The Sheep Dog Rag - 11th ed. March 2010

The Sheep Dog Rag
Inspired by Dave Grossman
11th EDITION
MARCH 2010


Slim@outdrs.net

1.
Here we go again! Number ll! So far we survive. Last month we had an article towards the end of the paper about Islam. Because we feel that this is so very important, we will print it again as the first article followed by another that ties it to it. Very interesting and very alarming. The point being that these people take advantage of our Christian base in our laws, our inherent good nature and the feeling that we do not wish to impose our beliefs on others. Indeed the constitution tells us that we are free. We are entitled to LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Many of our people have died to protect these rights. Indeed most of us would die to protect those rights for all. However we have been invaded by a people whose very base is a lie and tells them that they are to lie to the infidel. I have said it many times, and I will say it again. I will die to protect the right to believe what you wish, and express that belief. However if you try to shove your belief down my throat, I WILL KILL YOU! We have a hoard of people invading us right now. They have already taken over much of Europe. These people will shove their belief down our throats. They are doing just that all over the world. These two articles explain what is going on.
These people will not and cannot ever become Americans ever. Yes there are those who do convert. However that sin will bring them death--horrible death--if they are ever caught by their people. If and when they get the upper hand here, you will convert or you will die or become a slave just as their women are slaves. Islam has never produced Ideas, Art, or beauty. They have no architects. They manufacture little. Everything they have is the product of slaves. They have no morals or ethics. They can never have peace anywhere. They cannot, under sharia law ever be free. Their religion is NOT a religion. It is a political thing that has no tolerance about anything. The Saudi’s lie to us and help the rest. How can they do otherwise??? Besides it is a virtue to lie to the infidels. This is true and you better believe it and be ready to kill or be killed. The facts are here. Read them carefully and see what we must do. And remember, we can never trust them even if they swear this is not true. Soon it will be just the United States against the world. I don’t like that Idea. Do you? Remember also that our so called President was raised to near teens as a muslem. From there until adulthood he was raised a communist. Neither raising is likely to produce someone with morals, ethics or trustworthyness. Nothing he has been taught, even if he was a citizen of our country, would make him a good citizen. How to be a criminal and get away with it is his entire education. Even his law education. He is a skillful trained liar with a lot of brass. That is all he is. That is all he is capable of.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- Planned Parenthood demands condoms for ten-year-olds
February 9, 10:14 AM Conservative Examiner Robert Moon
The leftist pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood has released a new report calling for children as young as ten years old to be given access to contraceptives and taught to be "sexual beings." The report is generating almost as much outrage as the latest U.N. report calling for 5-year-olds to be taught how to masturbate.
The report, titled, "Stand and Deliver," argues that grade school children "have the right to be informed about sexuality and to have access to contraceptives and other services." But, as with virtually everything liberals want and stand for, the overwhelming majority of Americans consistently reject this, preferring instead that we respect parental choice.
Ed Mechmann, spokesman for New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, has blasted Planned Parenthood as "trying to teach children sex without values and that sex is a matter of pleasure and done without consequences...It is part of an effort to get children to reject traditional values and accept a liberal American-European view."
Mechmann also rejects the very legitimacy of the report, citing a huge financial conflict of interest: "The difference between Planned Parenthood and us is that we don't make money off what we teach and say. They do. They make money off contraceptives and abortions."
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.
some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here's how it works: When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges the trouble starts.
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be, for the most part, regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in: United States -- Muslim 0.6%-------Australia -- Muslim 1.5%-------Canada -- Muslim 1.9%-------China -- Muslim 1.8%-------Italy -- Muslim 1.5%-------Norway -- Muslim 1.8% 2.
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in: Denmark -- Muslim 2%-------Germany -- Muslim 3.7%-------United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%-------Spain -- Muslim 4%-------Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food prep-aration jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in: France -- Muslim 8%-------Philippines -- 5%-------Sweden -- Muslim 5%-------Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%-------The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%-------Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections in: Guyana -- Muslim 10%-------India -- Muslim 13.4%-------
Israel -- Muslim 16%-------Kenya -- Muslim 10%-------Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in: Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in: Bosnia -- Muslim 40%-------Chad -- Muslim 53.1%-------Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in: Albania -- Muslim 70%-----Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%-----Sudan -- Muslim 70%-------Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some geno-cide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in: Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%-------Egypt -- Muslim 90%-------Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%------Iran -- Muslim 98%-------Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%-------Iraq -- Muslim 97%-------Jordan -- Muslim 92%-------Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%-------Pakistan -- Muslim 97%-------Palestine -- Muslim 99%-------Syria -- Muslim 90%-------Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%-------Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%-------United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%-------Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%-------Somalia -- Muslim 100%-------Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel. -- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. There-fore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population.. But their birth rates dwarf
the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
This is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
Now ponder the following: Obama appoints two devout Muslims to Homeland Security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?
Obama and Janet Napolitano appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim, as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim who was born in Damascus, Syria , as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC).
NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, a devout Jew or a devout Protestant...?
3. Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Doesn't this begin to explain why the Nigerian would-be suicide bomber on the watch list almost brought the plane down last Christmas?
Please forward this important information.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Note: I have and have read Leon Uris’s book ‘The HAJ’. It shows the way of thinking of the Arabs. Shore don’t need this. I have checked out about 1/3 of the stuff here. It checks out absolutely. We are in deep doo-doo folks. As I have said many times, Islam is NOT a peaceful religion. Its main goal and purpose is world domination no more no less Editor. The whole Koran was started by a highway robber Baron who conveniently had visions from Allah when he needed something to keep his army of followers in line. Allah is a false God like Baal and Buda and others. Editor.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Here is the speech of Geert Wilders, Chairman, Party for Freedom, the Netherlands, at the Four Seasons, New York, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem..
Dear friends,
Thank you very much for inviting me. I come to America with a mission. All is not well in the old world. There is a tremendous danger looming, and it is very difficult to be optimistic. We might be in the final stages of the Islamization of Europe.This not only is a clear and present danger to the future of Europe itself, it is a threat to America and the sheer survival of the West. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.
First I will describe the situation on the ground in Europe. Then, I will say a few things about Islam. To close I will tell you about a meeting in Jerusalem.
The Europe you know is changing. You have probably seen the landmarks. But in all of these cities, some-times a few blocks away from your tourist destination, there is another world. It is the world of the parallel society created by Muslim mass-migration.
All throughout Europe a new reality is rising: entire Muslim neighborhoods where very few indigenous people reside or are even seen. And if they are, they might regret it. This goes for the police as well. It's the world of head scarves, where women walk around in figureless tents, with baby strollers and a group of children. Their hus-bands, or slaveholders if you prefer, walk three steps ahead. With mosques on many street corners. The shops have signs you and I cannot read. You will be hard-pressed to find any economic activity. These are Muslim ghettos con-trolled by religious fanatics. These are Muslim neighborhoods, and they are mushrooming in every city across Europe. These are the building-blocks for territorial control of increasingly larger portions of Europe, street by street, neighbor-hood by neighborhood, city by city.
There are now thousands of mosques throughout Europe. With larger congregations than there are in churches. And in every European city there are plans to build super-mosques that will dwarf every church in the region. Clearly, the signal is: we rule.
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims.
Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear, 'whore, whore.' Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.
In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity.
In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan.
Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.
A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favor of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. We have Muslim official state holidays. The Christian-Democratic attorney general is willing to accept sharia in the Nether-lands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey. 4.
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behavior, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. I call the perpetrators 'settlers'. Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies; they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighborhoods, their cities, their countries. Moreover, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behavior is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a ped-ophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad.
Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission' . Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.
Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. The public has wholeheartedly accepted the Palestinian narrative, and sees Israel as the aggressor. I have lived in this country and visited it dozens of times. I support Israel. First, because it is the Jewish homeland after two thousand years of exile up to and including Auschwitz, second because it is a democracy, and third because Israel is our first line of defense.
This tiny country is situated on the fault line of jihad, frustrating Islam's territorial advance. Israel is facing the front lines of jihad, like Kashmir, Kosovo, the Philippines, Southern Thailand, Darfur in Sudan, Lebanon, and Aceh in Indonesia. Israel is simply in the way. The same way West-Berlin was during the Cold War.
The war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply re-ceiving the blows that are meant for all of us. If there would have been no Israel, Islamic imperialism would have found other venues to release its energy and its desire for conquest. Thanks to Israeli parents who send their children to the army and lay awake at night, parents in Europe and America can sleep well and dream, unaware of the dangers looming.
Many in Europe argue in favor of abandoning Israel in order to address the grievances of our Muslim min-orities. But if Israel were, God forbid, to go down, it would not bring any solace to the West It would not mean our Muslim minorities would all of a sudden change their behavior, and accept our values. On the contrary, the end of Israel would give enormous encouragement to the forces of Islam. They would, and rightly so, see the demise of Israel as proof that the West is weak, and doomed. The end of Israel would not mean the end of our problems with Islam, but only the beginning. It would mean the start of the final battle for world domination. If they can get Israel, they can get everything. So-called journalists volunteer to label any and all critics of Islamization as a 'right-wing extremists' or 'racists'. In my country, the Netherlands, 60 percent of the population now sees the mass immigration of Muslims as the number one policy mistake since World War II. And another 60 percent sees Islam as the biggest threat. Yet there is a danger greater danger than terrorist attacks, the scenario of America as the last man standing. The lights may go out in Europe faster than you can imagine. An Islamic Europe means a Europe without freedom and democracy, an economic wasteland, an intellectual nightmare, and a loss of military might for America - as its allies will turn into enemies, enemies with atomic bombs. With an Islamic Europe, it would be up to America alone to preserve the heritage of Rome, Athens and Jerusalem.
Dear friends, liberty is the most precious of gifts. My generation never had to fight for this freedom, it was offered to us on a silver platter, by people who fought for it with their lives. All throughout Europe, American ceme-teries remind us of the young boys who never made it home, and whose memory we cherish. My generation does not own this freedom; we are merely its custodians. We can only hand over this hard won liberty to Europe's children in the same state in which it was offered to us. We cannot strike a deal with mullahs and imams. Future generations would never forgive us. We cannot squander our liberties. We simply do not have the right to do so.
We have to take the necessary action now to stop this Islamic stupidity from destroying the free world that we know. Please take the time to read and understand what is written here, Please send it to every free person that you know, it is so very important.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Planned Parenthood demands condoms for ten-year-olds
February 9, 10:14 AM Conservative Examiner Robert Moon
The leftist pro-abortion group Planned Parenthood has released a new report calling for children as young as ten years old to be given access to contraceptives and taught to be "sexual beings." The report is generating almost as much outrage as the latest U.N. report calling for 5-year-olds to be taught how to masturbate. 5.
The report, titled, "Stand and Deliver," argues that grade school children "have the right to be informed about sexuality and to have access to contraceptives and other services." But, as with virtually everything liberals want and stand for, the overwhelming majority of Americans consistently reject this, preferring instead that we respect parental choice.
Ed Mechmann, spokesman for New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, has blasted Planned Parenthood as "trying to teach children sex without values and that sex is a matter of pleasure and done without consequences...It is part of an effort to get children to reject traditional values and accept a liberal American-European view."
Mechmann also rejects the very legitimacy of the report, citing a huge financial conflict of interest: "The difference between Planned Parenthood and us is that we don't make money off what we teach and say. They do. They make money off contraceptives and abortions."
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Obama Must Tell Holder to Get With It or Get Out
By KT McFarland- FOXNews.com Updated February 08, 2010
Much of our homeland security efforts are being dictated by Attorney General Eric Holder who sees terrorists as isolated extremists and lone wolfs. When President Obama took office I had high hopes for his national security team – Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and Gen. Jim Jones. But on the homeland security front it's been one bungled effort after another. Remember when the president promised to shut Guantanamo within his first year in office? Well, it’s been a lot more difficult than he thought, and Gitmo's still open.
The Christmas Day bomber saga is like a keystone cops movie. First, he was babbling like a brook. But after a mere 50 minutes, the Justice Department stepped in and read him Miranda rights, including the ‘right to remain silent.’ So he got lawyered up, and shut up. After withering criticism, the White House sent FBI sent agents to Nigeria to convince the bomber’s parents to come to the US and convince him to start talking again. Never mind that his six weeks of silence has given Al Qaeda plenty of time to cover its tracks.
The New York terror trials? Turns out the Attorney General announced they would be in NYC without both-ering to consult the mayor or police chief, who think they will be expensive and cumbersome and, according to some, put New Yorkers in harms way.
These goof-ups are more than a new administration getting its balance. They’re indicative of a bigger prob-lem – that much of our homeland security efforts are being dictated by an attorney general who sees terrorists as isolated extremists and lone wolfs better dealt with in civilian courts with all the rights of citizens – than as enemy combatants who might have valuable intelligence about the next terrorist attack.
Since our two top intelligence officials have now warned there will be another attempted terrorist attack by July, the president needs to remember that his primary responsibility is to protect the American people and tell the attorney general either to get with it or get out.
