The Boxer Rebellion

Barbara Boxer is a liar, a fraud, and a hypocrite.
There is no other way to state it.
She is a liar, and I fear a pathological one at that.
She is a fraud in that she claims to represent her actions are in the filibuster madness is a historical precedent in the Senate.
She is a hypocrite in her dealings with judicial nominees.

Read on.

"Boxer would be barely qualified to manage a brassiere store if she had to earn a living."
-Rush Limbaugh

Photo: http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/cartoonarc/HystericalBoxer.htm

I'll give you some examples of these lies.

During the confirmation hearings for Dr. Rice for Secretary of State;
Boxer accused Dr. Rice of being a dishonest salesman for President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. Boxer said during the Senate hearing:

"Your loyalty to the mission you were given, to sell this war, overwhelmed your respect for the truth.... I also will not shrink from questioning a war that was not built on the truth. Now, perhaps the most well known statement you've made was the one about Saddam Hussein launching a nuclear weapon on America with the image of quote, quoting you, a mushroom cloud. That image had to frighten every American into believing that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of annihilating them if he was not stopped. And I will be placing into the record a number of such statements you made which have not been consistent with the facts."

Boxer attacked Dr. Rice for the entire 10 minutes she was allotted for questioning the nominee, without once giving Dr. Rice a chance to respond, and tried to end the attack without giving Dr. Rice a chance to say ANYTHING with: "As a matter of fact, you've said more misstatements: that the territory of the terrorists has been shrinking when your own administration says it's now expanded to 60 countries. So I am deeply troubled. Thank you."

Dr. Rice then addressed Senator Lugar, the Republican Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with: "Senator, may I respond?"

Sen. Lugar said "Yes. Let me just say that I appreciate the importance of Senator Boxer's statement, that's why we allowed the statement to continue for several more minutes." Boxer had exceeded her allotted time. Lugar, addressing Dr. Rice went on to say: "But, clearly, you ought to have the right to respond. And then, at that point, we're going to have a recess. But will you please give your response?"

Rice responded:

"Senator, I have to say that I have never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything. It is not my nature. It is not my character. And I would hope that we can have this conversation and discuss what happened before and what went on before and what I said, without impugning my credibility or my integrity. The fact is that we did face a very difficult intelligence challenge in trying to understand what Saddam Hussein had in terms of weapons of mass destruction. We knew something about him. We knew that we had gone to war with him twice in the past, in 1991 and in 1998. We knew that he continued to shoot at American aircraft in the no-fly zone as we tried to enforce the resolutions that the U.N. Security Council had passed. We knew that he continued to threaten his neighbors. We knew that he was an implacable enemy of the United States, who did cavort with terrorists. We knew that he was the world's most dangerous man in the world's most dangerous region. And we knew that in terms of weapons of mass destruction, he had sought them before, tried to build them before, that he had an undetected biological weapons program that we didn't learn of until 1995, that he was closer to a nuclear weapon in 1991 than anybody thought. And we knew, most importantly, that he had used weapons of mass destruction.

"That was a context that, frankly, made us awfully suspicious when he refused to account for his weapons of mass destruction programs, despite repeated Security Council resolutions and despite the fact that he was given one last chance to comply with Resolution 1441. Now, there were lots of data points about his weapons of mass destruction programs. Some were right and some were not. But what was right was that there was an unbreakable link between Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction."

Sen. Boxer was given even more time for her attack, charging Dr. Rice with

"Well, you should you read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not, but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period. That was the reason and the causation for that particular vote."

Actually, the first authorization for the use of force in Iraq was made, not under President Bush, but under President Clinton when Barbara Boxer's pal, Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State. In 1998 the top reason for authorizing President CLINTON to use force in Iraq was: "that Iraq was then in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and thereby threatened the vital interests of the United States and international peace and security." That resolution became Public Law 105-235."

The first resolution introduced to urge the president to take military action in Iraq was introduced by then Democrat Majority leader, Tom Daschle, on September 26, 2002 and the first reason given for taking military action was Public Law 105-235 passed in the Clinton administration. The resolution that finally did pass, Joint Resolution H.R. 114, referred to Public Law 105-235 and have 22 more reasons for authorizing military action against Iraq; that's 23 reasons that the Congress gave Clinton.

The liar here is not Condi Rice. The liar is Barbara Boxer and it is proven in the Congressional Record by her own arguments on the floor of the Senate.
=====================================================================================
Boxer Lies About War Dead
In the Condi Rice hearings, Barbara Boxer (one of just two votes against Condi, along with John Kerry) said 25% of US military fatalities in Iraq came from California. That would be 342 of California's finest, based on the then current count of 1,370 combat deaths.

The actual number of California soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq was 157, according to Iraqi Coalition Fatality Count. That's 11.5%, not 25%.

Boxer is exploiting the war dead for her own political ends. How disgusting. How typical.

The lies of the left continue to go unchecked in the media. In fact, the media does their very best not to portray the liberal left in this country as they should be. The MSM continues to cover up any and all transgressions that the left has as well as exploit any and all discrepancies, however minute, or false, they may be, of the Conservative right.

Barbara Boxer is a liar, a fraud, and above all a feminazi of the highest order.

Boxer on the filibuster:

For Years, Senator Barbara Boxer Demanded The Senate Debate All Judicial Nominations And Hold An "Up-Or-Down" Floor Vote. Under President Clinton, Boxer Went So Far As To Condemn The Potential Filibuster Of A Nomination.

Senator Boxer On Judicial Nominees:
Senator Barbara Boxer: Let These Names Come Up, Let Us Have Debate, Let Us Vote.

"Mr. President, I am very glad that we are moving forward with judges
today." We all hear, as we are growing up, that, "Justice delayed is justice
denied, and we have, in many of our courts, vacancies that have gone on for a
year, 2 years, and in many cases it is getting to the crisis level. So I am
pleased that we will be voting. I think, whether the delays are on the
Republican side or the Democratic side, let these names come up, let us have
debate, let us vote." (Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, January 28,
1998)

Boxer Told Her Fellow Senators That Nominees Deserve An Up Or Down Vote.

"I make an appeal: If we vote to indefinitely postpone a vote on these two nominees or one of these two nominees, that is denying them an up-or-down vote. That would be such a twisting of what cloture really means in these cases. It has never been done before for a judge, as far as we know--ever. Again, it would undermine what Senator Lott said when he said these people deserve an up-or-down vote." (Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, March 9, 2000)

Senator Boxer On Filibustering Presidential Nominees:

While Arguing That The Nomination Of Dr. Henry Foster For Surgeon General Deserved An Up-Or Down Senate Vote, Boxer Said That Senators Should Oppose Filibustering Nominations And Just Vote Their Conscience.

"He deserves his day. And filibustering this nomination is keeping him from his day. . . . Let us be fair. Let us stop the personal attack. Let us stop Presidential politics. Let us vote for cloture. Then let each and every Senator vote his or her conscience." (Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, June 21, 1995)

Only Three Years Ago, Boxer Condemned Republicans' Treatment Of Women And Minority Nominees, Calling It "Shameful":

At A Press Conference In 2000, Boxer Called The Treatment Of Women And Minorities For The Federal Judiciary A "Nightmare."

"I want to thank Senator Mikulski, I want to thank the American Association of University Women for organizing this effort to call attention to the shameful way that women nominees to the federal judiciary have been treated by this Republican Senate. Senator Mikulski has pointed out the long time that women and minorities have had to wait to get their day, if you will, in the Senate court, so they can take their seats on the judiciary. . . .

So we're here today to end that nightmare, to give the Republican Senate a
wake-up call, to let the people of America know how these fine women are being
treated, and we are here to say we are going to focus the light on this matter."
(Senator Barbara Mikulski and others, Press Conference, Washington, DC, September 14, 2000)

With A Republican President Nominating Judges, Boxer Has Changed Her Tune.

Instead Of Bringing Each Nomination To A Vote, Boxer Supports Partisan Democrat Filibusters Against Highly qualified Nominees. Boxer Even Opposes The Nomination Of Carolyn Kuhl, A Judge From Her Home State Of California.

