conservatives recognize Marxism fails because it seeks to subvert human nature. People desire freedom, and self-reliance, not the false utopia Marxism offers but never delivers.

18- Conservatives realize that actions have consequences.

19-Conservatives believe in individualism over collectivism.

20- Conservatives realize that people are not only able to run their own lives and manage their own affairs, but are far better suited to do so than any governmental body is.

21- Conservatives realize that after conception, unborn babies do not change species, they are always human.

22- Conservatives also grasp that if the unborn were not alive they would not grow.

23- Conservatives realize that the death penalty is a punishment first and foremost it most assuredly deters some from committing murder. Every law deters some from breaking said law, but, sentences are firstly about just punishment.

24- Conservatives realize disarming the law-abiding does nothing to dissuade violent criminals. Rather it serves to aid criminals and severely restricts the most basic human right, the right to self-defense.

25- Conservatives realize the military is for fighting wars and defending our nation. Wars should be fought to win, and to win decisively!

26- Conservatives are wise enough to know that peace is much easier for a nation fully prepared and able to wage war. Nations unable or unwilling to defend themselves will never know peace.

27- Conservatives realize that our border are OUR borders, and this nation ALONE owns the right to guard those borders as we see fit.

28- Conservatives realize that a nation can never be sovereign if it is unwilling or unable to control its borders.

29- Conservatives realize competition is not bad. Instead, it is essential to success at all levels. Life is all about competition.

30- Finally, Conservatives realize that Political Correctness, is a ideology that will, if left unchecked, erode our liberties, and human spirit!

Liberal Collectivists vs Conservative Individualists 8-6-07

There are several significant differences between the ideological right and left. We all know this. Abortion, taxation, the size of government, national defense, gun control, etc are all issues that divide the two ideologies. We all are well aware of these specific issues and the way the two sides generally view them. What is interesting, to me anyway, is why the two sides differ on these and other issues. I have come to believe there is a common theme that divides the two ideologies.

While the specific issues already cited separate the two sides, there is, I believe, one major difference that coves all these issues. The difference is in the thinking of the two sides. What they think, is best explained in how they think. In short, the left thinks collectively, while the right thinks individually.

The left talks about charity and giving for example. They talk about it constantly. They talk about it so much you might think they invented charitable giving. Their talk, though, and their walk, are quite different. Several studies of charitable giving have shown that those on the right give significantly more than those on the left do. Studies also have shown that those Americans in red states, states that tend to vote Republican, are more giving than those in the blue states. How can this be? Perhaps it is best explained by how each side sees charity and generosity.

The right thinks as individuals. We see a tragedy somewhere and we give OUR money. We do not expect the government to take our money and then give it. In fact, we would rather the government take much less of our money. The left tends to call us greedy because we want lower taxes. Yet, the record of the right on charitable giving is better than that of the left. Therefore, really, it is surely not greed that drives Conservatives is it. If we were greedy, we would keep our money and not support the Red Cross or Salvation Army, or other charities wouldn’t we?

The left, however, sees true charity as national giving, collective giving. Recall the Tsunami at the end of 2004. Americans gave billions and billions of dollars to the relief organizations after that tragic disaster. Yet, those on the left bashed America as greedy. How can that be? Well it was the amount our government gave they focused on. Ignoring the billions individual Americans gave, the left instead saw only what the US government gave. Again, collectivism raises its head.

To the ideological left it is only the collective giving that counts. They see America as a government, not as a nation of free people. To them, the giving of individuals, who CHOOSE to give is worth less than when government chooses for them what charity to give to and how much to give to it. Only when a government takes our money then gives it is it truly charitable and worthwhile to the left. This is not to say no one on the left gives of their own money, it is to point out the value the left grants to individual giving as compared to the worth they attach to collective giving.

As stated earlier, I believe every issue the two ideologies differ on is summed up best in terms of collectivism vs. individualism. Consider a recent campaign speech by Democratic presidential candidate Senator John Edwards. In the speech, Sen. Edwards laid out his plan for raising taxes on the “wealthy”. “It’s time for us to put America’s economy back in line with our values. It’s time for us to put an end to George Bush’s war on work. It’s time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven completely out of whack by the lobbyists in Washington, by the powerful interests in Washington and by those who value the few above the interests of many.”

In Sen. Edwards’s words, we see a classic illustration of collectivist thinking. Besides playing the tired income card, which Democrats always do, Edwards speaks of a “fair” tax code that values the “many” rather than the “few”. That is classic Karl Marx ideology there my friends. Again, Edwards sees individuals keeping more of their money as bad for the common good. Never mind of course, that the wealthy use their money to create jobs, which positively affect the common good. To Edwards, and those who think collectively, it is unfair and bad that some make lots of money. They prefer the Marxist strategy of redistribution of wealth. It should also be pointed out that Sen. Edwards, or Sen. Haircut, as I like to call him, is filthy rich. He may think collectively when he thinks of us, but he clearly thinks he ought to live by different standards. Maybe I ought to call him Sen. Hypocrite!

Then there is another speech, delivered by another Democrat seeking the White House. Hillary Clinton has said she would, if elected, establish a national academy to train public servants. "I'm going to be asking a new generation to serve," she said. "I think just like our military academies, we need to give a totally all-paid education to young men and women who will serve their country in a public service position." Again, to heck with encouraging individualism, Sen. Clinton prefers the government to train young Americans how to serve their country.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with serving others or your country, nothing at all. Allowing individuals to choose to serve, however, does not appeal to Sen. Clinton. She is not thinking of individuals, she is thinking collectively, just like the Leftist she is. Also, when weighing the statement by Sen. Clinton, consider the tone. Is she, as it seems to me, talking of mandatory service? Talk about the ultimate collectivist ideal. She is certainly thinking of making every American pay for such a venture. Again, the government taking your money and deciding what it should be spent on.

Liberal vs. Conservative. Collectivism vs. individualism.

Immigration enforcement first! Then Reform 6-24-07

This whole immigration bill debate has been a true beating hasn’t it. Having Republicans like columnist Linda Chavez, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, Senators Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham, and even President Bush bash Conservatives who opposed the bill was a blast. These folks characterized us as people who either “did not like Mexicans”, or “thought that anything short of the death penalty is amnesty”, or were just out of touch with reality. Senator Lott even opined that it was the fault of talk radio, which he seems to believe, is running America. It is not very nice to be on the receiving end of cheap shots by your supposed ideological allies is it?

We Conservatives did not let that get us down; instead, we were emboldened by these asinine attacks. We called, and wrote, and emailed or political leaders. And, thankfully, we killed the immigration/amnesty bill! Good for us! Of course, it is alive again and very soon, it will be front and center again. Oddly enough, many of our congressmen and senators do not understand why America is so outraged over them trying to fix our immigration policies.

As for me, I am all for them fixing it, I bet most of us are in favor of that. After all, who does not want this lingering crisis mended? The problem is not with fixing the problems with illegal immigrants and lax borders. The problem is one of trust. See, America largely has learned not too trust our government to address and remedy the border. Why you ask? Well, because our government has failed, repeatedly, to do the one thing it has to do if it really wants to get serious about fixing the border and illegal immigration. Frankly, it has failed to enforce immigration laws.

This failure, which has often equaled a failure to even try, has taught Americans a lesson. That lesson is not to trust politicians to keep their promises on border security. So, please excuse our reluctance to swoon over new immigration laws. Perhaps if our current laws were being enforced we would be more wiling to go along with new laws. Heck, if the government started enforcing the current laws, and actually proved their willingness to do so we would perk right up. See, we would have a reason to have some trust then.

See, it is like this, we have seen Washington not enforce current laws for decades. What Washington is loathe to see is that trust once lost is not easily regained. They lost us and we lost our faith in them. Now, if they want that trust back, let them earn it. Surely, our government can grasp this can’t it?

If, for some strange reason they cannot get it straight in their minds, allow me to set it up for them. Here then, are some very simple steps for our Senate, House, and yes, especially for you Mr. President to take on the road to regain our trust.

First and foremost, get that fence y’all approved on the border built! No, not a “virtual” fence, I mean a real fence, designed to make it as difficult as possible for those seeking to cross our border illegally to do so. Get that fence up, or at least start aggressively building it and America will take note.

Secondly, and this is a big one here, stop punishing border agents who do their job! If border agents shoot a drug smuggler in his arse, then do not prosecute them. No, give them medals! Allow them to do their jobs. In addition, while you are at it, hire more agents! Imagine this, more agents allowed to do their jobs+ a border fence= fewer illegal aliens and more faith in you by us.

Thirdly, crack down on these city councils and mayors who seem to think they can ignore federal immigration laws. Withhold federal money until they end these inane sanctuary city policies. In short, no American city should be able to order their police officers NOT to ask about the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens. Police must do their jobs, and that job involves arresting those who break laws. This issue needs to be dealt with now. Doing so will make a big impression on us, trust me on this.

Fourthly, take companies who knowingly hire illegal aliens to the proverbial woodshed. They have an obligation to follow the law. If they choose not to, then let the penalty they face force them to reevaluate their hiring policies. This capitalist nation affords these companies a path to prosperity, the least they can do is play by the rules.

Fifthly, Americans would jump for joy if y’all went after those here illegally who have outstanding warrants. These are not folks seeking better lives. They are criminals, drug dealers, gang members, etc. Go find them, and boot them out of this country. Again, an act like this will do wonders to better your image in our eyes!

Lastly, stop insulting our intelligence. We are a tad fed up with the whole “We cannot deport 12 million people” line frankly. Yes, we get that. Moreover, I do not know of anyone who has demanded 12 million illegal aliens be deported. I am pretty sure we are aware that this problem has been ignored for so long that mass deportations are not an option.

Another line we are tired of is the “these people are just doing jobs Americans just will not do”. If I hear that once more, my head will explode! It is not a good idea to insult Americans and their work ethic. So please, knock it off already!

Do these things, starting now, and you will be surprised how eager America is to listen to ideas about how to deal with the 12 million folks here illegally. Again, we recognize this is a huge problem, and we recognize that there are no easy solutions, we really do. Frankly, we understand there is no magic cure all. We do, however, need to know that the solutions y’all come up with will at least be enforced.

There is that word enforced yet again. Why does that keep popping up? Well, because no law will ever succeed unless it is enforced. Therefore, there is your key to regaining our trust. Enforce the laws we have, prove you are capable of that. THEN, and only then, will America trust you to deal with those here illegally. Because all we hear now are the same folks who have yet to enforce immigration laws telling us how they will enforce these new laws. Sorry, America is not buying!

It is the Sovereignty Stupid! 5-21-07
The new “comprehensive” immigration reform bill is making quite the splash isn’t it? Is it amnesty? Its detractors certainly seem to think so, while its defenders are aghast that anyone would label it as any form of amnesty. Is it good for the economy, or bad for it? Again, both sides are overwhelmingly convinced it will either help, or harm the economy. Is it tough enough? Is it too tough? Does it properly address the most crucial issue of border security? Are the bills opponents Xenophobes? Are they bigoted against brown-skinned people? Are the bills proponents just looking for cheap labor?