Kathleen Troia “KT” McFarland served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan adminis-trations. She wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger’s November 1984 "Principles of War Speech" which laid out the Weinberger Doctrine. She is a senior adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a frequent con-tributor to the Fox Forum. Watch "K.T." and Mike Baker every Monday at 10 a.m. on FoxNews.com's "DefCon3" al-ready one of the Web's most watched national security programs.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
New errors in IPCC climate change report
The United Nations panel on climate change is facing fresh criticism today as The Sunday Telegraph reveals new factual errors and poor sources of evidence in its influential report to government leaders. By Richard Gray and Ben Leach Published: 9:00PM GMT 06 Feb 2010
Last month, the IPCC was forced to issue a humiliating retraction after it emerged statements about the melting of Himalayan glaciers were inaccurate The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report is supposed to be the world’s most authoritative scientific account of the scale of global warming. But this paper has
discovered a series of new flaws in it including: They are the latest in a series of damaging revelations about the IPCC’s most recent report, published in 2007. Last month, the panel was forced to issue a humiliating retraction after it emerged statements about the melting of Himalayan glaciers were inaccurate.
Last weekend, this paper revealed that the panel had based claims about disappearing mountain ice on anecdotal evidence in a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine. And on Friday, it emerged that the IPCC’s panel had wrongly reported that more than half of the Netherlands was below sea level because it had failed to check information supplied by a Dutch government agency.
Researchers insist the errors are minor and do not impact on the overall conclusions about climate change. However, senior scientists are now expressing concern at the way the IPCC compiles its reports and have hit out at the panel’s use of so-called “grey literature” — evidence from sources that have not been subjected to scientific ­scrutiny.
A new poll has revealed that public belief in climate change is weakening. The panel’s controversial chair, Rajendra Pachauri, pictured right, is facing pressure to resign over the affair. The IPCC attempted to counter growing criticism by releasing a statement insisting that authors who contribute to its 3,000-page report are required to
6.
“critically assess and review the quality and validity of each source” when they use material from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources. Drafts of the reports are checked by scientific reviewers before they are subjected to line-by-line approval by the 130 member countries of the IPCC.
Despite these checks, a diagram used to demonstrate the potential for generating electricity from wave power has been found to contain numerous errors. The source of information for the diagram was cited as the website of UK-based wave-energy company Wavegen. Yet the diagram on Wavegen’s website contains dramatically different figures for energy potential off Britain and Alaska and in the Bering Sea.
When contacted by The Sunday Telegraph, Wavegen insisted that the diagram on its website had not been changed. It added that it was not the original source of the data and had simply reproduced it on its website. The diagram is widely cited in other literature as having come from a paper on wave energy produced by the Institute of Mechanical Engineering in 1991 along with data from the European Directory of Renewable Energy. Experts claim that, had the IPCC checked the citation properly, it would have spotted the discrepancies.
It can also be revealed that claims made by the IPCC about the effects of global warming, and suggestions about ways it could be avoided, were partly based on information from ten dissertations by Masters students. One unpublished dissertation was used to support the claim that sea-level rise could impact on people living in the Nile delta and other African coastal areas, although the main focus of the thesis, by a student at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, appears to have been the impact of computer software on environmental development.
The IPCC also made use of a report by US conservation group Defenders of Wildlife to state that salmon in US streams have been affected by rising temperatures. The panel has already come under fire for using information in reports by conservation charity the WWF.
Estimates of carbon-dioxide emissions from nuclear power stations and claims that suggested they were cheaper than coal or gas power stations were also taken from the website of the World Nuclear Association, rather than using independent scientific calculations.
Such revelations are creating growing public confusion over climate change. A poll by Ipsos on behalf of environmental consultancy firm Euro RSCG revealed that the proportion of the public who believe in the reality of climate change has dropped from 44 per cent to 31per cent in the past year. The proportion of people who believe that climate change is a bit over-exaggerated rose from 22 per cent to 31per cent.
(02-08) 19:05 PST Redding, Calif. (AP) -- Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, in a rare California appearance, called studies supporting global climate change a "bunch of snake oil science."
Palin spoke Monday before a logging conference in Redding, a town of 90,000 about 160 miles north of the state capital. The media were barred from the event, but The Associated Press bought a $74 ticket to attend.
Palin said California's heavy regulatory environment makes it difficult for businesses to succeed, a view that is shared by many business leaders in the state.
She criticized what she said were heavy-handed environmental laws. As Alaska governor, she said she sued the federal government to overturn the listing of polar bears as threatened. She said she disagreed with the science the government used to support the listing.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
WH: 'Our Critics Are Helping Al Qaeda. Terrorists Are Not 100 Ft Tall'
In an oped in USA Today, John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism -- responds to critics of the Obama administration's counterterrorism
policies by saying "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."
Brennan writes that, "Terrorists are not 100-feet tall. Nor do they deserve the abject fear they seek to instill." In the op-ed, titled "'We need no lectures': Administration disrupts terrorists’ plots, takes fight to them abroad," Brennan writes that politics "should never get in the way of national security. But too many in Washington are now misrepresenting the facts to score political points, instead of coming together to keep us safe."
The administration op-ed is in response to a USA Today editorial entitled "National security team fails to in-spire confidence; Officials’ handling of Christmas Day attack looks like amateur hour."
Brennan provides a detailed defense of the administration's handling of failed Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab whom, he says, was "thoroughly interrogated and provided important information." He suggests that many critics are hypocritical and clueless.
The most important breakthrough in the interrogation occurred "after Abdulmutallab was read his rights, which the FBI made standard policy under Michael Mukasey, President Bush's attorney general," he writes, noting that failed shoe bomber Richard Reid "was read his Miranda rights five minutes after being taken off a plane he tried to blow up. The same people who criticize the president today were silent back then." Brennan said anyone who wants to change the policy would be casting aside lessons learned "in waging this war" on extremists.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Congressional Democrats point finger of blame at Rahm Emanuel
By Alexander Bolton - 02/09/10 06:00 AM ET
Democrats in Congress are holding White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel accountable for his part in the
7.
collapse of healthcare reform. The emerging consensus among critics in both chambers is that Emanuel’s lack of Senate experience slowed President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority. The share of the blame comes as cracks are beginning to show in Emanuel’s once-impregnable political armor. Last week he had to apologize after a report surfaced that he called liberal groups “retarded” in a private meeting.
While Emanuel has quelled that controversy by meeting with advocates for people with disabilities, on Capitol Hill he’s under fire for poor execution of the president’s healthcare agenda in the Senate. "I think Rahm ran the play his boss called; once Obama called the play, Rahm did everything he could to pass it, scorched-earth and all that,” said a senior lawmaker, who added that Emanuel didn’t seek a broader base of Senate Republicans. “I think he did miscalculate the Senate. He did what he thought he had to do to win."
Senate Democrats grilled White House advisers last week during a special Senate Democratic retreat, expressing frustration over the lack of a clear plan. While Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) ripped chief political strategist David Axelrod, Senate Democrats say Emanuel, who was more closely involved in managing negotiations in Congress, also deserves scrutiny. No Democrat is calling for Emanuel’s resignation, even privately, and they acknowledge his hard work and straightforward approach in a very tough job. They also say there’s plenty of blame on healthcare to go around.
But centrists and liberal Democrats both take issue — albeit in different ways — with how he approached the Senate. “I like Rahm; he's always been a straight shooter with me," said a Democratic centrist senator who was closely involved in the healthcare debate. The lawmaker said Emanuel misjudged the Senate by focusing on only a few Republicans, citing Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins as too narrow a pool. “In the Senate, you have to anchor in the middle and build out," said the lawmaker. “They just wanted to win," the source said of Emanuel and other White House strategists. "Their plan was to keep all the Democrats together and work like hell to get Snowe and Collins. The Senate doesn't work that way. You need a radius of 10 to 12 from the other side if you're going to have a shot."
But liberals take a different view. They argue Emanuel made a mistake by allowing Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to spend months negotiating with Republicans on his committee, such as Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa). “I’m most critical of the fact that the Senate [Democratic] leadership and, I assume, the White House tried to get a deal with people like Grassley, which was impossible and wasted a huge amount of time,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future, a liberal advocacy group.
One senior Democratic senator said Emanuel was initially reluctant to push healthcare reform so early in Obama’s first term, counseling instead for the president to focus on jobs and the economy But the president decided healthcare had to pass when he had a strong political mandate and the party controlled large majorities in both chambers. Obama was convinced overhauling the nation’s healthcare system would boost the struggling economy by curbing costs and reducing the long-term federal deficit, say Democratic sources. An administration official, however, disputed the notion that Emanuel disagreed with the president’s timeline on healthcare. Emanuel declined to be interviewed for this article.
Once Obama decided to make healthcare the top priority, Emanuel approached it with his signature hard-charging style. That did not sit well in the Senate, according to Democratic senators and House members. A liberal House Democrat who served with Emanuel during his entire career in Congress said: "I don't think the skills that are attributed to him — muscling things through — are well-suited to the Senate. "The House is like an Australian-rules rugby match,” the lawmaker added. “The Senate is like a march at a men’s club in imperial Britain. They're a bunch of barons over there."
Emanuel constantly pressed Senate negotiators to stay on a timeline for passing healthcare reform. Centrist Democrats and Republicans alike complained about “arbitrary” deadlines. Snowe complained about a rushed process when she announced she would vote against the Senate healthcare bill, even after she supported the Democratic healthcare bill in the Finance Committee.
One liberal Democratic senator said Emanuel has a much better relationship with House Democrats. The senator said that Emanuel allowed White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, who had worked 15 years for Baucus, to take more of a lead in the upper chamber. The lawmaker said that was a mistake that allowed Baucus more time than necessary to negotiate with Republicans. Baucus scoffed at the notion that Messina could pressure him. “He’s not going to put pressure on me,” Baucus told The Washington Post last year during an interview for a profile of Messina.
A liberal healthcare advocate said this management strategy wasted months of time. “It’s true that Messina was the person the White House relied on to quarterback the Senate strategy. He agreed with the Baucus strategy of going ahead to make this deal [with Republicans] and it did go on too long,” said the advocate.
Some Democrats in Congress also question whether Emanuel scheduled enough time for the president to travel the country to stump for healthcare reform. “For a guy who talked a lot about not liking the culture of Washington, he spent a lot of time in Washington,” said a Democratic leadership aide. The aide noted that former President George W. Bush traveled to states and congressional districts he carried on Election Day to pressure Democratic lawmakers to support his agenda. The aide said Obama did not put similar pressure on centrist Republicans.
8.
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Obama’s advisers lost touch with the county’s populist sentiment as he became consumed by the challenges of his agenda. "As a group, overall, I would give them a good grade, but there's something missing there and that's an overall strategy of ‘What are the things we're going to get done and how are we going to work with Congress?’ ” Harkin said of Obama’s circle of advisers. Harkin said they lacked “a feeling for what’s going on around the country, the populist sentiment.” Obama’s advisers have since realized this mistake. The president has sounded more populist tones in recent weeks, such as proposing a hefty tax on the bonuses of Wall Street bankers.
Source: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/80315-congressional-dems-point-finger-at-rahm The contents of this site are © 2010 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc. Comments (228)
(Here are the first few comments on this story. Most of the comments were similar----your DA editor)
That time was wasted negotiating with Senate republicans and conservative democrats should underscore how weak this administration is and how dysfunctional the senate is. The senate is more concerned with it's clubby atmosphere and good ol' boy network than it is in doing the people's business. Just once democrats need to find a pair and battle it out. Even if they lose it would be a good thing to show that they are at least fighting for their constituents. As it is, they roll over for republicans at the first sign of opposition. Dems will lose big in November ad not have a clue as to why.BY AJ on 02/09/2010 at 06:19
It is arrogant to believe that the bill failed because of Emanuel's failures to 'work' the system. Both bills were/are bad and the sooner the libs admit that the sooner work can proceed on a pragmatic bill that most will be able to swallow. All the talk about Obama's inability to cram legislation through focuses on procedure and deal making, not on sincere statesmanlike objectives. If he truly believed his healthcare bill would bring costs down then he is delusional. I think he is intentionally lying. It is all about power. Witness the growth of government jobs at the rate of 10,000 per month since he came into office and the increase in their salaries. Public Unions are drooling at the thought of the money pooled by thousands of paying union members (Hence Andy Stern's regular visits to the WH.) Obama relied on public unions to get the presidency. He will do anything to keep them including this sham bill that will raise taxes and keep his union buddies happy with well padded healthcare and retirement benefits from the time they retire in their fifties until they die in their eighties. If he succeeds in pushing this garbage through you can bet the healthcare system will be top heavy with unionized medical workers. Just wait until you need oxygen at home and your in home health provider decides to go on strike. Nurses? Doctors? Med Techs? Think it can't happen? Think again. BY cooper52 on 02/09/2010 at 06:41
AJ you are correct. The Dems will loose big in November, but not for your reasoning. They will loose because this Bill is bad and the strong arm Obama admin. is trying to ram it down our throats with special back room deals and without things like TORT reform. They need to start over with a clean sheet of paper in a bipartisan manner. By the way, We need JOBS a lot more than we need free healthcare for Illegals.
BY Larry on 02/09/2010 at 06:58
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Insurgent Debra Medina Shakes Up GOP Governor Race in Texas Posted: 02/9/10
Following a series of elections where conservative activists, Tea Partiers, disgruntled independents and energized Republicans have shaken things up, a political neophyte in Texas is riding that same kind of wave and may affect the outcome of the race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination.
Debra Medina, who was a former GOP county chairman and runs a medical billing business, has pulled within four points of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who, like Medina, is mounting a primary challenge to Gov. Rick Perry, according to a Public Policy Polling survey conducted Feb. 4-7. (Read the Houston Chronicle's profile of Medina here.)
Perry still holds a big lead, running ahead of Hutchison by 39 percent to 28 percent, with Medina at 24 percent. The margin of error is 4.8 points.