Carolyn Kuhl

Judge Kuhl
Received A "Well-Qualified" Rating, The Highest Given By The American Bar
Association. (American Bar Association Website, http://www.abanet.org/, May 20, 2003)

Boxer On Judge Carolyn Kuhl:

Boxer Attacked Kuhl For Being "Outside The Mainstream."

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she senses momentum has been building against Kuhl's nomination to the San Francisco-based court, which hears federal appeals for nine states in the West.
"She is so far outside the mainstream," said Boxer, who has provided her
colleagues with a detailed critique of Kuhl's record in California and in the
Reagan administration. (Paul Chavez, Rejection Urged For Bush Appellate Court
Nominee, The Associated Press, May 8, 2003)

Boxer Promised To Oppose Kuhl And Asked President Bush To Withdraw Her Nomination.

Boxer said in a statement Thursday that the White House should withdraw the nomination, promising "much opposition" if Kuhl's nomination is brought to a vote. "We can and should move beyond the Kuhl nomination and to consideration of a new nominee who is confirmable," Boxer said. (David Whitney, Committee Clears Controversial Court Nominee, Scripps Howard News Service, May 8, 2003)

Boxer Launched An Attack On Senator Hatch For Holding A Hearing On Kuhl.

Boxer and a host of liberal advocacy groups paint Kuhl as a right-wing
ideologue and a foe of abortion rights. In a letter to Judiciary Chairman Orrin
Hatch, R-Utah, Boxer blasted his decision to go ahead with the hearing. "I am
extremely disappointed that you would disregard my prerogatives as one of the
home-state senators, and overturn your own policy, by moving forward on this
nominee. Your blue slip policy is apparently guided more by who is in the White
House rather than by powers given to us as U.S. Senators by one of the greatest
documents in the world, the U.S. constitution," Boxer wrote. "‘This decision to
move forward without both home-state senators' approval will have ramifications
for years to come." (Jonathan Groner and Jason Hoppin, Senate Democrats Grill
9th Circuit Nominee, The Recorder, April 2, 2003)

Boxer Used Abortion As A Litmus Test For Kuhl’s Confirmation.

Judge Kuhl's nomination has been stalled for nearly two years because Sen. Barbara
Boxer, California Democrat, refused to return her blue slip to indicate that
she'd been consulted on the appointment. "Judge Kuhl is way out of the
mainstream on choice and privacy, with writings that call for the outright
repeal of Roe," Mrs. Boxer said in a press release, referring to the 1973 Roe v.
Wade decision on abortion. "I will oppose these nominations." (Charles Hunt,
Panel OKs Court Nominee Despite Negative "Blue Slip," The Washington Times,
April 2, 2003)

Judge Priscilla

Owen Judge
Priscilla Owen Also Received A "Well-Qualified" Rating, The Highest Rating Given
By The American Bar Association. (American Bar Association Website, http://www.abanet.org/, May 20, 2003)

Boxer On Judge Priscilla Owen:

Ironically, Boxer Complained That Owen Legislates From The Bench.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said of Owen, "In such important areas as reproductive rights and civil rights and consumer protection, this nominee has legislated from the bench -- and she has inserted her personal beliefs into the judicial process." Boxer also complained about reports that Republicans planned to run ads against those
fighting Owen and Estrada as opposing women and Hispanics to the bench -- and
said Democrats have led the fight for women's rights. (Lee Davidson, Hatch
Sees Red Over Demos Grilling, The [Salt Lake City, Utah] Deseret News, May 2,
2003)

Boxer Attacked Owen For Her Stances, Calling Her So Far Right From Center That She Is Almost Off.

"Let me say that is extraordinary because as someone who worked so hard to support qualified minorities and women, I have praised by many in my State for doing just that.
But I have to tell you, if you place on the bench a minority or a woman who has
animosity toward the goals of minorities and women, you are dealing a great
setback to both minorities and women. I will make that point when I have to. But
as for today, I point out I voted for well over 90 percent of the President's
appointees up to this point in time, but I cannot support this nomination. This
is why. President Bush pledged to govern from the center. Those were his words.
Yet this nominee is so far from the center that she is almost off, to the right.
She is barely on that line at all. That differs from the mainstream values of my
constituents and I believe of the majority of Americans." (Senator Barbara
Boxer, Congressional Record, May 1, 2003)

Miguel Estrada

Miguel Estrada Also Received A "Well-Qualified" Rating, The Highest Rating Given By The American Bar Association. (American Bar Association Website, http://www.abanet.org/, May 20, 2003)

Boxer On Miguel Estrada:

Boxer Recently Said She Would Not Filibuster Right-Wing Judges; She Simply Would Not Vote For Them.

"Frankly, from my perspective, if people are off the charts on the right
wing, I am not going to vote for them. I will not filibuster them. Once they
give us the information, I am ready to vote. I will retain my right for a
Supreme Court Justice, however, on that point on the filibuster. But, in
general, if people answer questions, I will vote no. But I want the answers. I
don't want a judicial selection process that excludes the Senate. It is the
worst thing that can happen in this country." (Senator Barbara Boxer,
Congressional Record, February 26, 2003)

Now Boxer Opposes Removing The Filibuster Because It Would Weaken "The Senate's Ability To Stop Radical Appointments."

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said "removing the filibuster would hurt the Senate's ability to stop radical appointments. The president should reread the Constitution and understand that the power to appoint judges is a shared power between the Senate and the president," Boxer said. Democrats say they are blocking the nomination because "Estrada has not been forthcoming about his views." (Jason Embry, Bush Urges Ban On Judicial Filibusters, The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, March 12, 2003) http://committeeforjustice.org/contents/reading/boxerjudges.pdf

The hypocrisy of the left and especially Senator Boxer is absolutely evident and prevalent in their dealings in the Senate.
It is time for this Senator to be voted out of office.
It is time for this Senator to be filibustered every time she tries to open her mouth.

The second she opens her mouth, the Republicans present should shout in unison "HYPOCRITE"!

Eventually she might get a clue, although I highly doubt it. I doubt any liberal can get a clue if it was handed to them on a silver platter.

Barbara Boxer is a liar, a fraud, and a hypocrite of the highest order.

It is time she is hounded in the press for her actions and misinformation campaign at every turn.

Mexican Army on Alert/Costs of Illegal Immigration

The Mexican Army is on alert!
They are on alert because of the Minuteman Project.
The Mexican Army is escorting Mexicans away from the section of border that the Minutemen are patrolling.

Border Patrol sources say the Mexican army recently moved about 1,000 troops to the Agua Prieta region, just south of where the Minutemen are. These troops, the sources say, are diverting all of the illegal alien and drug-smuggling traffic away from the Minutemen.


Yes, you read that correctly. They are diverting illegal alien and drug-smuggling traffic away from the Minutemen.

What that statement didn't say, is that they are likely diverting terrorists away from that area as well.

As the war in Iraq winds down, it is my opinion that the border states should activate their state National Guard to patrol the border. Static positions in areas of known traffic and mobile patrols along the entire border are called for.

The money that we would save by preventing illegal aliens, drug-traffickers and possible terrorists, would offset the cost.

"Illegal alien workers may increase profits for employers, but they are costly to the American taxpayer. Most illegal aliens have low educational attainment, few skills, and they work for low wages, often in the underground economy where they pay no taxes on their earnings. Since about three million illegal aliens gained legal status in the amnesty of 1986, the flow of illegal immigration has increased, and today that population is estimated at 9-11 million illegal alien residents in the country. The former Immigration and Naturalization Service estimated that the illegal alien population was increasing by about half a million aliens per year in 2000."
" The estimated fiscal cost of those illegal aliens to the federal, state and local governments was about $33 billion. This impact was partially offset by an estimated $12.6 billion in taxes paid to the federal, state and local governments, resulting in a net cost to the American taxpayer of about $20 billion every year. This estimate did not include indirect costs that result from unemployment payments to Americans who lost their jobs to illegal aliens willing to work for lower wages. Nor did it include lost tax collections from those American workers who became unemployed. The study estimated those indirect costs from illegal immigration at an additional $4.3 billion annually."
Source: Federation for American Immigration Reform

The costs mentioned above do not include the cost of education for those illegal alien children in K-12 schools, which is estimated to be at $7 billion annually.

