JJ's Daily Snapshot

President John S. McCain

2008-10-18T11:18:00.002-04:00

It is my prediction that Senator John S. McCain will win the Presidency, despite the MSM attacks on him, endorsements of Barack Hussein Obama by liberal newspapers, and the smearing of his supporters.

When Americans walk into voting booths around the country, many people (including Democrats) will pull the McCain lever. Why? Because they will understand the magnitude of what they are doing....which is possibly voting for a Communist over a bona fide American war hero. That simply isn't an option, much less in the middle of a conflict with Islamo-Fascism around the world.

I believe that the MSM is attempting to suppress Conservative turnout for McCain by projecting a sense of "inevitability" about Obama. Remember how well that "inevitability" worked for Hillary Clinton? In the end, the voters will make the right choice and vote for McCain / Palin.

World In Chaos

2007-12-30T22:21:00.000-05:00

It appears to me that the world is on the verge of a major upheaval like one we've never seen. Al Qaida, though presently damaged, is not broken. I believe our political leaders do not have the willpower that Al Qaida has. If there are two or three die hard Al Qaida terrorists alive, they will always be able to re-man, re-group, re-train, and strike us again.

Americans have such a short attention span. Islamists, in contrast, have a generations-long collective attention span. With or without Osama bin Laden, Al Qaida and their cohorts will remain a potent political and terrorist force.

The events in Pakistan are extremely destabilizing. Pakistan is in possession of nuclear weapons and Al Qaida is obviously wanting to take over that country and overthrow Musharaff to gain control. Despite the differences between the recently assassinated Benazir Bhutto and President Musharaff, they had the same enemies: Islamo-Facists bent on Sharia Law and the destruction of Western civilization and influence.

The assassination of Bhutto was not intended to stop her or her party from success, but to divide Pakistan between Musharaff's camp and Bhutto's camp...allowing Al Qaida and militant Pakistani tribal leaders an opening to real power. This follows their plan in Iraq to the letter: Divide and Conquer. The only thing that will stop it now is American military intervention. As much as we don't want to get involved in another war, it may be the only to stop a full-scale regional conflict and world war.

Iranian nuclear weaponry is on the horizon. They will surely weaponize their nuclear stockpiles and aim nuclear missiles are Israel. It's inevitable. In this case, as well, if we don't intervent, we lose in the long run.

Do Americans have what it takes to win the war on Islamo-fascism? I believe it will come down to who they select as their next President. It will show what they are truly made of...whether it be cowards or fighters. Only someone in firm support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to solidify our gains in those arenas, and willing to directly (i.e. militarily) confront Iran to halt their nuclear ambitions, will be able to carry on the fight. No Democrat is acceptable. Some of the Republicans just as weak.

The next election could literally determine the fate of this country and the entire West for the next few hundred years. We had better choose wisely, lest we end up just like Rome. If that's the route we take, we will be like the ancient Roman historians who wrote in their contemporary times, futility and helplessly witnessing and writing about the downfall of civilization. If, after a few hundred years, the Islamists outlast the West, we will enter the darkest age in human civilization. Human progress will cease. They are willing to wait hundeds, or perhaps a thousand years or even more, to win. Are we?

For All Who Are Lost

2007-11-24T14:52:00.000-05:00

Through the darkness and faint spirit of the hours before dawn
When I am awake and the world sleeps, in exhausted slumber
Weary of the pace of life, cruelty, uncaring and the indifference
In those wee hours when mankind's hope is at it's lowest ebb

I see a place, an ideal, where life is good and people are kind
There are no treasures or gold, except those within the heart
And from a loving heart, comes joy and bounty for all to share
A thousand smiles of caring, hope & true love to spread afar

Every night, a candle burns bright in my window, as a beacon
For all who are lost, weary, homeless and in need of comfort
A flickering light, welcoming all with burdens beyond solution
With shelter, nourishment and caring, there may be a way out

Of the darkness of despair, Yet for all that, I am but a bridge
Who can give respite, hope and time, yet I cannot carry you
Nor can I give you strength or wisdom beyond my love for you.
Take from my strength and hope all you can, and find a way

For you, your future and all of your tomorrow's, I ask simply this
That you put away the hurt, the slings and arrows of misfortune
Accept that who you wish to be today is the person you could be
What is gone, lost or suffered has passed, What about tomorrow?

Tomorrow is ever a bright sunrise, with hope and a blank page
That only you can fill with the writings of your actions to fill it
Should the page remain blank, curse not your fellow man
But find a way tomorrow, to write words of effort and hope

The night comes again and I look for you, with hearth and food
Ready for you to come and share with me, the hope of tomorrow
I wonder, will you come? Or has the darkness conquered you
I know not, but look for the candle and if you can, come to me

Contributed By: RyanDonavon

Thanksgiving Day, 2007

Copyright held by Ryan Donavon, 2007

Global Warming Hoax

2007-11-23T04:20:00.000-05:00

On Nov. 22nd, I was watching one of the science channels on Dishnetwork. I'll have to update in order to provide readers with the name of the show and the exact channel. The show was about a solo science expedition undertaken by a climate researcher in Alaska. The premise of the show was that Alaskan ice caps were basically melting into the sea, providing proof of an environmental catastrophe in progress.

The most interesting part of this "science" show was the obvious lack of science. The researcher was shown numerous times in slow motion while in a kayak navigating melting waterways, a powered parachute ride over the frozen tundra, and some dangerous iceberg climbing. The narrator made sure the viewers were aware of the extreme danger taking place on the screen. Ok, we get it: The researcher is very athletic and likes to take part in extreme sports. This was just an attempt to make climate researchers look like the legendary X-Men, and a cover for the fact that the rest of the show had no science.

I have a science background myself, so I watched with an educated eye at some of the activities taking place on this "science" expedition. I observed this researcher taking an ice sample from a lower strata of ice and purposely scraping a higher strata of ice, then packaging that ice in a container. Obviously, this method would contaminate the sample. I fail to understand why this was done. It is not a scientific approach.

The narrator constantly repeated that the "environment began to change" when humans introduced greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. He acted as if the environment had never changed before; as if the Earth were in a static environmental situation prior to the arrival of humans. This is not scientific. The Earth has alternated between relatively extreme situations. The Earth has been frozen over completely to the equator, and inversely the ice caps have in the past been melted completely. This was all before the arrival of humans. It is therefore laughable that a miniscule change in temperature over the course of a hundred, or a few hundred, years is attributable to human activity.

Surge Progress In Iraq / Liberal MSM

2007-11-22T20:46:00.000-05:00

The much lampooned "surge" in Iraq is, to be blunt, WORKING. Despite all the naysayers who disparaged the effort before it even began, American and Iraqi troops are making progress.

Days now go by in Baghdad without major attacks. Deaths are down drastically. People feel free enough to walk the streets and night and let their children walk to school.

It's been revealed that Al Qaida was pushed out of Baghdad by an intelligence effort that included a siezed map that described multiple "rings" around Baghdad that were implemented to ferry arms and people to fight American and Iraqi soldiers. These "rings" have been crushed. Al Qaida is now quite busy fighting Iraqis who are hunting them down and evading civilians who are turning them into the authorities. Osama bin Laden himself recently released a recording chastising Arabs in Iraq because of the ground they've been losing militarily.

The major newspapers, and mass media in general, are ignoring positive results in Iraq. Luckily, online sources spread information virtually instantly, making traditional mass media almost irrelevent. The MSM is basically moot. Who wants to watch the 6 O'Clock news when that news is outdated hours before a broadcast? Purposely withholding information about a critical war is a recipe for disaster, business-wise. They are already on a downward spiral. This is an instant-information society. Standing in the way of that is like standing in the way of a sunami with an umbrella and some wishful thinking.

On Dr. James Watson.....

2007-10-19T15:29:00.000-04:00

Many want to discredit Dr. Watson for his recent comments regarding race, and racial differences in particular. This has become a political issue, as he is now under attack for making statements suggesting that blacks are less intelligent on average than whites. Dr. Watson has been suspended from his academic post.

First of all, let's give credit where credit it due. Dr. Watson is one of the greatest human beings ever to live. He helped discover the DNA double helix. I think that pretty much trumps anything he could do wrong in his life, especially a comment about an opinion he has.

Secondly, it is worth investigating his claims. Why not engage in an objective, scientific study to either confirm or disprove...his comments. Why must people become emotional instead of objective?

Evolution has interesting ways of working. There is a reason that certain pre-modern humans are not around any longer. Modern humans evolved from those ancient species. In the process of evolution, species first diverged from sub-species. A race could be considered a sub-species, or at least a sub-set of a sub-species. Evolution has to start somewhere and that's where it begins.

Africans are the oldest race on the planet. This has been confirmed through DNA analysis (thanks, Dr. Watson). If a sub-set diverges from another set, such as the departure into Europe, the Middle East, and Asia of ancient humans, could differences have resulted over time? For sure, physical differences developed. That is obvious. Are differences isolated to ONLY physical features? What about internal organs like the brain? Could differences have resulted as a result of this divergence? Most scientists would agree that this would be inevitable.

I'm sure some liberals will automatically assume I agree with Dr. Watson's personal opinion on the differences among the races. This isn't true. I am simply saying: Do a scientific, objective assessment to validate or disprove the statements. That's how the scientific process works, right?

List Of The Greatest Scientists In History

Albert Einstein
Isaac Newton
Stephen Hawking
James Watson
Gregor Mendel
Aristotle
Galileo
Charles Darwin
Thomas Edison
Allensandro Volta
Louis Pasteur

American Soldier : Standing Tall

2007-10-12T19:29:00.000-04:00

I was sent this image today from a business associate. This image is showing a young Iraqi boy hiding behind an 82nd Airborne Division soldier in the aftermath of a bombing and subsequent random crowd shooting by a terrorist.

Is this boy hiding behind one of those Iraqi men who are running away? No, he is hiding behind a lone American soldier. These are the people Liberals are attacking and calling "random shooters" and "baby killers".

Look at this brave American, standing tall and proud and looking for the location of the terrorist amid the chaos, with a little boy hiding behind him.

How the innocence of children brings out the most heartening of images. This image shows what America is all about, and what the most innocent of people REALLY think about America.

This kid just made the biggest statement in the world about what an American soldier is.

TeeBone: One Man Army

2007-09-26T16:47:00.000-04:00

Reports are coming in from Iraq exposing the existence of a super-secret soldier named TeeBone. Apparently, TeeBone is a special ops soldier who wears a suit not unlike that of the popular Halo series hero, the Masterchief. One reporter from the region claims to have scored an interview with TeeBone. Here are some clips from the alleged interview:

Reporter: "So, TeeBone, how are you able to prosecute the war in Iraq so well?"

TeeBone, "Well, I have a direct linkup via my neural net to my friends and allies on internet message boards. They send me intelligence that enables me to destroy enemy targets with pinpoint accuracy. I am connected to these message boards at all times of the day and night."

Reporter: "What's with your suit? It seems rather high-tech, but why a pink suit?"

TeeBone, "Well you see, the pink color helps me get in contact with my feminine side. Before I take out targets, I usually get out my little vanity mirror and apply some lip gloss and eye liner. It helps me concentrate. I can change the color of the suit at will, but I really prefer pink."

Reporter, "What do you have to say about rumors that you have been infiltrating the Iranian border?"

TeeBone, "It's true. There is an underground transgender society in Iran and I am a regular visitor."

Following the interview, TeeBone disappeared into the desert and hasn't been heard from since. However, TeeBone continues to post on internet message boards under a number of aliases. We will update you with further developments on this mysterious figure.

Iran - The Next Step

2007-09-02T18:37:00.000-04:00

We are going to have no choice but to go to war with Iran. They are now flaunting their 3000 centrifuges as their next "milestone" in nuclear development. I have heard numerous statements from liberals who seem to sympathize with Iran and President Ahmadinejad. I've even heard and read statement saying Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear program. Considering their threats to destroy Israel and wipe it "off the face of the map", I have to question whether these particular liberals are actually foreign agents or, in the very least, terrorist sympathizers.

Iran is a terrorist state. The government of Iran is holding its nation hostage. I believe that the people of Iran want Democracy. This is proven by the fact that the government of Iran is constantly launching campaigns to eradicate western influences in society, especially among their younger citizens. It's sad to see so many millions of people living in fear.

Our problems in Iraq are directly connected to our problems with Iran. Iran is funding, training, providing advanced weapons for, and working with, terrorist organizations in Iraq. They are a destabilizing force in the region. Cut off the head of the snake and the snake dies. How will Iran provide shelter, money, training, etc. to terrorists if we destroy their military?

Recent news reports suggest that President Bush has drawn up plans to destroy Iran's military within 3 days. This is entirely practical. The goal in Iran should not be to destroy their government by invading it on the ground and occupying it, but by destroying their government's ability to function, thereby allowing the people of Iran to overthrow their government and institute a Democracy.

The sooner we destroy Iran's military capability, the sooner we will achieve our goals in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

And The Tide Turns...

2007-08-28T16:23:00.000-04:00

The tide is moving against terrorists in Iraq. Al Qaida cells are being destroyed on a daily basis as the people of Iraq turn on foreign Arab fighters. Hundreds of hardcore Arab militants are being rounded up or killed by both Iraqi security forces and American soldiers. The security situation in Iraq is steadily improving, but not with any help from American liberals.

Progress in Iraq, due to President Bush's military surge, has been so dramatic that even socialists like Hillary Clinton can't deny the truth. We are winning that war and will end up winning it in the end...as long as the American people have faith in themselves and in the aspirations of the Iraqi people.

Iraqi children are depending on Americans to look into their heart of hearts...and decide where they stand. The Iraqis risked life and limb in their first national elections. Everyone should remember the threats by terrorists against Iraqi civilians during that first election. Old and young alike, Iraqis swarmed the polls and voted with a higher turnout than even an American election. They proudly exclaimed, "We are free." But liberals in the America had other plans. Luckily, the sea is still shifting in freedom's favor.

When history looks back on this war, they will see those who supported Democracy and won, and those who opposed Democracy and lost. American liberals will be judged as being on the wrong side of history. That's a sad place to be. Liberals like to portray themselves as idealistic. But they are not. They are whimsical and lack the backbone to stand upright in the face of opposition. They are this nation's weakest link. As a nation, we will collectively be judged as well. Hopefully, future generations will realize that not all Americans thought as they did, and were not as morally weak as they were.

Saviors Of The West

2007-08-02T11:34:00.000-04:00

There are two men in history who are responsible for preserving Western Civilization before the onslaughts of Arab armies. King John Sobieski III of Poland and King Leonidas of Sparta were these men. Although separated by centuries...millenia, in fact...these two men saved Europe from Arab armies intent on taking over the world.

Imagine what kind of world we would be living in if Xerxes had succeeded in invading Greece! Would he have stopped with Greece? He considered himself to be King of the World, after all. Even when other Greek nations conceded to the demands of Persia, Sparta stood and Leonidas's leadership proved crucial. The Battle of Thermopylae probably saved the entire European continent. Those men knew they were finished, but also knew they had to die to give the Greeks time to mount an offensive against the Persians. They chose death to save the Western World. They saved nations that had not even been created yet, including ours.

What would have happened had the Ottoman Empire succeeded in the Seige of Vienna in the 17th century? I'm certain they would swept the continent. Sobieski commanded a united European Army (basically made up everything they could scramble that wasn't involved in a war, already) and defeated the Ottomans against overwhelming odds.

So there we have it: Two clear instances of Arab campaigns with clear intentions of destroying Western Civilization.

Why is all of this relevant? Arab nations are again raising their saber against the West and are intent on destroying us. Only now, they realize they cannot defeat us in outright battle. So instead, they invade us with tactical immigration. Britain, France, and some other areas are examples of this. Why would a devout Muslim leave his own country and insert himself and his family right into the middle of the "Great Satan" which they hate? They always demand cultural changes in the host country and refuse to incorporate themselves into Western life. This refusal to blend into society with the rest of us proves their intentions. They are here to eat us alive from within. They are willing to take hundreds of years, if necessary, to warp the West into the image of the Middle East. When they say that one day a crescent flag will fly over the White House, they are deadly serious.

When people accuse you of being a xenophobe because you refuse to accept tactical immigration, just remember Leonidus and Sobieski. They were up to the task. Are you? The battle is in a different form, but the enemy is the same. We must be vigilant and preserve Western life for our descendants.

Liberalism Is Dying

2007-07-18T23:44:00.000-04:00

Liberalism is dying as a philosophy. When given a choice, Americans prefer Conservative ideas to Liberal ones. There just isn't anything inspiring about Liberalism. Liberalism shuns individualism. Liberals at the ACLU prefer a Communist group-thought mentality to good old fashioned American Independence and Freedom.