This is the second poll that showed Medina gaining, probably at Hutchison's expense. Rasmussen Reports put support for Medina at 16 percent in a survey conducted Feb. 1, a four-point gain since the previous poll. Hutchison's numbers slipped by the same amount. Last November, Medina's support stood at 4 percent.
Medina made her gains in the PPP survey despite the fact that 51 percent didn't know enough about her to say whether they view her favorably or not. She is drawing her strength from the same kind of Libertarian base that rallied around Texas Rep. Ron Paul's presidential run, as well as the anti-establishment Tea Party movement.
The Houston Chronicle says Medina "has made herself a factor in the race. She could be a spoiler, pulling enough votes to deny Gov. Rick Perry the re-nomination. Or she could force Perry and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison into an expensive runoff that could send a bruised nominee into a potentially tough battle against the probable Democratic nominee, former Houston Mayor Bill White."
PPP finds Medina supporters split about who they would back as a second choice. Forty-three percent chose Perry, 39 percent picked Hutchison and 18 percent were undecided.
A Rasmussen poll conducted Feb. 1 had all three Republicans ahead of White, although Medina's lead was statistically insignificant.
9.
"The big question for Debra Medina is whether there's enough unhappy voters out there for her to get into a runoff with Rick Perry," said PPP's Dean Debnam "That would rank up there with the results of the Massachusetts Senate election as an early shocker in the 2010 political season."
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Read the Houston Chronicle's profile of Medina here.
CAMPAIGN 2010
Neophyte Medina may not be widely known, but she's starting to be heard By JOE HOLLEY
Copyright 2010 Houston Chronicle Feb. 2, 2010, 10:22PM
Michael Stravato Associated Press
Debra Medina credits a heart-to-heart talk with her daughter for the decision to run for governor.
By 11 o'clock on a recent Saturday morning, Ron McLain had the “Texans for Liberty” hot dogs boiling in a pot, and John Wheeler was helping haul folding chairs out to the parking lot of the Medina for Texas Governor headquarters in suburban Corpus Christi. It was the grand opening of the South Texas campaign headquarters, a nondescript brick building next door to the Nueces County Republican Party office. About 40 supporters and potential supporters waited outside for the candidate, among them Mike Purdy, who, with his wife, watched her in the Jan. 14 Republican gubernatorial debate.
“We were very impressed,” said Purdy, a retired prison warden. “We had seen her at a gun show in Robstown. She seems like the real conservative of the group.” Debra Medina never made it inside. Nor did she deliver a speech. The neophyte candidate, whose demeanor combines the no-nonsense efficiency of an experienced nurse with the zeal of former independent presidential candidate H. Ross Perot, spent nearly three hours talking politics and policy with the people in the parking lot. Without the traditional campaign handler to hustle her along, she talked about property taxes, home schooling, school vouchers, abortion, decriminalizing drugs — talked until most everyone there had spoken to her about whatever was on their minds. “She does this every time,” said Wheeler, an unemployed oil-field worker and avid supporter. “She’ll talk to anybody and everybody.”
Only lately has the Republican Party establishment — and her two opponents — begun to listen. After Medina more than held her own at her first-ever debate, her poll numbers jumped from 4 percent to 12 percent; they climbed to 16 percent in a Rasmussen Reports survey released Tuesday. In the week after the first debate, more than $100,000 in contributions flowed in; more than half as much as she raised last year.
Although she remains the longest of long shots to win the nomination, even after a solid performance in last week’s second debate, the 47-year-old small-business owner and registered nurse from Wharton has made herself a factor in the race. She could be a spoiler, pulling enough votes to deny Gov. Rick Perry the re-nomination. Or she could force Perry and U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison into an expensive runoff that could send a bruised nominee into a potentially tough battle against the probable Democratic nominee, former Houston Mayor Bill White. “It’s a phenomenon,” said McLain, a Corpus Christi lawyer who is a Medina volunteer and a member of the Tea Party group South Texans for Liberty. “It’s interesting to watch.”
The Medina “phenomenon” is the outgrowth of two loosely overlapping political movements — the populist
Tea Party insurgency and the Libertarian faction that rallied around the 2008 presidential bid of 11-term U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Lake Jackson, who got 5 percent of the vote in Texas. Both groups are fueled by anti-Washington sentiment surging in Texas and across the nation.
Medina was born Debra Carolyn Parker, the eldest of four children, on a farm near Beeville. Her family raised pigs, chickens and dairy cows on three acres near the house, and ran beef cattle on 90 acres nearby. At Beeville High School, she played tenor sax in the band, did soil and dairy judging as a member of Future Farmers of America and was president of the FFA parliamentary procedures team.
She met her husband, Noe, in 1980, the year she graduated from high school. They married two years later, shortly after her graduation from what was then Bee County Junior College. Noe Medina now works for his wife’s medical billing company, Prudentia Inc., a three-person venture based in Wharton. The couple has two grown children — Janise Cookston, 25, an interior designer who lives in Houston, and Jacob Medina, a 20-year-old agriculture economics major at Texas A&M University.
Medina thought she wanted to be a doctor, but after a physics course “ate my lunch,” a college counselor suggested nursing. She took a diploma from Southwest Baptist Hospital School of Nursing in San Antonio, and later received a business degree from the Houston campus of LeTourneau University.
She and her husband moved to Wharton in 1989, when Medina became director of a nursing home. She changed jobs a few years later and began making the daily 120-mile round-trip commute to Houston as a medical consultant, while home-schooling her two children.
She opened Prudentia in 2002. The medical billing business is pretty much bare-bones at the moment, as Medina campaigns full-time.
“The ethics law and the election commission law in Texas really make it difficult for average Joes to run for public office,” she said. “Who can afford to take off of work for a year to run for office? So, it’s been really hard, really hard.”
10.
Her political career had its origins in her church. She was raised a Catholic, but when she and her husband moved to Wharton, they joined the Baptist church. In 1992, the church deacons helped defeat an anti-abortion resolution at the GOP county convention, and, in Medina’s words, “It just shook me to the core.” Didn’t vote for McCain She began attending political conventions at the county and state levels and got more involved with each election cycle. In 2004, she ran for county chair and won with support from a core group of Libertarian-leaning Paul supporters. She defeated Phil Stephenson, a longtime Wharton CPA who later ran unsuccessfully for the state Legislature. Stephenson, 64, still fumes about being beaten by a woman he considers a disloyal, fringe Republican. He charges that she did not support the party’s presidential ticket in 2008, that John McCain campaign signs were nowhere to be found. “She’s into Ron Paul — that’s it,” Stephenson said.
Medina has said that she voted for Republican George W. Bush for president, but not for McCain. On her Web site, she has a letter of support from the candidate she hoped would be president. “She has stood up to the big government establishment and fought to hold our party accountable to our platform and our conservative Texas values,” Paul wrote. Stephenson takes issue with Paul’s kind words for Medina. “She shouldn’t even be considered as a candidate,” he said. “She has no credentials, no experience.”
She challenged Tina Ben-kiser for the state party chairmanship in 2008, pushing for a platform that resembled Paul’s. After Medina lost, she later sued the state Republican Party over how the state convention was run. Her lawsuit was dismissed.
Nueces County Republican Chair Mike Bertuzzi is as exasperated as his Wharton County counterpart. “If she doesn’t win, she won’t support either candidate out of the primary,” he said. “That’s kind of a problem there, a real problem.” Medina campaign manager Penny Langford-Freeman said, “That’s because we have our eye on the ball, which is winning the primary.”
Bertuzzi contends that Medina and her Libertarian cohorts are attempting to take over the state Republican Party apparatus so they can use it in the service of another Ron Paul presidential run in 2012. Medina, he said, wants to be head of the party. The idea that this party outlier should run for governor took hold after she spoke at a November 2008 rally in Houston in support of abolishing the Federal Reserve System. She began fielding calls and hundreds of e-mails urging her to run.
Signature issues
Others rallied to her signature issue — replacing property taxes with an expanded sales tax — and for her support of “nullification,” the idea that states have a right to ignore federal laws they deem unconstitutional. Those with libertarian leanings agreed with her willingness to at least discuss decriminalizing drugs.
A fierce opponent of federal gun laws, she keeps a Springfield 9mm in a zippered case in her car. She believes landowners along the Texas-Mexico border have the right to arm themselves against illegal immigrants coming across the Rio Grande. She also wants to post the Texas National Guard along the border.
Despite the encouragement from individuals and members of such groups as U.S. Border Watch, the Texas Tea Party, the Liberty Campaign and disaffected Republicans, Medina was reluctant to enter the race — until she had a heart-to-heart with her daughter. “She said, ‘We’ve seen something happening. You aren’t saying anything today you haven’t been saying for 15 years, and, yet, last year people started asking you to travel from Beaumont to College Station to San Antonio to Corpus Christi and all over Southeast Texas, talking about these ideas. … The door seems to
be open. Why don’t you just step through and fight the good fight?’” Medina declared her candidacy in 2009 and has been running hard ever since. “I expect we’re going to win,” she said. “Call me crazy if you want, but I think that’s where we’re headed. I spend more time than not, thinking we’re going to win clean away on March 2.”
joe.holley@chron.com
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Medal of Honor: McGinnis, Ross A. by Mike Piccione 02/09/2010
Ross McGinnis entered the US Army on his 17th birthday. He was 19 years old when he earned his Medal of Honor fighting in Iraq. PFC McGinnis exhibited the single most profound act of bravery that is humanly possible. In one split second he decided that he would sacrifice his life to save his fellow soldiers. Please take a moment to read the citation of a hero.
Rank: Private First Class Organization: U.S. Army Company: Company C, 1st Battalion Division: 1st Infantry Division Born: June 14, 1987 in Meadville, PA Departed: Yes (12/04/2006) Entered Service At: June 14, 2004 in Pittsburgh, PA Date of Issue: 06/05/2008 Place / Date: In Adhamiyah, Northeast Baghdad, Iraq, on 4 Dec. 2006 (A loving, brave and honorable Sheep dog. May God Bless him and his family. ED.) Picture???


For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty: Private First Class Ross A. McGinnis distinguished himself by acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty while serving as an M2 .50-caliber Machine Gunner, 1st Platoon, C Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, in connection with combat operations against an armed enemy in Adhamiyah, Northeast Baghdad, Iraq, on 4 December 2006.
11.
That afternoon his platoon was conducting combat control operations in an effort to reduce and control sectarian violence in the area. While Private McGinnis was manning the M2 .50-caliber Machine Gun, a fragmentation grenade thrown by an insurgent fell through the gunner's hatch into the vehicle. Reacting quickly, he yelled "grenade," allowing all four members of his crew to prepare for the grenade's blast. Then, rather than leaping from the gunner's hatch to safety, Private McGinnis made the courageous decision to protect his crew. In a selfless act of bravery, in which he was mortally wounded, Private McGinnis covered the live grenade, pinning it between his body and the vehicle and absorbing most of the explosion. Private McGinnis' gallant action directly saved four men from certain serious injury or death. Private First Class McGinnis' extraordinary heroism and selflessness at the cost of his own life, above and beyond the call of duty, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great
credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Medal of Honor: MILLETT, LEWIS L. by Mike Piccione 01/27/2010
Recently Lewis L. Millett passed away. In February, 1951 while fighting in Korea, he led his troops on an attack of an entrenched enemy. The fighting turned to hand to hand combat and Capt. Millett intrepidity took the battle to the enemy with his bayonet. Please take a moment to read the citation of a hero.
Rank: Captain Organization: U.S. Army Company: Company E Division: 27th Infantry Regiment Born: 15 December 1920, Mechanic Falls, Maine Departed: Yes (11/14/2009) Entered Service At: Mechanic Falls, Maine G.O. Number: 69 Date of Issue: 08/02/1951 Place / Date: Vicinity of Soam-Ni, Korea, 7 February 1951
Citation: Capt. Millett, Company E, distinguished himself by conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action. While personally leading his company in an attack against a strongly held position he noted that the 1st Platoon was pinned down by small-arms, automatic, and antitank fire. Capt. Millett ordered the 3d Platoon forward, placed himself at the head of the 2 platoons, and, with fixed bayonet, led the assault up the fire-swept hill. In the fierce charge Capt. Millett bayoneted 2 enemy soldiers and boldly continued on, throwing grenades, clubbing and bayoneting the enemy, while urging his men forward by shouting encouragement. Despite vicious opposing fire, the whirlwind hand-to-hand assault carried to the crest of the hill. His dauntless leadership and personal courage so inspired his men that they stormed into the hostile position and used their bayonets with such lethal effect that the enemy fled in wild disorder. During this fierce onslaught Capt. Millett was wounded by grenade fragments but refused evacuation until the objective was taken and firmly secured. The superb leadership, conspicuous courage, and consummate devotion to duty demonstrated by Capt. Millett were directly responsible for the successful accomplishment of a hazardous mission and reflect the highest credit on himself and the heroic traditions of the military service.
Thanks to our friends at the Congressional Medal of Honor Society for providing this citation to Guns & Patriots. Visit them at www.cmohs.org.
(Another brave and honorable Sheepdog. Rest in peace my friend. Ed.)
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Medal of Honor: Schwab, Albert Ernest by Mike Piccione 02/02/2010
What can one Unites States Marine do? PFC Albert Ernest Schwab, USMC, armed with a flamethrower climbed a sheer cliff on Okinawa and went straight into Japanese machinegun fire. He was hit hard but kept fighting to save his fellow Marines and it cost PFC Schwab his life. We live free because of men like this. Please take a moment to read the citation of a hero.