Questions, questions, and questions on top of more questions my friends. What is the most important question about our border, and illegal immigration though? If you ask me, all of those questions are important, but there is one question that far outweighs all of them. Sadly, it is a question far, far too few are addressing. What is this question then? What could matter more than questions of economics, race, or how harshly we punish lawbreakers? To put it bluntly, it is the sovereignty stupid!

American sovereignty, that is, as in, how long will America remain sovereign and truly independent. How strong will Congress and our president be to one of the greatest challenges to our status as the strongest country on God’s green earth? How passionately will the American people defend their beloved land against those who would sacrifice our greatest blessing, our sovereignty? Yes, there are several issues at play here, and some are very important. However, my friends let us make no mistake. The ultimate question is the survival of our nation.

While few have said or written it, the fact is America, the greatest nation in man’s history, cannot be defeated militarily, but we can be broken if we lose the ability and willingness to secure our borders, and our coasts. Ultimately, our survival as a world power is tied directly and irrevocably to our sovereignty. If we ever lose that, then my friends, it is simply a matter of time until we lose our country. That is a price that will surely doom not only America, but humankind as well. Loss of American sovereignty will result, eventually, in the loss of every nation’s self-determination.

Certainly, there are people out there who would delight in the dissolving America’s borders. Those foolish enough to think the United Nations should decide the laws and economic policies across a “world community” would dance on the grave of American sovereignty. These are the folks who tend to fault America for everything bad that happens across the world. After all, America is too big, too prosperous, and too free for their tastes. These people may be moronic enough to believe Marxism can work, but they are wise enough to realize their desired global Socialist utopia can never come to be with America sovereignty in place.

Now, by this point, I would wager there are a few of readers thinking that I am being hyperbolic and sensationalistic. No, frankly, I am just being brutally honest about the stakes in this game. Think of it like this. If you cannot control who enters your property, your home, are you truly independent? Of course, you are not. Imagine if you tired of people trespassing on your land. Suppose you put up a fence. Suppose that upon finding intruders in your home, you installed an alarm system, to prevent further acts of home invasion. What would such actions say about you? Would they make you racist? Alternatively, would these actions instead make you someone dedicated to controlling what is rightfully yours? I think the answer to that is very clear. Free citizens have every right to restrict access to their homes to those they choose to allow to enter. Free nations are certainly no different, no matter what any open border apologist may tell you!

Just as you hold the right over your property, and who may enter it and when they may enter it, a sovereign nation holds the same right. That is not racist, that is not xenophobic, that is not anti-Hispanic or anti-immigrant, that is national sovereignty! Any nation that cedes away it right to make, and enforce laws concerning who may cross its borders is no longer, by definition, a free nation. Such a nation no longer has the ability to determine its course, its future, its laws, its citizenry, or to maintain its place as a viable nation.

Is this what awaits our great land? Is this the course we should take? Should we forget our rights as a nation? Trust me here, friends, our rights as a nation are directly tied to each American’s individual rights. Our constitution will cease to matter, if this nation loses its status as a sovereign land. After all, can a nation unwilling or unable to secure its borders secure its constitution? The answer is no, it cannot.

Our rights, both as a free people and a free country are linked together. Once any are lost, the rest will surely follow. America, the shining city on the hill, the world’s greatest hope for peace, liberty, and prosperity must never lose its independence. Such a loss would be too tragic to even comprehend. Whichever way you personally lean on illegal immigration, understand this. America, without borders, without sovereignty, is not America. It is not free; it is not a land of opportunity or liberty.

So write you representative, tell them how important this time is. This issue is not about doing jobs Americans will not do. It is not about people looking for better lives. It is not about race, or economics or crime. It is about America remaining a sovereign nation. It is, in the end, about America remaining America.

The GOP Needs FREDMENTUM! 5-6-07
After watching the Presidential debacle, I mean debate between the Republican candidates I have reached a few very simple conclusions about presidential debates, candidates, the guts of today’s GOP and MESSNBC.

The first conclusion I reached is that MSNBC should never, ever, under any circumstances, be allowed to host any debate ever again. Certainly, MSNBC must never be in any way involved in any debate as important as a presidential debate. In addition, they should be deemed unfit to host any high school debates, debates over who makes the best BBQ, debates as to the best mouthwash, or debates on any subject, anytime or anywhere!

Secondly, I have concluded that Chris Matthews is actually an alien or a cyborg; he cannot be human. No human, outside of Arianna Huffington, can be that abrasive, that annoying, that obnoxious, or that grating too listen to. In fact, Matthews is so obnoxious his voice should be broadcast to terrorists across the globe, which would surely force them to martyr themselves just to escape the din. Moreover, if there were truly justice the martyred Jihadists would be rewarded with not 70 virgins, but 70 Arianna Huffingtons in the after life. Nevertheless, back to my conclusions gleaned from the GOP debate.

The third conclusion is that the candidates should answer real questions, not inane questions that sounded like they were regurgitated from Leftist blogs. Allow real, average Americans to pose their questions to those who are seeking the office of president. No scripts, no pre-authorized questions, just straight questions. I want to see and hear these candidates respond on the fly. If they cannot handle that, then they cannot handle being president.

In addition, I have concluded that the current crop of GOP candidates is made up of two groups. The first group, consisting of men like Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, and Tom Tancredo, are good solid Conservatives. Sadly, they also stand as much chance of being elected president as I stand of dating Salma Hayek, Alyssa Milano, or Halle Berry.

The second group consists of Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. These are the front-runners, the favorites to win the nomination. Sadly, this “electable” group is not exactly comparable to Ronald Reagan. Rudy, the “tough” candidate, cannot freaking decided what the Hell he thinks about abortion or gun control. He currently has more positions on these issues, than positions on a porn movie set.

John McCain has been campaigning as a Conservative, too bad his recent record as a Senator leads me to think he is not going to walk the talk he is currently talking if elected. After years of moving leftwards, are we to believe McCain has suddenly remembered he used to be a real Conservative.

Then there is Mitt Romney. I like him the best of the three, but he has had some definitive issue changes himself in recent times. If he truly is as Conservative as he sounds, then great. However, I have serious doubts whether or not he can get the Conservative base juiced enough to defeat Hillary Care or Obamamania.

This leads me to the final and most important conclusion. We, Conservative Republicans need one Fred Dalton Thompson to get in this race ASAP! He stands alone as the only real Conservative with a realistic chance to win the nomination, as well as the general election next fall.

He has no issue-related holes in his resume. His record as a Conservative U.S. Senator is rock-solid. He is eloquent, straightforward, tough, and full of the one thing most needed in Washington, common sense. He is, as Reagan was, positive about America, and Americans. When Thompson speaks, you can hear the sincerity of his pride in this nation, and the sincerity in the belief that America can meet any challenges that faces it today, as it has met its past challenges.

He can be a president, like Reagan, who will take his message right to the American people. If a Democratic Congress or Senate refuses to work with him, he can communicate his desires and aims directly to the people. Moreover, I believe, the American people would embrace Thompson’s common sense, and straight talk. The man is a sincere pleasure to listen to when he speaks and his smooth, Southern accent delivers his message of hope, and love of country in a manner seldom seen.

When Thompson speaks, he sounds like a statesman, not a politician. He sounds like a man who possesses the ability to be a leader. In short he sounds like a president should sound, cool, concise, confident, and sincere. The more I hear from Senator Thompson, the more I like him, and the more I am desirous of his announcement to seek the presidency.

Clearly, judging from all the blogs and websites now endorsing Thompson in 2008, he has created a true excitement and energy in the GOP’s Conservative base. Make no mistake, Fred Thompson will not only appeal to the Conservatives, but he will win support among independents as well. Moreover, he will do it the right way, by bringing the hope and common sense of Conservatism to the American people. He will present them with a very clear choice on Election Day, a choice between the pessimism, gloom, and defeat, that the Democrats offer, and the message of optimism, victory, and faith in America’s greatness that Thompson so eloquently conveys.

Gun-Free Zones? PLEASE! 4-23-07

One week ago, evil visited itself upon the campus of Virginia Tech. An evil man, and YES, the killer, whose name I will not soil your eyes with, was definitively evil. Yes, he was most assuredly mentally deranged. Yes, he should have been institutionalized years ago. Still, all things weighed and considered, he was evil, and he committed evil acts upon innocent human beings, in this case college students and teachers. We do no one any service by calling his deeds anything but evil.

After this horrible event, I chose not to write about it for a while. I knew, of course, that the tragedy pimping gun grabbers on the left would jump al over this, trying to use it to further their agenda of disarmament. They view this issue very differently than gun right’s folks do, and I suppose that is their right. The people who buy the lies of the gun control ideology have one mindset that seems, to me anyway, to cloud their ability to view events like the murders at Virginia Tech with any objectivity at all.

They view guns as the problem, not people who do evil things, Leftists are not big on recognizing evil to begin with, or criminals who have no interest in being governed by laws. To the gun-grabbing left, guns ARE the problem. Guns, you see, are tools, and millions of Americans use these tools every year to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property against robbers, rapists, murderers, etc. In fact, armed citizens stopped four of America’s school shootings, including one in Virginia in 2002. Those who want more gun control also claim to desire less crime. Obviously, if their desired aims of more gun restrictions were to be placed upon America violent crime would rise. So why do they not embrace, rather than fight against, law-abiding Americans owning guns?

Ah, here lays the ugly truth about the left my friends, they hate self-defense, and guns, more than any other tool, are used by Americans to defend themselves. Why, though, do those on the left despise self-defense? They are collectivists, and Socialists. They believe that people should think, and act, collectively, not individually. They also deeply believe in collective self-defense. The government should be responsible for your protection, not you. Listen to all the left’s talking points concerning guns and self-defense. They never talk about Americans who use guns in self-defense. Rather, they paint armed Americans as morons, or trigger happy rednecks. Honestly, how many times have they laid out the tired old line about shootouts in the streets if states allow concealed carry permits? Never mind that such events have not happened in the 30-plus states that allow concealed carry.

If you really want a great example of how the left views gun owners and particularly self-defense, look at a recent news story out of Oakland. There, restaurant owner Catarino Piedra recently shot and killed an armed man who tried to rob him. Piedra’s wife and three children were in the restaurant and he feared for the armed robber would hurt them. So, acting in defense of his family, he pulled his 9mm and shot his attacker, killing him. Now stop right there my friends. This is clearly a case of a man, seeing his life and that of his family in peril acting reasonably in defending himself and his family.

Those on the left, though, see it quite differently. Consider how Oakland Police Department spokesperson Roland Holmgrem described the actions of Piedra. "This thing had potential -- who knows where the suspects were going to take the situation? But by no stretch of the imagination are we agreeing with or justifying what the owner did."

Excuse me? How can anyone DISagree with a man defending his family? How can anyone question the justification of this restaurant owner? He is the victim, a victim who chose, honorably, to fight back, to defend himself. Yet, he has his actions questioned? He has his self-defense ridiculed. He has become the bad guy now.