To be a member of the liberal community, you must first shed all ideas that you are, in any way, different from anyone else. The Communist Party Inner Circle (ACLU) wants to make sure everyone is not only equal, but alike. Criminals, non-criminals...it doesn't matter to them. Everyone has the same net worth. In fact, every THING has the same net worth. A human is no better than a worm to them. That ideal is conveyed as being the ultimate in idealism. : "Oh, how humble am I. I am worth no more than a worm and I accept that. I am a better person because I express no individual thought. I am part of something bigger than myself."

Liberal newspapers have been slowly rotting on the vine for years and lately that trend has been accelerating. Who wants to read a bunch of liberal trash? Not any Americans who value their freedom. In the last 12 years, NYT circulation has dropped 22%. People simply have more options. They can easily avoid CNN and go to Fox News. And that they do! Fox News has been destroying CNN for years. The gap grows and grows. Bill O'Reilly simply decimates the stalwarts of CNN at every level. Liberals are quickly losing their loudest voices...the MSM.

Radio is another arena in which Democrats can't compete. When Air America was at its peak, they had done a pretty good job of getting up and running. However, no one was listening. Advertisers pulled away and they went bankrupt. They were then saved by the athiest liberal leader George Soros who infused enough cash to keep them operating, if only nominally. What is the liberal answer to this dilemma? To shut down Conservative Radio by forcing station owners to air an equal amount of liberal programming (even though no one will be listening) and forcing those owners to eat the cost personally..since no advertisers in their right mind is going to pay a station for no listeners. This would effectively eliminate radio from the market and leave people with nothing but the major liberal TV networks....all of which are liberal save one: Fox. But touch NOT the liberal news rags and the liberal networks that dominate all other media! Don't dare intrude on Hollywood! Those are the untouchables! Make only radio subject to a "Fairness Doctrine"! It's really just a desperate measure on their part.

During the last election, Nancy Pelosi & Co. spearheaded the effort to run "Conservative Democrats" in local elections all across the Nation. They knew they couldn't win honestly. They had to show they had family values, fiscal discipline, were pro-national security, and other such ideas that are Conservative. Now that the Democrats are in power in Congress, they are showing themselves as they truly are...Liberals. As a result, their ratings have dropped to the bottom of the barrel.

There is no such thing as a Conservative Democrat. That's like calling a baby murderer a 'Man of God'. It's also like calling someone who spits in the face of Nature's Laws a "priest" in some wacko pseudo-church. Yea, they are priests alright...priests like the Aztek versions who threw babies to their deaths. They would gladly throw babies to their deaths if they could just call it a Late-Term Abortion, or maybe a Post-Birth Abortion. Some northern European medical societies are calling for that too, actually. I am convinced that liberals get a thrill out of abortions. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them had films of such tucked away in their bottom drawers for special occasions with friends.

Liberalism is experiencing a demise. They are lashing out and are, of course, fighting hard to maintain their push to Communize the world. They are much like an injured bear. An injured animal can sometimes be much more dangerous than a healthy one. The best time to win in a battle like that...is to go in for the attack. Don't wait for the injured Liberal Machine to regroup and rebuild. They are afraid of what is happening in America: Conservatism is making a major comeback. Americans are tearing down the liberal infrastructure that was started by the Warren Court and the ACLU. They will do anything they can to keep their Communist dreams alive. They are also predisposed to violence and we must be prepared to deal with that. Just look at the DNC Chairman, Howard Dean. He emotionally explodes on a moments notice. It makes you wonder why liberals love him so much when he is obviously one short of a six pack. Is he their model for an ideal liberal?

This is the time to be vigilant against Liberalism, not a time to be in awe of their final throes. Rejoice.

Israel, Fatah, and Hamas

2007-06-16T12:04:00.000-04:00

The Middle East is about to be more volatile than it was before. With Hamas in control of Gaza, and Fatah in control of the West Bank, Israel will be surrounded by even more Arab enemies. Both Fatah and Hamas are terrorist organizations, even though Fatah has now achieved something a little closer to a political movement. They are still terroristic in certain cases, and that was proved when Fatah gunmen today stormed the Palestinian partliament building and kicked all Hamas-connected staffers and members out of the building. I'm assuming these were masked gunmen just like the Hamas fighters. Then they proceeded to plant the Fatah flag on top of the building.

The Palestinian people are about to be two separate pseodo-nations with their own allies and their own interests. This will put Israel in even more danger than before. Israel was more likely to allow unified Palestinians to form a nation-state.....than it would EVER be to allow two competing Palestinian nation-states to surround them.

The Palestians have proven they cannot govern themselves. Israel needs to launch a full-scale war against both Palestinian factions and destroy them..and kick every single Palestinian out...and then build a giant wall manned by machine gun turrets (think Halo) at 1/8 mile intervals to prevent their return.

Why Bill Went For Monica

2007-06-13T14:29:00.000-04:00

I guess I would, too. Looks kinda scratchy, doesn't it?

Motives, Motives, Motives

2007-06-04T10:20:00.000-04:00

A conflict is slowly brewing between the United States and Russia. There will be no military conflict of course, but a Cold War-style conflict consisting of threats, secrecy, and the instigation of fear. Russia's President, Vladimir Putin, has threatened to point his nuclear arsenal at European cities. That would be simple enough for Putin to do. But it would be even easier than that, considering Russia never "de-targeted" European and other cities to begin with. Russia never intended to stop fighting Democracy after the fall of the U.S.S.R. Putin is a former KGB agent and an assassin. Putin has fielded spies throughout the world, especially the United States, recently. He is trying to rebuild Russia's Cold War intelligent capabilities.

Would Russia fund and give technological assistance to North Korea and Iran if they wanted peace with the world? I'm sure that providing materials that could lead these nations to become nuclear powers is against some international law.

Russia cannot afford another Cold War. They can't even afford to field their newest generation of fighter aircraft. Their space agency would go bankrupt without the U.S. So why are they threatening the U.S. and its allies? Prestige and pride. Those are the motivations of Vladmir Putin. Putin is an ultra-nationalist bent on raising Russia out of its post-Cold War ashes, even at the expense of Freedom.

Russians are not capable of living in a Democracy. The Russian people depend on and desire powerful rulers who can lead the "Fatherland" to glory, even if it means losing personal freedom. The idea of of personal freedom and personal empowerment is simply alien to most Russians. This has been quite evident in every Russian I've ever met. They are naturally suspicious, secretive, and distrustful. The idea of Democracy is looked on suspiciously as well. How could we ever hope to get along with such a negative culture?

Arming Iran and North Korea is part of Russia's long-term plan to increase their sphere of influence in the world. They know they can't afford to fight a true Cold War against the U.S. (they tried that already), but they can surely assist third world nations by giving them the technological know-how that would cause the U.S. to fear yet another enemy. Their objection to the U.S. Missile Shield is a complete farce. The missile shield was never intended to defend the U.S. from an all-out Russian nuclear attack. It simply wouldn't work. We might knock down a handful of missiles, but not all of them. The Russians know this. So what is their motivation for threatening Europe? The Russians want to create a sense of fear among the European population in order to control Eastern Europe again. Their conflicts with former Soviet satellites are brewing hotter every day. This is Russia's plan:

1) Arm Iran, NK, and other enemies of the West with ICBMs and nuclear weapons,
2) Cause the U.S. to build a rogue missile deterrent as a reaction to these new threats,
3) Accuse the U.S. of trying to start a new arms race and embolden the Russian population,
4) Threaten the West with new weapons that had already been in development for years anyway,
5) Pressure Eastern European nations to cede economic independence,
6) Build a new security zone in Eastern Europe and the Middle East that supports Russia's anti-Western plans.
7) Use the new Russian security and economic sphere of influence to support a massive military buildup,
8) Dramatically improve Russia's economy without having to become a Democracy and gain it honestly.

Russia's new 21st Century plans are not going to succeed. However, they will certainly cause a lot of fear and consternation throughout the world. We must get out of our "Cold War is over" mindset. We beat the U.S.S.R, for sure. But Russia was always the ideological core of the U.S.S.R. They are wondering why Communism didn't work for them. They invented that repugnant philosophy, but it is their Chinese foes who are flourishing under their version of it while Russia withers in internal chaos.

The new Russian threat is very real. New proxy wars are sure to crop up around the world as a result of the destabilization Russia envisions. If Russia can't prosper under Communism, then they will make sure the rest of world does not prosper under Capitalism. It's that simple. We can either confront them, or not.

Fred Thompson Is the Man / Democrats Are Traitors

2007-05-31T20:39:00.000-04:00

It's clear to me that President Fred Thompson...ahem...Mr. Thompson, is going to declare his intention to run for President. I believe he would be an excellent Commander in Chief. Whether someone can be an effective Commander of the Armed Forces is the top priority of ALL the duties of a President.

Democrats have shown an antipathy for the military for decades. They truly despise people who freely join the military and go to war on their own accord and actually follow the orders of a Commander in Chief. Democrats basically have no backbone and not guts, so they are confused as to why free people would put themselves at risk. Just ask Bill Clinton what he thinks about military service.

A potential President Hillary Clinton or a President Barack Obama would be a total joke. They would humiliate the military by causing them to be retreaters, instead of defeaters. They would lead them into a defensive position, enabling our enemies to gain momentum and thus threaten our security interests overseas and at home. Both Clinton and Obama have openly professed their communist goals..in so many words. They both want higher taxes (i.e. Success Punishment) and a retreat of the United States from battling external threats. However, they do want to dismantle the free economy we have and replace it with an ineffecient government monopoly in various economic sectors.

Democrats are unable to lead, unable to govern, and unable to deter our enemies. They are spineless, ineffective, defeatist, and hate the Constitution. They spit on the graves of the Founders of the United States every time they open their putrid mouths. I saw a liberal literally spit on the ground in disgust once when he saw the original Constitution in Washington D.C. He wiped the slobber from his mouth and glared at the Constitution as if he wanted to burn it. He was wearing a "Peace" shirt, so I'm assuming he is against the Iraq War.

Liberals simply want to take your Freedom away.

Hillary's Communist Aspirations

2007-05-29T14:10:00.000-04:00

Today, Hillary Clinton decided to completely expose herself as a full-fledged Communist. She stated that the "ownership society" that is supported by Conservatives should be replaced by a "we're in it all together society". This is liberal code-speak for Communism and the empowerment of governmental social programs that spur class warfare. Hillary Clinton has been a Communist since her college years. She worked with Saul Alinsky and supported his call for class warfare in her senior thesis. Hillary Clinton's recent comments are further proof that she is nothing but a Communist plant who has been working for decades to implement Communist ideologies in American government and culture. Do not trust her with your Freedom.

Life

2007-05-09T06:03:00.000-04:00

I can't help but wonder what all of this legal hairsplitting has to do with honesty. So much talk about days & trimesters, as if the time of a life is germane to it's value. Were it a day or nine months or a century, I believe that life is precious, to be protected and valued.

The simple truth is that an embryo is life, and to willfully cause the death of that life in any way is murder. We can rationalize, justify and explain, we can pass laws and have great debates, yet we know the truth in our heart of hearts.

The real truth is that as we continue down the road of eroding personal responsibility, we look for ways to "undo" our rash, irresponsible behavior. Above all, we have a need to legitimize our behavior. Accordingly, laws have been passed that profess to give a woman a right over her own body, when in fact, we know it's an abdication of personal responsibility. There are and can be extenuating circumstances, but as a percentage of abortions, they are very small and these alone should be the exceptions (rape-incest).

So many times, I have held a newborn and marveled, wondered at the beauty, hope and promise of that child. Holding a child is a privilege and a beautiful experience that never ceases to amaze me. I can't help but to be dismayed that we condone and protect by law, the right to cease life with the justification that an embryo or child still inside the mother is her affair alone.

When I think about a physician drilling or punching a hole into the skull of a child still inside the womb, sucking out the brain matter and other grisly details, I can't help but wonder what has happened to us. How did we ever get this way? Just because we don't want a child now, because it doesn't suit our lifestyle?

I don't think it signifies whether or not you call yourself an agnostic, a believer in Christ, Allah or some other supreme being. What I do believe is that we all know the sanctity of life. As a simple man, I care for the wild creatures, both furred & feathered, that are injured or in need. I know pain and need when I see it. I don't need laws to guide me on recognizing suffering or the right and wrong of life.

As a combat veteran, I have taken lives and saved lives without hesitation or doubt. According, I can assure you that when you "play God" there are fearful, forever consequences. I came to realize that as I had no power to give life, I had no right to take it without a real need to save other lives. Even that is in doubt sometimes and I don't profess to know the answers. Hardly a night goes by that I don't wake up in a cold sweat, alone in the dark, facing the reality of my life.

Be as it may, there is no doubt in my mind that a child, whether an embryo or toddler, is a gift of immortality that we must protect at all costs. We can convene, discuss, vote and pass acres of laws, printed neatly with wise edgings, yet none of this will gainsay the simple laws of truth. We can blind ourselves, but not time & truth.

If we do not truly value the child, then we do not value life itself. Choose wisely.

Contributed by: RyanDonavon

VA Tech Shootings / Liberal Debauchery

2007-04-17T00:58:00.000-04:00

I was watching Lou Dobbs last night. He was reporting on the massacre at Virginia Tech. Dobbs brought in a group of "intellectuals" from various universities i.e. social scientists. At first, I was sure they wouldn't go totally Left considering the weight of the topic. Lou Dobbs made sure he controlled the direction of the argument, in that he "guided" them into a discussion about how society "causes" people to commit horrible crimes like this.

I was quite repulsed at the consensus these people came to: That society is responsible for the crimes of people like this; That their mental illness is a reflection of society; That the perpetrator of this crime is most likely a past victim of bullying or some other plight. Oh, poor mass killer.... Even in the aftermath of killing 33 people and injuring 29, this criminal's personal blame was shifted to YOU and to ME.

Not once did I hear any condemnation of the killer in this situation. Not once did I hear anything that suggested that anyone other than "modern culture" is to blame. Liberalism has reached its peak. It cannot get any worse at this point. The debauchery of liberals is completely maxed out. Even mass murder is excusible. Maybe that's why they want us out of Iraq so bad? Maybe liberals don't see a problem with stopping terrorists? Maybe human life is just very expendable to them, or just a topic of discussion that liberal social scientists can use to get some grant money for "case studies"?

One "intellectual" on Lou Dobbs decided to turn the topic to gun control. He decided that "access to guns" was a main contributor to this incident. In fact, NO access to guns by the victims of this horrible crime was the main contributor. The State of Va recently rejected a bill that would have given qualified staff and students at the State's colleges the right to carry a concealed weapon after passing background checks and receiving proper training. Gun control didn't work very well, did it? Liberals were applauding the defeat of the bill and stating that the colleges of the State of VA would be "safer" because the bill was defeated. Are they safer?

There is no way to completely seal a border with such a permeating world-wide economy. Even if, God-forbid, liberals managed to institute a nation-wide gun ban, gun violence would proliferate. Washington D.C, South Africa, Great Britain, Australia, among other areas of the world are excellent examples of what happens when honest, law abiding citizens are denied the right to carry concealed weapons. They are massacred like sheep laid out for the slaughter. The situation at VA Tech was definitely that of a wolf hunting sheep. Sadly, those students had no legal way to defend themselves. They were made helpless by their own foolish State government.

If only one faculty member or student had access to a concealed weapon, perhaps some lives could have been saved. It takes time for law enforcement to respond to shootings. The people on the front line are the victims, and victims should at least have the option of self-defense.

Don Imus : Lesson Learned

2007-04-13T13:41:00.000-04:00

Don Imus made some very objectionable comments, as everyone on Earth knows at this point. He insulted a group of athletes and offended an entire race of people. But there is something we need to keep in perspective. Don Imus is a human being. Don Imus is not a racist. He has run charities and contributed millions to help others. He is not perfect. And neither is anyone else. Let's be honest about that.

Al Sharpton is a sick individual. Don Imus apologized over and over what he said. His apologies were heartfelt and meaningful. Imus went on Sharpton's radio program in an attempt to give an explanation and to apologize. Was there any acceptance of that apology? No.

Al Sharpton claims to be a Man of God...a preacher. What did Christ say on the Cross as he died? "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do." Christ didn't ask for vengeance and the destruction of his killers. He asked for their forgiveness and redemption. What is Al Sharpton teaching us in this respect? Sharpton teaches us that asking for forgiveness from someone like himself is useless. Apologizing is only the beginning of humilation, soon leading to personal destruction. Going on Al Sharpton's radio show was a big mistake. All it did was get Sharpton what he really wanted: Publicity.

Don Imus also teaches us that if you are a white male, you can't use the same racist terms people that black culture uses every day. Rap music is based on the "pimps and hos" culture prevalent in modern black society, as well as the violence that plagues inner cities. Guns are glorified as "gats". Women are portrayed as whores who should accept their positions in life (bent over). But who speaks against these forces of evil in black culture? Bill Cosby is the only one I can think of who honestly fights this subversive element. The rest (like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) make half-hearted attempts to claim to be against the debauchery that permeates young black people in this country...and only to sway people who call them out when they hypocritically attack white people.