SCHWAB, ALBERT EARNEST Rank: Private First Class Organization: U.S. Marine Corps Company:
Headquarters Company Division: 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division Born: 17 July 1920, Washington, D.C. Departed: Yes Entered Service At: Tulsa, OK Date of Issue: 05/31/1945 Place / Date: Okinawa
Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as a flamethrower operator in action against enemy Japanese forces on Okinawa Shima in the Rykuyu Islands, 7 May 1945. Quick to take action when his company was pinned down in a valley and suffered resultant heavy casualties under blanketing machinegun fire emanating from a high ridge to the front, Pfc. Schwab, unable to flank the enemy emplacement because of steep cliffs on either side, advanced up the face of the ridge in bold defiance of the intense barrage and, skillfully directing the fire of his flamethrower, quickly demolished the hostile gun position, thereby enabling his company to occupy the ridge. Suddenly a second enemy machinegun opened fire, killing and wounding several marines with its initial bursts. Estimating with split-second decision the tactical difficulties confronting his comrades, Pfc. Schwab elected to continue his l-man assault despite a diminished supply of fuel for his flamethrower. Cool and indomitable, he moved forward in the face of a direct concentration of hostile fire, relentlessly closed the enemy position and attacked. Although severely wounded by a final vicious blast from the enemy weapon, Pfc. Schwab had succeeded in destroying 2 highly strategic Japanese gun positions during a critical stage of the operation and, by his dauntless, single-handed efforts, had materially furthered the advance of his company. His aggressive initiative, outstanding valor and professional skill throughout the bitter conflict sustain and enhance the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service. (Another brave and honorable Sheepdog. Who would be 15 years my senior. Other Sheepdogs are following this tradition in Iraq and Afghanistan among other places. Got take them all to your bosom. ED).
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- 12.
Rockefeller on Obama: Prez isn't 'believable' Message the same as famous 'You lie' by GOP's Joe Wilson Posted: February 12, 2010 11:00 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh Republican Rep. Joe Wilson created waves that left Washington rocking for weeks by shout-ing "You lie" to Barack Obama during the president's address to Congress last fall, and now a similar message has been delivered by a member of the president's own party.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., told an audience today the president is "beginning to be not believable to me." The comment was just the latest evidence of the dissension in the Democratic Party that prevented Obama from passing his health care proposal last year despite having a significant party majority in the U.S. House and a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate.
Rockefeller, a Democrat in a family of lifelong Republicans, was referring to Obama's proposed budget that would cut tax incentives to coal mining companies. The cut would hit West Virginia's coal industry hard, and Rockefeller's dissatisfaction was evident in the video posted on Real Clear Politics. http://rockefeller.senate.gov/
Obama's budget proposal would kill $2.3 billion in coal tax breaks, Rockefeller pointed out. http://rockefeller.senate.gov/ "He says 'I'm for clean coal,' and then he says it in his speeches, but he doesn't say it in here. And he doesn't say it in the minds of my own people. And he's beginning to be not believable to me," Rockefeller said.
Participants in a Real Clear Politics online forum said, essentially, it's about time: "You must have a pretty thick skull, Senator Rockefeller, if you're just now starting to notice."-- "Too late, the monster is out of the bag."--
--"I believe BHO is not lying intentionally … He literally cannot tell the difference from the truth and a lie."--"What he is saying, in other words, is 'YOU LIE!'"--"Old Rocky may be an extreme liberal but he can still read the tea leaves and they are telling him that Obama has become toxic even for 'senators for life' like him."
Democrats in Congress have bickered over specific aspects of health care legislation, blamed White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for the effort's failure and have been unable to reach agreement on legislation even when Republicans were not invited to the discussion, notes The Hill newspaper.
Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., also has blasted Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, over the failure to advance Obama's agenda.
It was last September when Wilson yelled "You lie!" in response to Obama's declaration in a speech before Congress that his plan wouldn't provide tax-paid health care to illegal aliens. The congressman apologized to the president but refused to apologize to members of the House.
HYPERLINK "http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124292"# HYPERLINK "http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124292"WND columnist and former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo said even though "liberals went nuts," Wilson actually was right.
#HYPERLINK"http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124292"# HYPERLINK "http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124292"http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124292 "Obama conceded as much when two days later the White House issued guidelines to close some of the loopholes that allowed illegal aliens to acquire health insurance in the House bill," Tancredo wrote. "But despite those guidelines, illegal aliens are still eligible for Obamacare under both the House and Senate bills. "An analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Immigration Studies exposes how easily illegal aliens will be able to exploit our health-care system under Obamacare. The health-care bill contains four provisions that increase government spending. There are two massive government expansions: the much discussed 'public option' and a sharp increase of Medicaid subsidies. In addition, it includes two ostensibly market incentives: the semiprivate 'Health Insurance Exchange' and 'Affordability Credits' that are basically tax credits for low-income households. However, the Exchange will be heavily subsidized by the government, and families eligible for 'Affordability Credits' are not paying taxes, so a 'tax credit' is just another form of welfare," Tancredo explained.
"What this means is that any part of the health-care bill that illegal aliens are eligible for will involve subsidies by the American taxpayers. Illegal aliens are eligible for all of them!"
At the recent Tea Party Nation convention in Nashville, Judge Roy Moore, a candidate for governor in Alabama, presented a "bill of particulars" against the president.
Moore said:--He has ignored our history and our heritage, arrogantly declaring to the world that we are no longer a Christian nation. He's elevated immorality to a new level, setting aside the entire month of June last to celebrate Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender pride.--He now threatens to change our law, 10 U.S.C. Section 654, to allow homosexuality in our military in direct opposition to the law which says that the attempt to engage in homosexuality will create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.--He has apologized to the Arab world for our past, subjugated our national sovereignty by bowing down to the king of Saudi Arabia. --He has pursued a socialist agenda by taking control of private companies and pushing a national health-care plan with a public option. Backed by a willing Congress, he has bought off our senators and our representatives with our own money in an effort to mandate this agenda. And when opposed by members of the Senate, he smugly smiled and said, "I won."
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
13.
ACORN May Qualify for Up to Nearly $4 Billion in Obama's Proposed Budget
By Molly Henneberg Updated February 12, 2010
- FOXNews.com President Obama's 2011 budget proposal does not explicitly state that ACORN cannot receive federal tax dollars, raising concerns among critics of the scandal-plagued group. "In President Obama's budget, there's another $3.9 billion dollars in funding that would go out mostly under the community development block grants that ACORN could qualify for, and there's nothing that we could find in Obama's budget that he would recommend that we not continue to fund ACORN," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa. "So the omission is something that gives him some room to operate," he said.
But a Housing and Urban Development spokeswoman told FoxNews.com that the $3.9 billion would be divided among states, municipalities and agencies, and that allocations won't be made until the president's budget is finalized. Back in September, Congress passed a bill prohibiting ACORN and its affiliates from getting federal money after undercover videos appeared to show ACORN employees advising a couple posing as a pimp and prostitute how to set a up a brothel with underage girls. Obama signed the ban into law in October and Democratic strategists say the president isn't going to try to sneak funding into his budget now.
"They don't want to be seen as facilitating funds going to ACORN," Democratic strategist Maria Cardona said. "Until they can fully clear their name, you are certainly not going to see this administration pushing for those kinds of funds going to ACORN." (Sure, yep, uh-huh and every time I kiss a girl seven generations of her predecessors rise 12 feet above their graves and scream for more! your somewhat witty editor.) The ban on ACORN funding is tied up in federal court. A federal judge in New York sided with ACORN in a December ruling which lifted the ban. That ruling is being appealed.
On its Web site, ACORN says it "does not apply for nor does it receive any federal grants. ACORN has had contracts with other nonprofit organizations to perform work on projects which received federal grant support." Those other nonprofit organizations, critics charge, in some cases are ACORN affiliates, possibly hundreds of them although they can be hard to track. "We can't know how far they go," King said. "I can't find a thread of ACORN that I would want to trust with American taxpayer dollars." So are ACORN and its affiliates receiving federal dollars now or not? King said Congress renewed the ban in December. After that judge's decision so he says the law should stand. It's a battle between the branches of government and it's not clear where the money is going. (don’t bet your next meal on it. Y. silly ED)
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Military Lab Rats by Oliver North 02/09/2010
No nation has ever had a better military than today’s, all-volunteer, U.S. Armed Forces. Though I wouldn’t trade anything for the young Americans I served with in Vietnam, or afterwards, those presently wearing America’s uniforms are the brightest, best educated, best trained, and combat-experienced military the world has ever seen. Now, in the midst of an unprecedented ninth year of war and non-stop, high-stress deployments, their Commander-in-Chief intends to put the capabilities of this extraordinary force and our nation’s security at risk to carry out a radical social experiment.
During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama frequently promised he would reverse the U.S. military’s long-standing “policy” prohibiting homosexuals from serving in our military. Last October, at a Human Rights Campaign dinner, he said “I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy…I will end ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell.’ That's my commitment to you."
Last week, tucked into the closing paragraphs of his State of the Union address, the president said, “this year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.” Set aside the disingenuous rhetoric -- it’s not about “who they are,” it’s really about “what they do” -- we now know the “repeal” process is already well underway.
This week, Senator Carl Levin, (D-MI), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- an advocate of ending what he calls, “this discriminatory policy” -- convened a remarkable hearing to determine “next steps” in “meeting the president’s commitment.”
Testimony by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed the Department of Defense isn’t going to evaluate whether repeal of Section 654, Title 10 U.S. Code -- the 1993 statute that bars active homosexuals from the military -- is a good idea. Instead, the Pentagon is already working to undermine the law and allow practicing homosexuals to enter and remain in our military.
According Mr. Gates, “The question before us is not whether the military prepares to make this change, but how we best prepare for it.” He announced a year-long “study” on how to implement a repeal of the law and baldly asserted, “we have a degree of latitude within the existing law to change our internal procedures in a manner that is
more appropriate and fair to our men and women in uniform.” In other words, in the Obama administration, enforcing current law, overwhelmingly enacted seventeen years ago, no longer matters.
Mr. Gates now acknowledges in the midst of war, he is implementing a policy of “selective enforcement” to disregard a law that clearly states: “The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.” So much for our national security. 14.
Though Admiral Mullen expressed his “personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do,” he conceded he does not “know for a fact how we would best make such a major policy change in a time of two wars.” The Joint Chiefs Chairman also made the curious observation, “we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.” How that can be the case in a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” era seems to have eluded the good Senators.
Unasked and unanswered are “where do we go from here” questions the Senators should have posed: If Congress changes the law and allows overt, practicing homosexuals in the ranks, should NAMBLA members be allowed to serve? Will those who advocate abolishing “age of consent” laws be allowed to don a uniform? Will the military have to acknowledge “same sex marriages?” Will military chaplains be required to perform such rituals? Will “same-sex couples” be entitled to military housing? Will these “couples” be allowed to serve in the same unit or aboard the same ship?
Supposedly these issues and many more will be resolved over the next ten months in a “working group” headed by Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and General Carter Ham, Commander, U.S. Army, Europe. Allegedly they will consider ways to ameliorate the effects of this inane decision on readiness, recruitment and retention in the world’s finest military. Then, in 2011, Congress will vote on whether to repeal a law the O-Team is willfully ignoring anyway.
Congress should not wait to decide this issue and become party to potentially irreparable damage to our military. Congress controls the purse strings of the Pentagon. Both houses should go on record now so “We The People” know who favors treating America’s Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Guardsmen, and Marines like lab rats in Mr. Obama’s radical social experiment.
Lt. Col. North (Ret.) is a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of the FOX News/Regnery books, "War Stories: Operation Iraqi Freedom," "War Stories II: Heroism in the Pacific" and "War Stories III: The Heroes Who Defeated Hitler." Lt. North hosts "War Stories Investigates: Drugs, Money and Narco-Terror" Saturday, Aug. 22, at 3 p.m. and 9 p.m. EDT on Fox News Channel.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
I was in Korea from Dec. 54 until Sept. 56. I was with the Korean Military Advisory Group (KMAG) as a radio operator, a switchboard operator and a mail driver. I was posted in 4 different places from near the DMZ to an Island off Pusan. At one post there was at least one homosexual that I knew of but he went home a few days after I got there. At the largest post we were three men to a room in a large, kinda like a motel or hotel., building. I was there for several days when I discovered (because he made advances) that at least one of my roommates was gay. After a day or two I spotted and verified at least 6 others and was suspicious of several others one of whom was also in my room. I found a Korean woman and stayed with her for over a year. I never slept in my bunk again. This arrangement caused a lot of stress because some superiors did not approve. One Sgt. And an officer were two of the ones I had identified. Evidently they disapproved of my putting “fresh meat” out of their reach. NOT ONLY DO I THINK GAYS HAVE NO PLACE IN THE MILITARY, but I am beginning to suspect one nobamma. Your strait Editor
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Obama’s Border Enforcement Deceit by Jim Robb 02/09/2010
In his State of the Union speech two weeks ago, President Obama claimed that he would strengthen border security. Oh really? I might not be as wise as Mr. Obama, but I’m not sure how removing $319 million in border
security funding increases our nation’s security. Indeed, I’m pretty certain that decreasing our border security funding
by nearly one-third of a billion dollars in one year will make the United States less secure.
While Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano enjoys boasting of how her agency is securing our nation’s border with Mexico, the truth of the matter is that it remains porous and inadequately defended. How do we know? We at NumbersUSA have many friends in the Border Patrol. We inspect the U.S.-Mexican border on fact-finding trips. We talk to the agents. The Border Patrol needs more resources, not less.
What good can come from downplaying the security of our southern border while terrorist, drug, and human trafficking continues to plague the border? Only one reason comes to mind: to make it easier to pass a massive amnesty for 12 – 20 million illegal aliens in 2010. I know, I know -- nobody can be so sick and twisted as to put the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans in jeopardy just to legalize 12 million illegal aliens. Unfortunately, it seems such individuals are running rampant in the Obama administration’s immigration policy division.
During the amnesty battle of 2007, the American people made their opinion loud and clear: “No amnesties for illegal aliens while our borders are unsecured!” The so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act failed to gain Congressional support, even though it had the support of President Bush and a large swathe of Congressional Democrats and Republicans. Even attempts to pass smaller, but still damaging, amnesties have been shot down as inadequate solutions of addressing our continuing problems with immigration, simply because they didn’t go far enough to keep illegal aliens from crossing our borders.
So how does the Obama administration address this problem? By falsely claiming that our borders are now secure and that the decrease in crossings by illegal aliens is proof of this.
“[A]pprehensions of illegal aliens at the border have dropped to their lowest levels in decades, signaling reduced traffic flows and fewer attempts to illegally enter the United States.” --Testimony of Secretary Napolitano before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, December 9, 2009 15.
Sadly, a great deal of evidence points in the opposite direction. It’s true that arrests of illegal aliens along our southern border have decreased. America’s lousy job market deters illegal aliens more than DHS’s border enforcement. In 2009, when Secretary Napolitano spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she sounded satisfied and even boastful: “Our efforts are achieving their desired results at the border. . . . In short, the security of our southwest border has been transformed.” Really? The Department of Homeland Security only claims to have “effective control” of 697 of 1,969 miles of our southern border with Mexico. Only 35% of this border is “effectively controlled” and maintained by the government agency charged with protecting the nation. Yet, for some reason, the very person in charge of the Department seems to think this 35% control is good enough and that her job is done and dusted. I think Miss
Napolitano may want to reevaluate the targets she has set for DHS, because in my book, 35% is not a passing grade.
Obviously, this doesn’t come close to being good enough. And it doesn’t even take into account our northern border with Canada, which is nearly 4 times longer than our border with Mexico. All told, only 894 miles of our land and sea borders are “effectively” secured. The United States has 8,607 miles of land and sea borders, meaning that DHS only controls about one out of every ten miles. And, apparently, President Obama and Secretary Napolitano believe DHS needs less money.
For the upcoming fiscal year, Secretary Napolitano asked Congress for $11.6 million less in funding for “border security between ports of entry” and for $225.8 million less in funding for “border fencing, infrastructure, and technology.” And the President himself is not free from blame. The president’s newly proposed 2011 budget would reduce the number of Border Patrol agents along the southern border by 180, and cut funding for the virtual fence -- a system of cameras, radar and sensors placed on towers -- by $226 million.
The President and his administration constantly claim that our immigration system is broken and in need of fixing. If they want to get a head start on correcting the problem, they should forget about granting massive amnesties to illegal aliens and take the necessary measures needed to fix our broken borders instead.
Jim Robb is the Vice President of Operations for Numbers USA. Mr. Robb opposes efforts to use federal immigration policies to force mass U.S. population growth and to depress wages of vulnerable workers.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Nation must be prepared for electromagnetic event
By Clifford D. May Jan. 28, 2010
Had the earthquake that hit Haiti shaken Florida instead the death toll would not have been so tagically high---over 15,000 at last count. In Haiti, as in other impoverished countries, buildings are often shoddily constructed, infrastructure is weak, and governance is incompetent. The primary response to disaster: wait for help from abroad.
It’s a well established rule: Rich nations endure natural disasters better than poor nations. But there may be an exception. Stay with mefor a moment and you’ll see what I mean.
In recent years, americans have bcome dependent not just on electricity but also on computers, microchips, and satellites. The infrastructure that supports all this has become increasingly sophisticated--but not more resilient. On the contrary, as this infrastructure has become more complex, it also has become more fragile and therefore more fragile and therefore more vulnerable--an Achilles’ heel.
That is why, in 2001, the U.S. government established a commission to “assess the threat to the U.S. from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) attack.” such an attack would involve the detonation of a nuclear warhead at high altitude over the American mainland, producing a shockwave powerful enough to knock out electrical power, electronics, communications, transportation and much more. Think os it as a blackout but one of indefinite duration--because we have no plan for recovery and could expect little or no help from abroad.
The EMP commission also reported that Iran, which is feverishly working to acquire nuclear weapons, has conducted tests in which it launched missles and exploded warheads at high altitudes. And the CIA has translated Iranian military journals in which EMP attacks against the U.S. are explicitly discussed.
Might Irans’s rulers orchestrate such an attack if and when they acquire a nuclear capability? That is a heated debate among defense experts. But what is almost never discussed is the the threat of the threat of a naturally occurring EMP event.
I first learned about this possibility a few months ago at a conference organized by Empact America, and organization concerned exclusively with the EMP challenge. Scientists there explained about “severe space weather”. In particular, storms on the surface of the sun that could trigger and EMP event.
The strongest solar storm on record is the Carrington Event of 1859, named after Richard Carrington, an astronomer who witnessed the super solar flare that set off the event as he was projecting an image of the sun on a white screen. In those days , of course, there was nothing much to damage. A high-intensity burst of electromagnetic energy shot through telegraph lines, disrupting communications, shocking technicians and setting their papers on fire. Northern lights were visible as far as south as Cuba and Hawaii. But otherwise life went on as normal.
The same would not be true were a solar storm of similar magnitude to erupt today. Most of us would not adapt well to this sudden return to a pre industrial age. How likely is a repeat of the Carrington event? Scientists say it is not only possible, it is inevitable. What they don’t know is when. The best estimates are that super solar storms occur once every 100 years which means we are about 50 years overdue.
16.
Both the EMP commission and the 2008 study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) call for a response: hardening the electrical grid and other components of the infrastructure to increase the chances they would survive, as well as the pre-positioning spares of essential but complex components of the electrical grid and other
infrastructure critical to communications and emergency public services.
President Obamma has pledged $100 million to help Haiti recover from its recent earthquake. By coincidence, that’s precisely the amount that the NAS recommends be spent on measures it estimates would limit the damage resulting from an EMP event by 60-70%. When you consider that such an event, whether naturally occurring or a “man caused disaster” , could cause trillions of dollars in damage and claim more lives than were lost in WW II, that sounds like a reasonably priced investment.
Link to”One Second After: http://shadowbox-ent.brinkster.net/Forstchen/home.html
Link to NASA Study: http:www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12507http:// www.nap.edu/oppengook.php?record_id=12507&page=29
Clifford d. May, a former NEW YORK TIMES foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism. Email cliff@defenddemocracy.org
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
What is not mentioned in this article is that all low voltage devices would be rendered unoperatable. This simply means that not only would we have complete blackout due to the power lines going down but all cell phones, all land lines and equipment including most telephones, all transportation would cease. We would be afoot. No power means no heat or air conditioning, no refrigeration, even, without repair, auxiliary power systems would not ever work again. Even most modern lawnmowers would not work. No radio, no television even when power is restored. All jobs would cease to exist until power is returned and the necessities repaired. No running water. No working gas pumps. If this lasts more than a month at most--------NO most of us will not fare well. And another thought, just 30 million Jews alone died in WWII. Millions more died besides them. This kind of event would not be limited to a blackout. Where are we supposed to get food and how. No working sewers, no running water, no food in the grocery stores. People will be burning down their houses trying to keep warm. All those dead people and no sanitation. Start finding solutions!
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Hutchison Fails As Health Care Passes Senate URLhttp://www.washingtonkay.com/blog/blame-senator hutchison?gclid=CLC3seq0r58CFRRlswodHifI1Q
Submitted by http://watchingkay.com on Thu, 12/24/2009 - 10:34
Senator said she was staying in the Senate to fight, but she accelerated bill’s passage: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison promised Texans that she would fight Obamacare, but her efforts instead led to the Senate passing the bill today. Last week, Sen. Hutchison voted with all 60 Democrats to end a Republican filibuster designed to delay the health care bill.
" ‘Twas the night before Christmas when all through the house, not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care, in hopes that Obamacare would not soon be there.
However, because Senator Hutchison voted the wrong way, government health care is now on its way,”
said Texans for Rick Perry spokesman Mark Miner.
Since voting to end the Republican filibuster, Sen. Hutchison has used our troops as a prop to deflect criticism of her support for a procedural measure that did not provide one dollar in defense funding and attempted to deceive the American public by falsely saying, “By the time I got to the floor, they had the 60 votes,” despite C-SPAN footage clearly showing otherwise. Her vote also led to protests at her offices in Dallas, Houston and Austin.
(SOURCES: Roll Call Vote #381;
“Statement on Senator Hutchison’s Vote to Support American Troops,” http://hutchison.senate.gov . 12/18/09; 2:32 mark of interview with Fox News available online at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYMqE_IZMdk ; C-SPAN footage available online at http://www.WashingtonKay.com ;
“Tea Party groups protest Hutchison's moves on health care bill,” Dallas Morning News, 12/22/09) Earlier this week, the Dallas Morning News published an article about Sen. Hutchison’s “powerless” role in the health care debate with the headline, “Hutchison shows bark but little bite on bill.” The article said, “Now that she has stayed in Washington expressly to battle the Democratic plan, she might come off as ineffectual if it passes.”
(SOURCE: “Hutchison shows bark but little bite on bill,” Dallas Morning News, 12/21/09) Sen. Hutchison made numerous promises over the past several months regarding the health care bill, including: She said she would “fight with every bone in my body against a government takeover of health care.” 17.
(SOURCE: “Hutchison unsure on timing of Senate resignation,” POLITICO, 10/13/09) She this legislation.”
(SOURCE: “Hutchison vows to fight health reform,” Corpus Christ Caller-Times, 11/10/09) She said, “In the Senate, I will be more than simply a no vote. I will use every tool at my disposal, call in every favor, twist every arm to defeat the Obama health care.”
(SOURCE: “Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison won't leave seat for Texas governor's race until after March primaries,” Dallas Morning News, 11/14/09) She said her ability to “talk and educate people” would “hopefully have an impact on wavering Democrats.”
(SOURCE: “Inside Texas Politics,” WFAA-TV, 11/29/09) Despite her empty rhetoric, as the Dallas Morning News reported this week, “Advocacy isn't the same as achievement.”
(SOURCE: “Hutchison shows bark but little bite on bill,” Dallas Morning News, 12/21/09)
Senator Hutchison misleads Texans on her bad vote. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVcoFq170SA&feature=related You Never Know What Kay WillSay:1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSy1UaDyuag&feature=channel
You Never Know What Kay Will Say: 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8XIswJtfw8 Then just follow the trail
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Raising the bar for Nullification
05. Feb, by Michael Boldin
Around the country, twenty two states are currently considering a bill known as the “Firearms Freedom Act.” This bill declares that guns, accessories, and ammunition made within a state, sold within that state and kept in that state are not subject to federal laws or regulations under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution.
Montana and Tennessee passed a Firearms Freedom Act into law in 2009, and a number of states are moving that direction in the 2010 legislative session. In South Carolina, where a Firearms Freedom Act was also introduced in 2009, some representatives have taken things a step further.
NULLIFYING GUN REGISTRATIONS
Introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly this week is House Bill 4509 (H4509), which if passed, would make law that “no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.” No caveat for regulations under the commerce clause. No caveat for types of firearms either. This bill says NO to all gun registrations – period.
The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition.
In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to the hated Alien and Sedition Acts:
“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government” and “where powers are assumed [by the federal government] which
have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them”
In short, nullification means this: The state is taking a position that a particular federal law is unconstitutional, and thus, the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned. But nullification is much more than just mere rhetoric. To nullify a federal law in practice requires active resistance to it by the people and the state government.
INTERPOSITION
In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of interposition:
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.
H4509 includes strong language to assert this principle: Federal agents have flouted the United States Constitution and foresworn their oath to support this Constitution by requiring registration of the purchasers of firearms and ammunition, and these requirements violate the limits of authority placed upon the federal agents by the United States Constitution and are dangerous to the liberties of the people 18.
(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.
(C) Any person violating the provisions of this subsection (B) is guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both.
A GROWING MOVEMENT
Supporters of such legislation point to laws passed by other states that have effectively nullified federal laws around the country. Fourteen states have now defied federal laws on marijuana. And, two dozen states have refused to comply with the Bush-era Real ID Act, rendering that 2005 law virtually null and void today.
Guns, national ID cards, and weed might be just the early stages of a quickly growing movement to nullify other federal laws seen as outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. In states around the country this year, bills have been proposed to defy or nullify federal laws on health care, use of national guard troops overseas, legal tender laws, cap and trade, and even the process of collecting federal income taxes.
The final goal? It’s a long way off – a federal government that follows the strict limits of the constitution, whether it wants to or not.
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Devout Muslims Appointed to Critical Homeland Security Positions
Can you believe this??
Well, boys and girls, today we are letting the fox guard the henhouse. Tomorrow, the wolves will be herding the sheep!
Obama Appoints two devout Muslims to homeland security posts. Doesn't this make you feel safer already?