Holmgrem continued his anti-self-defense rant. "We're not saying that we want citizens to go out there and arm themselves and take the law into their own hands. We want citizens to be good witnesses, to be good report-takers and to identify suspects. The shooting has left two families traumatized, there are no winners in this whole case," Holmgren said.

Good witnesses? Good report-takers? No winners? What in the Hell is this guy smoking? Is he really saying we should just cower, while our lives are threatened, while our loved ones are murdered, and cede our right to self-defense? Moreover, I suppose if we are lucky enough to survive THEN, we are allowed to call the police and be good witnesses! Talk about a load of BS!

The insanity of the anti-self-defense does not stop there in this story though. A near-by store manager of a store, which has been robbed numerous times, had mixed feelings about the shooting. "Of course they have a right to protect themselves, but from what? If we have law enforcement, should businesses have guns? I do not think so. They're inviting trouble."

Hmmm, did he actually ask what Piedra protected himself from? Maybe he protected himself from the thug who stuck a gun in his face and threatened him. Maybe that was what Piedra was acting on? Moreover, please note that the manager questioning Piedra’s actions believes if police are armed, no storeowner should try to defend himself or herself. Typical leftist thinking on display there my friends! We are not to defend ourselves. That is the government’s job according to left-leaning ideology.

Also, take note that this manager says storeowners who arm themselves are inviting trouble. Yes, of course, how DARE Piedra assume he has a right to defend his family! I am just so happy those students at Virginia Tech were not inviting trouble by arming themselves! They were, instead in a “gun-free” zone. That certainly stopped any harm befalling them now didn’t it?

Threats Only the Left Sees 4-10-07
We Conservatives often accuse Liberals of not having the guts or the willingness to fight. We often shake or heads in befuddlement over their perceived inability to stand up to battle against threats to our way of life. It is well beyond the ability of Conservatives to grasp how, for instance President Bill Clinton let chance after chance to get Osama bin Laden slip through his hands. Liberals, on the other hand, defend Clinton's inaction. They fail to see, as apparently President Clinton failed to see, the grave peril from terrorists.

It is not, however, a lack of willingness to fight that prevents Liberals from grasping the extreme danger we, as Americans face from terrorists. Make no mistake; Liberals are willing to fight things they perceive as dangerous. The difference between Conservatives and Liberals is not guts. It is not a case of Liberals not possessing the ability to be outraged over threats to America's liberties either. It is just that the threats we, as Conservatives see, are vastly different from the threats Liberals see. The difference is which battles the two sides feel are needed.

A few examples for your perusal my friends. Liberals are constantly making it clear they feel the United States should leave Iraq. They cannot grasp the importance of not retreating from that country before it can stand by itself. Liberals are simply not willing to fight terrorists in Iraq. They refuse to see that our leaving Iraq would not only doom Iraq to wholesale slaughter, but embolden our enemies as well. They also refuse to see that our retreat would make our enemies even more willing to attack us all over the world. The fight is not worth it to Liberals.

Now if there is a prayer before a high school football game, THEN watch the Liberals prepare to fight. They may not see a threat from suicide bombers, but that prayer, now that is threatening to Liberals. I should note here, for the sake of clarity, that only a Christian prayer at a high school football game would distress Liberals. A Muslim prayer, even if it called for all those listening to convert to Islam, as did a recent prayer in Austin, Texas by an Imam who admires Ayatollah Khomeini's brand of radical Islam, would not trouble the left in the least. Heck, they would want to join hands and sing the praises of multi-cultureless over that prayer.

The left also sees no perceivable threat from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi trying to appoint herself Secretary of State while visiting America's enemies in Iran and Syria recently. Now if a Conservative congressional representative took Syria and Iran to task for openly backing Hezbollah and aiding the Iraqi insurgents trying to kill our troops, then the Liberals would be ready to brawl. They would howl like werewolves under a full moon over the "cowboy" attitude of America. They would rant that we were provoking war with Iran and Syria. They would accuse America of imperialistic desires and so on.

Now do not assume that it is only the war on terror where Liberals see different threats than Conservatives do. The flood of illegal immigrants is a threat to American sovereignty and independence to Conservatives. To Liberals the threat is not from illegals, it is from people who want the United States to enforce its border laws. Border enforcement is a code word to Liberals. A code word for racism, insensitivity, violence, and, of course Nazism. If law-abiding Americans are demanding that laws be enforced, then that is threatening in the minds of Liberals.

Conservatives look at violent crime, and see a direct threat to every citizen. Liberals, on the other hand, look at violent crimes and see a need to excuse the bad behavior or blame it on society, or corporal punishment, or poverty. The only threat the left sees is when states begin to allow its law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. Then, watch them fight to prevent Americans from owning, or carrying guns to defend themselves with, armed Americans are threatening to Liberals.

Mention tax cuts to a Liberal and see how quickly they are ready to fight. Conservatives look at tax cuts as government restraining itself from raiding our wallets. Liberals look at tax cuts as a threat to entitlement programs and the big government they long for. Conservatives look at higher taxes as a threat individualism and economic hope for more Americans. Liberals look at higher taxes as a blessing for all.

Boiled down to simplest terms, Conservatives see more individualism and economic freedom as good things because they lessen the role of government in our lives. Liberals see these same things as threats to the America they desire. An America where collectivism, rather than individualism, is the standard.

Of course, words are perhaps the thing the left sees as a threat to America's existence. Don't believe me? Consider the current apocalypse over the words of talk host Don Imus. Yes, he said something hurtful, yes, he was wrong. However, really what grave threats do words like his cause anyone? The answer is none, nada, zip, zero, and zilch! No one is going to suffer anything more serious than a bruised ego over his stupid words. Yet Liberals, and sadly a few Conservative whiners, talk-show host Mike Gallagher for example, are acting as if Imus set off a nuclear bomb! For Pete's sake get over it already!

Yes, my friends Liberals see threats to America. They see my good friend Edward Daley, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, the Conservative bloggers, the NRA, me, and every other "right-winger" as grave threats to their version of freedom. Too bad, they cannot gather up the common sense to see Jihadists and the leaders of Syria and Iran as the threats they are. I suppose real threats are just too much for the feelings of our Liberal friends.
Fred Thompson in 2008! 3-19-07
Are you a Conservative? Are you tired out and beaten down by the lack of real Conservatism in the modern day Republican Party? Did you just refuse to vote for GOP candidates in the 2006 elections? Maybe you voted while holding your nose, because as bad as many Republicans are, you realize the Democrats are even worse. Are you worn out by supporting a political party that increasingly refuses to honor your support? Do you wish Ronald Reagan would resurrect himself and run again?

If you answered yes to any or maybe all of these questions then do I have great news for you! There IS a presidential candidate true Conservatives can support. Moreover, I mean support while smiling proudly rather than holding their noses. Who is the candidate that you, yes you, Mr. or Ms. Conservative can gleefully vote for in November 2008?

Well, it is certainly not John McCain, with his increasingly Liberal voting record on social issues. And no, it is not Mr. Infidelity Rudy Guliani either. I mean let us face it, Rudy, is about as Conservative as your average Democrat is. And no kids, it is not even Mitt “Look at my Hair” Romney.

No my friends, the man who you should start supporting now, as in today, is a man of character, a man of true Conservative values. He IS pro-life! He IS anti gun control! He WILL be strong in the war on terror. He WILL be pro tax-cuts and WILL fight big spending. He WILL get tougher on the border, and by golly when asked a question he will answer it, as a leader should!

Therefore, by now, you are surely jumping up and down, eager for me to reveal the identity of the man who should be our next president. That man, my fellow Conservatives, is Tennessee’s Fred Thompson!

A couple of weeks ago, I was like you. Despondent and increasingly depressed over the crop of “Conservative” candidates the GOP was pushing on us. Frankly, I was ready to concede the 2008 elections to Hillary “Seize the Oil Fields” Clinton, and nothing could be more distressing or painful than that my friends.

Then I checked out Chris Wallace on Fox News. He was interviewing Fred Thompson, who I have always admired. Thompson announced he was seriously considering a run for the White House. As he answered Wallace’s questions on various topics and issues, it struck me. This man IS what Conservatives have been begging for since Ronald Reagan left office in 1989.

Wallace asked Thompson if he were pro-life, and Thompson, without stammering or looking for a fence to straddle, spoke very clearly. He is pro-life, and he thinks Roe V Wade is bad law, and bad science. Wallace posed the question of gun control and again Thompson made his position extremely clear. Reflecting on the recent federal court ruling striking down the DC gun ban, Thompson said he agreed with the court. The right to own guns IS an individual right, that is what the Constitution says and Thompson agrees with the Constitution!

Now I understand that some Conservatives are under the impression that we have won the fight on guns in America. Trust me, Liberals still would seek to restrict our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Their rhetoric may have changed, but their aims have surely not. No right is more crucial than the right to self-defense. Moreover, nothing is more crucial to that right than the right to own guns.

Thompson also made it clear in his interview with Wallace that he understood how very important it was to continue to fight terrorism in other countries. He gets it! Thompson, I firmly believe understands we are engaged in a war, a long war that can be fought here, or elsewhere. We must not allow that war to come here.

As to the borders, Thompson made his position clear again. He would take steps to discourage more illegal immigrants from coming or staying here. A simple but straightforward strategy isn’t it. It is an impossible dream to think we can deport the millions of illegals here. However, if we take steps to take eliminate the reasons they are coming here and staying here, we will begin to alleviate much of the problem. Thompson was clear. Border enforcement first, discourage more illegals from coming here THEN work of reforming immigration laws so that they make sense.

Throughout his interview, Thompson also spoke directly about the importance of judges not making law in America. He also made it apparent he believes the States should decide issues like civil unions for Gay couples, and I certainly agree. Yes, Thompson does indeed believe in States making decisions largely free of federal intrusions.

Thompson also was clear that as president he would make tough decisions and inspire the American people to support the right course. He sees China as a totalitarian regime, with 200 missiles pointed at Taiwan. That is a serious issue America will have to tackle Fred Thompson understands that. Thompson also made known he will face the issue of reducing America’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

I urge y’all to check out his interview and his Senate voting record. This next election is so important to America, we must elect the right leader, and I believe Fred Thompson to be that leader.

Related reading

Fred Thompson’s Fox News interview

Part 1

Part 2

Thompson for President Petition

Thompson on the issues

Politico article Thompson would make Conservatives proud again”

Frank facts about Fred Thompson

What Price Sensitivity? 3-5-07
What price are we to place upon sensitivity? How much will, we, as a nation that values liberty, sacrifice for the sake of sensitivity? Is giving up a slice, perhaps a large slice of our freedom of speech worth it if we transform America into a more sensitive country? We had all better weigh these questions now, because right now, sensitivity, and those who proclaim to be interested in the cause of sensitivity, are trying to sacrifice our history, and our cherished freedom of speech and of thought, upon the altar of sensitivity! Are we truly prepared to pay that price?