While watching CNN last night, I noted that a liberal had a solution for how Don Imus could gain forgiveness. Keep in mind that at that time, Imus had already been fired from MSNBC and CBS, thereby leaving him with no job. This liberal stated, "Maybe he could start another foundation and contribute money to charities he hasn't contributed to in the past?" So they have taken his livelihood away from him, ignored any good he has ever done for children, the sick, and soldiers returning from war among others....and this liberals answer is to make Imus cut them a check? This tells me that among liberals, the only way to gain forgiveness is to pay up.

Hillary Clinton is supposedly riding the anti-Imus bandwagon and will be speaking at Rutgers University on Monday - Apr. 16th. She wrote an email condemning Imus and invited women's groups to Rutgers to hear her diatribe. Oh, how high and mighty Hillary Clinton is. After Imus has been fired from his two jobs, asked for forgiveness and received it from the Rutgers University women's basketball team....Hillary Clinton will dig into Imus even more.

Remember.....forgiveness to a liberal is never complete until you are dead. Lesson Learned: Don't bother apologizing.

Democrats Blind To Global Threats

2007-04-06T09:18:00.000-04:00

Democrats are attempting to remove any language in the Congress referring to any "global war on terrorism". Despite the fact that worldwide terrorism is organized (and organized well) against us in terms of our security and other interests, Democrats want to deny that such threats exist. What is easier than simply denying something exists if you can't formulate a legitimate response to it?
~
Democrats are sowing the seeds for another attack on the United States, probably one even worse than 9/11. They do not understand that if you focus on individual hotspots around the world instead of viewing the "whole picture", you nullify your own efforts in fighting terrorism. Their new proposals in Congress would limit language to terms like, "the war in Iraq", "the war in Afghanistan", "military action in Africa", etc. etc. They are not taking into account the fact that Al Qaida and 'more official' state-sponsored groups like Hamas do NOT subdivide their wars. They are all united under one motive: Destroy the West.

There is no "war in Iraq" or "war in Afghanistan" or "war in the United States" or "war in Europe" or "war in Indonesia" or "war in Africa" in the minds of Islamo-fascists. To them, it's all one war. If we hand over to THEM supremacy of a GLOBAL VIEW and relegate to ourselves a MICROSCOPIC VIEW, we are throwing in the towel. In a case like that, it wouldn't be long before they attacked us again on our own soil. We would be easy prey. It wouldn't be hard for a hungry lion to hunt down a blind antelope, would it?
~
Is this a global war? Yes. Islamic terrorists are being sponsored by nations all over the world. Iran and Syria are the most visible elements of a unified global enemy. However, there are large numbers of Islamic militants in Asia and Africa, as well. These numerous state-sponsored and independent movements are all united in a single purpose: The destruction of Western Civilization. There are terrorist cells all over the United States and Europe. Luckily, many of those cells have been broken up. But many more lay in wait. We can't sit on our hind-sides hoping they never act.
~
Tony Blair made a comment a few months ago that apparently fell on deaf ears. He said that the entire West was embroiled in a conflict with Islamo-fascists worldwide, and that we had to directly confront them if our culture and institutions were to survive.
~
The latest Democratic effort to strip world-view language from legislation will be the beginning of the end if it succeeds. Democrats have proven themselves completely inept in terms of national security and foreign relations issues. And Nancy Pelosi has been their torch-bearer.

Pelosi Dresses As Arab - Slaps Women's Rights

2007-04-03T16:50:00.000-04:00

Nancy Pelosi's visit to Damascas has been a slap in the face of not only her own country and the entire Western World, but to the rights of women who are oppressed in the Arab world. Donning an Arab head-dress and stripping herself of makeup, she is attempting to appease the terrorist-sponsoring regimes of the Middle East. No wonder the Syrians greeted her with so many smiles and hand shakes when her plane landed!!!

I condemn Mrs. Pelosi for her actions and encourage anyone who support women's rights, and the rights of the victims of terrorist attacks around the world to condemn her, as well.

Appeasement never works. It didn't work on Hitler and it won't work for Iran, Syria, and North Korea. But perhaps appeasement isn't really what she's doing after all. Maybe Pelosi is now allied with extreme anti-Western , anti-American regimes of terror? Only time will tell...

Iranian Insolence - Updated Apr. 2, 2007

2007-03-29T10:05:00.000-04:00

Iran is, as of today, demanding that Britain admit to its Navy "trespassing in Iranian waters" in order to resolve the British Marine kidnapping standoff, despite the fact that there is now proof (including GPS readings) from multiple sources....the British Navy, the U.S. Navy, a Turkish boat that was boarded by the British, and an Iraqi fisherman nearby, that places the kidnappings in Iraqi waters. Even the Iranians initial data that was released to justify their claims that the Brits were in Iranian waters....shows that they were in Iraqi waters. Then they changed their story the next day and revised their data showing them in Iranians waters by .3 miles.

The Iranians are saying today that the British have "miscalculated" the situation. They are threatening to put those Marines on trial in Tehran if Britain does not admit to violating Iranian territory. That is NOT going to happen, because it DID not happen. There is only one way to solve this: Iran must hand over the troops unharmed. It is the Iranians who have miscalculated. I don't think they understand just how powerful the British military is all on its own, much less with U.S. support.

If Britain goes to war with Iran because of their kidnapped soldiers, we are obligated to support them. I don't want to hear ANY whining and complaining from Democrats once we enter a combat phase with Iran. I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories or hack-brained ideas about why we "really" went to war. Don't be traitors during a time of war. Support your country and also our allies.

It is time to put Iran in its place. They are a menace to the world. Apparently, its not even safe to be in international waters, or some other nation's waters, without being attacked by these people. This situation is intolerable in a civilized world.

Update

Apr 2nd, 2007

After airing "confessions" from 15 British Marines and Sailors, the Iranians are now halting the videos after claiming "positive developments" in Britain's stance on the issue. The Iranians may be trying to do diffuse the situation, as American forces are building up on the Iraq / Iran border. There is also another carrier fleet in the area. The Iranians couldn't hope to confront a combined U.S. / British attack, or even one or other alone.

Iran can only go for so long before public opinion in Britain moves toward war. The U.S. would, in all likelihood, be happy to assist Britain in eliminating Iran as a threat in the Middle East. The Iranians had better release those Marines and Sailors soon before they seal their fate.

Gore's Global Warming Blunder

2007-03-19T13:26:00.000-04:00

Al Gore has recently begun to reap what he has sown through his uninformed speeches, alarmist movie, and even more uninformed and alarmist books. Gore has trained a 1000-strong force of environmentalist minions who tromp about the planet spreading his new religion. They claim that human activity is destroying the Earth so fast that in less than a century, the Earth will be catapaulted into a disastrous cycle that will supposedly end life as we know it. They also view the Earth as a living deity that reacts when it is "offended" by human attacks by means of logging, hunting, or jet-setting (Gore?).

Scientists worldwide, on both sides of the global warming issue, have come out against Gore's radical theories. Gore appears to be ignorant of some basic Earth history. Even the most left-leaning of scientists can't ignore Gore's total lack of knowledge relating to ice age cycles, orbital tilt, the slow changes in the shape of Earth's orbit over time, and the effect of solar energy on global waming and cooling.

I will start this discussion with an argument relating to the solar system as a whole. At this time, "global warming" is occuring on numerous planets. This includes most of the planets (including 'minor planet' Pluto) and certain moons orbiting Jupiter and Saturn. A simple Google search will take your to numerous sources of scientific information regarding this. Here is one from 2002 that I would recommend: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html. What is the common denominator between Earth and Pluto? Could it be the sun, perhaps? Did humans cause global warming on Pluto, as well? I wonder if Gore has a theory about how carbon emissions could reach Pluto through the vacuum of space. Will driving a Prius lower the catastrophic environmental change being unleashed on innocent Pluto?

Ice Age cycles are of particular importance since Gore focuses a lot of attention on melting arctic and Antarctican ice. 600 -800 million years ago, the entire Earth was covered in ice that extended to the equator. This is commonly known as the "Snowball Earth" period. Was the global warming that caused Earth to heat up in order to support life....a runaway disaster? Earth is currently in an Interglacial period. Ice ages on Earth occur in more or less 100,000 year cycles. Only in the relatively recent geological past did the Bering Strait "Land Bridge" give way to the sea. This was happening long before humans ever discovered combustion. We're talking tens of thousands of years ago. How does Gore reconcile this? A cursory study into ice ages would teach even the most hard-headed individual that ice ages cycle are inevitable. Heating and cooling trends cannot be stopped or started by humans on the timescale Gore proposes. In fact, on a geological timescale, it won't be too long and we'll be in another ice age. No amount of SUV driving is going to change the wobble of the Earth (despite the fact that a recent, ridiculous liberal article claimed that Earth will soon become "lop-sided" because of human-induced global warming. i.e. http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_lopsided_planet.html).

Orbital tilt is another important aspect when one looks into global warming and cooling periods. It has been recently discovered that the orbit of the Earth becomes more or less circular rather than elliptical on 2.5 Million and 1 Million year cycles. This "flattening out" of the orbit is believed to cause catastrophic upheavals to the point that mass extinctions occur. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/10/061011-earth-wobble.html. The preceding link should be a good starting point for some light study.

Alarmists who relate human activity to environment disaster are apparently unaware of the catastrophic power of nature itself. There is nothing that humans could do to this planet that nature hasn't done (and will do again) millions of times over. Keep in mind that asteroids have decimated this planet numerous times in the past. We are but one species on this planet and currently are at the top of the food chain. There is no insurance against an asteroid impact. Even if we avoided a terminal impact at some point in the future, there are perils in deep space that could doom the entire solar system eventually, such as passing through the path of a black hole or a wandering star.

Even volcanic activity on the planet has a far greater impact on global temperatures than human progress. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo dropped global temperatures by about 1 deg F. However, the stratospheric temperature rose several degrees and large amounts of the ozone layer were destroyed.

It is quite prideful of Gore to believe that he is a savior of the planet. Not only is he ignorant of basic scientific facts, but his entire view of the solar system and universe are warped. His perspective is blinded by his narrow Earth worshipping religion. He has become a laughing stock of the scientific world.

2007-03-05T09:28:00.000-05:00

6-Day Liberal Weather / News Forecast

Monday

Chance of rain 0%. Dry winds from the west at 200mph. Cracks in the earth will form and swallow your family.

Tuesday

Chance of rain 100%. The ocean will rise 500 feet, inundating everything on both coasts.

Wednesday

AlGore-effect at 100%: The weight of man-man industrial machinery will cause a wobble in the Earth's axis, causing wide-ranging environmental disaster.

Thursday

Chance of snow 100%. The Earth will freeze over completely as a result of a reverse global warming process caused by Mother Earth's attempt to correct the warming cycle. AlGore is still working on the calculations for this.

Friday

Gore-bots will spread out over the Earth in an attempt to rescue fellow, stranded Gore-bots who were previously enslaving human mechanics, the only humans allowed to live since they served a purpose for the Gore-bots. Weather is the same as Thursday.

Saturday

Beautiful, sunny skies, about 83 degrees, 5 mph wind from the east. No humans except for the "1/2 human, 1/2 machine" AlGore...are left on Earth. AlGore reasons that, with no humans on Earth, he and his army of Gore-bots can pollute 500% more than they currently are, due to the lack of human pollution, thus lowering emissions into the atmosphere but allowing AlGore to live a life of luxury. Paradise!!!

Sunday

Notice: AlGore has banned Sunday. He/it has declared a permanent 6-day week.

Debate In America : Good For Iraqi Progress

2007-03-03T14:46:00.000-05:00

The conflict between the Republicans and Democrats over whether we should proceed in Iraq is going to end up forcing the Iraqi government to clamp down forcefully on divisive segments in their society (and externally-derived insurgents). They know we've been there for them for years. We helped put their democracy into place. But Iraqis, not knowing anything about democracy, are like immature children who have actually needed the current conflict just to give them a sense as to why democracy is so important. They are having to learn their lessons the hard way. They are certainly learning that 'Freedom isn't Free'.

Just the IDEA that a large part of the American public is tiring of supporting the war should force pro-democracy elements in Iraq (which is most likely almost all of them, save a few insurgents who can cause massive damage) to step up domestic efforts at stabilization. I think the Iraqis really are trying at this point. Their troops are risking their lives and families just by joining up.

Iraqi's are taking the lead in many areas of their country. I read a report not too long ago about a firefight in which an American was seriously wounded. The Iraqis took command of the firefight, allowing the Americans to rescue their countryman. That shows character...at least of those particular Iraqi troops. But I'm certain such sentiment is not limited to that one unit. Yes, there are good people in Iraq right now and they aren't just Americans. Those are the people we have to support.

I don't feel it's time to leave Iraq yet, but I think the dispute in this country over how we should proceed....is good for the process in the end.

The Fighting Christians

2007-02-20T09:58:00.000-05:00

A reminder of how close the West came to being overrun by Islamic Fascism.

Most Christian churches these days speak of peace and love. They espouse non-violent, prayerful solutions to problems. However, many Christians are not aware that western civilization would not exist without the "fighting Christians" of old. The Ottoman Empire once reached the gates of Vienna and laid siege to that city during the 17th Century. These Muslims had already conquered virtually all of Eastern Europe and fully intended to sweep the European continent. Vienna was an important, strategic location and would have enabled the Ottomans to pierce the heart of Europe. The saving grace of Western Civilization was John III Sobieski, King of Poland. He was urged to fight for the West by Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I. With the help of Charles V, Duke of Lorraine, they fought and defeated the Ottomans with not much time to spare.

The Ottomans continued to fight the Christian nations of Europe for many more years. In total, the Ottomans waged a 30 year battle of aggression against Europe....hoping to bring down the Christians and rule Europe under the crescent of Islam. This was the last mass warfare between the forces of Christianity and the forces of Islam. The Christians won. No one will ever know how many Christians lost their lives in battle trying to save a future for people like you and me. They faced off against the greatest military power in the world...and won.

So what does this have to with events today? Militant Islam is not a new concept. Al Qaida didn't invent the call to destroy Western civilization. Since the beginning, Islamic Fascists fully intended to take over the world. Today we can see the fruits of their labor. Islamic Fascists are spreading like wildfare in Asia, the edges of southeastern Europe, and Africa. They are migrating into and taking up residence in nations that foolishly allow them to grow unchecked. Britain is probably in the most peril currently. Recently, Islamic Fascists proclaimed that Britain would be the first western country to fall. They claim that the Islamic flag will fly over every governmnent building in Britain before long. And after that, the White House.

Modern Christians have got to wake up and realize that we are already at war. Yes, peace and love are ideal. But at other times, warfare is the only language Fascists understand. Should be we threatened by countries that push for our destruction, we must be willing to do what is necessary to destroy them.

For further reading : http://www.historyofjihad.org/

26,783,383 Reasons Not To Surrender

2007-02-18T15:39:00.000-05:00

Contributing Article By : Ryan Donavon

The 2006 estimate of Iraq's population was 26,783,383 people. This is a number we read, yet it's impossible for us to translate this number into manageable terms. It's beyond our ability to imagine the personal connection to this many people. Engrossed in our own lives and concerns, it is hard to understand or realize that we, as a single person, can make a difference. Yet, we can.

We've all held a newborn baby and felt that incredibly tender feeling of awe, of wonder, where our hearts were overwhelmed with the beauty of life. Holding that vulnerable, beautiful, innocent child touches us to the very core of all that we are or ever will be. If there is one possible subject we, the world, can agree upon, it's the sanctity of the life, the children, the helpless and the innocent beings amongst us. You remember what that tiny hand, grasping your finger, meant to you. Holding that precious child close, feeling their breath on your cheek is as close to being with God as we may ever experience.

Today, over 1,000 Iraqi mothers held their child for the first time. I wonder if we, America, understand that we have the power, if we have the will, to make these mothers lives fulfilled in that their children are free, fed, protected and have a chance to be successful and thrive. We take this a birthright in America, yet so few of us have paid for this for so many, it's taken for granted.

Iraq is a newborn child as a nation. They are helpless and need our protection, love and patience. We can't undo thousands of years of oppression and religious fanaticism in a few years. Yes, we do need them to mature rapidly and hold them accountable. This takes a lot of strength and belief in our cause to endure because the coffins of those who gave all are so very hard to bear.

I know the plane that comes into my city, bringing back the sons of the new Gold Star mothers. The tears flow as I salute that plane. Having written many letters to the mothers and wives of the brave men who died in Viet Nam, I understand, all too well, of the price of personal courage and sacrifice.

Because of all of this and more, I was so ashamed, so discouraged, to see Congress pass a resolution that censured our President in war time, virtually condemning 26,783,383 people to a lifetime of horror and oppression. We, through the Congress of the people, turned our back on a newborn nation and their children and grandchildren. When you multiple the population with the children of their children and beyond, the lives we've forfeited are staggering in number.

Didn't we learn the price of weakness in Viet Nam? We see these people living in communism today instead of freedom, simply because we lacked the courage, not the ability. Yet, again we sacrifice millions of people for narrow, short term domestic and political gains. My shame for my country knows no limits now.