"In 2003, according to the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles, 57,600 cars were stolen in Phoenix. It is now the car-jacking capital of the world. Most were SUV’s and pickup trucks. At a conservative average of $15,000.00 per vehicle, owner losses exceeded $864 million. Insurance companies in the state suffered incredible claims from policyholders."

"Illegal aliens displaced American workers at a cost in excess of $133 billion dollars last year according to Harvard Professor George Borjas. College and high school kids cannot find a summer job in yard care, landscape, fast food or service jobs. Why? Illegal aliens work them at a third the wage and often, under the table."
Source: Frosty Wooldridge

The average head of household illegal alien costs you $2,700.00 in welfare money over and above any taxes he or she pays in their meager paying jobs. With 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in the USA, that figures exceeds $20 billion of your tax dollars. (Source: Center for Immigration Studies, August 2004)

Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California — which has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide — $10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration. The total cost of illegal immigration to the state's taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas, such as special English instruction, school meal programs or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal-alien workers were added into the equation.

Mass illegal immigration is costing Texas more than $4.65 billion a year.
Using a 1994 study published by the Urban Institute as a baseline, The Cost of Illegal Immigration to Texans looks at Census Bureau and other data to estimate the explosive growth in the size and cost of illegal immigration in the nation's second most populous state. In 2004, the annual fiscal burden of illegal immigration amounted to about $725 per Texas household headed by a native-born resident.

Convinced yet?
Pressure needs to be put on the politicians and the companies that advocate illegal immigrants and their ilk.
I urge you to write to your local and state politicians and urge them to enforce the current laws of the U.S. and increase law enforcement presence on the borders to include state National Guard if necessary, to stem the tide.

If the writing campaign does not work, then vote them out of office, regardless of their party affiliation.

Links:
World Net Daily
Find Law
Federation for American Immigration Reform
Frosty Wooldridge
Center for Immigration Studies
Illegal Aliens.US
Report Illegals

Radical Judges

It is high time that the judicial nominations that President Bush has set forth, get an up, or down vote.

The activism that is prevalent in the courts today, warrants close scrutiny.

The ninth circuit court is a prime example of activist judges that are out of control.
Of the 79 cases the Supreme Court decided this past term through published opinions, 68 arose from the federal appellate courts, two from the federal district courts, and nine from state courts. The court reversed or vacated the judgment of the lower court in 59 of these cases. Specifically, the justices overturned 54 of the 68 judgments arising from the federal appellate courts (or 79%), zero of the two judgments coming from the federal district courts (or 0%), and six of the nine judgments issued originally by state courts (or 67%).

Notably, 9th Circuit rulings constituted about 32 percent of both the cases (25 of 79) and the reversals (19 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by written slip opinions this term.

Source:Center for Individual Freedom

Another problem with the courts is that they are trying to be the legislative branch as well as the judicial branch of government.
The system set up by the founders of this great nation are being usurped by activism in the courts. It is high time that the Congress steps in and reigns these out of control judges in.

The courts feel that they are the controlling branch of the U.S. government. As things sit, they are.

When a court can willfully disobey a subpoena by the Congress and get away with it, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed with swift action.
The Congress should have held Judge Greer in contempt of Congress and impeached him on the spot. This is the only way to reign these judges in. After a couple have been impeached, the courts will undoubtedly think twice before trying to legislate from the bench.

Is there hope?
Maybe.
Representative Tom DeLay suggested such a review of judges last week in response to the Terri Schiavo case, words that Democrats interpret as a threat to impeach judges.
The Constitution gives Congress the task of judicial oversight, it is high time they use that oversite and start peeling back the onion that the Democrats have laid at out door steps through their activist judges.

"Should we look at situations where judges have decided to go off on their own tangent and disobey the statutes of the United States of America? I think that's a legitimate area for oversight," Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum told ABC's "This Week."

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, told "Fox News Sunday" there are "legitimate concerns" in conservative circles that the judiciary has exceeded its power in cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex "marriage" and other issues.

"This Week" host George Stephanopoulos asked Sen. Santorum whether Congress having authority over the courts "is a new interpretation of the separation of powers doctrine."

Sen. Santorum said, "We do have authority to set the jurisdiction of the court, and that's very clear. Article 3, Section 1 in the Constitution says that Congress has the authority to set the jurisdiction of the court."

I think a redistricting may be in order as well.
The 9th Circuit Court should be abolished and the states that are affected should be split up amongst the other courts.

The Democratic Party has long used these judges to get their agenda through to the American people, despite their true will. The voters are inconsequential in the eyes of the Democrats. As long as they have a court system that will pass their legislative agenda, they don't need control of the Congress.

As long as the Republican Party continues to kowtow to the left in "fairness" then this problem will continue unabated.

MinuteMen At Work

This struck a chord with me!! Enjoy

In Defense Of The Minuteman Project
By Geoff Metcalf (04/11/05)
Much of the media coverage and virtually all of the 'government' comment on the Minuteman Project www.minutemanproject.com has been negative. Despite measurable success, the Main Stream Media and bureaucrats of all stripes continue to denigrate what is proving to be a good thing. A good thing however that personifies those who don’t want to be confused with facts that contradict a preconceived opinion or prejudice.Detractors say the MMP is successful only for the 24-mile stretch of border. Those not crossing where they had been are just moving east to more porous routes.The controversy surrounding the Minuteman Project is a poorly crafted red herring.The simple, empirical reality is the Minuteman Project has been hugely successful. Illegal border crossings along the stretch of Arizona/Mexico border have virtually been stopped.Notwithstanding the fears of vigilante violence and gap toothed redneck pick up truck marauders, the Minuteman Project is proving to be a well organized, effectively managed deterrent to a chronic travesty of neglect.It is interesting that local ranchers and victims of local and federal government malfeasance overwhelmingly support and appreciate the results of the Minuteman Project. It is equally interesting that 'officials' (who have been derelict and incompetent) not only resent these citizen border watchers, but have targeted THEM with petty harassment. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano wrote them a letter saying they are on her 'blacklist' and state cops are targeting out-of-state plates with minor infraction tickets. Hopefully local ranchers will reward the Governor my voting her out of office.The Oakland Tribune got the whole Minuteman thing exactly WRONG.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/oped/ci_2648675
They wrote, "The Arizona hunters gathering in April for the so-called ‘Minuteman Project’ to search for undocumented immigrants along the border with Mexico aren't likely to have any success in stemming their migration to the United States." They are not "hunters" but a ‘neighborhood watch’ group with volunteers from numerous states.Reportedly there has been a steady stream of law enforcement ‘presence’…"a showing of border patrol helicopters, border patrol SUVs, sheriff vehicles, border patrol on scooters. In short, there was a steady stream of law enforcement on this normally deserted stretch of border land." Local ranchers claim they have never seen so many border patrol. However the show of force is not for illegals…it is for the MMP. The Tribune said, "It's simply a sham with racial implications." Bullfeathers! "They are hunters of hate." What a crock! The MMP organizers who have been doing a superb job of avoiding confrontation and providing a valuable service to the badge carrying Border Patrol agents rejected any potential ‘hunters of hate’.The ‘suits’ may be in persistent hissy-fit mode, but the Border Patrol agents walking the sand really appreciate the additional intelligence resourcesDetractors say, if you measure success in terms of "they ain’t crossin' here no more", the Minuteman Project is successful for only 24 miles of border. Naysayers claim this is a distraction for officials focused on watching the watchers.A rancher’s wife who lives on 800 acres of border property (the family has been there since the1880s) requested that Minutemen be stationed nearby. She used to hear gunshots every night. Since the Minutemen arrived, she claims the gunshots have stopped. Prior to the MMP her husband would report information the border patrol wouldn’t believe. When her husband reported counting over 200 illegals in a group, he was told that wasn’t possible. Who are you going to believe your eyes or an official chairborne bureaucrat?The locals love the volunteers. The officials hate them.Whereas the Oakland Tribune calls the MMP "Arizona hunters"…each team has been encouraged to fly their state flag. As a result, a volunteer reports, "a New York flag was flying from the team to our west and a Florida flag flying from the team to our east. Our team flew an American and a Californian flag combo." Border patrol supervisors drive around spinning the ‘official’ line: MMP bad/Government agents good. However, when the supervisors return to air-conditioned offices, the rank and file border patrol say they are delighted the volunteers are there.One volunteer noted, "I met some great people from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, Kansas, lots of Texans and Californians. Most were just run of the mill, salt of the earth typical hard working American citizens."Everyone acknowledges the border is not adequately protected. In this war on terror, the border is an accident waiting to happen. If our government officials cannot or will not protect the border, they should embrace (and work WITH) citizen volunteers instead of crunching their cookies in some lame bureaucratic territorial whizzing match.