Consider some recent examples from the news, and see if you can spot a trend. The state of Virginia officially apologizes for slavery.

New York City issues a ban on saying the dreaded “N” word.

The Museum of the Confederacy announces it might drop the word Confederacy from its name to distance itself from the negative stigma of that word.

A Democratic legislator in Florida announces she wants to ban the use of the phrase “illegal immigrant”.

Ann Coulter calls Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a “faggot”.

Now what do these events have to do with each other and eroding our liberty? Well, all of them place sensitivity over substance. All of them also seek to either erase history, or erase words from our nation because they are, or are deemed insensitive. I ask again, what price sensitivity?

Let us take a peek at the first example cited. Virginia’s legislature apologizes for slavery. For some it might seem reasonable for a state, which allowed slavery once to offer its regrets. Consider, however, that slavery has not existed in Virginia for 142 years now. Anyone who owned a slave, sold a slave, or was a slave is long gone. Now we all agree slavery was wrong, was a national disgrace, and was abhorrent! No one would argue anything different. However, ask yourself this question. What good is served by issuing an apology 142 years AFTER the wrong was committed? Does it really help any descendant of slaves? The answer, of course is it does not help at all. It is emotionalism, nothing more.

What of the second example, New York City decides to serve some greater good by banning a word, albeit a divisive, hurtful word. Again, this action serves no real purpose. No, this only does nothing except violate freedom of speech. Yes, we Americans DO have a right to speak freely, even if we say hurtful, stupid things. If we ban that word, what other “insensitive” words might follow? Is it the Constitutional role of government to censor our speech? Think about it. Which is a better country? A nation that censors its citizens in some search for sensitivity? Alternatively, a nation that embraces freedom, even if some people get their feelings hurt. For me I choose liberty!

Consider the third example. The Museum of the Confederacy, a great treasure of history and heritage, might seek sensitivity over substance. Why, to appease a few overly sensitive types who think they ought never to hear a word that offends them? Is this great museum actually considering erasing the word Confederacy? The history of the Confederacy is in that museum. If the word Confederacy is so offensive, then surely the contents of the museum are as offensive as that word aren’t they. Should the museum remove its artifacts as well? After all, preserved there are many Confederate Battle flags. Confederate uniforms, paintings, history, etc. are also there. Again, how far will we go in the crusade for sensitivity?

The fourth example, that of a Florida Democrat trying to ban the use of the term illegal immigrant, further shows how far the left will go to Liberalize our nation. Again, we are talking here about the government banning words. That is censorship and nothing more. That is un-American and nothing more. Americans have fought, bled, and died for our right to speak. Are we now to spit on their sacred graves in the interest of sensitivity? Is that the proper course for America? Again, we must ask ourselves what other words we will allow government to bar us from speaking or writing.

Now for my final example: Ann Coulter made a childish remark, embarrassing herself in front of her fellow Conservatives. The word she slung at John Edwards is a slur. There are many things to be criticized about John Edwards and his ideology. Coulter chose not to attack him on those ideals, but chose rather to attack him like some angry 12-year-old might. That is on her, she chose to flap her gums, let her take the grief over it.

The word Coulter used, faggot, however, is being censored out of tapes of the video of Coulter’s speech. Talk show hosts are perplexed over whether or not they can use the word on their shows. Why, it is a word, nothing more. Again, are we to allow sensitivity to hold sway here? Why is it desirable to censor out that word? Everyone KNOWS what she said by now. Perhaps we ought to erase that word from our language as Well. Why not allow government ban its use too. I mean, as long as we are being more sensitive, let us really go for it!

I am sure we could all agree on a long list of words and phrases that hurt our feelings. So why not ban them all, of course, after we are done sanitizing our language, we would not likely have many words left to say. What then? We would be more ignorant, less free, and more like pre-programmed robots, speaking only in prepared, scripted utterances. However, that would be OK, because no one would be offended!

What price sensitivity indeed!

The Moral Retardation of Leftists 2-17-07

We Conservatives often accuse the left of having no moral compass. I am not sure that is quite correct. Everyone has a moral compass, although surely not everyone’s operates in the same manner. I think Conservatives have missed their diagnosis of the left. It is not that they have no moral code, it is that they suffer from a new malady, that malady I will call moral retardation.

Now, let me make clear that when I throw such a diagnosis around I do so after much thought and study. I delineate very clearly here between Liberals and Leftists as well. Liberals, I believe are often misguided and just wrong. Certainly, I would not level a charge towards them labeling them as morally dysfunctional. Liberals, while they generally disagree with Conservatives are not people who loathe America; they are not people who cannot differentiate between right and wrong.

Leftists, on the other hand, as I will illustrate, suffer from such a breakdown in basic morality that they must be suffering from a very serious malfunction in their morals. They cannot at once possess a well-developed sense of basic morals and hold the positions they often hold. Allow me to explain my theory.

During the Vietnam War it was Leftists who marched, chanted, protested, and demonstrated against America’s involvement in that war. They were upset over what they perceived as American imperialism, war mongering, and killing of innocents. Now it might seem plausible that a person would find killing, and war immoral. Yet, when the United States left Vietnam, what happened. Millions in South Vietnam were tortured and brutally murdered by the North Vietnamese. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia slaughtered millions.

Where was the outrage and protest from the left? Where was their demand that the killing stop? Where were the marches? Why did they suddenly turn a blind eye towards Communist atrocities? Certainly they moral code was grievously offended by America’s military killing Communist troops trying to subjugate South Vietnam. Why did they not show the same disgust for the REAL atrocities when they began?

There is no reasonable defense of this gap in their morality, none at all. Rational, mentally stable people do not condemn war in defense of freedom, then, by their silence condone the slaughter of innocents. Either the Leftists who protested America’s role in Vietnam and then gave a pass to Pol Pot and the NVA were on the Communists side or they were morally retarded and incapable of making the most basic of moral judgments.

Look at the Leftists during the Cold War. They practically demanded the United States disarm to prove to the Soviets, our sworn enemies, that we meant them no harm. Of course, it was the Soviet Union which conquered nations, enslaved them, tortured and killed tens upon tens of millions of innocent people. Yet, it was America the Leftists looked at with disapproval and scorn. America had to change, America had to disarm, America, the only thing stopping the evil of Stalinism ruling the world, was the bad guy in their twisted minds.

Again, any reasonable person must, upon assessing this evidence, assume either the left wanted Stalinism to rule the globe, or that they were so morally dysfunctional that they could not draw a distinction between the US and the USSR. Let that resonate for a moment or two. The Leftists were not able, or willing, to look at a nation, which allowed its people no human rights and that, was driven to force that evil upon every person on earth, and see anything immoral about that nation. Yet, they had no problem in condemning the nation that prevented the Soviets from dominating the globe. If that is not moral retardation what is?

Fast forward to today, to the recent war protests. Fast-forward to the growing number of spineless US politicians who seemingly cannot grasp that we are locked in a struggle with an evil as bad as Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, or Hitler ever presented. Again, while the war protesters call our troops, who liberated Iraq, murderers, they call the terrorists who blow up children and behead innocents freedom fighters! Remember how many times John Kerry, Dick, Durbin, John Murtha, and Ted Kennedy have smeared our troops?

Note also the apparent joy these miscreants display when they say that our troops are either losing, have lost, will lose, or are failing, or are part of the problem, or are terrorizing Iraqi children in the middle of the night, or are uneducated, or are as bad as Stalin, Pol Pot or Hitler, or are wasting their lives. Of course, do not forget the elation the left now shows over the moves to pass non-binding resolutions, which will certainly embolden the terrorists. They are helping to defeat our troops and their malfunctioning moral codes actually tell them this is a good thing.

A good thing to encourage terrorists? A good thing to turn Iraq over to terrorists? A good thing to show American weakness and lack of resolve? A good thing not to allow our troops to do their job? A good thing that our leaving Iraq will result in a bloodbath the likes of which the world has very seldom seen? These are good things in the minds of Leftists?

History tells us that Leftists look upon evil and fail to condemn it, time after time. Yet, that same history illustrates clearly that the same Leftists look upon good, and upon those that confront evil, and condemn them. Either they are evil, or they are moral retards.

If You Missed the "Peace" Rally 1-29-96

The “peace” marches or protests or whatever you wish to call them certainly showed us a whole lot about the left in America didn’t it? Yes, I would say the scenes and sound bytes from this weekends “peace” protesters did a very good job of showing which side the left is on. Moreover, believe me kids; it is not the side of the troops!

On my website , there are links to many pictures and videos of the leftist moonbats in all their glory. Everyone should take a long look at these images and hear, I mean really hear what these folks are saying. In short if you missed the protest, and have not witnessed or heard any of it, let me share some high, oops, I mean lowlights with y’all.

If you missed the protests, you missed the return of Hanoi Jane. Sadly for Jane Fonda she could not find any North Vietnamese Communists to pal around with, undeterred, she still managed to smear America our troops, blame the slaughter in Vietnam AND Cambodia after the US pulled out of the Vietnam War on America. Exactly how we were responsible for the millions tortured and butchered Jane did not say, but you did not really expect her to blame her Communist thug buddies did you? Hell no! Not when there is America to bash. How about a new name for Fonda? I deem her Jihad Jane!

You also missed Dennis Kucinich imploring his fellow Neo-Marxists to find out the truth about 9-11! I guess Kucinich thinks it was an inside job, that rationale seemed to be in abundance at this protest. Again blame America for anything, everything, and do it every time! Of course Kucinich has accused this country of deliberately targeting Afghan civilians so, this kind of wacky 9-11 was an inside job business is right up his alley.

If you missed the “peace” protest, you missed the intellectual giants of Hollywood, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, and Tim Robbins as well. Penn, as usual had absolutely nothing of any intellectual value to say. He is a good actor, too bad he could not act as if he had a clue this weekend. When asked what we should do about Iran’s professed aim to build nuclear weapons, and their threats to use them, Penn answered that we should understand Iran’s concerns that WE have nuclear weapons. See, AGAIN, it is America painted as the bad guy. According to Penn, we must understand a country run by a psycho who says the Holocaust never occurred and who has repeatedly said Israel and the US should be eradicated!

Sarandon, displayed her true leftist compassion when she was asked if she thought more civilians would die if the US pulled out of Iraq. She replied that 650,000 had died already. 650,000? The Brookings Institute estimates the civilian death toll, as of last July, to be 59,000. The United Nations, estimates a total of 150,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. So exactly where Sarandon gets her inflated numbers is anyone’s guess. However, to her, it does not matter. It is also clear that it is unimportant to her how many die if we leave. Her whole grievance is with America apparently.

Tim Robbins was also asked if Iraq might get worse if America pulls out. His reply? Well, tapping into his intellectual depth, Robbins asked the reporter why he was not fighting in Iraq. Got that? When a question was posed to Robbins that forced him to examine the possible consequences of his aims, he chose to run away from the challenge by attacking the reporter. Robbins, like all Leftists, is an ideological coward, afraid to debate and intellectually defend his values and beliefs!