Mothers, hold your children close, while you can. If we sacrifice others for so little, we must ask ourselves why we wouldn't be next.

RyanDonavon@AOL.Com

Dems Make Fools Of Themselves

2007-02-16T12:16:00.000-05:00

The Democrats are ridiculously about to pass a "non-binding resolution" rebuking the President's plan in Iraq. If these libs really had any guts, they would vote to stop funding the war. But they know that would be the wrong answer. The American people might not be happy about the situation in Iraq, but they are not ready to cut and run just as the Iraqis are getting on their feet and confronting insurgents.

What will this "non-binding resolution" accomplish? Absolutely nothing. It has no power behind it because the Democrats are AFRAID of putting any teeth into it. So nothing happens except the fact that Congress is making a political statement to all of our enemies. They are saying we no longer have the guts as a nation to hold out against threats when the going gets tough. It says that America no longer has any backbone and is quickly on its way to meeting the Roman Empire in the pages of history. It says that the next time we are attacked, the enemy will know just how long it takes for America to lose its resolve. All they have to do is hold out until we stop holding our breath.

It's really humorous that the Democrats voted to approve of a new General as the new Commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, while at the same time voting to insult the President and the military.

The Democrats are not going to get what they want with this ridiculous, pennys-worth resolution. If I were President Bush, being rebuked by Democrats would be a badge of honor. I don't see why he should sweat it. I would be emboldened after a stupid, empty resolution like that. I might even pen an equally worthless Executive Order rebuking the Democrats for having no backbone, just to make a point.

Foreign Operatives Using Message Boards

2007-02-14T04:56:00.000-05:00

All over the Internet, it is apparent that a coordinated, well-funded effort is under way to undermine and warp American values by attacking us through our least protected zone...the Internet. From AOL, to Yahoo, to Netscape, possible terrorists are posting on message boards while posing as liberals. They are taking advantage of the natural anti-American tendencies liberals have anyway, and therefore can more easily blend in. However, there are a few traits you should look for to determine whether someone is actually a foreign agent instead of just the average liberal:

- Do certain message board posters repeatedly post news articles that attack the United States in general, ignoring the political dichotomy present in our domestic political environment?

- Do certain message board posters plant articles that are one-sided in support of obvious enemies like Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, etc?

- Do certain message board posters lack base knowledge of our institutions of democracy...or do they seem numb to any arguments about issues that would require someone to have been immersed in a free society in order to understand you?

- How often are people posting? Do they post at unusual times and at unusual frequencies...to the extent that holding a typical job in the United States would be impractical?

It is more difficult to pin down a possible internet insurgent than it would be to determine other types of insurgents in person. This is why the Internet is such a fertile breeding ground for new-age, political terrorists who are neither American, nor "liberal" in the modern sense of the word.

Be aware that these people are seeking access to your children, as well. Not only are they trying to disrupt the polite discourse of issues that effect us all, but they wish to corrupt the next generation of Americans by supporting our enemies while pretending to be Americans.

What Does Iran Want?

2007-02-12T14:56:00.000-05:00

Iran is becoming increasingly vocal in both their opposition to the United States and in the defense of their sprint to obtain nuclear weapons technology. In recent days Iran's ally, Russia, accused the United States of trying to "dominate the world". It is actually Islamic Terror that is attempting to dominate the world.

What could Iran possibly gain by facing off against the greatest military and economic power in the world? Practically, they can gain nothing. Their economy is in shambles. Iranian citizens and politicians alike are grumbling about Ahmadinejad's increasing hostility against the Western World. What does Ahmadinejad want?

Iran wants to dominate the Middle East. Their nation is not composed of Arabs primarily. Most of them are actually Persians. They don't even speak Arabic. They speak Farsi. They see themselves as the "Persian Empire" that once dominated the Middle East.

The Iraq War provided Iran with a security vacuum in the heart of the Middle East. If it were not for Iranian meddling, the security situation in Iraq would be much better. Iranian security agents smuggle in weapons. They train Iraqi rebels in bomb making techniques. Iranian-made IED's have been found all over Iraq. We are practically at war with Iran already.

The Iranians are perhaps the most volatile Shi'ite Muslims in the world. They believe that facing off against the "Infidels" (that's you and your family) will bring about an apocalypse that will cause the "12th Imam" of Shi'ite Islam to come out of hiding and take over the world under the Islamic flag. Ahmadinejad has stated recently that he would be willing to sacrifice 50% of his nation's population in order to destroy Israel. That shows the mindset of a typical Islamic Fascist. This man isn't anything unusual in the Middle East. You would find 50 more like him in a simple market in Tehran, all willing to kill themselves and their children in order to kill YOU. If you think you aren't a target, think again. The day you were born an American was the day you were born with a target on your back.

So what is the solution for this Iranian cultural and military menace? War. Taking out Iran would nullify their military action against us in Iraq, thus stabilizing that country. Perhaps then we should think about doing the same thing to Iran that we did to Iraq, and create a government based on Democracy.

Numerous Liberals are now jumping up and screaming in support of Iran. They are accusing the United States of fabricating evidence that Iranian bombs are killing American soldiers. Even in the face of high ranking Iranian security agents being captured in Iraq, they claim Iran is being unfairly targeted. Why is there such heart-felt support of Iran from the American Left? Are they actually openly supporting an outright enemy of the United States that has threatened us and our allies with destruction? Are Liberals actually domestic insurgents-in-waiting? Are they a direct threat to national security? They are obviously enemies of the United States. Whether they are direct, internal threat to our security remains to be seen. They are on Iran's side, after all.

True Americans

2007-01-25T07:26:00.000-05:00

Modern-day Americans face many challenges. We face external challenges to our Democracy. We especially face terrorist challenges to our ability to protect our political interests overseas and on our own soil. We are despised the world over...even after saving all of the Western World in two World Wars. However, we also face internal enemies.

Many Americans are not aware that the greatest threats to our Freedom are Democrats i.e. Socialists. Not only are they Socialists, but they are the absolute antipathy of all that is American: Personal Freedom, Independence of the Individual, and the Rights of even the Unborn, are all under threat. This nation was founded by force. We weren't founded by negotiation. Neither should we seek to negotiate with our modern internal enemy.

There are two ways this Nation can go: 1) Continue the current path leading to the disintegration of the Constitution, our borders, and culture or 2) Reclaim what is our God-given birthright as Americans.

We are a Nation founded by the will of God. We are a gem placed on this Earth and have responsibilities to our Country, our God, and our descendants. We cannot afford to fail. We must maintain the diginity of our Nation at any cost, at any price, and at any risk.

We are Americans. We are the greatest Nation in the history of the world. We are great not because of ourselves, but because of our Founders faith in an Almighty God, and in certain moral Principles. It is not in selfishness or haughtiness that I say we are great, but because we have the unwavering hand of God above us keeping us intact.

Every man and woman enters this world but one time. What you do in the period of time you are given on this Earth is up to you. It is better to have lived it fighting for certain unalienable rights that are God-given, than to wilt away under the Shadow of a Godless hegemony.

Democrat Trickery: Hillary vs. Obama?

2007-01-19T13:29:00.000-05:00

Is Obama hiding his Islamic faith?

The new battle between Hillary Clinton and her newest rival, Barack Obama, has reached an important climax. Hillary's advisors are supposedly fueling speculation that Obama is still a Muslim, and Obama is reportedly trying to blunt Hillary's popularity by stating that his inexperience is actually a positive trait. In fact, Hillary and Obama are carefully coordinating a false "war" between their parties in an effort to draw public attention to BOTH of them. I wouldn't be surprised if these two were plotting to combine forces and run on a ticket together. Hillary already knows she can't win the Presidency. Her negatives are permanently and consistently so high that running on her own on a national ticket would be a disaster for both her and the Democratic Party. But could Democrats stomach her as a Vice President? Hmm. It's worth a look into this possibility.

Obama knows nothing about Washington, but he knows a lot about power. His father was a member of the corrupt and violent Kenyatta regime. Perhaps he is sneakily trying to infiltrate the United States power structure as a secret Islamic Fascist? Barack Hussein Obama is actually his given name. Remember that every time you see this media-blessed individual on the major news networks. They label him "charming"and "likable". When the MSM starts complimenting a politician with such endearing terms, it's time to turn your attention and wonder what the hell is going on behind the scenes.

Would Hillary Clinton actually allow herself to run second to Obama? Sure she would, if it meant she could be the "first woman Vice President". Americans need to watch these two carefully, for it is my assertion that they are working together.

Keep your eyes and ears open, people.

The Redcoat Press: Traitors Then, Traitors Now

2007-01-13T10:25:00.000-05:00

Suppose the current media posture about American military and security activities had been in effect during World War II. It is easy to imagine that happening. In the 1930s, after all, the well-connected America First Committee had been arguing for years about the need for America to stay out of "Europe's wars." Aware of these popular views, the House extended the draft by only a one-vote margin in 1941. Women dressed in black crowded the entrance to the Senate, arguing against extending the draft. Several hundred students at Harvard and Yale, including future Yale leader Kingman Brewster and future American president Gerald Ford, signed statements saying that they would never go to war. Everything was in place for a media attack on the Second World War. Here is how it might have sounded if today's customs were in effect:

December 1941. Though the press supports America's going to war against Japan after Pearl Harbor, several editorials want to know why we didn't prevent the attack by selling Japan more oil. Others criticize us for going to war with two nations that had never attacked us, Germany and Italy.

October 1942. The New York Times runs an exclusive story about the British effort to decipher German messages at a hidden site at Bletchley Park in England. One op-ed writer criticizes this move, quoting Henry Stimson's statement that gentlemen do not read one another's mail. Because the Bletchley Park code-cracking helped us find German submarines before they attacked, successful U-boat attacks increased once the Germans, knowing of the program, changed their code.

January 1943. After President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill call for the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers, several newspapers criticize them for having closed the door to a negotiated settlement. The press quotes several senators complaining that the unconditional surrender policy would harm the peace process.

May 1943. A big-city newspaper reveals the existence of the Manhattan Project and its effort to build atomic weapons. In these stories, several distinguished scientists lament the creation of such a terrible weapon. After Gen. Leslie Groves testifies before a congressional committee, the press lambastes him for wasting money, ignoring scientific opinion, and imperiling the environment by building plants at Hanford and Oak Ridge.

December 1944. The German counterattack against the Allies in the Ardennes yields heavy American losses in the Battle of the Bulge. The press gives splashy coverage to the Democratic National Committee chairman's assertion that the war cannot be won. A member of the House, a former Marine, urges that our troops be sent to Okinawa.

August 1945. After President Truman authorizes dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, many newspapers urge his impeachment.

Original / Full Article: http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203

Where Feminazism Began

2007-01-11T19:47:00.000-05:00

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/26jul/russianwoman.htm

The Atlantic MonthlyJuly 1926

The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage

"Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in theconsumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka." By A Woman Resident in Russia The question whether marriage as an institution should be abolished is nowbeing debated all over Russia with a violence and depth of passion unknown since the turbulent early days of the Revolution. Last October a billeliminating distinctions between registered and unregistered marriages and giving the unmarried consort the status and property rights of the legalwife was introduced in the Tzik, or Central Executive Committee. So much unforeseen opposition to the proposed law developed that the Tzik decidedto postpone its final adoption until the next session, meanwhile initiating a broad popular discussion of the project.

Since that time factories, offices, clubs, and various Soviet organizations and institutions have passed resolutions for and against the bill, and the halls have not been able to hold the eager crowds that thronged to themeetings in city, town, and village. One must live in Russia to-day, amid the atmosphere of torment, disgust, and disillusionment that pervades sex relations, the chaos, uncertainty, and tragedy that hover over the Russian family, to understand the reasons for this heated discussion, for these passionate pros and cons.

When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family, likeevery other 'bourgeois' institution, with fierce hatred, and set out with awill to destroy it. 'To clear the family out of the accumulated dust of theages we had to give it a good shakeup, and we did,' declared Madame Smidovich, a leading Communist and active participant in the recent discussion. So one of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term 'illegitimate children.' This was done simply by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it, and now the Soviet Government boasts that Russia is the only country where there are no illegitimate children. The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary in the event of a separation, provided she has no other means of livelihood.

At the same time a law was passed which made divorce a matter of a fewminutes, to be obtained at the request of either partner in a marriage.Chaos was the result. Men took to changing wives with the same zest which they displayed in the consumption of the recently restored forty-per-cent vodka.'

Some men have twenty wives, living a week with one, a month with another,'asserted an indignant woman delegate during the sessions of the Tzik. 'Theyhave children with all of them, and these children are thrown on the streetfor lack of support! (There are three hundred thousand bezprizorni or shelterless children in Russia to-day, who are literally turned out on the streets. They are one of the greatest social dangers of the present time,because they are developing into professional criminals. More than half ofthem are drug addicts and sex perverts. It is claimed by many Communists that the break-up of the family is responsible for a large percentage of these children.) The peasant villages have perhaps suffered most from this revolution in sex relations. An epidemic of marriages and divorces broke out in the country districts. Peasants with a respectable married life of forty years and morebehind them suddenly decided to leave their wives and remarry. Peasant boyslooked upon marriage as an exciting game and changed wives with the changeof seasons. It was not an unusual occurrence for a boy of twenty to havehad three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three orfour abortions. As the peasants of Borisovo-Pokrovskoie bitterlycomplained: 'Abortions cover our villages with shame. Formerly we did not even hear of them.' But the women, in self-defense, replied: 'It's easy foryou to talk. But if you just tried to bear children yourselves you would sing a different song.

'I was once discussing the subject of frequent divorces with the presidentof a village soviet. 'What makes women get divorces?' I asked him. Justthen a girl about eighteen years old entered the room. 'Here is our latestdivorcee,' said the president laughingly. 'Ask her.' I turned around, butthe girl was no longer there, and from the window I saw her running away as fast as she could. I ran after her and finally caught up with her in thefields outside the village. We sat down on a haystack and I asked the girlto talk to me frankly, as woman to woman. Tears filled her eyes as she told me that she still loved hernineteen-year-old husband, but that he had forced her to ask for a divorceonly two months after they had been married. He now thought he loved another girl in the village and threatened to kill his wife if she did not leave him voluntarily.

I recall another victim of the breakdown of family ties in the villages, atall, pale, silent Cossack woman. She was divorced by her husband after their first child was born. He then married another woman, had a child byher, deserted both, and returned to his first wife, by whom he had a second child. The woman was deeply religious, and was tormented by the thought that her second child was illegitimate, although her priest assured her that this was not the case, because the Church did not recognize the divorce.

Several peculiar abuses sprang up in the country districts in connection with the shifting marriage regulations. Many women of light behavior found marriage and childbearing a profitable occupation. They formed connections with the sons of well-to-do peasants and then blackmailed the father forthe support of the children. In some cases peasants have been obliged tosell their last cow or horse in order to settle such alimony claims. The law has created still more confusion because it is retrospective in its operation, so that women can claim support for children born many years ago.

Other peasants took advantage of the loose divorce regulations to acquire 'summer brides.' As the hiring of labor in Russia is hedged about with difficulties and restrictions for the private employer, the richer peasants in some districts took to the practice of marrying a strong girl for theharvest season and divorcing her as soon as the work in the fields was over.The new sex relations have also raised certain problems in the cities.During the winter of 1924-1925 some of the older Communists accused theyounger generation, especially the students, of indulging in too much dissipation, of squandering health and vitality in loose connections; theyblame the girl students for practising frequent abortions. 'You must beeither a student or a mother; under present-day conditions you can't beboth,' declared one mentor to the modern Russian women students. The latter indignantly replied that love was almost the only cheap amusement left to them and demanded that they be given at least the same opportunity for free abortions that factory women enjoy. Moreover, they retorted that not all the older Communists could serve as a model of pure living.

Some members of the League of Communist Youth, an organization which now numbers between a million and a half and two million young men and women,regard the refusal to enter into temporary sex relations as mere bourgeoisprejudice, the deadliest sin in the eyes of a Communist. Some of theprovincial branches of the League went so far as to organize 'Down withShame' and 'Down with Innocence' circles; but these were sharply condemned as rowdy aberrations in the official report on the activities of the Leagueat the last Congress of the Communist Party.

Both in the villages and in the cities the problem of the unmarried mother has become very acute and provides a severe and annoying test of Communist theories. In the early stages of the Revolution the Communists held the theory that children should be reared and cared for by the State. But it soon became evident that the State, especially in war-torn and impoverished Russia, was financially quite incapable of assuming such a heavy burden of responsibility. The figure of ten thousand foundlings, reported for thirty-two provinces of the Soviet Union over a period of six months, illustrates the danger that the present large number of vagrant homelesschildren may be swelled because of the inability or unwillingness of parents to provide for the offspring of temporary connections.