The simple truth is in an old joke: "Doctor, it hurts when I go like ‘that,’" said the patient. "Don’t go like ‘that’ said the doctor.

Shoe Bomber Sentencing

I am posting the sentencing of Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber. His sentence seems to have been missed by the main stream media, no surprise there, but this is worth the post.
This judge is on the ball here!

Ruling by Judge William Young

U.S. District Court Judge William Young made the following statement in sentencing "shoe bomber" Richard Reid to prison. It is noteworthy, and deserves to be remembered far longer than he predicts. I commend it to you and to anyone you might wish to forward it to.



January 30, 2003 United States vs. Reid. Judge Young: Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.

On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General.

On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutive with the other. That's 80 years.

On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years consecutive to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 for the aggregate fine of $2 million.

The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

The Court imposes upon you the $800 special assessment.

The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

This is the sentence that is provided for by our statues. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence. Let me explain this to you.

We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.

Here in this court , where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice, you are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist.

And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You're no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.

In a very real sense Trooper Santigo had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and where the TV crews were and he said you're no big deal. You're no big deal.

What your counsel, what your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today? I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing. And I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you. But as I search this entire record it comes as close to understanding as I know.

It seems to me you hate the one thing that is most precious. You hate our freedom. Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose.

Here, in this society, the very winds carry freedom. They carry it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely.

It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf and have filed appeals, will go on in their, their representation of you before other judges. We are about it. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden, pay any price, to preserve our freedoms.

Look around this courtroom. Mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. Day after tomorrow it will be forgotten. But this, however, will long endure. Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done.

The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged, and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag stands for freedom. You know it always will.

EJS

Time to Lose the Kerry/Edwards Bumperstickers

This article is so on the mark, I had to post it in its entirety.
I can't agree more.
One word sums it up: Losers!

EJS

by Christopher Flickinger
Posted Mar 8, 2005

For the love of God, please remove those "Kerry/Edwards" bumper stickers from your cars and trucks! In case you didn't get the memo, your side lost! It's like you're walking around with a big "L" on your forehead -- Loser!

I'm not sure why you still have that sticker on your bumper. Maybe it's been too cold outside for you to remove it. Maybe your post-election depression is so deep you can't bring yourself to take it off. Maybe you're living in denial. Maybe you've been too busy spreading lies and rumors about the future of Social Security and judicial nominations that you haven't had enough time to get it off your vehicle.

Or maybe it's even worse than I thought. Maybe you've tried, you've scrubbed, you've scratched, you've pulled and it just won't come off. It's stuck to the back of your Volvo or Voltswagen like a bloodthirsty parasite. But, then again, we are talking about John Kerry and John Edwards, two men who would have acted like ravaging bloodsuckers on the back of every U.S. citizen had they been elected.

Honestly, for your own self-dignity, it's time to remove the Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers. Personally, I'm glad so many of you have left them on your vehicles. It's makes it so much easier for me to point out and identify the idiots. If I pull-up to the drive-thru pharmacy and get cut-off by another car, normally I'd get upset. But, if I see they have a Kerry/Edwards sticker on their car, I immediately calm down and remind myself, "This person didn't mean to cut me off. It's just that they feel they're entitled to health care." On the highway, when I get behind someone who's going less than 50 M.P.H. and they're causing a tie-up, I'd normally lay on the horn. But, if I see their Kerry/Edwards sticker, I pause, take my hand away from the horn, and remind myself, "It's not that they don't know how to drive, it's that they're trying to conserve gas and preserve our environment by traveling at a slower speed."

I mean, really, you're doing me a public service by announcing your stupidity, but it still can't be good for your own mental well-being and possibly your very own safety. Hardened criminals must also enjoy seeing who still proudly sports the sign of the jackass. Thugs can immediately identify which citizens don't own a gun and won't hold them responsible for their actions.

Simply put -- the election is over. You lost. Get over it. Move on. Live in the "now." Your candidates were wrong about the state of our economy. They were wrong when they said the Iraqi elections would fail. They were wrong about the war on terrorism. If it were up to them, our troops would be packing-up and moving-out in another three months. Do you think the war on terrorism will be over in three months?

Maybe a better question is, "Do you think three months from now people will still be driving around with Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers on their cars and trucks?" Yep, I think so, and it makes life a lot easier. Now, I don't have to wonder, "What's wrong with this guy?" I already know.

The Supreme Court is out of Control

The Supreme Court of the United States has lost its collective mind.
The recent ruling that they handed down in regards to the death penalty is completely wrong.

They are telling us that a 17 year old is not mature enough to know the heinousness of their crimes.
Siting foreign countries in their ruling.

So, if a 17 year old is not mature enough to know that murder is wrong and what the consequences of this action is, then how can a 13 year old be mature enough to get an abortion without parental consent?

What they have effectively said to America, is that 17 year olds don't know that their actions have consequences, but at the age of 18, all of a sudden they know.

A 13 year old can murder an unborn baby in the womb. They have the maturity for making that decision, but don't know that murder is wrong?

The Constitution of the United States is being torn apart, piece by piece, by these radical judges on the bench.


From the major opinion of Justice Kennedy:

The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty is not controlling here, but provides respected and significant confirmation for the Court’s determination that the penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18. See, e.g., Thompson, supra, at 830–831, and n. 31. The United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile penalty. It does not lessen fidelity to the Constitution or pride in its origins to acknowledge that the express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores
the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom.
Pp. 21–25.

Dissenting:

JUSTICE O’CONNOR, dissenting.
The Court’s decision today establishes a categorical rule forbidding the execution of any offender for any crime committed before his 18th birthday, no matter how deliberate, wanton, or cruel the offense. Neither the objective evidence of contemporary societal values, nor the Court’s moral proportionality analysis, nor the two in tandem suffice to justify this ruling.

SCALIA, J., dissenting.
In urging approval of a constitution that gave lifetenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people’s representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since “[t]he judiciary . . . ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
What a mockery today’s opinion makes of Hamilton’s expectation, announcing the Court’s conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years—not, mind you, that this Court’s decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the
Constitution has changed. The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to “the evolving
standards of decency,” ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society. It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people’s laws barely 15 years
ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people’s laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: “[I]n the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.”.....Consulting States that bar the death penalty concerning the necessity of making an exception to the penalty for offenders under 18 is rather like including old-order Amishmen in a consumer-
preference poll on the electric car. Of course they don’t like it, but that sheds no light whatever on the point at issue. That 12 States favor no executions says something about consensus against the death penalty, but nothing—absolutely nothing—about consensus that offenders under 18 deserve special immunity from such a
penalty....
In other words, all the Court has done today, to borrow from another context, is to look over the heads of the crowd and pick out its friends....
We need not look far to find studies contradicting the Court’s conclusions. As petitioner points out, the American Psychological Association (APA), which claims in this case that scientific evidence shows persons under 18 lack the ability to take moral responsibility for their decisions, has previously taken precisely the opposite position before this very Court. In its brief in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U. S. 417 (1990), the APA found a “rich body of research” showing that juveniles are mature enough to decide whether to obtain an abortion without parental involvement.