Obama and Janet Napolitano Appoint Arif Alikhan, a devout Muslim as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development
Source for announcement: Homeland Security Press Room. http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/06/obama-appointment-arif-ali-khan-asst-secretary-dhs.html
The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is proud to announce that the DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano swore-in Kareem Shora, a devout Muslim, who was born in Damascus, Syria as ADC National Executive Director as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). http://www.adc.org//
NOTE: Has anyone ever heard a new government official being identified as a devout Catholic, Jew or Protestant...? Just wondering. Doesn't this make you feel safer already??
Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? That should make our homeland much safer, huh!! Was it not men of the "Devout Muslim Faith" that flew planes into U.S. buildings not too long ago? What the heck is this president thinking?
The above announcement was made on Aug 20. Why are we just now hearing about it???
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Even though we disagree on a number of issues, I count all of you as Americans. My friend wants to promote a "Congressional Reform Act of 2010."
It would contain eight provisions, all of which would probably be strongly endorsed by those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I know many of you will say, "this is impossible". Let me remind you, Congress has the lowest approval of any entity in Government, now is the time when Americans can join together to reform Congress - The entity that "represents" US, the citizens of the USA . (see pg. 2)
Congressional Reform Act of 2010
1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six year Senate terms B. Six Two year House terms C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
2. No Tenure / No Pension: A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security: All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work. 19.
4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
6. Congress looses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/2011. The American people did not make these contracts with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.
If you agree with the above, pass it on to your email contacts. If not, just delete.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Hall challenger Steve Clark not afraid to spend
07:22 AM CST on Friday, January 8, 2010 By TODD J. GILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News
tgillman@dallasnews.com
WASHINGTON – One of the challengers trying to topple Rockwall Republican Rep. Ralph Hall in the March primary is vowing to match the 86-year-old incumbent dollar for dollar. Steve Clark has been buying full-page ads in newspapers – including The Dallas Morning News –to get out his name and message, and he's running radio ads 10 or 15 times per day on a half-dozen stations. Clark, one of several challengers to GOP incumbents who pitch themselves as "Tea Party" Republicans, filed to run against Hall in 2004 but dropped out when Hall abandoned the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans. This time, Clark, a telecommunications executive, says he's in it for good.
Hall had about $238,000 in his campaign account at last filing a few months ago. Clark says he has put a bit more than that into his own account "to level the field. ... I don't want to be accused of buying the election." The money doesn't show up on filings at the Federal Election Commission yet, but Clark says it will be on next month's report. It would make Clark the best-funded U.S. House challenger in Texas by a huge margin.
Clark and at least two other Hall challengers, along with many little-known and poorly funded contender taking on Republican House members, draw their inspiration from the Tea Party movement that has protested growth in government spending since President Barack Obama took office. Eleven of the state's 20 GOP House incumbents face contested primaries March 2.
Incumbents say they're ready to stand on their records and are confident of victory. And most Tea Party challengers say they want to put Republicans on notice and send a message about big government, not necessarily take down incumbents. But not Clark. "This time. It'll happen this time. I'm not running to lose or to position" for a future election cycle, Clark said.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Rights and privileges---differences
There is a world of differences between rights and privileges. The Constitution of the United states, the Bible, and nature itself shows this difference. We will use the Constitution as a base to show those differences.
The Constitution guarantees us four inalienable rights.
The right to life from conception to natural or accidental death unless one forfeits that right by your own actions that grossly denies the right of others to live.
The right to liberty (or freedom if you may). This means you have the right to live where you wish and are able to afford, the right to travel anywhere in our country without restriction except where your own safety and or the safety of others is involved. The right to speak your mind and express your opinions. The right to choose your religion or to not have a religion without interference from the state or others. The right to choose your means of employment and to keep the results of that employment. This right is tempered by the rights of others. The basic idea here is expressed in the golden rule and the ten commandments which is a law that regulates behavior in order to preserve all other freedoms. This is necessary for a society to function also.
The pursuit of happiness deals with dreams. You have a right to dream, to chase that dream and to attempt to fulfill that dream so long as that dream or its pursuit does not impair any of another’s right to dream or pursue their dream or impair any other persons rights in any way. Again the golden rule. This is also necessary for a great and healthy society. 20.
The fourth right is also a natural and God given right. The right to defend oneself, ones property, ones loved ones and ones neighbor if necessary from all harm including the harm threatened by ones Government.
These are the four inalienable rights guaranteed by our Constitution, our God and nature itself. They shall not be infringed upon. If we are to keep these rights we must defend them. To the death if necessary. If we do not, we will lose them and become slaves.
The colonies in America were ruled mostly by England. The people in those colonies were from many other countries but mostly from Europe. They came here mostly to find a better life and a freer life. So when the colonies banded together to stop England’s rule which was oppressive and denying of the basic rights of the people, they formed a federation of sorts to repel the English tyrants. The colonies won. However they realized that separately they were weak. Separately they could not form effective military protection from their various enemies, most of whom would deny them the four basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The means of protecting those rights is obvious. They can attempt to take those rights and die or kill all who resist. So far, in the united states that has held fast and it will always hold true. Those of us who want our basic absolute rights bad enough are very willing to kill for and die to protect those rights. That my friends is the big reason we are so jealous of our guns. They are, at the present, the only thing that stands between our and your freedoms and slavery.
The first three freedoms are exactly what has made our country great. The freedom of speech, thought, and expression has given us many, many things that other countries do not have. The freedom to live and dream and attain goals and do as we wish so long as we do not infringe on the rights of others has given those in this country who will work abundance. Those who will not work have only themselves to blame. Work is there in abundance for all when our country is being governed OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.
There is no excuse for a mentally and physically able person being out of work in this country. That is so long as the lying, cheating, and thieving professional politicians are not given the power to screw things up by the people who will not keep their employees in line.
Yes, every elected official in the United States and her possessions is the employee of the people who elected them. Our government is of the people, for the people and BY the people is it not? Not only that our employees hirelings are subcontractors and thereby our employees also. How many of our employees do we fear? Does your boss fear you? Why should you fear your employee? After all, this is a free country. The government rules only by the peoples consent here in the United States.
Does the Russian government rule by the peoples consent? Really? Then why do the people in Russia fear their government? Why are they prevented arms to protect their rights by their Government.
Does the Chinese government rule with the peoples consent? Really? Then why are they not allowed the arms necessary to protect their rights, by their Government.
Likewise, is the government of England, France, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan of the people, for the people and by the people? Really? Then why does their governments prevent the people the means to protect themselves from said governments?
Are the people or these countries truly free? Really? Then why are they not allowed to protect themselves and their rights.
Is not our present government attempting to destroy our government and make us a European type state? Really? Then why is it they are hell bent on destroying our constitution? Why is it they are nationalizing our banks and industries. Why do they wish to remove the means we have to protect ourselves from their tyrannies. Why do they not do the will of the people----The boss! Why do they lie to us?
All available evidence points to the fact that Obama is not a citizen of the country he is busy destroying.
All available evidence points to the fact that Obama is a communist.
All available evidence points to the fact that all of Obamas friends, immediate family, cronies, associates, backers, and appointees are either criminals, communists or both.
Since he could not accomplish what he has accomplished since election without the aid and approval of most of congress it follows that the majority of congress is communist, criminals and or both. This means simply that all of his cronies, friends, associates, appointees, and congress are guilty of high treason against the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. They are all guilty of conspiracy to commit high treason also. I believe that this still carries the death penalty. Let us get with the program and take our country back before we lose it forever.
All those other countries I have mentioned here have never had the freedoms and opportunities we have had under our system. They do not miss anything. We damn sure will!
This little item is by your sweet, loveable, handsome, and a lover of my country editor. At least one of the attributes is true.
Oh yes, I forgot the privilege part. The Constitution does not grant us any rights. It enforces said rights. If said rights were granted then they would become privileges and would not any longer be rights. Therefore they could be taken away at will. Certain breaches of the rights of the people such as criminal acts cause the person guilty of breaching those rights are deemed cause to withdraw certain rights from said criminal. Said criminal should be allowed to earn that privilege back. However it still is not the criminals right any longer.
When a right is acknowledged as such it is a right. When a right is granted it is no longer a right but a
21.
privilege. Privilege is earned in this country. Rights are not earned or granted but basic and are inalienable unless forfeited by criminal action.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
The following is written and emailed to a writer that wrote a story on the Fort Hood shootings. She was right but she was wrong in my opinion. Therefore this was an attempt to communicate with her and to invite dialog. It is my real motivation for sacrificing my time and money to this effort called The Sheep Dog Rag. LOVE for truth, honesty in government and the safety for my sheep and fellow sheepdogs. I love my country above all. Thank you.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Date: Friday, December 18, 2009, 3:28 PM
Maam, I am a sheepdog. I do not know where you stand in the continuum. However, you seem to be of average or better intelligence but your open-mindedness remains for me to see. You, however have the intelligence to understand what I am and where I am coming from.
I am a Christian. I do not know whether you are a Christian or not. In other words I do not know you. I will express some things that I have good reason to believe. I will honor your right to believe differently. I will die for your right to believe differently. I ask you, as a fellow free American to grant me the same rights and respect that I willingly give you.
Please, for more complete understanding of where I am and where I am coming from, google 'On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheep Dogs by Dave Grossman'.
I will now make some statements of facts that I have every reason to believe are true and I invite you to prove them otherwise if you can.
Fact 1: If the people are deprived of guns, then only the criminals will have guns. This is a proven and well documented fact that is unimpeachable. (Google 'Gun Facts 5.1'.) Fact 2: If the people are forced to register their guns the criminals will not. (Gun Facts 5.1) Fact 3: If our sheepdogs in the military had been allowed to carry their arms many less would have been injured or killed and probably only the criminal would have died. Being a sheepdog myself and very old, I can understand that this would have been so. The Criminal is a Wolf after all. Fact 4: A dead wolf or a caged wolf cannot feed on the sheep. Is this not so?? A dead one doesn't have to be housed, clothed, fed, entertained, treated for health problems, prosecuted and guarded either. A much less burden on the taxpayer is it not.
If you are a Christian see the bible and study it honestly, not to prove what you wish to believe but to learn what it really says.
Fact 5: The men and women stationed at Ft. Hood are there voluntarily. They are volunteering to be put into harms way to protect our freedoms and the freedom of others. They are sheepdogs in every sense of the word. Allow them to protect themselves from the enemies within our country also. Otherwise allow them to go home to their
families and do not put them into harms way. Do not allow the sheep to be herded food for the wolves without res-traint. This is exactly what the PC wolves are trying to do.
Think about it. This is what our criminal president and our criminal congress and the presidents criminal appointees are attempting to do right now. (See the Constitution of the United States of America in the context of the language of the time it was written, the condition of the times it was written in, and the writings and speeches of those who authored this greatest of documents and without the interpretation by the trained liars, we call lawyers, with an agenda.)
It is the same with the Holy Bible if you are a Christian. Most Christian Churches of today are also eat up with the PC attitude and led by those who study the Bible and interpret it to prove a preconceived notion. This is proven truth because of the differing versions out there of Christianity. I do not say that there are not Christians in those churches or that they are not basically Christian, but that some of their teachings are not truth and thereby aid and abet the anti-Christ who seeks to divide the true church and thereby destroy it. Do not ask me which I think is the true Church. I do not know! I have not the time nor the inclination to study the matter. I also do not have the language skills to access to do so. All I can truthfully say is that no Christian church is 100% correct in its teachings. Why? Because the ones closest to 100% do not claim to be 100%. Those who do Claim to be 100%, when their doctrines and practices are examined in light of the proven truths of the Bible, so far as man is able to discern, fall far short of the truth. I also believe that their basic faith will set them free. I am not talking about their leaders, I am talking about the people themselves who truly believe and have faith in the basic teachings of Christ and follow those tenets to the best of their ability which is all that is required by God in his word. John 3:16 plus the following verses and in context with all references in the Bible are the basics. The rest is history and the law of God and instruction on how to treat others and etc;
But I really had no intention to preach. just to point out truths. Our country is about to be destroyed. Not by outside forces but from within. The destruction has been ongoing for a very long time. The peoples knowledge of the basic tenens that formed this great country has been eroded by our news services and our public (Federal in reality) schools that have brainwashed, using advertising techniques, us for a very long time. This is aided and abetted by the politically correct, the socialists, the gun control crowd, special interests and most of all our people who have gotten lazy, stuck their heads in the sand or up their rears, defanged our sheepdogs, and generally showing their empty
heads by running around like a bunch of chickens cackling BS without thought, rhyme or reason. I die soon in sorrow for my loved ones who must live under criminal rule. 22.
Our people have forgotten that there is at least 4 basic rights given us by both God and nature. Life (to live from conception until death by accident or nature), liberty (to believe what we want to believe, to live where we want to live, to go where we want to go, and do what we want to do with only the constraint of not doing this in detriment of the liberty of others.), the pursuit of happiness (to dream dreams, follow those dreams and live those dreams so long as those dreams do not harm others in any way.). And finally the right to protect those rights, our persons, our property, our loved ones, others in need of protection, others in need of help in protecting all of the above even from our own Government. This is true and taken from our own Constitution kept in context.
Now I will step down from my soap box. I have spoken what I believe is truth. If you do not agree with my written word please try to prove me wrong. If you give real pertinent fact that proves me wrong I will accept it with an apology. If you do not wish to do that, that is your right given by God and nature and I will honor that right and die to protect that right. However be warned, If you attempt to shove your belief down my throat, I will kill you. Given with love from a very old and crotchety sheepdog with fangs still.