The session of the Tzik which discussed the abolition of marriage as an institution last autumn took place in the famous throne room of the Tsars in one of the Kremlin palaces. The gilded walls and ceilings are unchanged,but the throne has been replaced by a simple wooden structure serving as a platform. Here round-faced peasant women with red kerchiefs over theirheads, workers in plain dark blouse without tie or collar, commissars in high boots, mingled democratically and argued with equal ardor.

The bill was introduced by the Commissar for Justice, Mr. Kursky, a largeman with tremendous blonde moustaches. He pointed out that whereas, according to the old law, the wife had no rights in the case of an unregistered marriage, the proposed law would give her the rights of a legal wife in holding property and in other matters. Another new point wasthat wife and husband would have an equal right to claim support from the other, if unemployed or incapacitated for work. The woman would have the right to demand support for her child even if she lived with several men during the period of conception; but, in contrast to previous practice, she or the court would choose one man who would be held responsible for the support. Commissar Kursky seemed especially proud of this point because itdiffered so much from the 'burgeois customs' of Europe and America. In those countries, he said, the husband can bring a friend who declares that he also lived with the woman, and the latter is then left defenseless. In the villages, where some continue to live with their parents long after they are married, the whole family is held responsible if a woman claims alimony, according to the original draft of the proposed law.

When Kursky had finished his report and the floor was open for discussion ,so much heated opposition developed that representatives from villages and factories spoke for days at a time, and the list of speakers who wished tobe heard seemed to be continually growing larger. The question which chiefly occupied the attention of the debaters was whether giving theunregistered wife all legal rights would prevent men from making many rashand temporary connections, or whether it would simply lead to polygamy and polyandry.

The Commissar for Internal Affairs, Byelobrodov, argued that the Statecannot regard marriage as a purely private affair. It was his view thatstable marriages would better ensure the education of the children. Heasserted that the break-up of the family was responsible for many of the criminal and beggar children now on the streets.

Another speaker objected to the proposed law on the ground that some women would take advantage of its liberal provisions to form connections with wealthy men and then blackmail them for alimony. Krasikov, a high officialin the Commissariat for Justice, contended that it would be most difficultto establish whether people had actually lived in marriage, and drew theconclusion that the law against polygamy would become a dead letter. Onedebater put the question in more picturesque fashion: 'You want to turnRussia into one huge marriage, where everyone will have married everyone else.'

A working woman from Kostroma, with a shawl over her head, added her voice of general chorus of opposition. 'In our factories,' she said, 'you noticesomething very unpleasant. As long as a young man doesn't participate in public activities he respects his wife. But as soon as he moves up a little, gets a little more education, something comes between them. Heleaves his wife with a child, lives with another woman, and brings povertyand misery to both. I ask the working women to pass a law that will stopthe practice of having many husbands and many wives.'

Mrs. Gypova, a peasant woman from Kursk Province, insisted that men and women must not be permitted to live like gypsies, continually changing their mates. The children suffered too much. 'Many husbands who lived peacefully with their wives for twenty years suddenly begin to cry: "We have freedom now. Give me a divorce." Unless some firm limit is placed on frequent marriages and divorces we shall be discussing this question at every session and never get good results.'

The opposition to the proposed law seemed to centre around four points: (1)that it would abolish marriage; (2) that it would destroy the family; (3)that it would legalize polygamy and polyandry; (4) that it would ruin the peasants.

It soon became clear that the bill could not be passed at the autumnsession, and a resolution to postpone further action on it until the nextsession was adopted. About two weeks later a mass meeting was held in Moscow to discuss the proposal. Krilenko, the Soviet public prosecutor, whohad a very large share in the framing of the bill and is one of its most passionate advocates, argued that there is neither necessity, importance,nor even utility in the registration of a marriage. 'Why should the Stateknow who marries whom?' he exclaimed. 'Of course, if living together andnot registration is taken as the test of a married state, polygamy and polyandry may exist; but the State can't put up any barriers against this.Free love is the ultimate aim of a socialist State; in that State marriagewill be free from any kind of obligation, including economic, and will turninto an absolutely free union of two beings. Meanwhile, though our aim isthe free union, we must recognize that marriage involves certain economic responsibilities, and that's why the law takes upon itself the defense ofthe weaker partner, from the economic standpoint.'

Leon Trotski also pronounced himself in favor of the proposed new law at a conference of medical workers engaged in maternity welfare work. Trotski stressed the point that such a law, by giving more protection to women, would make for the benefit of the country's children.

On the other hand, Mr. Soltz, a prominent Communist authority on legal matters and one of the bitterest opponents of the proposed law, took a verydifferent view of its probable consequences. His argument ran somewhat as follows:—

'We now impose the responsibility for the consequences of loose living onmen who are guilty of it, while at the same time we know that they can'tundertake the burden of these responsibilities. Women don't get a hundredthpart of the alimony to which they are entitled by court decisions because the husbands simply cannot pay. The proposed law seems to favor women, butit will really work out to their disadvantage, because even now husbands run away from their wives and wives run vainly after their husbands and their alimony. Women enter into temporary connections because they think the law will protect them. We must tell them that only registered marriage can involve economic obligations; then they will be more careful. You saywe can put alimony defaulters in prison, but if we tried to do this weshouldn't have enough prisons to hold the guilty. Women will defend themselves better if they know that they can't rely on our laws for defense.'

Madame Smidovich expressed the opinion that the family is still needed to fulfill the function of bringing up children and carrying out otherobligations which the State is not yet able to assume. She favored the lawbecause she thought a woman would be best defended if her rights as a wifewere legally upheld, regardless of whether the marriage were registered.'Many applauded Soltz,' she added, 'because they already rejoice in theidea that if they are only obliged to assume responsibility for aregistered marriage, they can at the same time maintain several other connections without any responsibility at all.'

Madama Kollontai, Russia's foremost feminist leader and first woman ambassador (to Norway), offered an interesting contribution to this discussion. She opposed the bill because she did not think women couldcollect alimony, especially if their husbands had two families. She wasagainst registration and altogether in favor of free love. As a solutionfor the vexing problem of children she suggested a scheme of 'marriage insurance,' to be financed by an annual levy of one dollar on every adult citizen of the Soviet Union. This would provide a fund of about sixty million dollars a year, enough to provide for all the babies who might beborn as a result of free-love unions. She also remarked that, although the present-day Russian youth is accused of dissipation and loose living, it is often forgotten that prostitution has largely disappeared. (In this connection there is a widespread saying that amateurs spoil the profession.)

If opinion on the proposed law is divided in the cities, the feeling in the villages, where eighty per cent of the Russians live, is overwhelmingly against it. Recently the official Soviet newspaper, Izvestia, printed arésumé of peasant opinion in regard to it. Perhaps the most characteristic spokesman was A. Platov, a peasant from Vologda Province, who declared:—

'Marriage among the peasants has not yet become a toy which can be fashioned to-day and broken to-morrow or next week. The new proposal tohave many wives and husbands is considered illegal in the villages. Responsibility for the sins of one member should not fall upon the the entire family. Every divorce in the villages brings with it familydiscords, feuds, trials, revenge, murder, and ruin. One must take into consideration the backwardness of the village population, which feels that the new law will bring polygamy, grief, demoralization, and the dying outof the race.'

In Tetushi, a Tatar village, the meeting of the peasants was described as 'noisy, even stormy.' It began at two in the afternoon and lasted until the following morning. The meeting registered a unanimous vote for the registration of marriage. Although disussion is still going on all over Russia, there seems to be little doubt that the bill, with certainmodifications, will be passed at the next session of the Tzik, which will be held in the summer. The more important changes in the draft law, towhich the Commissariat for Justice has agreed in deference to thewidespread popular protests and opposition, are as follows:—

Unregistered marriage will entail legal rights only in cases where the parties concerned mutually acknowledge each other as husband and wife,where it is established before a court that they lived together and hadjoint property, either by the testimony of a third party of by the evidenceof their personal correspondence or other documents, where there was mutual material support or joint bringing up of children.

A husband or wife may claim support from the other partner only for one year if incapacitated for work, and only for six months if unemployed.(This change was made as a result of numerous suggestions to the effect that some Russian men are so lazy that they would be glad to marry working women and remain permanently unemployed if they were thereby entitled to claim support from their wives.)

Preference will be given to registered marriages in so far as registration will be considered an absolute proof of marriage.

The whole peasant family will be responsible for the support of the child of one of its members, but the amount given must in no case be so great asto lead to the ruin of the family.

The mere technical details of the proposed new marriage law would scarcely have excited such a flood of ardent popular discussion if the whole problem of sex relations had not been in the forefront of public attention. The discussion simply provided an outlet for the expression of long-repressed feelings on this subject.

The course of the discussion indicated pretty clearly two outstanding developments in modern Russia's attitude toward the problems of marriage,sex, and the family. In the first place, there is an unmistakable reaction,both among the Communists and among the general public, against excessive loose living. Some of the Communists especially stress the point that a comrade who spends too much time in love affairs cannot fulfil his duties to the Party and the proletariat. There is a tendency among Communist writers now to decry excessive preoccupation with sex as a symptom of bourgeois decadence. Among the general population and especially among the peasants there is a keen realization of the difficulties, material and otherwise, which have come up as a result of a too literal adoption of the'free love' slogan, and there is a desire for more stable domestic relations.

In the second place, it is now pretty evident that the widespread circulation of revolutionary ideas on the desirability of abolishing the family has not by any means eliminated old-fashioned passions of love and jealousy. The police records are full of cases, some of them very terrible,of murders and assaults and suicides committed by women under the influence of jealousy. One such case may serve as an example. A peasant left hisvillage wife and began to live with a working woman in the town. Thevillage wife kept coming and making scenes before the second wife, until the latter, irritated beyond endurance, poured benzine over her rival, sether on fire, and burned her to death. Such elemental outbursts of jealousyare condemned by the Communists as 'relics of bourgeois prejudice'; butthey continue to occur nevertheless, and even Communist women have beenknown to commit suicide because their husbands' attentions were diverted elsewhere.

The Atlantic Monthly; July 1926; The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage;Volume 138, No. 1; page 108-114.

The Masculine Mind

2007-01-10T19:30:00.000-05:00

Self professed "intellectuals" on the Left are responsible for the moral decay our country is facing presently. There are many factors that have contributed to this. One of the primary causes, however, is the repudiation of Masculinity.

Masculinity is responsible for the creation of the modern industrial and technological world. It was responsible for the creation of Ancient Egypt, the Roman Empire, and other great societies. By utilizing deep-seated tendencies in the male mind, certain people have accomplished astounding things...including leaps of progress that could have only come from the drive derived from Masculinity.

An ideal society should exist in a form in which the Masculine and Feminine co-exist equally. Liberals have been trying to Feminize men for at least 50years. Men are denied their natural place as Protectors and Guardians of their families. The end of the family wage was the end of the Man's place as Head of the Family. Even now, what is left of the traditional, and correct, family unit is under attack. There will be no end to this assault on natural values until every man is left without any testosterone left in his body. This is the ultimate goal of Feminists, and feminized men who have no Masculine tendencies to speak of and therefore serve Feminists as willing servants.

One need only look at the average Liberal man to note his feminine qualities. The Liberal man is afraid to offend others. A powerful persona is not one of the Liberal man's traits. The Liberal man aspires to be as gentle a mouse as possible. This garners him approval by Feminists. His need to seek approval...before taking any forthright action of his own...is the final defeat of his Masculine soul.

Great civilizations and great leaps in human achievement were not accomplished by exemplifying traits such as meekness, apprehensiveness, and a trembling spirit. They were forced through to completion by using the raw, powerful spirit that is native to the hearts of most men. The best example today of the naturally correct state of Men are front line combat troops in the military. They are one of the last remnants of modern society that have that still show an overpowering desire to succeed in the face of opposition. Law enforcement professions also gear toward the Masculine, though these are slowly being eroded into being Feminine by the ACLU and liberal, activist Judges who are taking away their enforcement powers.

Feminism (as in Feminine traits, not modern Feminist ideology) also has its place in society. Women are naturally talented at keeping social groups intact, imparting values on the next generation, and making life bearable in the face of hardship. Modern Feminists seek to destroy Feminism in its natural form. A beautiful, polite women who respects the authority of her husband is seen as an archaic piece of trash who should be thrown out like dirty mop water. Such a woman is the number one enemy of the Leftists. This is the reason Leftists engineered the end of the Family Wage and claimed that it discriminated against women. Leftists had to find some way to get women out of their homes and into the workplace whether they wanted to or not, despite the fact that most women then, and now, would not work if they had a husband who could support them. No Family Wage = No Support = Get Out Of The House. It was a simple formula that Feminists used to destroy the family unit.

True Masculine Men, and True Feminine Women, are the backbone of a stable society. Feminizing men and Masculinizing women is the key to completely destroying modern human civilization. If you are Masculine man, be proud it. Exemplify it. Hold your head high and proudly proclaim in your heart, "I am a Man." In fact, say it out loud. Don't let Liberals control your right and natural need to be a Real Man, instead of letting them make you a fearful, consensus-needy, quiet, puny-minded follower. If you are Feminine woman, be likewise proud. You are backbone of the Family, the intellectual and emotional support for your children and others. You are the inspiration for the next generation. You are the reason your Man gets up every day to "go to war", so to speak, in the workplace or otherwise. You have nothing to be ashamed of for being what God intended you to be. You are the other, and equal, half of the equation. Despite what Liberals would have you believe, being a "real woman" is just as important and crucial as any of the Masculine values I've mentioned.

Nancy Pelosi: Devil In Disguise

2007-01-06T16:17:00.000-05:00

Nancy Pelosery, with a popular approval of only 43%, has launched herself into the limelight as if she were some sort of Hollywood celebrity. Bush's approval ratings are usually right around that number, yet Democrats bring much attention to it. This means that Pelosery has a 57% disapproval rating.

Pelosery paraded herself into the House with a whole entourage of people, reminiscent of Michael Jackson on a stage surrounding himself with a support staff. She gives that fake looking smile that lets everyone know that, for her, smiling is a chore. Pelosery gives the appearance of someone very uncomfortable with her position. Sure, her words are those that would exude confidence. However, I think she knows she isn't up to the task of coming up with a clear agenda. She was hollow during the campaign and even stated once that the Democrats "didn't need" an agenda to defeat the Republicans. It was intellectually lazy of her not to at least try to come up something to present to the American people.

Pelosery is now surrounded by many Conservative Democrats who, in the aftermath of their win and her placement as Speaker, have assured their GOP districts that they will pursue their Conservative issues and causes. Does anyone really believe that Pelosery will allow tax cuts, right to life issues, etc. pass through under her watch? Before they have even started, the Democrats have sabotaged themselves. Look for a major divide in the Democratic Party once the legislative process truly gets under way.

Pelosery promised "bi-partisanship". What a crock. Nothing less than militant feminism, tax raising, and ultra-left Socialism should be expected from her. Americans didn't pay much attention to Pelosery before the election. She HID from the media for at least three months prior to the election. Hardly any speeches or anything else came from her baby-eating facial hole. But now she's the Speaker of the House. She has "cracked the marble ceiling". And most of all, now all of the United States will know why San Fransisco keeps re-electing her. She didn't need to campaign in her home district. She is already the far left, anti-heterosexual, anti-male, anti-God entity that San Fransisco wants her to be...so it wasn't necessary for her to exert any effort there. San Franciscans, meeting in their dungeons i.e. leather-fetish clubs, were ready to accept her lack of effort if it meant hiding the truth from the rest of the Country.

Now Pelosery stands on the pedestal that, deep down inside, she is afraid of being upon. I see the fear and apprehension in her seedy-looking eyes. She knows she can't pretend to be a moderate for long. That demonic spirit that lives within her will soon be tearing out of her facade, her cloak, her mask. She won't be able to control it...for once you give yourself completely to evil..you are it's slave.

It will be great to watch Pelosery destroy herself, just as Satan destroyed himself when he fell from the grace of God.

National Guard Overrun By Mexican Gunmen

2007-01-04T14:49:00.001-05:00

Wednesday night, armed Mexican gunment stormed a desert entry point along the U.S. / Mexico border, forcing a National Guard to retreat. After the gunman took over the entry point, they retreated back into Mexico. This is a direct attack on the sovereignty of the United States. What will it take before our leaders in Washington take our border seriously?

Guardsmen overrun at the Border

Quote of concern:

"What this means is a transfer of power, it means control, it means who's going to influence. And it is the young people, the people who are now moving to develop an agenda for the 21st century. They are really going to be in a position to really make the promise of what the Chicano movement was all about in terms of self-determination, in terms of empowerment, and even in the terms of the idea of an Aztlan!"*
Armando Navarro Professor of Ethnic Studies, U.C. Riverside

Turn-around Time

2007-01-04T00:12:00.000-05:00

During the time preceding the last election, Democrats played a hard game getting the American people to believe that they were "moderates". What is a moderate, anyway? A moderate is someone who avoids making decisions on issues, or rather refuses to state their decisions on issues, in order to satisfy the greatest number of people on both sides of the political spectrum.