For the complete opinion of the court, go here.


There are a couple Justices that serve on the Supreme Court who actually understand the Constitution.
This very issue was brought to the court in 1989.
The ruling then?
The death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment.

Siting international anything, in reference to the United States and our Constitution is tyranny. Judges that use their morality and look to foreign countries to affirm their opinion should be removed from the bench.

There needs to be a referendum by the people of the United States to limit the powers of the Supreme Court to that of law opinion and not changing the Constitution of the United States to suit their needs at that particular time the whim hits them.

E.J. Smith

Illegal Immigration.

It is a subject that should be at the forefront of politics today, but it's not.

Every year the Border Patrol makes more than a million arrests of people who flagrantly violate U.S. laws by unlawfully crossing the border to work and to receive publicly-funded services, often with the aid of fraudulent documents. Such entry is a misdemeanor and, if repeated, becomes punishable as a felony.

Arizona is on the right track. Arizona voters approved Proposition 200 on 2 November, 2004; 56 percent to 44 percent.
The initiative, which could result in jail time for government workers who don't report illegal immigrants trying to obtain some services, requiring "proof of citizenship to register to vote, photo ID to vote, and proof of eligibility for non-federally mandated public benefits".

Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. Those that are affected the most are the poor, children, and minorities.
How?
Simple.
Illegal immigration drains public funds from other sectors that are in need.
A study of the costs of immigration by the National Academy of Sciences found that the taxes paid by immigrants do not cover the cost of services received by them.

We cannot provide high quality education, health care, and retirement security for our own people if we continue to bring in endless numbers of poor, unskilled immigrants.

The money that they make here is sent back to the country they came from to support families there, or to bring more illegal immigrants to America. THis is a drain on our economy and a boost to their respective homeland's economy.

Illegal immigration causes the population of communities across America to be overwhelmed. Schools are overcrowded, natural resources are used up at a higher rate than they can be replenished. Water, power, fuel, and forests are all being affected by the illegal immigration problem.

All of America would benefit if illegal immigrants were denied employment, public assistance benefits, public education, public housing, or any other taxpayer-funded benefits.

The three major components of immigration control--deterrence, apprehension and removal--need to be strengthened by Congress and the Executive Branch if effective control is ever to be a reality.
When I say strengthened, I also mean that those laws that are on the books, should be enforced with zeal.

The cost of enforcing our laws would be offset by the savings that the states, and the federal government saves in reducing the benefits given to illegal immigrants.

Enough is enough!
Write your representatives, both state and federal, and let them know where you stand on this issue.

Stop illegal immigration now!
E.J. Smith

Change to this Blog

I have made a change in how this blog will operate.

I have enlisted the help of three other Veterans.

Their input will help this blog keep pace with events and issues that we deem to pertinant to us.

When any of us author something for this blog it will be posted along with the name of the author.

I hope this will generate more interest in this blog and give everyone a view of our perspectives on different issues.

This will also give this blog more posts, which is the intent.

Enjoy.

Eric

Get the UN Out of the United States Now!

It is high time for the United States to get out of the UN, now!

This body of nations is an absolute travesty of the highest order. The US pays 22% of the budget.

From the Federal Office of Germany (Auswärtiges Amt):

The scale of assessments for contributions to the regular budget is determined every 3 years on the basis of GNP and ranges from a maximum of 22% of the budget (USA) to a minimum of 0.001% (developing countries). Apart from these contributions, the regular budget is funded from revenues from the sale of items such as UN souvenirs, special stamps, books and brochures.

Why are we bearing the brunt of the UN's follies?
This organization is a failure and should be sent packing. France comes to mind.

I am in agreement with the New Hampshire legislature. The following is a bill that has been introduced by them:

2005 SESSION/05-0002/05/01 HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 1

A RESOLUTION urging Congress to withdraw the United States from the United Nations.

This resolution urges Congress to withdraw the United States from the United Nations.

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Five

A RESOLUTION urging Congress to withdraw the United States from the United Nations.

Whereas, the United States is the greatest nation in the world, and is known for its compassionate people who are generous and kind in caring for the needs of those in other countries and whose resources are used worldwide to alleviate hunger and poverty; and

Whereas, the United States is called upon to defend the rights and freedoms of people in other nations, as only we have the capacity to do so as a world superpower; and

Whereas, these responsibilities create an immense burden on the citizens of this country, many of whom are in need and living in poverty themselves; and

Whereas, United States military forces are called upon to bear the brunt of any conflicts that may arise, while other nations stay on the sidelines, and expect the United States to fight its battles; and

Whereas, the United States provides the largest share of the financial burden for the United Nations, paying hundreds of millions of dollars each year that could be used to address many of the nation's challenges, including homelessness, education, law enforcement, poverty, a strong military, and the war against terrorism; and

Whereas, many of the members of the United Nations are not friendly to the United States, and support many things that are detrimental to the country and against its interests, yet expect the United States to provide the finances and manpower to solve all of the world's problems, even putting the lives of the nation's military forces in danger; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the New Hampshire general court respectfully, but firmly requests, that the United States Congress:

I. Take measures to dissolve the membership of the United States in the United Nations, thereby freeing the nation from a large financial burden and retaining its sovereignty to decide what is best for the country; and

II. Take the steps that it considers appropriate as the leader of the free world, with full control of its armed forces and destiny; and

That a copy of this Resolution, signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, be forwarded by the House Clerk to the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and the members of the New Hampshire Congressional delegation.

New Hampshire has also in the past introduced an "AN ACT" (HB 1193) establishing a committee to study the constitutionality of the federal income tax and Constitutional abuses in the collection of the income tax, and its effects on New Hampshire citizens. This bill establishes a committee to study the constitutionality of the federal income tax and Constitutional abuses in the collection of the income tax, specifically as it affects New Hampshire citizens.

HJR 23 introduced in 2004, dealt with election law, specifically:

"This joint resolution urges Congress to transmit to the states for ratification an amendment to the United States Constitution returning the authority to choose United States Senators to the state legislatures."

According to retired Judge J.J. Boesel, America's participation in the United Nations is unconstitutional, because it violates many clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and violates the rights of the individual states of the Union under the Tenth Amendment. (search) This bill in the New Hampshire General Court (state legislature) is new, and is now in committee.

Iposted it in its entirety, because I felt that it deserved it.

Cal Thomas did a piece in the Washington Times that I feel has merit. I agree with him too, on this issue.

The UN wants to control the world not with the democracies that should control the world, but with the despots of lawless nations and terrorist supporters.

Our "contributions" to the UN are supporting third world countries that are hell bent on destroying democracy.
It needs to stop now.

The UN doesn't have the nuts to back up its own resolutions, never mind feed the hungry, or house the desperate refugees from these third world maniacs.
When it needs the nuts to enforce something, it comes running to the US, or just waits until the US has had enough of their bloviating on the matter, and deals with it on her own.

Get out now!

Anti Military

There seems to be a rash of anti-military rhetoric as of late.
It rather sickens me, that people would do this.

If it weren't for the military, you wouldn't enjoy the freedoms that you have today.

Let's start from the beginning, shall we?

The Revolutionary War.
1775-1783
200,000 Troops; 4,435 KIA; 6,188 Wounded; 10,623 Total; 80 Months duration; 55 KIA/Month.
Ahh, the beginnings of freedom weren't cheap, were they?
Now if it weren't for those 200,000 soldiers, we'd still be kissing England's ass.

War of 1812.
286,000 Troops; 2,260 KIA; 4,505 Wounded; 6,765 Total; 30 Months; 75 KIA/Month.
Some "scholars" feel that this was merely an extension of the Revolutionary War, others feel that it was a right of passage to sovereign status. Either way, they did this for our freedom.