An answer, with the same honesty I have tried to give here, will be much appreciate and treasured Maam.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
I have yet to get an answer to this writing. So All I can understand is that the person this was written to does not wish for truth from either of us so therefore she is ignoring me. She chooses to not attempt to rebut my argument nor agree with me. She must therefore die in ignorance. Her choice. Feb. 28, 2010.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
History Lesson
History began some 12,000 years ago. Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in winter.
The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups: liberals and conservatives..
Once beer was discovered it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor the aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around waithing for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That’s how villages were formed.
Some men spent their days tracking and killing game to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as “the conservative movement”.
Other men were weaker and less skilled at hunting and learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the BBQ’s and doing the sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as ‘girly men’.
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs and the concept of democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided..
Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer with lime added, but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu and French food are standard liberal fare. Another interesting revolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men.
Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn’t fair to make the pitcher also bat.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers. Firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, soldiers, athletes and generally anyone who works productively outside government. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to “govern” the producers and decide what to do with their production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to Amaerica. They crept in after the wild west was tame and created a business of trying to ger more for nothing.
Liberals are behind all this politically correct (PC) stuff. They spend their days inventing new words and never realize that a rose by any other name is still a rose and that shit by any other name is still shit. A liar by any other name is still a liar. A thief by any other name is still a thief. A career politician is a liar and a thief. A horse trader by any other name is and always will be a horse trader. It is wrong to profile someone who may be going to kill you. It is wrong to kill someone who has killed for no reason other than some form of personal gain and is likely to kill again. House him, clothe him, feed him, entertain him, doctor him at the taxpayers expense until he dies a natural death with someone holding his poor mistreated hand. They are behind the welfare state where people who will not work for a living are given the taxpayers money without the taxpayers permission or approval. If the liberal did not do this those
23.
people would steal from us to get what they need. Therefore the liberal makes it unnecessary for the lazy to risk jail to live. This makes the liberal what???
The liberal wants to manage every ones life in every way. Either that or to benefit from the real liberals so called largess. That is why the people who want something they have not earned vote for liberals. And you know what? That is exactly what is destroying my country. If the shoe fits, wear it. If you do not like the shoe get a job and earn a better one or just wear what you have and thank God that you have it. Do not blame the haves. Most of them have worked hard for what they have. Thank you.
By the way, with only one more remark I will say this. Rome catered to the rabble just as we are catering to the rabble. Rome fell and has never been really free since. This is the end of the history lesson for today.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Taliban's Top Military Commander Captured Tuesday, February 16, 2010
ISLAMABAD — The Taliban's top military commander has been arrested in a joint CIA-Pakistani operation in Pakistan in a major victory against the insurgents as U.S. troops push into their heartland in southern Afghanistan, officials said Tuesday. Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the group's No. 2 leader behind Afghan Taliban founder Mullah Mohammad Omar and a close associate of Usama bin Laden, was captured in the southern Pakistani port city of Karachi, two Pakistani intelligence officers and a senior U.S. official said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release such sensitive information.
One Pakistani officer said Baradar was arrested 10 days ago with the assistance of the United States and "was talking" to his interrogators. Baradar is the most senior Afghan Taliban leader arrested since the beginning of the Afghan war in 2001 following the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the United States. His capture represents a significant success for the administration of President Barack Obama, which has vowed to kill or seize Taliban and al-Qaida leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It follows the ramping up of CIA missile strikes against militant targets along the border between the two countries that have reportedly killed many midlevel commanders.
It was unclear how Baradar was tracked down. Pakistan's spy agency has been accused in the past of protecting top Taliban leaders believed sheltering in the country, frustrating Washington. Moving against Baradar could signal that Islamabad increasingly views the Afghan Taliban, or at least some of its members, as fair game.
There was also speculation that the arrest could be related in some way to a new push by the United States and its NATO allies to negotiate with moderate Afghan Taliban leaders as a way to end the eight-year war in Afghanistan. Pakistan has an important role in that process because of its close links with members of the movement, which it supported before the Sept. 11 attacks. "If Pakistani officials had wanted to arrest him, they could have done it at any time," said Sher Mohammad Akhud Zada, the former governor of Afghanistan's Helmand province and a member of the Afghan parliament. "Why did they arrest him now?" Baradar heads the Taliban's military council and was elevated in the body after the 2006 death of military chief Mullah Akhtar Mohammed Usmani. He is known to coordinate the movement's military operations throughout the south and southwest of Afghanistan. His area of direct responsibility stretches over Kandahar, Helmand, Nimroz, Zabul and Uruzgan provinces. According to Interpol, Baradar was the deputy defense minister in the Taliban regime that ruled Afghanistan until it was ousted in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion.
Karachi is Pakistan's largest city and has been increasingly cited as a possible hiding place for top Afghan Taliban commanders in recent months. It has a large population of Pashtuns, the ethnic group that makes up the Taliban, but it is on the Arabian Sea and far from the Afghan border.
A Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan told The Associated Press that Baradar was still free, though he did not provide any evidence. "We totally deny this rumor. He has not been arrested," Zabiullah Mujahid told the AP by telephone. He said the report was Western propaganda aimed at undercutting the Taliban fighting against an offensive in the southern Afghan town of Marjah, a Taliban haven. "The Taliban are having success with our jihad. It is to try to demoralize the Taliban who are on jihad in Marjah and all of Afghanistan," he said.
Word of Baradar's capture came as U.S. Marine and Afghan units pressed deeper into Marjah, facing sporadic rocket and mortar fire as they moved through suspected insurgent neighborhoods in the NATO offensive to reclaim the town. U.S.-based global intelligence firm Stratfor said the reported arrest was a "major development," but cautioned it may not have a significant impact on the battlefield in Afghanistan. "It is unlikely that a single individual would be the umbilical cord between the leadership council and the military commanders in the field, particularly a guerrilla force such as the Taliban," it said in an analysis soon after news broke of the arrest.
Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Tuesday during a visit to Islamabad that the arrest was evidence of greater cooperation between the United States and Pakistan. "I think that is really a signal that wherever people go, wherever they are, the government of Pakistan is determined to continue to ferret out those people who engage in violent extremist acts against the people of Pakistan," Kerry told CBS' "The Early Show" from Islamabad. (more hype from the jeering section. Editor)
In a written interview with Newsweek last year, Baradar said the group did not see the point in reconciliation talks with the Afghan government or Washington. "Our basic problem with the Americans is that they have attacked our country," Baradar said. "They are offering talks, hoping that the mujahedeen surrender before them. We see no benefit for the country and Islam in such kind of talks."
24.
But Taliban expert Michael Semple said Baradar was known to be a "pragmatist" who could be prepared to enter into some kind of talks with the United States. "If he could get guarantees, he would be willing to negotiate," said Semple, who was expelled from Afghanistan in 2007 by President Hamid Karzai for negotiating with midlevel Taliban commanders when he worked for the European Union. After denying for years that Afghan Taliban were based in the country, the Pakistani government and security agencies had little reason to publicize the arrest of Baradar, which was first reported by The New York Times. Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik said only that authorities had arrested a "number of people who are running away from Afghanistan and coming to Pakistan" but would not confirm the arrest. The Times said it learned of the operation against Baradar last Thursday but delayed reporting it at the request of White House officials who argued that publicizing it would end a valuable intelligence-gathering effort by making Baradar's associates aware of his capture. The newspaper said it decided to publish the news after White House officials acknowledged Baradar's capture was becoming widely known in the region.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Decentralization: For Humanity’s Sake
16. Feb, 2010 by Brion McClanahan
The Roman historian Titus Livius once called Rome “the greatest nation in the world.” He wrote those words in a time of moral and political decline, and Livy was hoping by outlining the greatness of the once proud republic, the Roman people would arrest the decline and embrace the principles that had made Rome great. Livy argued that without understanding their history, the Roman people would neither be able to “endure our vices nor face the remedies needed to cure them.”
But Livy failed to recognize the catastrophic effect empire and expansion had on the Roman spirit. By expanding north and attempting to assimilate the Germanic peoples and the Celts into Roman culture, Rome sealed its own demise. The Germans and Celts never fully embraced Rome, and those who did retained some element of their own political and cultural identity. Romans were outnumbered by Germanic peoples in their own army, and the disintegration of the Empire seemed inevitable as the fringes of the Empire came under constant assault from groups unwilling to assimilate. There was never a Roman “nation” outside of Rome. The men, money, and material needed to build and then hold the Empire were wasted, while the vices and decadence of the ruling class in Rome wrecked the republic. The human cost of the Roman Empire was incalculable.
On a human scale, decentralization made more sense for those under the yoke of Roman domination. Constant wars against foreign peoples, heavy taxes, and alien government was for many an unfair trade for Roman laws, “stability, and “protection.” Certainly, many people in Europe prospered under Roman control and the “Pax Romana,” but the internal tensions and cultural sacrifices were too large of a burden for the Empire to contain. It was only a matter of time before people realized that they were better off under local control.
Studying the rise and decline of empires has long been instructive for Americans, and for decades, historians, philosophers, economists, diplomats, statesmen, and others have warned against the American Empire. Yet, rarely did those who railed against expansion focus on the human cost of the empire and the political and social marginalization that naturally follows an impersonal government. Like Rome, a demographic map from the 2000 United States Census emphasizes that an American “nation” does not exist, and it is only through the power and propaganda of the “United State” that decentralization has failed to materialize. Obviously, sections still exist and the human cost of the American empire within the 50 States appears to be significant on several levels.
First, the United States should be at minimum broken into the several cultural sections clearly defined by the map. The Northeast, or Deep North, has a cultural identity vastly different than the South. The West, most importantly the Southwest, has a cultural mix inconsistent with the rest of the United States. Richard Henry Lee, among others, recognized this in 1787 when he wrote in the Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican that, “free elective government cannot be extended over large territories [and] one government and general legislation alone, never can extend equal benefits to all parts of the United States: Different laws, customs, and opinions exist in the different states, which by a uniform system of laws would be unreasonably invaded. The United States contain about a million of square miles, and in half a century will, probably, contain ten millions of people; and from the center to the extremes is about 800 miles.” The United States now covers almost 4 million square miles and around three-hundred million people. If Lee was correct in 1787, and he was, then he would surely be correct today. Cultural integrity is better maintained by smaller political entities.
Second, one of the longstanding critiques of large governments is the impersonal and ultimately tyrannical nature of powerful centralized authority. The French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu in his The Spirit of Laws opined that a large republic was unmanageable unless consolidated in a federal or confederated system. British philosopher David Hume, in Idea of a Perfect Commonwealth, argued that decentralization was the only way to ensure the greatest level of liberty. Of course, the founding generation was well aware of the arguments for decentralization set forth by the classical Greeks and those of both Enlightenment philosophers.
Lee, in the same Letters From the Federal Farmer, followed a similar line of thinking. h suggested that the people of the States should have a means of defense against the central government. He said, “I believe the position is undeniable, that the federal government will be principally in the hands of the natural aristocracy, and the state
25.
governments principally in the hands of the democracy, the representatives in the body of the people. These representatives in Great-Britain hold the purse, and have a negative upon all laws. We must yield to circumstances, and depart something from this plan, and strike out a new medium, so as to give efficacy to the whole system, supply the wants of union, and leave the several states, or the people assembled in the state legislatures, the means of defense.” In other words, Lee was arguing for the States to have a limited negative power over the central government—a “defense”—to protect the cultural, economic, and social interests of their separate communities, an action called nullification or state interposition today. It was the most democratic and humane thing to do.
Third, most opponents of decentralization, secession, or nullification argue that minorities would be unjustly impacted should States begin to reassert their sovereignty through nullification or secession. This is dead wrong. As John C. Calhoun emphasized, nullification was used to protect minority interests from the tyranny of the majority. Secession followed the same pattern. Regardless, American minorities today believe that they have the greatest power in the central government, and that State and local communities, particularly in the South, would infringe on minority rights. But this position belies reality.
Data from two Southern States, Mississippi and Alabama, clearly indicates that black Americans are better represented at the State level than in the central government. There is currently one black member of the United States Senate, an appointee, and blacks only comprise approximately nine percent of the United States House of Representatives. In total, blacks account for around thirteen percent of the American population, so they are vastly underrepresented in Washington D.C. Conversely, blacks hold thirty-one percent of the seats in the lower house of the Mississippi legislature and twenty-three percent of the seats in the upper house.
In Alabama, blacks comprise twenty-three percent of both the lower and upper house. Blacks account for thirty-seven percent of the total population in Mississippi and twenty-six percent of the total population in Alabama, making representation in both States more equitable than in Washington D.C. If counties could have a negative veto over State law, minorities would have an even greater political and social impact in their own community. This would comport to Hume’s ideal republic and to the nature of minority Cantons in the Swiss federation.
As Kirkpatrick Sale recently pointed out, decentralization has once again entered the public discourse. Unfortunately, it is often portrayed as simply reactionary when in fact it is the American tradition. Selling it in an era of economic and social collapse has become easier, but the rhetorical road locks of racism and treason still exist. Of course, decentralization still has to be sold, but it can be done by emphasizing that the prospect of more local control offers greater political and economic liberty and stronger protection for cultural, religious, or racial minorities. It is the future of America, the future of a free world, and it will bring humanity back to government.
Brion McClanahan holds a Ph.D in American history from the University of South Carolina and is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (Regnery, 2009)
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --.