For much of the history of the Democratic Party (20th Century), Democrats have been Liberals. They were proud of their political stances and their ability to cause social upheaval whenever they got a chance. Unfortunately for them, Liberalism is no longer a viable political tool. Most Americans don't consider themselves to be Liberals. In fact, most American refer to themselves as Conservatives.

Democrats have realized that Liberalism as a political tool is dead. Saying that you are a "liberal" is a ticket to electoral failure. Therefore, Democratic strategists embarked on a policy of "hidden liberalism" while draped in a cloak of "moderate-ness". The mainstream media saps (except for Fox News) ate this up and spewed it out to the American people and, in fact, became shameless contributors to the Democratic cause. Democrats called themselves "moderates" all over the country. The DNC went so far as to hand-pick their new "moderate" members, but maintained a core of extremely Liberal leaders such as Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, and a few others who actually call the shots.

Democrats succeeded in winning only a slim Congressional majority, notably in the Senate. There they only maintain a one-vote advantage. This is hardly a mandate. They won't be able to govern without the input of Republicans. Why is it that during a 6th year election cycle...with the President having extremely low approval ratings and who is waging a generally unpopular war...Democrats were unable to achieve a mandate? Answer: The majority of Americans are still Conservatives, but ceded to historical trends in order to get Washington to pay attention to them. The election was as much a repudiation of Republicans who didn't hold true to their Conservative roots as it was a choice to try another path.

Democrats have already fallen prey to the Dark Side of the own political strategy. Already, newly christened Democrats who actually are "moderates" or "conservatives" are demanding that their views be respected by their Ultra-Left liberal leaders. This is creating some tension in the ranks, but will be more evident when the legislative process gets under way. Pelosi and her underworld minions promised to work together with Republicans (in order to dispel the fears of many of those dreaded government shutdowns)...but opened up their new Congress by shutting Republicans completely out of the process. Is this her "new direction"? The cracks in the Democrats glass armor is already spreading....and soon it will shatter completely for all to see.

It will be interesting to see how Democrats plan on getting an agenda through to the President without input from Republicans...considering they will need his signature to make their goals become law. They could try and use a government shutdown to force the President's hand. However, they would be forgetting that this is the President's last term. President Bush would have nothing to lose by accepting a shutdown to put pressure on unruly Democrats. Democrats run the risk of getting absolutely nothing done for two years...and having no one to politically punish for it in 2008. It will be THEY who are left with two years of baggage, not Republicans. The result may well be that Republicans sweep the Congress and win the Presidency in 2008.

Perhaps a Democratic win in 2006 is just what America needed in order to see Democrats for what they truly are...before they make a decision in 2008.

Democratic Self Destruction

2007-01-03T12:05:00.000-05:00

Left Wing Extremists are already disintegrating in the aftermath of the Congressional Elections of 2006. The primary reason Democrats won was the fact that 6th Year Elections typically go to the opposing party. As many put it after the electionS, "It's now time for Democrats to show whether they can lead." Can they? Of course not. They have already started their so-called "First 100 Hours" by completely shutting out Republicans on legislation. They have spread out the spoils of the election to every possible group in the Democratic Party and have shunned Republicans to the sidelines. Is this Nancy Pelosi's "new direction"? Does Pelosi think that President Bush is going to sign legislation by, for, and ONLY for...Democrats? Perhaps this is Pelosi's tactic to bring about a government shutdown in the near future? Democrats should remember that Republicans are still quite powerful in the Senate...and are only one vote from being in control themselves. Do Democrats think they will get anything done in this manner? They are making a terrible mistake and will pay for it in two years after accomplishing nothing.

Democrats are sabatoging themselves at every turn. Hillary Clinton is polling low in crucial states and is now attacking Obama, her primary threat. Obama never had much of a chance of winning an actual Presidential election because he is a novice to leadership, however he has been much more dignified than Hillary Clinton. All the while, Nancy Pelosi is making sure her party loses in 2008 by turning her back on her promises to work with the Republicans when it comes to legislation so as to "do what's best for the American people". What a crock. Democrats have got two years ahead of them and already they've shown themselves to be the liars they are.

AOL Message Board Posters Reach New Lows

2007-01-02T19:17:00.000-05:00

Throughout the AOL Message Board universe, liberals have reached new, disturbing lows in their mission to ruin society and rid it of the last vestiges of decency. Estone and TeeRay (not their actual Screen Names, so as to protect their right to privacy) in particular, are the best examples of what is the worst segment of America. Hatred and division sour their foul hearts, leading many to question the quality of their parents.

Perhaps kindness, respect, and honor are virtues worth holding dear? Liberals should learn to respect the views of others. They fancy themselves to be "tolerant", yet they attack anyone who doesn't agree with their opinions. One cannot help but wonder if there is a touch of hypocrisy about them?

Nancy Pelosi is just like Estone and TeeRay. She believes in nothing, yet pretends to have some sense of high idealism. For what, one might ask! Pelosi didn't run on anything. She ran on nothingness as an issue, yet now says she will "restore decency to the Congress"? That is just as likely as Estone and TeeRay growing devils horns and breathing fire (oh wait, there is actually a slightly chance of that, sorry!!)

Respect, honor, decency, kindness, understanding, and fairness should be words people like Estone and TeeRay should be required to cite every morning after they wake up. Perhaps that would help them get along with their fellow human beings.

Poem Of The Year / 2006

2007-01-01T06:59:00.000-05:00

The Sunset of 2006

I've often walked down this lovely path, with hope in my heart,
And as the sun sets upon 2006, I feel weary and discouraged,
I felt no victory or joy when Saddam was hung, couldn't watch it,
The pain of a divided America fills my mind, my country at war.

I wonder where the civility and respect has gone, and dignity,
The walls of civilization have been breached, left unrepaired,
We struggle, divided equally with no one winning, all losing,
Yet our integrity, morals & values as a nation steadily decline.

It's not to foreign soil that we should look, but upon our shores,
That erode and wash away with tides of lack of respect, dignity,
There's no replacement for respect and honor, no refuge in words,
That doesn't reflect the truth of all things, regardless of the cost .

It grieves me that our nation is paralyzed, unhappy; without focus,
As the left struggles with the right, in a war of words & attrition,
That no one wins, because both sides lack the credibility to win,
Yet we are mired in the mud of a verbal, political civil war.

As I look to the end of this year, and a new year and it's promise,
I wonder if we will again squander our possibilities and dreams,
Wasting precious time as the world and our country suffers,
All because of pride, the need to win, the loss of moral fiber.

Contributed by: RyanDonavon

New Year's Eve, 2006

Saddam's Death Is Iraq's Gain

2006-12-30T00:38:00.000-05:00

Throughout his trial, Saddam Hussein made a mockery of the justice system. He waved around his Koran as if he were a religious man...after spending decades as a secular, Hitler-admiring tyrant. Bowing to Mecca must have been very painful for this demon of a man. His days on this Earth are over. But his days in Hell have only just begun. He will spend an eternity being tormented as a punishment for the deeds he committed during his lifetime.

Hanging was a fitting way to execute Hussein. The jubilation heard around the world, with Iraqis having the loudest voices, speaks volumes about this turning point in history for Iraq.

Insurgent morale is bound to dissipate. I believe they were counting on an unlikely scenario in which the judges involved in his sentencing would be intimidated into allowing him to live and possibly regain power for the Baathists, if not for himself. It was a pipe dream, but it was motivation enough to keep fighting. The head of the snake has been cut off.

Recently, left wing cable news networks have referred to insurgents as "Saddam loyalists". Now that Saddam Hussein is dead, they have no defining purpose. Sunni Muslims will never again take power in Iraq. The Shi'ite majority, pressed down by the minority Sunnis for so long, will never let themselves be shackled by Baathists again. Saddam Hussein and his ideology are dead. His supporters are fighting a losing battle. The only thing left for Coalition and Iraqi forces to do...is to get Iraq on its feet and allow people to return to work, home, and family. It can, and will, be done.

Bush's Legacy

2006-12-29T04:40:00.000-05:00

President Bush will be remembered as the President who implanted a Democracy in the heart of the Middle East. It is no surprise that various Middle Eastern entities have stepped up in the fight against Democracy. The battle in Iraq is not between the United States and Iraqi Insurgents. The battle is between the United States and every terrorist group and almost every governmnent in the Middle East. This battle is both a physical and ideological battle. The United States is winning that battle. Troops on the ground repeatedly report progress all over Iraq, but this fact is routinely ignored by the media. Iraq is now a Democracy. That fact alone is a winning situation. Does Iraq have problems? Definitely. Can those problems be solved? Definitely.

The touch of Democracy upon the hearts and minds of Iraqis has greatly effected them. They voted in their last election in amazing numbers. They marked themselves with blue ink to vote and I remember them proudly stating that fact to the world. They risked life and limb to vote. Old ladies dodged bullets to get to the polls. Many Americans can't take credit for such devotion to Democracy. Democracy is contagious. After so many years of Saddam Hussein, they will not let his supporters take power again.

If liberals had their way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and millions upon millions of people would be living under his iron grip. As to Afghanistan, the United States is winning there, too. In Kabul, there were countless shops selling Christmas trees this year. The fact that shop keepers felt safe enough in a former Taliban-controlled nation to sell a decoration for a Christian holiday is enough to show how times have changed.

The constant flame-throwing from Liberals will be thrown right back at them before this is over. Legacies are not made for leaders during their time in power; they are made long after they have resigned themselves to private life or otherwise and the fruits of their labor have sprung forth to subsequent generations.

Religion, Religion, Religion

2006-12-11T14:18:00.000-05:00

Many on the Left would consider those on the Right as being beholden to Religion. Conservatism can be secular. Most of the basic principles of Conservatism are ancient and accepted human values: Self-sufficiency, Freedom, Personal Empowerment.

Most on the Left will throw out the term "far right religious extremist" when they are intellectually stumped in an argument. Their own rejection of many of the greatest religious values in history has blinded their ability to see that Conservatism represents both secular AND religious freedom.

Leftism clearly has religious undertones. Worship of the State as a "care-giver" Entity is paramount to Liberals. Anything that represents individuality is repressed and repudiated. Can anyone in the Democratic Party have an alternative idea and still be respected by them? Ask Joe Lieberman what happens if you hold a few disparate ideas compared to their national agenda.

Liberals adhere to an "Earth worship" form of religion. They view any human activity on Earth that alters the natural state of being to be evil. Creating farm land destroys the forests, so therefore farmers are evil. Drilling in ANWR defaces the Earth and displaces migrating animals, so therefore that is also evil. They don't take into account that humans have an equal right to the planet's resources. Humans are the top species on the planet and naturally will change the environment to their liking. This should be done in a sensible way of course...but for Liberals, there is no middle ground. Elephants can substantially alter their surroundings, as anyone familiar with African habitats will attest to. Are elephants therefore evil animals who must be stopped before they further offend the Earth-Deity?

The ideals of many religions are valuable. However, religiousness in other senses of the word is negative. Leftists are definitely religious, in a twisted, confused, and demented sort of way.

Bowing Toward Mecca

2006-12-03T14:09:00.000-05:00

Pope Benedict's comments that caused an uproar among the Muslim population of the world were accurate. His quote was as follows: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus, 1391.

There is nothing here to apologize for, and yet the Pope has found it necessary to visit mosques and bow toward Mecca, as onlookers described, "like a Muslim". By performing such an act, he may as well have opened his arms to all Islamo-Fascists and invited them to invade the West. His repeated attempts at an apology, even if veiled, were a sign of weakness. The great Catholic Church...reduced to apologizing and cow-towing to a society of destruction and hatred...how sweet it is to have such a leader at the Vatican.

The Beginning of Defeat?

2006-11-28T15:43:00.000-05:00

Over the last few days, frantic diplomatic posturing has taken place throughout the Middle East. President Bush has met with leaders in Jordan. The Vice President has met with the leaders of Saudi Arabia. This is an attempt to prop up support for the U.S. war in Iraq. It is also an attempt to get regional leaders input and assistance in dealing with the out-of-control sectarian violence in Iraq. I highly doubt that either of these attempts will pan out. The Saudis are already walking a fine line dealing with domestic opposition to their regime. They would be hard pressed to provide any real assistance besides intelligence estimates. The Jordanians are in a similar position. Jordan's King, having a British mother and American step-mother, probably has some sense of loyalty to the west, while having to be cognizant of how fragile any moderate nation in the middle east is at any given time. Neither of these nations has much to offer the U.S. besides some moral support. That won't go a long way at this point.

While President Bush and Vice President Cheney are dealing with the Saudis and Jordanians, Iran's President Ahmadinejad was meeting with President Talabani of Iraq. Iran pledged to the Iraqis many levels of support, particularly Iranian troop deployments in order to stabilize Iraq. On the other hand, Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini stated to Talabani that all U.S. forces must leave the country. I take this to mean that if Talabani concedes to calling for a U.S. withdrawal, Iran would be willing to step in and "help".

The Iranians have probably found a weakness in the underbelly of U.S. policy for the region. Iran is responsible for fueling sectarian violence in Iraq. By causing such immense destruction in the country, ranging from attacks on the police, the military, and the people of Iraq, they have effectively demoralized the entire population and turned them against the U.S. This strategy has also damaged U.S. short and long term goals for Iraq and effected domestic U.S. elections by demoralizing the American people and turning them against the war. Thus, Democrats won control of the Congress.

I predict that Democrats will begin pushing for direct talks with Iran. They will fall to their knees and cow-tow to the Iranian President in an attempt to stabilize Iraq and thereby legitimately call for a total withdrawal of U.S. forces in the country. It will be then that they start calling for a cutting of funding for the war and try to force the President's hand. If this occurs, it will be a victory for Iran. Iran will have succeeded in expanding their sphere of influence in the Middle East. It will also legitimize their brand of extremism and perhaps spread their Revolution to moderate Middle Eastern nations. How could they be wrong if they are able to undermine the most powerful nation in the world and advance their own goals....with the assistance of Democrats in D.C.?

The Cold War Never Ended

2006-11-25T06:31:00.000-05:00

Contrary to popular opinion, the brains behind the the 'USSR' and the Communist Chinese have not given up in their desire to end Democracy throughout the world. Most Americans will look at you in confusion, disbelief, and antipathy should you dare say the Cold War continues to this day. To think that Russians and the Chinese would DO such a thing. Oh, what a reactionary you would have to be!!! Or rather...a realist.

The murder of Alexander Litvinenko by the use of radioactive Polonium 210 is proof that the ruthless methods of the KGB (yes, I said KGB) have not faltered with time. As Americans bask in their self-created vision of a world dominated by America, the world's lone superpower, our enemies secretly plot our destruction.

Russia and China are directly responsible for preparing Iran for nuclear weapons creation. They have provided materials, scientists to bring those materials to fruition, and construction workers and technicians to build nuclear power plants for them. Both nations have likewise assisted North Korea in the same manner.

We are a nation with a giant red target over us. While Americans bury their heads in the sand in denial, Russia and China are plotting ways to bury the REST of their bodies. Do they want to destroy us? Yes. Are they trying to destabilize the world in order stretch our forces? Yes. Are they succeeding? Yes. Is the American public consciously ignoring the obvious because it goes against their ideal view of the world? Yes.

Americans had better wake up before it's too late.

Lebanese Christians Need Your Help

2006-11-21T14:18:00.000-05:00

Today, Lebanese Christian Cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel was murdered by assassins who were likely sent by Syrian officials who oppose the Democratically-elected government of Lebanon. Lebanon is a divided country, split between Christians and Muslims. The Christians of Lebanon are the last native hold-outs in the Middle East and are surrounded by a sea of hate in the form of Muslim extremism. It is difficult to distinguish these days between so-called "moderate Muslims" and "Islamic extremists" in that region. Animalistic acts like this man's murder are the result of an entire culture based on hate, evil, and destruction. Mr. Gemayel had just left Church and was in a Christian neighborhood when he was gunned down. This is pure madness and evil. I propose that all Christians in the United States pledge their complete support for Lebanese Christians. We owe them that much.

To the Lebanese Christians: We support you.

Let The Hypocritical Infighting Begin

2006-11-16T19:02:00.000-05:00

The 2006 Congressional coup by Democrats was inspired by a clever strategy by the Democratic leadership. Being inherently Far Left...Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and Charles Schumer (the real architect of the plan), decided to pour money into the campaigns of Conservative Democrats nationwide. Why would they do such a thing? Because they knew that advertising Liberalism doesn't win elections. They had to create a "centrist" facade in order to sell the idea of Democrats having Conservative leanings (insert laugh here).

Before the election, Democrats muted themselves on the possibility of investigations regarding Bush Administration policies they objected to. Would they impeach the President? Oh no, of course not! Now that the elections are over, they have selected a Democrat Investigator who states that the only thing limiting the amount of investigations he can launch is the long process it would take to "pick and choose" from among the issues before him.