Indian Wars
1817–1898
Total servicemembers 106,000
Battle deaths 1,000

The Mexican War.
1846-1848
78,700 Troops; 1,733 KIA; 11,550 Wounded; 4,152 Other; 17,435 Total; 20 Months 87 KIA/Month.
This particular war started with the incursion of the Mexican Army into Texas and their subsequent killing of several in a US scouting party. It finally ends after the US Army occupies Mexico City. Notice the map change after this time?
A point of contention with many I am sure, but, I tend to like the way things are now.

The Civil War.
At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation's loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.

Civil War (1861–1865)
Total servicemembers (Union) 2,213,363
Battle deaths (Union) 140,414
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Union) 224,097
Nonmortal woundings (Union) 281,881
Total servicemembers (Conf.) 1,050,000
Battle deaths (Conf.) 74,524
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.) 59,2972
Nonmortal woundings (Conf.) unknown

The leading authority on casualties of the war, Thomas L. Livermore, admitting the handicap of poor records in some cases, studied 48 of the war's battles and concluded:
Of every 1,000 Federals in battle, 112 were wounded.
Of every 1,000 Confederates, 150 were hit.
Mortality was greater among Confederate wounded, because of inferior medical service.

Spanish-American War.
1898-1902
Total servicemembers 306,760
Battle deaths 385
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 2,061
Nonmortal woundings 1,662

World War I.
1917–1918
Total servicemembers 4,734,991
Battle deaths 53,402
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 63,114
Nonmortal woundings 204,002
Living veterans fewer than 500

World War II.
1940–1945
Total servicemembers 16,112,566
Battle deaths 291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842
Nonmortal woundings 671,846
Living veterans 4,762,000

Korean War.
1950–1953
Total servicemembers 5,720,000
Serving in-theater 1,789,000
Battle deaths 33,741
Other deaths in service (theater) 2,827
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 17,730
Nonmortal woundings 103,284
Living veterans 3,734,000

Vietnam War.
1964–1975
Total servicemembers 8,744,000
Serving in-theater 3,403,000
Battle deaths 47,410
Other deaths in service (theater) 10,789
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000
Nonmortal woundings 153,303
Living veterans 8,295,000

Gulf War.
1990–1991
Total servicemembers 2,183,000
Serving in-theater 665,476
Battle deaths 147
Other deaths in service (theater) 382
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 1,565
Nonmortal woundings 467
Living veterans 1,852,000

America's Wars Total
Military service during war 42,348,460
Battle deaths 651,008
Other deaths in service (theater) 13,998
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 525,256
Nonmortal woundings 1,431,290
Living war veterans 17,578,500
Living veterans 25,038,459

I have not included the current war on terror, as it is ongoing and the numbers will change.

The point of this, is for those of you that have never served in any branch of the military, to get some perspective on what the military has done for you now, and in the past.
Being in the military does not make you a war monger. What it does do, is give you an appreciation for the sacrifices of those in the past and those that are currently sacrificing themselves for the cause of freedom and liberty.

Whenever you see a Veteran, remember this: "All gave some, some gave all."
If you remember that, you might just find yourself in a position to show respect and thanks to all Veterans that you come across.

Also remember, it doesn't matter which political party is running the country, the military always, and there is no exception, always follows the direction of our country as the current Commander in Chief designates.
War is merely an extension of politics by other means.

Thanks for your attention.
Class dismissed!

Hey Hollywood! Liars!

Alright.
Some of you Hollywood morons declared that you would leave the country, if President Bush was re-elected.
Well?

Why are you still here?
Get the hell out of my country.
If you can't stand it that much, just get the hell out.

Hey George, how's life in the monestary? Oh, wait, you didn't move into one. You are a lying piece of bottom feeding scum. Get the hell out and stay the hell out of my country.

You idiots that espouse the Hollywood madness can also get the hell out of my country. Hell, Mexico and Canada are really close. In fact, you could drive yourself, or have your chauffer do the driving, in either case, get the hell out of my country.

You support the troops, you say?
When was the last time, or any time, that you actually got off your sorry butt and did something for the troops?
I haven't seen, nor heard of the majority of you people doing anything, but complaining. "Shut up and sing," or act, or better yet, just get the hell out of my country.

You people are worthless.

Was The Indian Ocean Tsunami Allowed to Happen?

It has come to my attention through sources in contact with me at the time, that the whole Tsunami disaster was President Bush's fault.
In the interest of fair play, I have placed the timeline of these events, courtesy of Lance Andres.
Please spread the word to all the left wing institutions and their minions. They really need the ammunition these days.

Summary of the Tsunami Timeline Developed by Lance Andres; re-printed with his permission.

The Indian Ocean Earthquake, and resulting Tsunami were one of the most pivotal events in world history. Its impact will be felt for years to come. You owe it to yourself to go beyond the sound bites and President Bush’s simplified “official” story. This is an extremely complicated story with numerous players and motives. Not everything makes sense or fits neatly together. It's a story full of espionage, deceit, and lies. But if there are forces out there tricking us, they can only succeed if we, the general public, remain ignorant and passive.I am limiting my sources to only those one might call "mainstream." Why? It's not because I believe one can only trust the mainstream media. In fact, I feel the opposite is true - much of the best reporting today is coming from alternative media..MTV, and Moveon.org. But many people are initially very skeptical. A lot of material I found looking around the web seemed very hard to believe when I first saw it. My goal is to use mainstream sources to generally open eyes to new possibilities. After seeing the importance of what’s being hidden from us, you will very likely want to join in working together to end Bush’s “Moses” type of apocalyptic world terror.

America’s top military leaders drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in Third World cities to trick the public into supporting a Relief effort as in the early 1990’s like the U.N. did in Iraq. Approved in writing by the Pentagon Joint Chiefs, Operation Water Works even proposed arial drops of bottled water to pummel and drown innocent civilians as a false pretext for relief funds to be funneled to Bush’s hidden accounts at Haliburton.

Early 2004-Dec. Bush envoys repeatedly discuss turning The Indian Ocean region into a water park, but the Bush wants to be handed the relief funds directly, while the Democrats want to turn the money over to some third world country. About 20 more meetings on spending (precieved) relief funds take place.

Mid 2004-Dec. National Security Advisor Condi Rice publishes a book portraying deadly DiHydrogen MonOxide as the key to world power, and Water Parks with its vast liquid reserves as the key to domination. She states that for the US to maintain its global primacy, it must prevent any adversary from controlling that region. She notes that because of popular resistance to US military expansionism, Bush’s ambitious strategy can’t be implemented "except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct natural threat. An earthquake of Biblical proportion was in the making.

Mid 2004-Dec. George Bush meets with the Evian Bottling Co. on behalf of the clandestine Water Works project. He also met with them in late 2003. Bush’s chief of staff could not remember that this meeting took place until shown a thank you note confirming the meeting. The military conducts exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: Water used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One imagined target is the Indian Ocean area.

Military and government documents are released that seek to legitimize the use of flood damage in the pursuit of relief funds. One article advocates presidential subterfuge in the promotion of conflict and "explicitly urge[s] painting over the US's actual reasons for the tsunami as a necessity for mobilizing public support for relief funds." A report written for US Secretary of State Powell argues the need for devine intervention to secure Bush’s cash flow. It argues that the United Nations needs to be overthrown so that the US can control its relief funds.

Mid 2004-Dec. The US introduces the "Tsunami Express" program allowing anyone to obtain water park shares through their broker.

Late 2004-Dec. Attorney General Ashcroft stops buying DiHydrogen MonOxide due to a threat assessment. He later walks out of his office rather than answer questions about this.

Late 2004-Dec. The UN ignores warnings from the United States that an earthquake of Biblical proportions is planned and imminent destruction to the coastal regions of the Indian Ocean will result. The Thai’s and Indians also fail to take seriously warnings that President Bush will smite them with a chemical attack (DiHydrogen MonOxide), for the relief funds.

Intelligence officials know that Bush hopes to use aqueous weapons and seeks to strike a violent blow to the Indian Ocean region, despite government claims that the Earthquake and resulting Tsunami came “like bolts from the blue.”

Russian President Putin says publicly that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the U.N. of the plot to attack Asian targets.