If you missed the protests, you also missed many interesting signs. There were the usual signs comparing Bush with Hitler, and the signs calling the war a war for oil, American imperialism, blah, blah, blah. There was one sign at the rally in San Diego that said support for the troops was support for genocide. There were of course signs decrying our loss of freedoms, exactly which freedoms, the signs generally did not say. Of course, I have yet to hear any Leftist actually back up that claim, so there you go. You also missed several Communist groups, and people displaying open support for Palestine, and wearing head scarves generally seen being worn by Jihadists and terrorists. Things that make you go HMMMM.

You missed cretins who defaced the Capitol with spray paint, you missed miscreants who spat on a US veteran who lost a leg in Iraq as well. The wounded soldier Joshua Sperling said on the Sean Hannity Show on Monday, that several of these thugs also threatened him. Is that what the Left is about? Gangs beating up one-legged men? I suppose given the left’s excusing of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Jihadists, this should not surprise anyone though! Just as a side note, Sperling also received a card last year while recovering at Walter Reed wishing him to die. YEP, that is the Marxist loving “peaceful” left!

What one thing did you miss the most though? Well you missed repeated cries from the speakers to “support the troops”. About every five seconds, a speaker was imploring everyone to support the troops. Yet much of the rhetoric was decidedly anti-troops. Saying support the troops is fine, but following that up with saying the war is a failure, or that America is losing, or has lost, or that Iraq is another Vietnam, or that this war is illegal, or immoral, or that Bush is Hitler, cancels out your “support”! You cannot at once support these heroes and bash, in the most hateful and insulting terms, their mission!

So, see, you missed a whole lot. A lot of Communists, Leftist, radicals, anarchists, thugs, morons, miscreants, punks with cans of spray paint Hollywood elites, bullies, America bashers, and terrorist sympathizers! In short you missed the very worst elements of America. You missed those leeches who use the freedom America gives to try their best to destroy America!

Sources and further reading

Democrats are Back, Hide Your Liberties, Wallets, and Guns 1-21-07
Yes, the Democrats are back in power, and back in the swing of things. When the Democrats regained control of the House and Senate earlier this month, folks like me just knew it would not take long for the leftism, which is increasingly pervasive in the Democratic Party, to come to the forefront. And, in fact, the leftism is now creeping out, and it is no different than it was in 1994, the last time Democrats held majorities in the House and Senate.

Take, for example, the increased calls from the new Congress that America talk with Iran, and Syria, to find solutions to Iraq. Sure, let us talk and play nice with two evil regimes, which actively sponsor terrorism, and have nothing but the demise of Israel, and America in mind. Of course, these two nations are helping to cause the unrest in Iraq; in reality, they are likely arming those fighting American and Iraqi troops. Still, in their never-ending push to surrender to our enemies, the Democrats want us to talk with these enemies.

Iraq is just one example. Consider the House has already made it easier to raise taxes, doing away with the requirement of a super-majority vote for tax hikes. Now, all that is required is a simple majority for Democrats to raid our wallets. Of course, we still have a president who believes that our money IS our money, but ask yourself this in regards to a future president opposing tax increases: What would Hillary do? Yeah, I thought so.

What other failed leftist issues might be raised in the next few years? Hillary care? You can bet your bottom dollar, at least until Democrats tax it of course, on that one popping up repeatedly. How about withdrawing from Iraq before that nation is stable? Sure, they are saying they will not cut funding while the troops are “in harm’s way” now. Does anyone actually think the Democrats, should they win the White House in 2008, will not do to Iraq what leftist political fools did to Vietnam? Certainly, the Democrats, while being careful not to seem critical of the troops, are right now bashing the war in Iraq at every turn. Face it; the Democratic Party has a consistent record on facing down our enemies. It is a record of appeasement and retreat. It is also a record that has caused great harm to America. However, do not expect Democrats to learn from history.

Whatever happens with the issues already discussed, know that on three key issues, the Democrats are already back in early 1990’s form. Those issues? Guns, border security, and fairness in media.

First, there is the newly resurrected “Fairness Doctrine”. This piece of Marxist inspired censorship is presented as a way to give the media more, get ready, diversity, and help the media better serve the public interest. As my friend, Edward Daley wrote recently, YEAH RIGHT! The “fairness Doctrine” is a fraud that would seek to assert government control over what we see, read and hear.

Conservatives dominate talk radio, and Democrats hate that fact. This new law would require stations carrying, say, Glenn Beck’s radio show, to have balance by allowing equal time to an opposing view.

Sounds OK on paper, but consider that talk radio is a business, based on competition. The reason talk radio is dominated by Conservatives is because the American people listen to Conservative talk radio. Liberal talk radio? It has bombed repeatedly. It gets terrible ratings. Radio stations would be forced to have half of its programming dedicated to a format that does not get ratings. Want to take a wild guess what radio stations would do to escape this needless government interference? If you said drop Conservative shows and change formats, then go to the head of the class.

The “Fairness Doctrine” is not about fairness, it is about Liberals who want to silence talk radio. There is a reason many Communist, and Socialist groups are in favor on this law. They want the type of government censorship that restricts views that do not toe the leftist line. Moreover, imagine how long it will take these miscreants to find a way to apply “fairness, to blogs and Conservative websites?

The other troubling bill comes from an Arizona state representative and it is aimed directly at gun owners and the Minutemen. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, who is formerly a member of the Green Party, introduced HB 2286 this past week.

Among other things, this bill would define anyone not formally affiliated with law enforcement that patrols for illegal activity while armed as a domestic terrorist. Under the bill, violation of the new law would carry a mandatory jail term.

Got that kids? You have no right, according to this neo-Marxist, to take responsibility for your safety. It is clear that this law would punish those who care about law and order. The actual criminals, well who cares about them. It is those damned gun owners and Minutemen that are a threat to our future. Remember this bill forbids even patrolling and detecting illegal acts if armed. What of the many Arizona residents who legally carry firearms? They are now the bad guys I guess.

Of course, this law is also aimed at anyone who dares to oppose illegal immigration. After all, anyone who thinks America is a sovereign nation with a duty to defend its borders must be a racist right? Rep. Sinema thinks so. "I've been monitoring the Minutemen for a year now“, Sinema told “and they're just scary. Race-based tactics always lead to violence, Remember, the Ku Klux Klan was the first-ever group to patrol the border between the U.S. and Mexico back in the '70s."

So there you are kids. The Minutemen are really Klansmen! That race card is played once again! Yes, the same old Democrats are back, and your liberty, income, gun rights, and free speech is on their hit list.

Related reading


'Twas the night before a more sensitive, tolerant, inclusive, non-offensive, politically correct winter holiday
'Twas the night before Winter Solstice, Kwanza, Hanukkah, Ramadan

------mas or any other holiday anyone, of any faith, or anyone of no faith at all might choose to be celebrating.

All through the house, not an animal, which are just as smart and valuable as people, was stirring, not even a mouse.

The Stockings were hung by the chimney with care, in hopes that world peace, as dictated by Jimmy Carter and the UN would soon be there.

The children were nestled all snug in their beds,

except for the children who are starving because of evil imperialist America of course,

while visions of diversity classes danced in their heads.

And my domestic partner in his or her, whatever the case might be, Save the Whales T-shirt, and I in my Al Gore for President T-shirt,

had just settled our brains for a long winter's nap.

When out on the roof there arose such a clatter,

I sprang from my bed to see what was the matter.

Could it be global warming? Caused by my Republican neighbors SUV.

Was Cindy Sheehan holding a peace rally?

Perhaps Je$$e Jackson and Al " Pimp My Hair" Sharpton had come to protest the racism of ------mas?

The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow

gave the lustre of midday to objects below,

when, what to my wondering eyes should appear,

But a UN environmentally sensitive hybrid,

and eight enraged leftists.

With the driver, so tall and scary

I knew in a moment it must be John Kerry.

More rapid than eagles his charges they came,

And he whistled and shouted and called them by name.

"Now Kofi!" Now Hillary!"

"Now Teddy!" "Now AlGore!"

"Now Franken!" Now Rosie!"

"Now Carter!" "Now Je$$e!"

"To Iran! To Syria! To Cuba!"

"To North Korea! To Palestine!

"Now dash away! Dash away!

"Away from America all!"

And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof

the whining and griping of each little Leftist.

As I drew in my head and was turning around,

down the chimney John Kerry came with a bound.

He was dressed all in fake fur, from his head, to his feet,

and his clothes were all tarnished with ashes from secondhand smoke.

A bundle of non-violent, gender neutral toys he had slung on his back,

And he looked like an ACLU lawyer just opening his pack.

He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,

filling all the stockings with gifts of sensitivity and inclusion.

Universal health care, and entitlements galore,

gun control, tax increases, abortions and much more.

Books by Marx and Hillary, Carter and Al Gore.

Retreat from Iraq and appeasement for terrorists,

anything and everything on any Leftists' list.

Then laying a Che Guevera T-shirt at my feet,

He turned and rose up the chimney back into the sleet.

He sprang to his environmentally sensitive hybrid,

to his team of Leftists gave a whistle,

and off they flew like the down of a thistle.

But I heard him exclaim, as they drove out of sight.

Please, Teddy keep away from the bridges tonight.
Utilitarianism-The New Evil
"If you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?"

Quite a quote isn't it? Pretty scary that anyone could hold that selectively breeding human beings is not only not a bad idea, but that it might benefit society. The statement was made in a letter to Scotland's Sunday Herald, and it was not just anyone who wrote that letter either. It was written by one Dr. Richard Dawkins, who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding at Oxford University.

Dr. Dawkins is best known for his hatred of Christianity in particular and religion as a whole. Dawkins wrote a book titled The God Delusion, and is a staunch believer that the catholic Churches opposition to birth control will lead to mass starvation. Dawkins is also fairly well known as a proponent of granting human rights to apes. Since, according to Dawkins anyway, thee is no such thing as a soul, then humans and apes are, in fact equals. Now most of us would consider such ramblings delusional. Yet, such beliefs are, I believe, a natural extension of the radical atheism that Dawkins and people like him have adopted.

Consider another excerpt from Dawkins letter to the Sunday Herald. "I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them,"

Statements such as this really should not surprise anyone. When people like Dawkins totally reject the existence of God, and become not merely indifferent towards religion, but openly hostile to it, then radical beliefs soon follow. Think of it this way, according to Dawkins logic, if you can actually call such thinking logic, there is no God. If there is no God, then humans could not have been created in His image. In fact, we are just the result of some cosmic accident rather than by design.

Therefore, we possess no souls. We are just skin, bones, and muscles to Dawkins. Therefore, if that belief is followed to its natural conclusion, humans are just another animal. Breeding cows to make more milk and breeding little boys to be faster or more athletic are moral equivalents. Once God is removed from the equation, the value of human life automatically is diminished.