Before the election, Democrats avoided stating that they would push for a quick troop withdrawal in Iraq. In fact, Democrats in the Senate stated they wanted to see Iraq stabilized, but that they would just go about it in a different manner than Bush. Now that the election is over, Democratic leaders are pushing for troop withdrawals to begin either immediately or very soon...instead of basing that decision on conditions in Iraq. Either they want a viable democracy in the heart of the Middle East or they don't. Which is it? Well it shouldn't suprise anyone that they don't care since they push for anti-Democratic policies right here in the United States.

Nancy Pelosi exposed herself as the maniacal leftist she is when she brazenly selected John Murtha as her Deputy in the House of Representatives. This caused great strife between newly elected Conservative Democrats and the Far Left leadership. Instead of granting Pelosi her wish, Democrats selected Steny Hoyer as the Majority Leader of the House. Pelosi has effectively split her own party down the middle before ever taking her position as Speaker of the House. She has damaged her credibility with her own party and created tension between herself and the new Democratic Majority Leader. Oh yes, Nancy Pelosi is a real visionary!

Perhaps the strategy of pushing new Conservative Democrats in order to get Far Left Liberals into positions of power in Washington was clever, but in the end it will be their un-doing. Americans historically get tired of the "ruling party" during 6th year elections. But in the case of Liberal Democrats, one would think Americans would be able to buck tradition. But not so here in The Land of Short Term Memories.

The Crossroads

2006-11-11T20:55:00.000-05:00

The United States has entered what is probably the most dangerous time in our history. The entire world has risen against us. Our enemies are many. At present, they are disjointed and approaching from numerous angles. As yet, the threats against us are not as coherent as they potentially could be. This is the reason we are able to confront most of these threats before they reach our shores.....save a few instances culminating with the attacks on September 11th, 2001. I say culminating because I am including the attacks against our embassies preceding 9/11, as well as the first WTC attack. As one can see, the Islamo-Fascists did not stop until they took down the WTC, as those towers were symbols of American power. Likewise, they will not stop until, as they recently stated, they destroy the White House. 'Al Qaida In Iraq', the Ayatollah Khomenei of Iran, and Palestinian terrorists have all recently gloated at what they see as a great victory for them....the electoral success of the Democrats in the 2006 elections.

Americans are unhappy with the war in Iraq. This is understandable, as we have encountered a much more powerful enemy than Saddam Hussein's comparitively ragged military. Arab fighters from other lands have swarmed Iraq...all for the chance to kill American soldiers. They know that we value every single soldier on the battlefield. We cherish our warriors...and we are willing to risk many lives to save one soldier. What other nation on Earth would commit themselves to such a noble fight? Aside from Britain, I see none who fit that criterion. Are Americans willing to leave Iraq in defeat? The blood of our soldiers have drenched Iraq in the fight against terrorism. Terrorists have flooded that country. If one recalls, Al Qaida promised at the start of the war to turn Iraq into a front-line battle between terrorists and the West. They held to that promise. Are we to run off in the face of threats, taunts, cowardly terrorist attacks, and the purposeful destruction of the lives of innocent Iraqis...all for the sake of hatred for Freedom?

The Iraqis deserve Freedom. Whether one agrees with the war or the reason we engaged in the war....we cannot leave without victory. We cannot humiliate our soldiers by bringing them home before success is achieved....thus leaving them with the rightful belief that they fought for nothing and that their Brothers and Sisters in Arms shed their lives for nothing.

We absolutely must win in Iraq. What is winning? Solidifying the government of Iraq and ensuring them a Democracy in the heart of the Middle East is 'winning'. Iraqi police officers and soldiers are also primary targets of terrorists....yet they still volunteer. They have shown they are willing to fight and die for their country. They risk everything by putting on their military and police uniforms. They risk everything when they get on a bus going to a police or military training camp. They risk everything....their families, their lives, their legacies. We cannot betray those people and negate their sacrifices. Their soldiers who die for Freedom are just as noble as ours...because they are warriors for Right, Truth, Freedom, and Honor.

The crossroads we are at has many alternative paths. We could run away in failure. We could prop up a paper Iraqi government that will surely collapse under terrorist pressure long enough for us to say it was THEIR fault they failed, not ours. Or we could actually stay long enough for them to win alongside us.

We cannot withdraw in defeat in the face of evil.

American Deterioration

2006-11-08T18:22:00.000-05:00

11-8-06

Americans have made their Election Day choices. They have handed control of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate to the Democrats under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, a far left extremist from San Fransisco. They have placed Charles Rangel in charge of the Ways and Means Committee, which will determine "tax policy" i.e. Tax Raises. Every American who pays taxes will suffer the effects of this whether or not they voted for Democrats.

Liberalism did not win on November 7th. The DNC fielded Conservative Democrats across the nation in order to make their party come across to mainstream America as Conservative. But look at their leaders...Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Rangel, Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy...and the list goes on. The Democrats have effectively fooled the American people into placing far left extremists in positions of great influence in Congress. Americans fell for their plot head over heels. New Conservative Democrats (as Conservative as being left of Center can be) will cow-tow to Pelosi and her minions without so much as a wimper.

The Republican Party did not help matters. The Republicans left Conservatives in the dust. Their leaders were afraid to be criticized by the drive-by mainstream media and therefore made every attempt to appear Centrist (which is code-word for being afraid to state an opinion). Conservatives, who are the heart and soul of the Republican Party, had lost their leadership. Therefore, they had little inspiration to flood the polls.

Without true leadership, Conservatives have been isolated by those they placed in power during the 1994 Republican Revolution. Their time in power having led them to administrative gluttony, Republican leaders forgot their constituents.

Republicans were defeated by a plan of Nothingness. Democrats presented no agenda, no policies, nothing but opposition to the Iraq War (even that opposition was not cohesive and they provided disparate opinions among themselves). The economy is steamrolling as a result of tax cuts and therefore Democrats remain quiet on the issue. To be defeated by Nothingness is to defeat yourself. Republican leaders in the Senate and House are political voids. They became just like the Democrats...funding ridiculous earmark programs like the Alaskan bridge to nowhere.

Republicans have proven time and again that, if they stay true to Conservative values..without apology...they can win against Democrats. Perhaps this defeat will give them two years to think about the consequences of their lack of action on Conservative issues like late term abortion, gay marriage, permanent tax cuts (as well as major tax code overhauls), and restraints on spending.

As much as Republicans are responsible for their own destruction on Capitol Hill, American voters are just as guilty for the pain to come as a result of their short attention spans. They've forgotten the Democrats retroactive tax increase in the early 90's. They've forgotten what gridlock means. They even seem to have forgotten the attacks on 9/11. If we just leave Iraq, the terrorists will leave us alone, right?

Perhaps this deterioration of the Republican leadership, the continued Godlessness of the Democrats, and the whimsical nature of the populace is a symptom of vast moral decay, recklessness, and irresponsbility in this country. Perhaps the greatness of the United States has prematurely reached its peak.

Election Eve

2006-11-06T22:45:00.000-05:00

11-6-06

Finally, the moment of truth has arrived. The American people will choose their leaders in the mid-term elections. This is a moment of truth for Americans. Their political will...will be expressed in the greatest and most powerful way possible...by the vote. Whatever Americans choose, they will demonstrate again to the rest of the world that it is the vote that has the power, not individuals in Washington. The true power behind this democracy lies in each and every voter (legal voter, that is).

Will Americans choose higher taxes and a 'cut and run' war policy by voting for Democrats? Will they choose a party that has no values at all, save the value of power itself...by voting for Democrats? Will Americans choose a party that causes negative ripples in the economy and on Wall Street?

Hopefully, Americans make the right choice and vote for a majority Republican Senate and Congress. Like individuals, nations can collectively make mistakes. Let's hope that the classic American short attention span doesn't take over and render this country the laughing stock of the world by voting for weak-spined Democrats who will against embarass us all on the international and national stage.

Whatever the result, I will love and cherish my country. This is the greatest nation in the history of the world and we have a God-given right to say that loudly and clearly, especially to those on Earth who would take Freedom away from others in order to reign in tyranny. God Bless America.

If Republicans Lose The Congress...

2006-11-04T17:42:00.000-05:00

11-4-06

If Republicans lose the House and / or Senate, the only ones at fault will be Republican leaders. This election, in the end, is a turnout game. The Republican Party didn't hold true to the Conservative goals they espoused in during and after the 1994 takeover of Congress. They seem to have grown lax with their positions in power. The tax cuts were only temporary and are now in constant danger of "expiring". They've lost the desire to fight for contentious issues like embryonic stem cell research, late term abortion, and gay marriage. They have let the government continue to grow, despite promises to shrink it. They have increased the number of federal "eyes" on the citizenry, instead of promoting freedom from government intrusion. In their attempt to appease public opinion polls and appear "centrist", they have isolated the core of the Republican Party...Values-Oriented Conservatives.

If the Republicans lose the Congress, they had better remember how they got there in the first place. They didn't get there by walking the "centrist" line. They got there being CONSERVATIVES and fighting for their beliefs. THAT is why Republicans turned out in such great numbers of 1994. Perhaps a re-hash of government shutdowns from the Clinton era will remind Republican leaders, and Conservative voters....why they are in the fight. Maybe it will inspire them to reverse their fortunes in 2008.

The Kerry Effect

2006-11-02T15:39:00.000-05:00

11-02-06

Only five days stand until the elections. Liberal spin machines are in full swing. However, their attacks on Conservatives have been muted lately by a very foolish John Kerry, who wrongly insinuated (if not directly stated) that those who serve in Iraq are not "smart". What will be the effect for Democrats as a result of this political nightmare of theirs? In my opinion, it will cause disgruntled Conservatives to mass at the polls on election day. It's quite a shock to the national conscience to suggest that those who serve our country are not educated. It's an insult to the sacrifices they've made for Freedom.

John Kerry was NOT talking about President Bush when he made his comments. John Kerry quite clearly said to those students that if you did well, studied in college, and made an attempt to "be smart", they wouldn't end up in Iraq. He didn't mention Bush. Kerry's excuse that he was talking about Bush doesn't hold water for a couple of reasons. It would have made absolutely no sense to speak of Bush in this manner, as Bush holds an MBA and was a trained fighter pilot. Bush made better grades in college than Kerry, though only by one percentage point. In what context could Kerry have even been IMPLICITLY talking about Bush? Kerry was specifically talking about college education and the benefits therein to a group of college students. The ONLY logical explanation is that Kerry meant exactly what he said.

This was no botched joke. This was a botched Democratic Senator who represents a botched Democratic Party which has been held hostage by Leftist Extremists who despise the concept of a military and those who would voluntarily serve that military. Kerry has made disparaging remarks about U.S. service members in the past. In the 70s, Kerry called military members in Vietnam rapists and pillagers. He even said in 1972 that the concept of an all volunteer army would cause the military to become "poor, black, and brown." It seems to reason that Kerry obviously still feels this way about the U.S. Military. I suppose that not only are they "poor, black and brown", but also not "smart".

The repercussions of John Kerry's statements are far and wide. The leaders of the Democratic Party feel exactly like he does about the military. They despise them and wish them nothing but ill. Americans should pay attention to this issue and realize that if this country can't stand in support of troops in combat.....then we are no longer "a nation under God." Those warriors in harms way must never again hear a Democrat, or anyone else, disparage them in such a public fashion. Rebuking our defenders of Freedom who sacrifice daily for that Freedom...is surely a way of asking God to turn His back on us.

Global Taxes / Proposition 87

2006-10-30T05:48:00.000-05:00

10-30-06

California's Proposition 87 is an interesting example of modern liberal ideology. Californians will now have the chance to either increase their gas prices on behalf of the some liberal pipe-dream, or keep them relatively low. As if the average American needed any more taxes, right? Now some would have us pay a "pollution tax". I'm sure Greenpeace is jumping for joy. Below is a link to an article about Proposition 87.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6714
California Focus: Prop. 87 Equals Higher Gas Prices

In a related, albeit distant, issue...the UK is considering a "global warming tax" on all citizens that would average about 1300 British pounds for a family of four. This includes a plethora of taxes ranging from increased gas taxes (already through the roof over there), increased road use taxes, special taxes on air travel, and yet more taxes including measures to fight ""car use and ownership*".

* http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6095680.stm / Miliband draws up green tax plan.

Interestingly, Al Gore has been appointed by British environmental officials to make a case in the United States for implementing similar extreme measures here. California's Proposition 87 is a testing ground for extreme leftists to see how far they can push the American public. Only in CA would an issue like this even be on the ballot. But then , CA has always been a starting point for liberals who wish to spread their vitriolic movements throughout the rest of the country. Every other State in the Union should be watching this issue very carefully.

Unless Americans want British-style taxes levied upon them, it would be highly advisable for them to reject Proposition 87...nationwide, not just in CA.

Democratic Policies / The End of America

2006-10-28T06:08:00.002-04:00

He rots the soul of a nation. He works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city. He infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A Murderer Is Less To Be Feared."

Cicero, 42 B.C.

10-28-06

Campaigns all over the country are in full swing. The mud can be seen flying all over the land in amounts never seen before. The great majority of the slinging is being done by Democrats. Democrats are attacking their own nation before a very watchful world...and very watchful Islamic Fascists.

Terrorists in Iraq have purposely increased the level of violence prior to the November elections. It should be of great concern that they seem to have such an interest in the internal politics of the United States. Doesn't it stand to reason that terrorists, for some reason, WANT Democrats in power on Capitol Hill? Do they see Democrats as a weak link? At the same time, do they see them as a possible saving grace after being pummeled by President Bush? They live in fear of President Bush and American Conservatives, in general. Why? Because people who have held Conservative values in the classic American sense of the word, regardless of what political party has held those views at certain points in time, are naturally inclined to fight evil regimes and liberate the oppressed.

Democrats have been wanting a specified timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq for years. Just give the Iraqis a date, and 'that will be that'...right? Iraqi police and army personnel are dying in droves for their country. In fact, they are dying for freedom just as American colonists died during the Revolutionary War. We didn't do it alone. We had the assistance of other nations such as France. We borrowed money, recieved military training from France and Germany...and finally succeeded. Who are we now to say that the Iraqis are not entitled to some assistance in creating a viable Democracy in the face of overwhelming odds?

It's very easy to be a comfortable American and glance overseas and say, "They can do it themselves. We fought for our own freedom, so they can fight for theirs." This is an incorrect and naive viewpoint. As previously stated, we had assistance from nations opposed to the British Crown. The battle is also not just overseas...it's right here in our own back yard. We've been attacked before, and we will probably be attacked again if Democrat policies are put in place. Terrorist cells are, in all likelihood, planted all over the country just waiting for the right moment to strike. Many of these cells have already been taken down by U.S. and international security forces using methods like wiretapping and listening into their phone conversations... methods Democrats criticize. They are more concerned about the civil rights of terrorists than their fellow Americans.

Suppose the Democrats take control of the House and Senate. Suppose they cut funding for the war and force President Bush to bring the troops home. Then we'd be forced to give the Iraqis a timetable. The date would be the same date the money runs out...as determined by the new Democratic Congress (Let's pretend it's 1 year). The enemy would jump for joy. They would think to themselves, "One more year of this and we can overthrow the government and install our own." Should that scenario happen, the United States would be seen as a dismal failure. The consistent spread of Democracy in the aftermath of the Cold War, brought about by freedom-loving, hard-working Americans will have ended. Militant Islam will have been given the green light to start overthrowing moderate nations worldwide.

The effect of a military and political failure in Iraq is not an option. Should we fail, our time as the world's leading proponent of Democracy will have come to a close. The entire world would sink into chaos over a number of years or decades. Eventually, we would have to retreat to our own borders, fearing everything outside of it because we failed to make the world safe for freedom. Nations in eastern Europe would be at risk. Indonesian Islamists, who are now waiting in the wings observing the situation in the Middle East, would spring forth with a ferocity not seen up to this point. Even East Asia is under threat...with Thailand being a prime example.

Democrats would take the United States to a premature plateau of prestige and power worldwide. Once we reach such a plateau, there is only one way to go from there...down.

Political Trivia : Republicans Vs. Democrats

2006-10-27T12:43:00.000-04:00

Answers in First Shot (Excellent Site)

BLACK POLITICAL HISTORY: THE UNTOLD STORY, Part I1. What Party was founded as the anti-slavery Party and fought to free blacks from slavery?

[ ] a. Democratic Party[ ] b. Republican Party

2. What was the Party of Abraham Lincoln who signed the emancipation proclamation that resulted in the Juneteenth celebrations that occur in black communities today?

[ ] a. Democratic Party[ ] b. Republican Party

3. What Party passed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution granting blacks freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote?

[ ] a. Democratic Party[ ] b. Republican Party

4. What Party passed the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 granting blacks protection from the Black Codes and prohibiting racial discrimination in public accommodations, and was the Party of most blacks prior to the 1960s, including Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Booker T. Washington, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?