Israel warns of US imminent attack.

President Bush is warned by Sen. Kerry and Sen. Kennedy that the planning to attack the Indian Ocean region to siphon relief funds would be against everything P.C. The White House waited eight months for this day, to reveal this as a Democrat conspiracy.

Bush triggers plan into motion: A particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip to Thailand. “Why that same information was not available to the people who died fronm the resulting tsunami may become a hot topic on the Hill." "A group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of “security concerns and weather reports."

Bush flies to his hidden lair that day, where there is an underground command center.

In what the government describes as a bizarre natural disaster, the US intelligence agency (the National Reconnaissance Office or NRO) was all set for an exercise at 9 AM in which a new “Moses” weapon would be tested in the Indian Ocean.

The entire US and World community was shocked at the apocalyptic event “nature” had bestowed upon the Indian Ocean region. Relief funds began pouring in immediately.

President Bush immediately calls for more aid to the region….President Bush’s father and ex-President Clinton (the fall guy) are urged to help amass vast quantities of disposable capital from the American people…as the “relief funds” are needed desperately.

President Bush denies any and all responsibility for this “act of God”.

Please join me in exposing this “Natural Disaster” of President “Moses” Bush’s making…
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can plainly see, this whole disaster was President Bush's fault and the blame squarely rests on his shoulders.

Impeach him now!
.

Top of the fold -- Rhetoric matters...From The Patriot

As Wednesday night's final presidential debate so aptly displayed, John F. Kerry's populist rhetoric has reached nearly hysterical proportions. "In the past four years, in nearly every decision that he's made, President George W. Bush has chosen the powerful and the well-connected over middle-class Americans," Kerry said recently. "The only people George Bush's policies are working for are the people that he's chosen to help. They're working for drug companies. They're working for HMOs. And they're certainly working for the big oil companies."

"The powerful and well-connected"? This from the man who has twice married multimillionaire heiresses; a man who has multiple mansions on multiple continents; a man who windsurfs (poorly) off tony Nantucket; a man who rides a bicycle that costs more than some new cars; a man who doesn't blink at spending, oh, maybe $15,000 to jet his hairdresser cross-country for a trim.

But we digress. Where it comes to John Kerry's economic vision for America, The Patriot believes it's time we called a spade a spade. When Kerry spouts this "wealthy-versus-the-middle-class" rhetoric, he's flying a Marxist flag, and many Americans seem to be none the wiser. Are we serious, you ask? Marxism?

[For more on Kerry's collusion with Europe's most dated thinker, read "John Kerry, Useful Idiot..." -- ]http://federalistpatriot.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=275]

Stop for a moment to consider the language he uses (for all his faults, Kerry is no intellectual slouch). In Kerry's view, politics should be interpreted as a conflict between the antithetical interests of the wealthy and the ordinary American. To Kerry, a tax-break for a successful businessman amounts to an attack on a working American. Policies good for big business (as Bush's are) must, by definition, be bad for labor. Kerry is singing the Democrats' same old class-warfare song, designed to divide the country (and the electorate) in their favor. But does he really believe that business owners are diametrically opposed to the workers who make their businesses possible, and that workers are equally opposed to those who provide jobs to support their families?

He must, for this is the divisive picture he paints over and over: 'Bush favors the wealthy, while I'll fight for average Americans.' But if Kerry's premise is correct, then the only solution is to dismantle our economic system in favor of something as time-tested and successful as, say, Soviet socialism. A capitalist system depends fundamentally on the premise that free economic exchange benefits everyone, whether rich or poor. The problem, of course, is that this would mean that Bush's tax cuts really do make sense.

This perspective culminates in the Kerry-Edwards argument that Bush's "tax cuts for the wealthy" have produced a medical coverage nightmare for the middle class. Despite the sheer hilarity of this diagnosis, our concern is their proposed solution. They propose raising taxes on the rich and giving the proceeds to the middle class in the form of "better" health coverage. Incredibly, they don't even try to hide the connection. Kerry shamelessly asks for people's votes in return for his promise to take money from one group and give it to another. To quote one adroit observer, "That isn't waffling -- that's pandering!"

Consider countries that have implemented such policies in the past. Economic stalwarts like North Korea and the Soviet Union certainly ring a bell. Is the erstwhile Evil Empire now our role model? This is where domestic policy meets foreign policy. To be sure, Kerry's fraternizing with the North Vietnamese in 1970-71 is not unrelated to his present collectivist economic views. John Kerry betrayed his country then because he believed socialism offered a better way of life. Given his current rhetoric, it seems not much has changed in 33 years.

President George W. Bush, on the other hand, has consistently pursued a sounder economic policy, even if his articulation is often lacking. Here, he has steadily made his case on two fronts: first, by emphasizing the need for greater productivity as the heart of economic development; and second, by arguing that tax cuts are the best way to encourage productivity. History shows that the best thing the government can do with respect to economic policy is let the people keep their money, and then get out of the way. As the President said Wednesday night, "I believe the role of government is to stand side by side with our citizens to help them realize their dreams, not tell citizens how to live their lives."

Unfortunately, the President's rhetoric sometimes has the unfortunate effect of masking much good in his economic policy; indeed, it often disguises -- and even undermines -- the very strength of this policy. To be fair, the limitations of the various media and debate formats -- 60-second debate responses and 15-second sound bites -- don't allow thorough explanations. In addition, at this late date in the campaign, both candidates are appealing to swing voters and moderating their explication in general.

Still, The Patriot believes the President must more thoroughly elucidate the effectiveness of his economic policy. The bottom line is that when Kerry attacks Bush with his class-warfare rhetoric, Bush must attack the folly of Kerry's position at its foundation. 'Of course the rich benefit from my tax breaks, as do all taxpayers! Beyond that, it only makes sense that a fair tax cut returns the most to the people who pay the most. If we want more jobs in America, we should let the people who create jobs keep their own money!' In the final days of this campaign, The Patriot encourages the Bush campaign to speak the truth boldly to the American people, for we believe that the majority of Americans -- even those curiously undecided voters, bless their hearts -- still prefer economic freedom. Big corporations are not evil. Wealthy people are not evil, nor are pharmaceutical companies, insurance providers, or -- the greatest "menace" of all -- multinational "outsourcers." Big corporations and big investors are in fact America's job and wealth creators. They're the ones among us who encourage productivity. It's Kerry's vision of BIG GOVERNMENT that presents the greatest threat to our national prosperity and liberty.

To wit, when Kerry lectured, "Every plan that I have laid out -- my healthcare plan, my plan for education, my plan for kids to be able to get better college loans -- I've shown exactly how I'm going to pay for those," the President replied in fine style: "I want to remind people listening tonight that a plan is not a litany of complaints, and a plan is not to lay out programs that you can't pay for. ... It's an empty promise. It's called bait-and-switch."

President Bush continued, "It's your money. The way my opponent talks, he said, 'We're going to spend the government's money.' No, we're spending your money. And when you have more money in your pocket, you're able to better afford things you want. ... My opponent talks about fiscal sanity. His record in the United States Senate does not match his rhetoric. He voted to increase taxes 98 times and to bust the budget 277 times." Well said, Mr. President, well said.

The fine moments notwithstanding, in the final days of such a campaign, rhetoric tends to hide many policy differences espoused by the candidates and their parties. We the people must not be lulled into thinking the differences between the parties no longer exist, that they're all in fact Republicrats. In truth, the policy differences are real and important, and underlying the candidates' economic policies -- as with their foreign policies -- is a deep ideological gulf that no bipartisan bridge can span.

In the end, actions can say so much more than words. According to Club for Growth President Stephen Moore, Kerry failed to make public all his tax records from last year, but according to those released, his household income was "$5.5 million last year and [he] paid $704,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was a whopping 12.8%," Moore wrote. That's right -- Mr. Roll-back-the-Bush-tax-cuts-for-the-rich (himself) is paying less in taxes than most middle class families. George and Laura Bush, on the other hand, paid roughly 30% on one-tenth the income that the Kerry's brought in. Presumably, this was all legal on Kerrys' part, but this is the guy complaining about "Bush's debt" and "tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans," too. If this is any indication of Kerry's real perspective on the surly IRS and inequitable tax code, perhaps he should be voting four more years for W., too...rhetoric aside.