That is not to say all, or even most Atheists share Dawkins twisted values. I would guess most Atheists do value human life, but, Atheism, like any other religion, can be perverted and Dawkins certainly holds some perverse beliefs. Of course, it ought to be noted that Dawkins, while in the minority, is surely not alone in his views.

Take Dr. Peter Singer, the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Ivy League Princeton University and a leading advocate of utilitarian bioethics and a promoter of infanticide and euthanasia. Singer is also a radical animal rights proponent and in fact is known as the father of the modern animal rights movement.

Singer, like Dawkins is a follower of utilitarianism, which, American Heritage Dictionary describes first as: A belief that the value of a thing or action is determined by its utility. And it also describes it as: The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

There is another example, one Nobel Prize winner named James Watson. Watson was the first director of the Human Genome Project. He likes to promote the improvement of the human race by inherent genetic modification. During a speech at UCLA in 1998, Watson laid out his views. "I think its complete nonsense ... saying we're sacred and should not be say we've got a perfect genome and there's some sanctity? I'd like to know where that idea comes from because it's utter silliness." "If we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we do it? What's wrong with it? Who is telling us not to [do] it?"

Getting a clearer picture now? It is an eye-opener isn't it? There are these would-be mad scientists out there, and they are not merely in the shadows or babbling on some bar stool with no real influence on our world. They are at places like Oxford and Princeton, and have won Nobel Prizes. If these examples are not enough to curl your toes here are two more for you to consider. Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist John Sulston, who has also worked on the Human Genome project, has this to say of the disabled: "I don't think one ought to bring a clearly disabled child into the world."

Finally, let us listen to Dr. Robert Edwards, who helped bring the world's first "test-tube baby" into existence. "Soon it will be a sin for parents to have a child which carries the heavy burden of genetic disease."

Sin? No, what these men are advocating goes well beyond sinful. It is evil.
Five Simple Rules for the GOP! 11-08-06
Well, well, quite the election night it was for Democrats, Liberals and Leftists in America as well as around the globe. The GOP lost the House, the Senate, it lost governorships, and today, it seems it lost Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense as well. Now the question is why the right lost, and how not to lose any more ground in 2008. After all, forgetting history leads to, well repetition of that history, and trust me, no Conservative wants a repeat or continuation of this debacle.

The why is very easy to place a finger on. The GOP has met the enemy, and it is the GOP. Face it, far too many Republicans who were elected because they campaigned as Conservatives, failed too often to govern as Conservatives. They came up well short of Conservative ideals on spending, the border and illegal immigration, and on privatizing Social Security. They appeared far too soft and timid to their Conservative base. They refused to use the nuclear option to end the inane Democratic shenanigans on judicial nominees. In short, too often they took their base for granted and tried to get along with Democrats. In other words once given leadership, they failed to lead.

Therefore, after failure on top of failure to stay conservative and lead, they finally pushed their base too far. The result was that the base, or at least enough of the base, stayed home on election day, and now we have Speaker Pelosi to deal with because of it. As JB Williams illustrates in his newest column, there are more registered Republicans than Democrats in America. Therefore, Democrats cannot, by the logic of mathematics pull off an election night coup without Republican help. Now that help came in significant numbers, and it came for one reason. Republicans are fed up with Republicans who will not stay conservative and who will not lead. Moreover, if anyone thought 2006 was bad, just wait until 2008! Unless, that is, the GOP gets its act together and learns from history.

It has been proven repeatedly that the GOP does very well when it moves right and stays there. When it does not, well, not so much. Therefore, here, is a very simple, but obviously much needed dose of common sense for the GOP leadership and strategists. Yes, I know they might question why they should take advice from a Texas columnist who has never, and will never seek political office. However, I did not just get my butt handed to me did I? Therefore, Ken Mehlman, Karl Rove, and other GOP “leaders” listen up! Here are the rules to be followed if the GOP wishes to regain power.

Number one- Accept that no matter what you do, or say, or stand for, the Democrats are not and will not ever be your friends. You cannot move to the center, or center-left, or anywhere else enough to appease Democrats. They will never say nice things about you, or like you, or want to really seek common ground with you. They will still call you racist, bigot, sexist, insensitive, lily-White, Party of the Rich, and homophobe. They will never reach across the aisle and embrace your tax cuts, or spending cuts, or any other Conservative ideals that you hold dear. Republicans call the Democrats the party of opposition for a very good reason.

Rule number two- Democrats see you as their political enemy, accept this fact of political life for goodness sake! They have different ideals and goals and intentions for America than you do. To them you are the enemy. An enemy to be defeated at all costs. It is past time Republicans accepted this and started viewing Democrats in the same way. They are your enemies politically and will remain so until Hell freezes over and they switch parties!

Rule number three- No matter how much you watch every word that emerges from your mouth the media will NEVER be on your side. Stop this moronic and cowardly tactic of being ever so careful not to say anything too controversial or too idealistic. Look, we all know the media is not on the side of Republicans, so why twist ourselves in knots trying to stay in the guidelines of “sensitivity”? Say what you mean like you mean it and then stick to it!

Rule number four- Do not waffle, do not act timid, and do not flip-flop! Your base, the folks who gave you control of all three branches of government want leaders, not wimps! The GOP cannot be all things to all people. It must have some core ideals that it does not retreat from! Trying to convert those who traditionally have not favored the GOP is a noble cause. Sacrificing the principles of Conservatism to do it, however, is a recipe for, well review the election and figure it out!

Rule number five- DO NOT, I mean DO NOT EVER, take the support of your base for granted! Yes, you base gets that not voting for you means Democrats will win elections. Your base also gets that a party has to win to set the Agenda. Increasingly, though, the Republican base has felt like it was given a choice between Liberal Democrats and indecisive Republicans. There is a reason the GOP dominated every election since 1994. The candidates were Conservative, they campaigned on common sense conservative ideology, and they won, over and again!

If you ran as Conservatives, campaigned as Conservatives, were elected as Conservatives, then why in the world would you not govern as Conservatives? This is not rocket science; this is very simple and straightforward. Face it, y’all tried and tried to get to the dance, then forgot the most basic rule. You forgot to dance with the one who brought you!


























America Must be Willing to Use its Military Might! 10-24-06
War is many things. It is ugly, it is obscene, it is horrific, and terrible. At the same time, it is sometimes very necessary, and in certain cases, fighting a just war is far more humane than choosing the route of appeasement. No nation, no matter how strong or merciful, or charitable will survive unless it has both the capacity and the willingness to not only have a military, but the willingness to use it.

There is no great utopia out there, the world is imperfect, and will remain so as long as people possessed with power, greed, or evil are in positions of influence and power. The one great truth political leftists cannot, or more truthfully will not see, is that evil does indeed exist. It is there, and those who follow it, whether out of greed, or wickedness, or mental illness, cam ultimately be deterred and halted in their treacherous designs by either the threat of force or in extreme cases the actual use of devastating force.

That is not a very pleasant fact to own up to or accept. It would be quite wonderful if there were no evil in this world. However, sadly, that is not the reality we live in. Serial killers and rapists exist. They are not stopped in their barbaric deeds but by force. The choice these miscreants force upon society is a simple one. Either society can stop violent criminals by force or society can continue to be victims of criminal violence.

Likewise, nations that embrace liberty and human rights are faced with the very same choice, only on a grander scale. Take Adolph Hitler for example. He was a monster, his followers were monsters. They were no better than a serial killer was; they just had opportunity and occasion to commit murder on a far larger scale. Hitler forced the civilized world to decide whether to endure his evil, or stop him by force. We all know very well what course the world took. We all know, if we are willing to admit it, that appeasement and outright cowardice by some world leaders delayed the use of force against Hitler. This foolishness cost the world millions more lives than a sooner use of force would have.

Today, the world faces a very similar crisis. An evil, just as barbaric and heinous as Nazism or Stalinism ever was, is very much thriving in the Middle East and even in in free nations. Islamo-Fascism, or Islamo-Nazism, or terrorism, or whatever we wish to call it, is a direct threat not only to the people in Iraq and Israel, and across the Middle East, but to the West as well. Dates like 9/11 and 7/7 are very clear reminders of just how very real the threat is. There is no doubt that the threat exists, and history gives us explicit examples of how threats to our nation must be met. Yet there are many who apparently think we can ignore history or who have deluded themselves into thinking that appeasement and trying to “get along” with and “understand” our enemies will somehow work this time.

These people live with a defeatist mentality, which, if we allow it to lead our strategy, will result in our defeat! According to the typical leftist “thinking”, we only create more terrorists by fighting them. OK, if this is true, then we have already lost. By accepting this illogic, we resign ourselves to the idea that we can either wait to be slaughtered or fight back, and make our plight even worse because we are creating more terrorists. That type of thinking is a recipe for inglorious defeat and must be rejected immediately.

The solution to this threat is the very same as the solution to the threat of Hitler or Stalin. Either the threat of force or the use of force. Stalinists can be dissuaded from evil by threat of force. The Soviet Union, no matter how badly they wanted to crush America were dissuaded from taking action because its leaders knew they would be annihilated by U.S. military might. Likewise, North Korea’s leaders understand full well we could lay them to waste with no trouble if they ever attacked our allies or us.

North Korea, though, is right now testing our willingness to use our might. They understand that there is no threat of force where no willingness to USE force exists. It might prove very necessary for us to illustrate our willingness to use the might North Korea already knows we have. They have begun to doubt our resolve, and that is extremely dangerous. They perceive us as weak, not in actual strength, but in our willingness to use our strength. It may well be time to make an example of North Korea. I do not mean wipe the nation off the map, I mean destroy any area they might use to test nuclear weapons or launch missiles that might threaten us.

While some of our enemies can be deterred by our willingness to use force, others, like the nuts running Syria, Iran, and the terror organizations they support, cannot be deterred by the threat of force. We have very clearly shown we will take out governments that support terror, yet Iran and Syria continue to threaten us. Sadly, we may soon be forced to use force against them as well. Moreover, make no mistake any and all force at our disposal must be used if our military leaders determine it to be. To hell with world opinion, or United Nations diplomacies, and our media, which is obsessed, apparently, with Vietnam Syndrome. We must never limit our strategies in insuring our security.

The threat is real, our options are limited. We cannot long exist without the ability AND the willingness to use the might we possess. Our enemies are becoming convinced they do not need to fear our might. They will push as far as we allow them. The question is, and it is a fateful one, is whether or not we, as a nation still possess the willingness to use our military might. If we have lost that, we are not long for this world.


Leftists: Enemies of Free Speech

There are some great lies told in the world. The check is in the mail, for example, is an oft-repeated mistruth. When we hear it, we know, from experience, it is a lie. Likewise, when we hear someone from the left say “We are tolerant, Conservatives are intolerant”. We know, again from experience, that they are lying, or delusional. The cold, hard, undeniable fact is this, Leftists, not Liberals, but Leftists, are the most intolerant, bigoted, and exclusionary people in America.