His is a very interesting idea and its time may be long past. If we survive the threat we are under by Islam it may very well be the answer to all our ills. The description of the times and the situation fits. I have read some of Roman history and that our country has been called the new Rome but I never understood it in the context of this writing. This author is hailed as a great historian although I have not investigated as to who or why. However he cannot be all wrong. I will get his book somehow and see what he has to say there. At this point I have no reason to doubt what he says. I am also inclined to agree that this man makes sense. Your bemused old editor.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
A Letter to the President-Elect By Chuck Norris 11/11/2008
Dear President-elect Obama:
First, congratulations on your victory. The historical magnitude of your presidential win is nothing short of stupendous and a colossal fulfillment of the American dream (an achievement embedded long ago in the equality clauses of the Declaration of Independence).
It's likely no big surprise that I don't see eye to eye with you politically. Actually, I stand in stark opposition to most of your politics. Still, I realize that we must learn to work together if we are to see our country get back on track. After Election Day, I asked myself, "How can I work for our new president to help better America ?" Then a thought occurred to me. The first question that should be answered is: How will you work for me? After all, "We the People" of the United States employ you, correct? So here are a few ways
You might begin to gain the respect of those who oppose you and to show that your campaign pledges to bridge the divides were not empty promises to get you into office. And these requests I make are based upon the inaugural oath you will make Jan. 20, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." No doubt these won't be my only requests through the years, but they serve as a good beginning:
Use and cite the Constitution. If that constitutional oath ("preserve, protect and defend") is the central duty of your job description, then I assume we will be hearing often from you about exactly how you are doing just that. There is no replacement for strict adherence, application and defense of the Constitution. And it's high time that presidents quit reciting the presidential oath tritely and then abandoning its tenets when they enter the Oval Office. You should be quoting from the Constitution publicly as often as a preacher quotes the Bible to his congregation -- at least 26.
weekly. If you take this oath and challenge seriously, you will limit the powers of federal government, reduce taxes (for everyone), encourage the freedom of religion and expression (even in the public square), and stand up for such things as our right to bear arms. The American public and the government have lost their grip on the content and role of the Constitution, but if you daily choose, you can help to re-educate and model its usage for them.
Protect American life. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." Those are powerful and enlightening words. Of course, such a role was created and secured in the very fabric of our nation -- in the Declaration of Independence. The commitment to protect life should serve as the basis for all you do, even as a foundation for your national defense strategy. I'm sure the first of your secret briefings this past week on our global security threats have opened your eyes to the extensive onslaught of our enemies. Don't allow your pride, partisanship, personal bias or political abilities to jeopardize the safety of Americans lives. As commander in chief, you are called to preserve American life. Quite frankly, that is why I'msurprised that a man such as you, who professes to fight for minorities, would not recognize the clear value of a human life in a womb. Federal law should not decree the sacrifice of one human life for the preference of another. Both lives should be protected. Otherwise, what do Jefferson 's 1809 words mean? As president, you are called to protect (not destroy) human life; it is the "first and only legitimate object of good government."
Lead more from the center. It's been pointed out by countless pundits, and your track record is clear: You have one of the most liberal records in the Senate. You've had the liberty of voting and fighting for an agenda "from the left" as you've tried to persuade state and federal lawmakers to do the same. But if you continue to lead our country down a more liberal road, you will follow the peril of Bill Clinton, who stepped into office and initially tried to lift the ban on gays in the military and extend abortion rights, only to prompt the creation of a more balanced and strong Republican Congress in the 1990s. Don't underestimate the resurrecting power of the conservative voice. You observed in last week's election how three states across this union voted to protect marriage in their constitutions (the 28th, 29th and 30th states to do so -- California , Arizona and Florida).
We will be watching who you choose to be in your Cabinet. We will discern how you lead Pelosi and Reid. We will be observing those you select as candidates for Supreme Court justices. The election is over. No more promises. No more words. You might work well in a team, but this time, you don't have congressional members to hide behind. You're on your own -- leading the pack -- and the whole country is watching.
I, especially, am watching. So make sure you lead more from the center.
One of your 300 million bosses, Chuck Norris
PS: So far you have not done as requested. You lie to your bosses. You push socialist programs on us that we do not want. You push murder on us that the majority do not want. You try to push a lifestyle on us that our God calls an obamanation. You call yourself a Christian and you lie! You have no idea what a Christian is all about. You call yourself an American yet you do not know what an American is so you lie. You call a distaste for the corrupted and the filthy a hate crime. You want to teach our 5 year olds how to masturbate. You want to tell our 10 year olds that sex with anyone, at any time, for any reason, is just fine. You tell the world what a terrible people the American people are when you have no honesty nor integrity. In so many words you are a huge disappointment to your bosses. Get out of Dodge. We do not want you. Each one of us is one of your some 300 million bosses. You have had your chance to do our will but you do not listen and frankly we do not think you give a damn. This PS is added to an original letter that we agree with absolutely. Thank you for leaving and please turn out the light.
Copy and paste this to works word. Correct whatever, substitute your name for Chucks, print it, and mail it. Pass it on to everyone you know and ask them to do the same. You could hand write it or e-mail it also. The address is as follows.
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500 Mine is already on the way.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Health Care Crisis...good one
(this one could very well be true, true to life anyway)
Dear Mr. President:
During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.
While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.
And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health
27.
care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture", a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me".
Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear. Respectfully,
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Obama's Budget and the $1 Trillion Mistake
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11182 by Chris Edwards
Chris Edwards is director of tax policy at the Cato Institute and author of Downsizing the Federal Government. February 1, 2010 This article appeared in the National Review (Online) on February 1, 2010.
President Obama has introduced his budget for next year. He proposes that the government spend $3.83 trillion in fiscal 2011. To put that number into context, let's take a trip down memory lane.







A point lost on most
Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison? To make it simple, he talked people into investing with him. Trouble was, he didn't invest their money. As time rolled on he simply took the money from the new investors to pay off the old investors. Finally there were too many old investors and not enough money from new investors coming in to keep the payments going. Next thing you know Madoff is one of the most hated men in America and he is off to jail.
Some of you know this .. but not enough of you . Madoff did to his investors what the government has been doing to us for over 60 years with Social Security. There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks, privileges and status in spite of their actions.
Do you need a side-by-side comparison here? Well here's a nifty little chart.
BERNIE MADOFF: Takes money from investors with the promise that the money will be invested and made available to them later
SOCIAL SECURITY: Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a "Trust Fund" and made available later.
BERNIE MADOFF: Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice 28.
homes in the Hamptons and yachts.
SOCIAL SECURITY: Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians use it for general spend-ing and vote buying
BERNIE MADOFF: When the time comes to pay the investors back Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors.
SOCIAL SECURITY: When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the geezers.
BERNIE MADOFF: When Madoff's scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose. New investors won't give him any more cash.
SOCIAL SECURITY: When the government runs out of money it just forces the taxpayer to pay more.
Bernie Madoff is in jail. Politicians remain in Washington.
Now that was just spectacular. I'm guessing nobody has managed to present this situation to you with such crystal clarity before. Must be the SAME!!.
OK ... I've understood this scheme for some time now, so just what was it that almost slipped by me? For some time now we've been told that it would be 2016 or 2017 before Social Security started paying out more money than it was taking in. Well ... we're here. In 2009 the economy forced many more people than expected into retirement. These people filed for their Social Security benefits. Last year Social Security durned near ran out of money. The benefits paid almost exceeded the taxes collected. There is, of course, no "trust fund" to go to. That money has been spent. For Madoff that was a crime. For our politicians, it wasn't. Now the chief actuary of the Social Security system says that we're going to "go negative" for the next year or two.
Now the politicians will naturally be looking for a solution. They cause the problem because they just couldn't stand seeing all of that money sitting in the trust fund. They just had to get their hands on it ... and leave behind some IOUs. Now the IOUs are due, and there's no money to pay them off. The solution? Well, they'll probably have to raise the retirement age. Then they may well introduce means testing. They'll tell retiring seniors who have done well with their own retirement plans that they may well lose their Social Security benefits. Can they do that? Oh hell yes they can. There is no federal law which guarantees Social Security benefits to anyone who has been forced to pay the taxes.
Then, of course, they'll try to raise the Social Security taxes. The earnings cap for this year is $106,800. My best guess is that the Democrats will propose a change in the law that allows the current earnings cap to stay, or to possibly adjust it to $100,000. Then they will give all income between $100,000 and $250,000 a year a pass .. then all incomes above $250,000 a year will be taxed with no further caps. Wunnerful wunnerful.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
Jack wakes up with a huge hangover after attending his company's party. He is not normally a drinker, but the drinks didn't taste like alcohol at all. He didn't even remember how he got home from the party. As bad as he was feel-ing, he wondered if he did something wrong. He forced himself to open his eyes, and the first thing he sees is a couple of aspirins next to a glass of water on the side table. And, next to them, a single red rose!!
He sits up and sees his clothing in front of him, all cleaned and pressed. He looks around the room and sees that it is in perfect order, spotlessly clean. So is the rest of the house.
He takes the aspirins, cringes when he sees a huge black eye staring back at him in the bathroom mirror. Then he notices a note hanging on the corner of the mirror written in red with little hearts on it and a kiss mark from his wife in lipstick: 'Honey, breakfast is on the stove, I left early to get groceries to make you your favorite dinner tonight. I love you, darling! Love, Jillian'
He stumbles to the kitchen and sure enough, there is hot breakfast, steaming hot coffee and the morning news-paper. His 16 year old son is also at the table, eating. Jack asks, 'Son.what happened last night?'
'Well, you came home after 3 A.M drunk and out of your mind you fell over the coffee table and broke it, and then you puked in the hallway, and got that black eye when you ran into the door.'
Confused, he asked his son, 'So, why is everything in such perfect order and so clean? I have a rose, and breakfast is on the table waiting for me??'
His son replies, 'Oh THAT... Mom dragged you to the bedroom, and when she tried to take your pants off, you screamed, 'Leave me alone bitch, I'm married!!'
Broken Coffee Table $239.99----Hot Breakfast $4.20---Two Aspirins $.38---Saying the Right thing, at the Right time: PRICELESS
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
And so it goes. Life is great if one does not weaken. I am sure my hopes are your hopes. Life in a country where we are free. We can do as we like, believe what we wish, say what we wish, dream as we wish, with only one small cost. Do not do it at the expense of anyone else’s freedoms. God and our forefathers gave us this great and wonderful country to have and hold and cherish all our days. However, there are those who call themselves Americans who would take all of this away from us. They would make slaves of us. We must not allow them to do this. We must retain our guns and our spirit and courage and be willing to fight for what we have or our children will die horrible deaths and curse us for not preventing their suffering. That is why I do this. 29.
I am an old man and getting more feeble every day. My life will not be a big loss. I awake too late to do much to stop what is happening. Please, you who are young and vigorous still, wake up and smell the Hashhish. We have a people who are going to rule the whole world if we do not stop them. Why do I speak thus? It is because these people we call Muslems are not able, will never be able and cannot be able to assimilate into any other society. We believe that every man has the right to his own belief and to express that belief. Many of us have fought to insure that this is to continue. Many have died protecting men’s right to this freedom. I would do so and most of you will do so. However these people do not believe YOU have that right given by God. They will not and cannot die to protect that right for you. But they will gladly blow themselves to bitts killing you because of what you believe and for no other reason. That simply means that they are not your friend in any way. Even if and when they kill most of us and enslave the rest and allow no other belief but theirs the killing will not stop. They will, as has been amply proven, continue to kill each other because they are not of the exact same mind on every subject and will not change their own nor allow anyone to have any difference. It is a mind boggling thing to try to comprehend, I know. But it is so. Find and read Leon Uris’s book Haj. He is an ex -Muslem. What he writes is not fiction. It is true to life. There is a book called, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam. It is a real eye opener. Read anything written by those who have left Islam. They tell it like it is. They are all in hiding. They have to be because what they do is have their own opinion and for a Muslem that calls for a protracted and horrible death. They have no art. They have no imagination. They produce little of their own making. They can only use skills acquired from others out of the faith, Their beliefs are given to them by a highway robber baron who was also a pedophile who raped little children and their mothers. He killed for the joy of murder. None of them have any real morals or integrity. I do not wish to kill them for their beliefs. However since they will kill me for mine and kill those I love for their beliefs and kill you for your beliefs, and will do it deliberately will malice aforethought, I am ready to kill them in self defense and to keep them from killing and raping you and your children. Sorry if it bothers you PC idiots. If you wish just say so and I will let you have your fun with them or whatever and not lift a finger to protect you. I would watch them have their way with you and NAH! I could not enjoy it. But I will not lift a finger to protect you. Maybe before you die you will realize what you do and repent. I would love to see you in heaven. Thank you! Your crazy, wild eyed, and bloodthirsty editor. I love you says this sheepdog.
-- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- --
The U.S.S Independence was built by General Dynamics. It's called a "littoral combat ship" (LCS), and the tri-maran can move its weapons around faster than any other ship in the Navy. Littoral means close to shore, and that's where these very ships will operate. They're tailor-made for launching helicopters and armored vehicles, sweeping mines and firing all manner of torpedoes, missiles and machine guns. This tri-maran is the first of a new fire breathing breed, ready to scoot out of dry dock at a rumored 60 knots.. It's like a speedy and heavily armed aircraft carrier for helicopters. Note the lack of bow wave and wake. Also see how sharp it can turn. It is driven by water jets like a jet ski and it is huge! In this picture it is moving out fast. Unbelievable!
30.