[ ] a. Democratic Party[ ] b. Republican Party

5. What was the Party of the founding fathers of the NAACP who were themselves white?

[ ] a. Democratic Party[ ] b. Republican Party

6. What was the Party of President Dwight Eisenhower who sent U.S. troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools, established the Civil Rights Commission in 1958, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision ending school segregation?

[ ] a. Democratic Party[ ] b. Republican Party

7. What Party, by the greatest percentage, passed the1957 Civil Rights Act and the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s?

[ ] a. Democratic Party[ ] b. Republican Party

8. What was the Party of President Richard Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia Plan that established goals and timetables?

[ ] a. Democratic Party[ ] b. Republican Party

9. What is the Party of President George W. Bush who supports the U.S. Supreme Court's University of Michigan Affirmative Action decision, and is spending over $200 billion to fight AIDS in Africa and on programs to help black Americans prosper, including school vouchers, the faith-based initiative, home ownership, and small business ownership?

[ ] a. Democratic Party[ ] b. Republican Party____________________________________

OKAY! Ready for Part II?

BLACK POLITICAL HISTORY: THE UNTOLD STORY - PART II

10. What Party fought to keep blacks in slavery and was the Party of the Ku Klux Klan?

[ ] a. Republican Party[ ] b. Democratic Party

11. What Party from 1870 to 1930 used fraud, whippings, lynching, murder, intimidation, and mutilation to get the black vote, and passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws which legalized racial discrimination and denied blacks their rights as citizens?

[ ] a. Republican Party[ ] b. Democratic Party

12. What was the Party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Harry Truman who rejected anti-lynching laws and efforts to establish a permanent Civil Rights Commission?

[ ] a. Republican Party[ ] b. Democratic Party

13. What was the Party of President John F. Kennedy who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights law as a Senator, then opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. after becoming president, and later had the FBI (supervised by his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy) investigate Dr. King on suspicion of being a communist?

[ ] a. Republican Party[ ] b. Democratic Party

14. What is the Party of current Senator Robert Byrd who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, Senator Fritz Hollings who hoisted the Confederate flag over the state capitol in South Carolina when he was the governor, and Senator Ted Kennedy who recently insulted black judicial nominees by calling them "Neanderthals" while blocking their appointments?

[ ] a. Republican Party[ ] b. Democratic Party

15. What was the Party of President Bill Clinton who failed to fight the terrorists after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, sent troops to war in Bosnia and Kosovo without Congressional approval, vetoed the Welfare Reform law twice before signing it, and refused to comply with a court order to have shipping companies develop an Affirmative Action Plan?

[ ] a. Republican Party[ ] b. Democratic Party

16. What is the Party of Vice President Al Gore whose father voted against the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, and who lost the 2000 election as confirmed by a second recount of Florida votes by the Miami Herald and a consortium of major news organizations and the ruling by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that blacks were not denied the right to vote?

[ ] a. Republican Party[ ] b. Democratic Party

17. What Party is against the faith-based initiative, against school vouchers, against school prayers, and takes the black vote for granted without ever acknowledging their racist past or apologizing for trying to expand slavery, lynching blacks and passing the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws that caused great harm to blacks?

[ ] a. Republican Party[ ] b. Democratic Party

The Price Of Failure

2006-10-26T07:54:00.000-04:00

10-26-06

The struggle between Islamic Militancy and the West, particularly the United States, is one of the greatest world battles of all time. Most liberals and those who retreat to their brand of intellectual insulation are completely unaware (consciously unaware because they refuse to believe) of the threats knocking on our borders.

The Roman Empire, in it's latter stages, grew lax in defense. The population and their leaders did not believe that "barbarians" at the edges of the empire could destroy them. They were the Roman Empire, after all! What threat could uneducated barbarians pose? After all, should a real threat emerge they could simply buy time through a continual process of appeasement. Well we know how that story ended.

The current barbarians threatening THIS empire, so to speak, are Islamic militants. With them, we face a completely new type of enemy. They are no less inspired to destroy us than the German barbarians were to destroy Rome. But the nature of the battle has changed. While the Germanic people were eventually able to overcome Rome with military might (learned from the Romans themselves), Islamic militants realize that path won't work. The United States is simply so overwhelmingly powerful that a direct confrontation would inevitably fail. This is where terrorism comes in. Terrorism strikes at the heart of civilian populations. A response to terrorism is usually military force, which can only address the threat partially and temporarily.

The eventual result of this battle will be in one of two forms: Either the West completely decimates the threat and it's supporters (the whole of the middle east) and transforms their governments to democracies, or Islamic militants will succeed in fragmenting alliances between Western Nations and make any response to their attacks half-hearted at best.

The West cannot afford to lose this cultural clash. To lose would throw the entire world a millenium into past. Terror and total destruction is what awaits us all should our leaders remain so divided over how we deal with threats against our way of life.

Democrats / MSM Lack Agenda

2006-10-25T04:53:00.000-04:00

10-25-06

It's only about two weeks before the election and the Democratic Party still lacks a message that presents THEIR ideas for the country. MSM news stations, and we all knew who I'm talking about, are loaded with anti-Conservative shows. Between the MSM and the DNC, it's hard to tell which is more hate-filled toward American Conservatives.

The entire platform for Democratic Congressional and Senatorial candidates seems based completely on an anti-Bush agenda. They have made it clear that they are anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War, anti-tax cuts, etc. It remains to be seen what they are FOR, aside from socialist tendencies that lead them to push for nationalizing major industries of the country.

A new MSM / DNC idea is that Republicans are "desperate" and just trying to "hold onto power". It appears to me that Democrats are the ones who are desperate. They desperately want to regain control of at least the House of Representatives. They know they have no chance at winning control of the Senate, however Sen. Daschle (D) has set the bar unusually high by stating he expects Democrats to win control of the House AND Senate...and the Senate by picking up 7 seats. This ridiculous scenario is another DESPERATE attempt by Democrats to exaggerate the political state of affairs. It is they who are in a bind...much more so than Republicans.

I predict a Republican controlled House and Senate after Nov. 7th. Democrats will be visiting Psychiatriasts and Psychologists offices around the country in droves after the results are made painfully clear by none other than their own MSM.

James Carville's words will come to haunt the Democrats. After losing the elections again, Democrats will be forced to question the whole "premise" of their party. Perhaps then...they will understand that socialism is not going to happen, at least not here and now in the United States of America.

The Defeatocrats

2006-10-23T13:08:00.000-04:00

10-23-06

Nationwide, Democrats are rallying against the War in Iraq. They wave their banners, chant their slogans, and do their best to re-hash the 1960's hippy-era. I keep expecting some flower covered, pot-head hippy like Bill Clinton to come around the corner any second. Democrats are hypocrites for protesting against the War. Most of their top leaders supported the war based on intelligence reports that the White House, Pentagon, Senate, and House of Representatives all shared. It was an accepted belief that Saddam Hussein either had, or was attempting to obtain, nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons stockpiles were already proven, as Hussein had actually used them on people in the past.

It's true that our forces have been unable to find a nuclear stockpile in Iraq. That doesn't negate the fact that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat to the entire middle east...and therefore to the security of the world oil supply. Hussein invaded Iran to take their oil resources in the aftermath of the Iranian Revolution, hoping that the chaos in Iran would make it impossible for them to stop him. Hussein also invaded Kuwait in order to commandeer oil supplies and access to their ports. He was forcibly repelled by the elder President Bush. Hussein was also taking a long look at Saudi Arabia's rich oil fields.

Imagine a world where someone like Saddam Hussein controls almost all middle eastern oil supplies! The price of oil would sky-rocket, stagnating economies around the world and enriching a blood-stained tyrant.

Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world and we should all be glad he's out of power. Hussein knew that he could possibly be stripped of power by American might. That's why he set up terror cells around Iraq should the worst happen to him. The ongoing battle against insurgents in Iraq is a continuing stuggle against Saddam Hussein himself. Proof of this is the regular murders of family members of those sitting in judgement of him.

A withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi government is stable would be a disaster for the world. There are many scenarios that could emerge in such a case. Saddam Hussein might be released from jail should the trial fall apart in the face of insurgent opposition. Iranian Shi'ites might infiltrate the country even further and set up an Iranian-style revolutionary government just as radical as their own. Al Qaida might have a base of operations from which to launch attacks directly on the United States.

We must finish the War in Iraq and finish it on OUR TERMS, not Saddam Hussein's. Victory is a NECESSITY, not an option.

A New Direction?

2006-10-23T09:05:00.000-04:00

10-23-06

The new mantra for Congressional and Senatorial Democratic candidates is their insinuation that a "new direction" is needed for the country. They are quite vague about where this new direction is going to lead us. One thing is for sure: They hate Bush. They've made that quite clear. But is there any substance behind their politics?

To predict the future, sometimes we have to look into the past. Lets start a with couple of high profile characters who have graced the stations of the MSM over the past few days.

Nancy Pelosi: Would-be House Speaker

1) Voted against the 'Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act'. This would mean that someone could take your child over state lines to get an abortion without your permission, if Mrs. Pelosi had her way. Regardless of how you feel about abortion, would want someone to legally be able to take your child to another state to get an abortion without notifying you?

2) Voted against the Marriage Penalty Tax bill, which permanently eliminated provisions of the marriage penalty. Is there some reason Mrs. Pelosi wants to punish the married?

3) Voted against the Education Savings Accounts bill, which allows parents to contribute to the education of their children without being penalized for up to $2000 annually.

We could go on and on about how Nancy Pelosi is working against the average American, but for now this should suffice. There are no limits to her ultra-left wing slant on values.

Harold Ford: Congressman and 'would-be' Senator from TN.

Harold Ford graduated from law school in 1996. He never passed the Bar Exam, yet has represented himself in the past as being a lawyer. He went straight into Congress after his graduation. Must be nice to be able to run for Congress and win with no life experience behind you, right?

Harold Ford is from an influential political family in TN and has been riding their coat-tails all the way to his Senate campaign. Numerous members of Ford's family have been tried (or have charges pending) for bank fraud, insurance fraud, and bribery. The Ford family is a political machine whose tentacles know no bounds in the State of TN.

36 year old Harold Ford, Jr. thinks he can represent TN in the United States Senate...having hardly worked a day in his life outside of a political existence molded by his father. Does he know what it's like to be a real person? Or is he just a private-schooled, silver-spooned opportunist? Harold Ford Jr. would taint the U.S. Senate with the Ford Family Corruption that runs in his veins.

Where will Democrats lead the Nation if they take control of the House of Representatives? They will raise taxes, start an impeachment process against the President, gridlock the Federal Government, and generally make life hell for the entire country. There is no "new direction" on the part of the Democrats. They will do what they always do when they are in power: Empower themselves at the expense of working Americans.

The only direction Democrats have planned for the country...is the same old 'Tax and Spend' agenda. That my friends, is not a "new direction".

Taxes....Just For You

2006-10-22T19:51:00.000-04:00

10-22-06

As if Democrats hadn't done enough over 40 years of Congressional control to hold down the middle class, they are now promising to raise taxes across the board should they retake control of the Congress. Such notables as Charles Rangel (D) and Nancy Pelosi (D) have made it clear that tax raises are the way to go. Rangel would end up in charge of the main tax writing committee and Nancy Pelosi would probably end up as Speaker of the House if Democrats regain control. I haven't heard any other Democrats speak against them. Their silence is deafening.

Every American should ask a few simple questions which will determine whether voting for Democrats or Republicans is in the best interest of his/her family:

1) Do you work?
2) Do you have children?
3) Do you pay taxes?

If you can answer yes to at least 'two' of these questions, voting for Republicans is the obvious correct choice.

Democrats have made it next to impossible for middle-class Americans to benefit from the social programs they so dearly pay into. They pay and pay... and younger workers may never see a Social Security check thanks to Democratic borrowing against the Social Security system over the past few decades.

Democrats are experts at trying to appeal to demographics they actually work against. The poor is one such example. If Democrats weren't actively holding down the poor, they would lose a major voting bloc. What's a better "secure vote" for Democrats than someone collecting an Earned Income Tax Credit, getting free college, free day care payments, free food vouchers, among other benefits given at the expense of actual tax payers who have a net OUTFLOW of income to the IRS? The Democrats have created a subsociety of perpetual "government beneficiaries".

Democrats attempt the argument that we should "raise taxes on the rich". The rich are already paying the highest taxes. They pay far more of a percentage of income than anyone else. The rich are an easy target. They are a victimized minority group, in fact. Why would Democrats want to punish success by raising business taxes? Why would Democrats wants to punish Americans for having achieved the American Dream? Doesn't everyone want to start a successful business and make money? What's wrong with being successful? Why should those who finally "make it" in life be punished? This is anti-American.

Take a long hard look at the balance in your bank accounts. Would you like LESS money? If so, perhaps you SHOULD vote for Democrats.

Hillary's Invisibility Cloak

2006-10-22T15:14:00.000-04:00

10-22-06

Where is Hillary Clinton? Has she dropped off the face of the earth just prior to the midterm elections? Have aliens kidnapped her? Or is she in shell shock after being destroyed in her first debate with John Spencer (R)? These questions deserve to be answered.

It appears that Hillary Clinton is purposely attempting to avoid the media. Sure, she'll show up for a scheduled photo-op, but will she agree to an unscripted forum? She was looking rather Nixon-ish in her Spencer debate, so I don't blame her for avoiding the cameras.

Perhaps the voters of New York need to ask themselves whether they want a Senator for 6 years......or only 2 years of a hollow Senator actively campaigning for President, instead? Mrs. Clinton never had any intention of solely serving the interests of the State of New York. They were foolish for electing such a recent import based on name recognition instead of someone local or at least living in New York for a long period of time. Soon they may reap what they sow.

Hillary Clinton's disappearing act deserves to be front page news. Where is Hillary? Where is her support for Nancy Pelosi now? Is she so busy pretending to be in the political "center" that she is actually concerned about the effect of appearing to support a slithering San Fransciscan ultra-liberal like Pelosi?

If someone finds her, let me know. Maybe we should put her on the back of a milk carton.

Russian / Chinese Chess Game

2006-10-22T13:22:00.000-04:00

10-22-06

As we all know, the latest world tensions are focused on Iran and North Korea. The giants behind these two backward, third world nations are none other than Russia and China. The Cold War never ended. It only changed form. The ultimate goals of these arch-foes of freedom...are the elimination of American power overseas in eastern Europe, southern and east Asia, and the spread of world socialism through fear and coersion.

Russia and China have conspired to disseminate the tools and techniques necessary for unstable regimes to create nuclear weapons arsenals. They know that the United States is not going to allow Iran and North Korea to maintain a nuclear threat against us after having been threatened with destruction by both. Iran threatens on a weekly basis, and North Korea seems to be threatening us on 'more or less' a daily basis. If they can draw us into conflict with both, they would be free to open up yet another front, perhaps in Indonesia or South America i.e. Venezuela.

The Russians and Chinese are hoping the divide our attention to the point that we cannot confront such numerous potential or active threats to our security. This is a long term effort to destabilize the world in their financial and military favor. The sooner the American people understand the true threats we are facing, and who the masterminds are behind them, the sooner we will be able to confront this challenge to Democracy around the world.

The weakest link in our collective, national chain are liberal democrats. Liberal democrats are easily effected by Iranian and North Korean threats, as well as threats posed by terrorists. They easily "back down" in the face of opposition. It would be advisable for all prudent Conservatives to have a decent conversation with a liberal friend, educating them on the international threats against us. After all, the enemy doesn't care whether you are a Conservative or a liberal. If you are an American and value freedom, you are standing in their way.

Broken Liberal Trust

2006-10-22T12:56:00.000-04:00

10-21-06

In the run-up to the election, the liberal democrats are running up the rhetoric to ridiculous levels. Nancy Pelosi quite prematurely states that she likes the sound of "Madame Speaker", CNN is busy predicting doom for Republicans, Lou Dobbs is portraying a bankrupt, minority family with 5 kids, a union-member father, and a non-working mother as a typical middle class family in his recent show "War On The Middle Class", and pollsters from every possible corner of the globe is feeding the public with unscientific polls.

I'm sure the liberal media was prepared for the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress because their polls were so accurate, right? I'm sure they were prepared for Gore to lose Florida in 2000 (and he did lose Florida) because of their Florida polls, right? Wrong.

I expect that Republicans will maintain control of Congress. Conservatives are not going to suddenly start voting for liberal democrats. Neither will they be staying home on election day just because Mark Foley turned out to be of questionable moral character. As a Conservative Independent, I can think of nothing that would keep me home on election day, much less CNN, MSNBC, the LA Times, or the NY Times.

Conservatives are going to be victorious, as long as they don't pay attention to liberal media spewage. Liberal media has nothing to contribute to society. Some liberal spewage includes the airing of a terrorist video of the sniper murder of an American soldier. If that's all they have to contribute to the general knowledge of the populace, then they are worthless....in fact they are providing aid and comfort to the enemy.

Vote Conservative. That means vote Republican or Conservative Independent, as the case may be. Remember, there is no such thing as a moderate democrat.