Now, I realize full well that these statements will surely enrage those on the far left (Leftists), who love to scream how tolerant they are. Well, to those folks I say tough! The record of Leftists is not one of tolerance, nor is it one of embracing free speech. Oh, do not get me wrong. Leftists love free speech, as long as they are the ones speaking, or the person speaking is toeing the leftist line. Let anyone disagree with the speech of a Leftist, or use their speech to offer a differing ideological view, and look out!

Take the Dixie Chicks for example. They used their free speech to bash the president. They were darn proud to stand on the right to free speech weren’t they? Sure they were. Yet, when fans of the Dixie Chicks stopped buying their CD’s or radio stations stopped playing their music the Chicks changed their tune. They did not defend the freedom of expression of their critics did they? No, instead they started whining that their freedom of expression had been squashed. Apparently, Leftists think freedom of speech means freedom from others disagreeing with them. Sorry, it does not work that way.

Leftists, as the example of the Dipsy Chicks illustrates, feel their freedom of speech somehow is not to be shared with those who disagree with them. This is, of course, a very common problem with the left. How many times have we heard Leftists stealing college newspapers so that no one can read a certain article or op-ed? All too often my friends. Moreover, how often do the neo-Marxists who steal these papers defend their actions by announcing that the article that offended them was not “protected speech”? Again, the left seems to hold themselves up as the sole arbiters of who should speak, and what they should say. Again, this is NOT freedom of speech, and it certainly is not tolerance or inclusion.

The most recent example of this Leftist “tolerance” is how a speaker from the Minutemen was treated at Columbia University. As Jim Gilchrist was just starting his speech, a group of self-righteous punks rushed the stage, yelling, chanting and generally making their lack of class obscenely obvious. Tell me, how often have you heard of a Conservative, or Libertarian group behaving in a similar manner? No, I did not think you had.

There lies the difference between Conservatives and Leftists. No matter how grievously a Conservative group disagreed with the speaker or speakers, they would have not jumped on the stage in a bullying manner. They would have waited for their opportunity to debate the ideological points. They would have acted like adults instead of like thugs intent on intimidating their ideological opponents into silence and submission. They would have recognized that, no matter how deeply offensive the speech was, the speaker had every right to say it. Any true Conservative would not have allowed their emotions to overcome their intellect. That is something Leftists are, apparently, completely incapable of.

These students at Columbia had a perfect right to disagree and to debate the issues they disagreed with Gilchrist about. They did not wish to debate though. They wished to bully Gilchrist into silence. Of course, similar tactics of intimidation have been used against other Conservative speakers on college campuses. Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Bill Cristol, Pat Buchanan and others have had pies thrown at them, and had the stages they were attempting to speak on rushed in a threatening manner. Behold Leftist tolerance! As a Conservative who has given speeches on several occasions, I wonder if I will ever get the opportunity to be rushed by some neo-Marxist speech censor. I would consider it an honor to drop the first thug who tried it frankly.

Why are Leftists prone to act this way? Immaturity perhaps? Maybe since their entire ideological value system is based on emotionalism they find it hard to control themselves. Maybe their general lack of a belief in God, or in any reasonable moral code, allows such behavior. Personally, I think it comes from their desperate fear that the other side will actually be heard.

If I had to bet on one thing being the root of Leftist censorship of free speech, it would be that reason. Face it, Leftist theology (yes, I think they are deeply religious, worshipping at the altar of Marx) is not one that can stand up to intellectual scrutiny. Every single ideal they hold dear has been proven an utter failure in the real world. Gun control, abortion on demand, high taxation, and pacifism in the face of evil, you name it, and the far left is dead wrong about it. So it only makes sense that they would stoop to any act, no matter how pathetic, to silence the other side.

Deep down, deep in their hearts they know their ideology is flat wrong, yet their emotionally driven nature will never allow facts to overrule their feelings. In the end their feelings is all they have, is, ultimately, all they are. No way will they allow those feelings to change. Allowing an open examination of their ideals would lead to a rejection of those ideals. For a Leftist, rejecting their ideals would mean they would force them to let go of their delusional desire for some Marxist utopia. They will do anything to avoid that, including crushing the freedom they claim to hold most dear!

The Food Police Take a Bite of the Big Apple 9-27-06

I would like to offer my sincerest congratulations to the residents of the city of New York. That city is the only city, apparently, the most together, problem-free city in America. How can I know this you ask? Well look, if the New York City Health Department is pushing a ban on the use of partly hydrogenated oil in any foods served in any city restaurant, then surely, there can be no other issues facing the city of New York.

Just today, September 27 I read the story of how the New York health department, AKA the Food Police, is trying to micro-manage every ingredient used in the food served in New York’s nearly 25,000 restaurants. What a landmark day for Leftist busybodies in America. Not content with dictating to restaurants that they cannot allow smoking, the political correctors have now targeted fatty foods for extinction.

The main point for pushing such a campaign of government intervention in private business is, of course, that it is for our own good. We, the stupid, helpless people need the help of leftists, at least according to the neo-Marxist leftists, in living our lives. So now, the same big government types, who banned smoking in restaurants, have moved on to controlling another legal behavior they find offensive, eating fatty foods.

It brings me no great pleasure to point out, by the way, that I predicted this would happen, and now it has. I am now going to offer another prognostication; this measure will very likely pass in New York. I also gaze into the crystal ball of political correctness and see more cities, and eventually entire states following the Marxist lead of New York.

I can make such bold prediction not because I have ESP. Nor have I spent hundreds of dollars dialing the Physic Hotline. I can predict this because I understand how desperate the left is to control everything you and I do. And yes, that definitely includes what we eat. Please do not delude yourselves my friends, similar laws dictating what our children, and eventually we can eat in our own homes are not too very far away on the highway of political correctness.

In fact, I was reading a news story from Europe the other day that said prospective adoptive parents are being screened for height and weight. Got that? Part of the qualifications for adopting a child who needs parents is how much those would-be parents weigh. Can such dastardly laws be coming to America sooner rather than later? You better bet the political correctors would love such laws. They are, in fact, the ultimate control freaks.

Let us get back to the Big Apple though, where the leftists are actively trying to further encroach on the rights of business owners to run their businesses free of government intrusions. The city would attempt to undertake controlling every ingredient in every recipe, in every one of New York’s 24,600 restaurants. Does any reasonable person really think such a task could be accomplished with any success or fairness by the government? No, I thought not. After all, no entity is more famous for waste and incompetence than government agencies. Does New York really think they can pull off such a massive undertaking? How much tax money will be wasted, thrown away, in such an asinine attempt to micro-manage New Yorkers diets?

Now I know these fats are not the best things for us that is pretty easy to figure out. I do not, however, need some moronic beaurocrat to tell me what I should or should not eat and neither do the residents of New York! If a person wants to eat these foods, and a restaurant wants to serve these foods, then guess what kids? that is not any business of some overblown health department official or any elitist politician! What it is is liberty, and America is supposed to be about liberty isn’t it?

Remember though, that given the hypersensitive, touchy-feely, society we are becoming, this foolish law will likely pass. What can the residents of New York look forward to? Well consider what foods these soon-to-be-banned fats turn up in. French-fries, piecrusts, margarine, many cooking oils, doughnuts, and shortenings, along with many other foods. Can we expect New Yorkers to kneel to big government now and either not eat such foods or eat them ONLY if they are prepared in a more politically correct fashion?

Yes, those foods might taste as good, might be better for us, and might prove a great benefit to our longevity and waistlines. However, such decisions are not ones, which any body of government should endeavor to handle. Embracing such laws, regardless of how well intended or beneficial they might be, not only imperils our personal liberties, it begins the process of erasing them.

I, nor you, nor New York, needs nosy, clueless politicians, to tell us when, what, or where to eat. Neither is it their place to tell a private business owner that they cannot use certain ingredients to prepare the food they serve. This is really pretty simple folks. These decisions belong to restaurants and their patrons, not government!

So consider this a wake up call my friends. First cigarettes, now certain fats, next? liquor? red Meat? sugars? This insidious campaign must be stopped, and we, the people, according to our Constitution, are the ones running this nation aren’t we? If we do nothing now, how long until some government agent is looking over our shoulders in our own kitchens?




9-11 and its lessons
On this, the fifth anniversary of the 9-11 terror attacks what has America learned? Well on that terrible day, we all learned some tough, sobering lessons; we also learned a whole lot about our selves, our nation, as well as about our enemies. Sadly, we also learned that, while we were attacked by Islamo-Nazis, they are not our only enemies. In addition, we know now, after these five years, that although America has many heroes, it also has a fair number of cowards. Therefore, here, on this saddest of nights, is a look at America’s loss, its heroes, its enemies, and its cowards.

Our collective loss is sobering, 3,000 Americans dead on 9-11, incinerated and murdered in a most cowardly way by maniacal Islamo-Nazis. Of course, we have lost over 2,500 troops as well, in our current war waged on those Islamo-Nazis. Today there are families that will never be whole again. Mothers, fathers, siblings, husbands, wives, children all lost five years ago and in the war since. Lost through no fault of our own, despite what a few Leftist loudmouths may opine. America never asked or deserved 9-11. Those suffering families never asked for it either. Our troops never asked for war either. The simply rose to defend America.

America is the most generous, forgiving, and peaceful nation on earth. Of course, sadly, we learned all too well five years ago, that those traits of kindness mean nothing to fanatical mass murderers. Those swine revel in slaughtering the innocent and the kind-hearted don’t they? On 9-10-01, many of us failed to understand the sheer evil and lunacy of Islamic terrorists. We, as sane, loving people, could not predict anything like 9-11 could we?

When we see suffering we get out our checkbooks, roll up our sleeves, and get to work helping those hurting and in need. Our enemies, however, celebrate suffering, and do their best to create more pain and human loss. These radical Islamo-Nazis are the epitome of evil. Imagine the most vicious, bloodthirsty, blackest creature from the pits of Hades, and you can imagine those who attacked us on 9-11. Yes, on 9-11 we Americans learned that evil does exist, and we saw its horrendous face when those planes slammed into the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and that field in Pennsylvania.

We certainly learned that America has a surplus of heroes on 9-11. Nearly 400 firefighters died trying to save others in New York that day. Many police officers fell in heroic service that dark day as well. What a very stark contrast is painted when we compare the selfless valor of those heroes with the evil, murderous deeds of the 19 terrorist swine. While they took innocent life and destroyed it, our heroes, laid down their lives to protect and save innocent lives. We ought never forget, my friends, that on that day, 19 evil bastards died expecting to inherit paradise, and instead paradise welcomed hundreds of firefighters, and police officers. The 19 terrorists inherited eternal suffering, not paradise.

Since 9-11, America has shed many tears of joy, appreciation and, of course mourning for our fighting forces. They are, without a doubt, the finest America has to offer. Our military is 100 % voluntary, many of them volunteering AFTER the attack on 9-11. Gallantly they answered the most honorable of calls, that of duty. No finer men and women ever lived than the ones serving today. Upon the attacks on our land, they rose up and waited, even demanded, the opportunity, to avenge America and its people. Moreover, avenge it they have done in devastating fashion. Remember my friends, America did not start this war, but we will damn sure finish it!

Our heroes realize that war is ugly, and painful. They also realize that sometimes it is the only answer. After Islamo-Nazis slaughtered 3,000 Americans, they understood the time for war had come. As their predecessors showed on many fields of battle, America’s military has shown there is no force on earth capable of defeating America. To date our military has sent thousands and thousands of terrorists to their just reward, it has destroyed two evil governmental systems of oppression and afforded two nations a chance at liberty. May God above bless these heroes and may we never even contemplate forsaking them.

Finally, a look at those amongst us who, sadly, either do not recognize the evil that we face, or do not cherish the liberty America grants to its people. The terrorists are not America’s only enemies. There are, all too often, Americans, who, for whatever reason, desire us to fail in our current struggle. Of whom do I speak? The Cindy Sheehan’s, the John Murtha’s, the crowd, the Michael Moore’s, Dick Durbin‘s, Jimmy Carter’s, John Kerry‘s, the ACLU. In other words, I speak of the far Left of America.

Those who call the terrorists we fight, “freedom fighters”, or compare them to our Founding Fathers. I speak of those who refer to our troops as the problem, or as an invading force, or accuse them of “terrorizing” Iraqis, or of committing “cold-blooded murder”! I speak of those who “support” our troops by calling them stupid, or by saying, they only joined the military because they could not get a decent job. Of course, I also speak of those who love to announce our troops are losing, or cannot win or that they are broken.

I also speak of those “peace” activists, who carry signs calling for more Iraqi resistance, and announcing their support for those who fight our troops. I surely would not leave out those activists who dearly love to accuse America of being a terrorist state, or who call President Bush a terrorist. Give these miscreants points for consistency though. They always, always, always blame America don’t they?

Yes, yes, and yes again these people are NOT patriots, they ARE anti-Americans, and they ARE our enemies. Never forget that.

What did 9-11 teach us? Many things, as we have seen. One lesson however must stand above the others though. We are now engaged with an evil enemy. Evil cannot be appeased, it cannot be tolerated, it must be met and crushed with devastating force or it will crush us. Please, never forget that!

Have you ever seen some Leftist talking head on TV, or maybe listened to one on the radio, or read an op-ed written by one, and found yourself growing enraged at their inane ideology? Have you ever wished you could grab that Leftist and just scream, “I do not care?” Well, if so, you are not alone. I have wanted to scream those words at the likes of Ted Kennedy, Bob Beckel, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Je$$e Jack$on, Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and Al Sharpton dozens of times.

This column is here to help you, and me, and every other American who is nauseated at the whining, carping, and moaning, we are inundated with from the .far left. They always seem to be complaining about this or that offending them don’t they? They act as if being offended is the absolute worst calamity that can befall a person. Of course, pretty much anything that disagrees with their ideology offends them, so, there are ample opportunities for them to suffer bruised feelings.

So here, we go kids, the words we all so desperately want to yell at the left in America-I DO NOT CARE!

If American history offends the left, I do not care! Let them be offended by the Confederate flag, or Confederate monuments all day long. If Southerners remembering history upsets the left then oh well. Maybe they ought to get off their whiny butts and study the history, and understand that tens of thousands of Southerners chose to fight for their homeland. It is history, deal with it! If the left wants to ignore this history, then they are more than welcome to bury their heads in the sand and continue on their path of ignorance. If the NAACP wants to beat the drums of discontent, and pretend a flag is their biggest problem I do not care!

If men looking at attractive women offends the left, I do not care! My goodness, they are getting upset over nature, which they claim to revere! Yes, it is normal, and natural for men to look at pretty women. It is not sexual harassment, or sexist, or wrong, it is just the way nature designed us. Face it opposites attract, and if the left wants to pretend otherwise, then they might as well pretend the sky is red.

If pro-life Americans upset the left, I do not care! Abortion is wrong, period! It is wrong for one simple reason; it kills an innocent human being. If the pro-abortion zealots want to to label pro-lifers as anti-woman, or anti-choice, or uncaring let them, let them spew their emotionalist rhetoric, I do not care! When the pro-abortionists can prove that the unborn is not a living human with medical facts, then, I will listen. Until then, I do not care, nor should I, about their phony, intellectually bankrupt catch phrases!

If my owning guns, according to Al Gore I own an arsenal, scares the left, then tough, I do not care! I am here today because on October 1, 1998, I exercised my right to be armed. Contrary to the radical ideas of Sarah Brady, or Chucky Schummer, I was carrying a handgun, when some punk decided to try to rob me. Because I did not listen to the anti-gun lunacy of the left, the person who thought I should be a victim, ran away, screaming “Please God, don’t shoot me!” While I got on with my life instead of becoming a stat. Millions of other Americans have stopped crimes because they were armed, just as I did. If that offends some gun-grabbing fanatic, then, say it with me, I DO NOT CARE!

If America and patriotism offends the left, then you better bet your last dollar that I do not care! America is not perfect, but by golly, it is far and away the best nation on this planet! If the left-leaning folks who are always bashing America want to be taken seriously, let them move! Until then, they are just spoiled brats bashing America while enjoying America’s blessings of freedom and prosperity!

If public displays of Christian faith, like the Ten Commandments, or a student thanking God at graduation, or Christmas parades, upset the left, then guess what? Yep, that is right! I DO NOT CARE!! People of faith really do not mind the left NOT celebrating faith, but we also expect that same courtesy when we celebrate our faith! Is that little bit of tolerance so hard?

If the left wants to parrot the failed ideology of Marx, fine, but they should not expect anyone with a brain to listen to them when they do so. If they wish to fool themselves into believing the repeated failures of Marxism in its many forms, is because it just has not been done correctly, then I do not care!

If America, England, and Israel fighting terrorists are upsetting to the left, then, frankly, I do not care! If my desire for every Islamic terrorist to meet an extremely painful death makes the left uneasy, then too bad! I, like most Conservatives love peace, but also recognize there is a time when war is necessary. Islamic terrorists killing 3,000 of my American brothers and sisters, made this war very necessary!

The left can try to understand the “root causes” of terrorism all day long, I do not care! They can try to apply their dearly held moral equivalencies to Israel and Hezbollah if they like, I do not care. Let them be useful idiots, to Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al Qaida, I do not care! However, I will call them exactly what their actions show them to be. They are anti-American, anti-freedom, and morally retarded buffoons. If such straight talk offends them, well, I do not care!

The Folly of Cease-Fires with Evil! 8-16-06
Now that the United Nations, and other assorted Leftists and dreamers have seen, their hopes for a cease-fire in Lebanon come true, it is time to examine what, exactly, this most inane idea will bring us.

For Israel, it has brought a brief and temporary end to hostilities. There is absolutely no doubt that Hezbollah, and other terror groups, emboldened by their “victory”, will be certain to attack Israel again. They are, after all, Islamic fascist, fanatics, intent on nothing short of the utter and total destruction of Israel. The United Nations, apparently, is unable to accept this reality. Either that or, perhaps the United Nations does not think Israel’s destruction is all that bad an idea.

The reality is, though terrorists will not only use this cease-fire to re-arm, and plan future assaults on Israel, but that they are more likely to attack Israel now, than before. They see, very clearly, that the “international community” will always place undo pressure on Israel to fight a “proportionate” war, which, is, of course, a recipe for military failure.

The terrorists also know they can rely upon the media to aid them in the quest for good PR during any future conflicts with Israel. Certainly, most of the media fell all over themselves to publish every fake or staged photo Hezbollah fed them during this recently ended battle. So armed with this knowledge, the terrorists, who are not as stupid as the Kofi Annans and Jimmy Carters of the world, will use this knowledge to plan future Israeli “atrocities” to show the world when the fighting starts again.

Yes, this cease-fire has made the next battle much tougher on Israel, and they must surely realize this. They know full well they not only must fight and defeat terrorists, aided by Iran and Syria, but must also fight the media fools who are so interested in showing horrific photos, that they do not even bother checking their authenticity. Of course, they must also fight the United Nations, which, will immediately condemn any Israeli retaliation, no matter how justified it is. If the UN, and its inane talk of “proportioned responses” had been around in the 1940’s we would likely still be fighting Nazi Germany.

Israel also will almost certainly see a change in leadership because of this recent battle. Many Israelis, including the military, are not pleased in the least with the leadership of Ehud Olmert during the recent battles with Hezbollah. According to Israeli military officials, Olmert delayed approving a massive ground assault the military had petitioned for until a cease-fire agreement was reached. Even then, the force was far smaller than the military desired. The assault lasted only 48 hours and accomplished far less than it could have if ordered earlier.

Perhaps this change in leadership will be good, though, a more assertive Israeli Prime Minister would likely have ordered a larger ground assault earlier and Hezbollah would have been hurt far more seriously. That, after all, is what Israel desperately needed to accomplish in this war, and, sadly, they did not. Now Israel knows what awaits their nation, more bloodshed, more death, more attacks on Israel, and more useless cease-fires, exactly what Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Asqa, and Fatah, the sworn enemies of Israel want.

Hezbollah, defeated militarily, is still a big winner because of this cease-fire. They are busy handing out loads of money to help rebuild Lebanon right now. They, of course, are not sincere in their charitable ventures; it is Hezbollah who brought destruction to much of Lebanon by using civilians as shields. Yet, Hezbollah knows they can likely buy lots of political support with their money. Then, come the next elections in Lebanon, Hezbollah can cash in on their giveaways. Lebanon may go from fledgling democracy to terrorist state in short order. That will ensure more death and destruction for Lebanon and Israel.

The biggest coup for Hezbollah, and other terror groups, though, is their claims of victory over Israel. This cease-fire, aids greatly in their ability to make such an assertion. The sight of Israel leaving Lebanon with Hezbollah still largely intact is a propaganda goldmine for the terrorists.

Fox News reports that Iran has been busy trying to rearm Hezbollah since the cease-fire began, why would Hezbollah rearm, except to attack Israel? Of course the UN should understand by now, after failed cease-fire on top of failed cease-fire, that terrorists do not follow cease-fires or play by the rules, but the UN is one of the most inept bodies on earth so, their failure, once again, to recognize evil is not surprising in the least.

Perhaps nothing sums up the utter disaster of this cease-fire, than the words of the terrorists themselves. Consider the words of Abu Nasser, leader of Al Asqa Martyrs Brigade in Nablus. “Our brothers demonstrated what we have felt in recent years: Israel is falling apart. Next time Iran will be in picture with missiles on Tel Aviv and it will be easier. We learned from Hezbullah that the tools that make a difference are missiles. If we achieve expertise in this field, we won't make do with the simple rockets we have. There is no doubt that we can subdue Israel. Since the Gulf War, missiles were what brought Israel to the negotiation table. The withdrawal from Gaza was also a result of missiles. If we use them correctly in the West Bank, we will get rid of the IDF here too.”

Can you see now what cease-fire with evil brings?