(Emphasis mine)

If you want to be taxed to death, elect Kerry, if you want more of your own money, re-elect President Bush.


Be sure to check out the Battle of the Blogs: Medienkritik vs. George Soros
http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/10/medienkritik_vs.html#more

At least Soros had the decency to reply and even post it on his own Blog.

Kerry is a traitor

Once a traitor, always a traitor.

Mr. Kerry is a traitor to the United States of America. When he met with the enemy in Paris, it was illegal in several ways. Title 18 US Code should be applied to Mr. Kerry's activities after his service in Vietnam. The statements he made before congress were false, which is also a crime and his anti-war activities that led to his meeting with the enemy in Paris is treason.
Read Title 18 and pass on to your friends, what the real JF Kerry is about.

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 115--TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES Sec. 2381.

Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Sec. 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war

(a)
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so-- Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b)
If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in said subsection (a).

(c)
Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(d)
This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as within the United States.(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 811; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXIII, Sec. 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)


Mr. Kerry should be arrested by the FBI and immediately put on trial for his crimes against the United States, during a time of war. Punishable by death, he should receive the maximum punishment.
If you paid attention to the Code, you will have noticed that these crimes prevent you from runnning for office of any kind in the United States. Mr. Kerry is a fraud and a traitor, and should be treated as such.

The Media

It's been a while since I posted. Some of us have jobs. I do. I also go to college.

The latest spat of BS out of the media has been an interesting one.
It just goes to show you where the media stands in its unadulterated bias.

Bias in the media has been rampant and it is now being seen as a medeler in politics and is heavily slanted towards the left.

It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another when that opinion is offered as the truth in news and is used to influence the elections.

Thank God that there is the internet and a way to check facts that otherwise would not see the light of day at all.

Unfortunately, there are too many people in America that receive their news from one of the "big three" and are completely clueless to the real truth.

It is high time that the media gets exposed for what they really are, a shill for the Democratic party of America.
Too bad most of America won't get clued in to their ways, unless they have a computer and use it to do their own research.

Unfortunately, there is way to much apethy in America and democracy will slowly erode in this great country.

Gotta get back to work.
Wake the hell up America.

Liberal Tolerance or Choosing Sides

Been too busy to write lately, so I am posting an article by J.D. Pendry.

J. D. Pendry

Often I sit here with many random thoughts vying for time. When that happens, I don’t know what I’m gong to write until it’s written. I’ve told you before that these Sunday ponderings are self-chats that I have while trying to get a grasp on our world and my tiny spot in it. When I consider the scope of human history and the vastness of the universe, my time here becomes less than an eye blink and my contribution mostly insignificant. Still, I think I need to try to sort out things so that at least any contribution made during my eye blink represents my best efforts at critical thought. This is one of those essays that might take you somewhere or nowhere, stimulate thought or not or cause anger or not…. It will cause me to get mail from bogus Hotmail accounts. Everything else I write does.

"It's a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I'd rather not know." – Linda Ronstadt

Welcome to America today. Unfortunate isn’t it. A person representing the part of our society that most preaches diversity and tolerance is the antithesis of both. Say what you like about political parties, it’s an unfortunate part of our great experiment. Is it acceptable, though, to belittle an entire group of people because of the lifestyle they choose?

What if Linda said: It's a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Democrat or homosexual. It can cloud my enjoyment. I'd rather not know? Would the media and public reaction have been different? Well, would it? I’ll try not to offend you Linda by buying any concert tickets.

I’m curious about why people such as Linda are so down on Christians. I saw a funny cartoon, Johnny Hart’s B.C, in the Sunday comics. It illustrates Linda’s liberal tolerance. Yes, there is much editorializing in the Sunday comics, but that’s not why I read them. I like comics – they’re often more real than life.

Jake the Ant: Thank you for your creation, providence and grace and thank you for watching over my family.

Friend Ant: Who you talkin’ to Jake?

Jake: God.

Friend: You’re kidding.

Jake: Don’t you ever talk to God?

Friend: I don’t believe in God.

Jake: Who do you think made you?

Friend: Queen Ida.

Jake: He made her too.

Friend: Yeah, yeah, yeah – with all due respect, Jake, I’m mad at your God! He doesn’t even exist!

Jake: Have you ever even tried to talk to him?

Friend: How do you talk to someone you’re mad at?

Jake: How can you be mad at someone who doesn’t exist?

Linda, please spend more time critically examining your lifestyle.

How about the rocker’s for Kerry? Their concert tour is funded by Moveon.org, which is largely financed by billionaire George Soros. Millionaire rock stars on a tour funded by a billionaire, supporting a millionaire candidate with a billionaire wife and a millionaire running mate calls Republicans the party of the rich. Kerry and the rockers do have something else in common. War protests.

What do you think about the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth? I’d truly like to know. The media is trying hard to discredit them and label their ads and book as political dirty tricks. I find it all quite interesting. It’s alright for that great American servant Michael Moore, embraced by DNC chairman Terry McCaulliffe, to produce a feature length political ad and call the President a deserter, but it’s a dirty trick if honorably discharged Vietnam veterans question the service of Senator Kerry. Can we reflect a bit?

I enlisted into the Army in the fall of 1971. By the time I completed training the Army was starting to draw down in Vietnam. I never made it there. I lived through the era though. Imagine how you’d feel as a twenty-something soldier returning from Iraq today and being met at the airport by people holding signs that called you a murderer and baby-killer? That would be your welcome home. Period. Exclamation point! How would you feel if a well-known American movie star met with the enemy in Iraq? Had her picture taken with them while calling our POWs criminals? How would you feel if someone you served with came home, protested the war along with that famous American movie star, and took the Purple Hearts he’s now so proud of and threw them in the dirt. Then, he sat in front of the Senate and told them that you were a murderer and rapist that committed many atrocious acts. Later, you learned that what he said was false and based in part from testimony of people who never served in the war. Then, how would you feel if the same person years later decided that he was actually a war hero now and that you should forget about his antics and make him President because of his stellar war record? Shouldn’t his entire war record be open to critical examination?

What America did to Vietnam veterans is deplorable. All of us who stood by while the Fondas and Kerrys of the country did what they did are complicit. We put young men into a political war with the political deck stacked against them. When they came home, we blamed our failure on them. Folks, my empathy is with the veterans. With any kind of luck, the Democrats will experience a political implosion over their choice to re-fight Vietnam. Maybe then, as a nation, we can finally stop fighting that war.

I find one more item odd. General Tommy Franks wrote a book, American Soldier. This man led us through two wars. If there is anyone with first hand insight on what we faced, what we face now and what we’ve accomplished, I believe it is General Franks. What is odd to me is that (unless it happened in the last day or two) General Franks (unlike Clinton and the lineup of Bush bashing books) has not appeared on any mainstream media talk shows to promote his book. Could it be because it is pro-America, pro-military and pro-Bush?

It’s Sunday afternoon. My dinner is settling. I’m heading for the back porch to take a nap.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read Paul Schneidmill's Weekly Devotional

J.D. Pendry is author of The Three Meter Zone, Random House/Ballantine.
Visit JD's Website
Click here to send you're your feedback to JD. Feedback
or
Post your Feedback at NCO Team.Org NCO Talk, Forums, JDs Bunker

Subscribe to BunkerTalk When the email form appears just send it.

Copyright © JD Pendry, This article may be electronically shared, republished or reprinted if in it's entirety with original credit given.

Kerry's Lies

Haven't you had enough of this man's lies?

He spouts rhetoric that President Bush lied, right along with the Liberal left.

Let's look at his speech.
"I am John Kerry," he saluted his audience to begin his convention speech, "reporting for duty."
I want to puke everytime I think about it.
This coward wriggled his way out of Vietnam on trumped up wounds that required nothing more than a band-aid to fix and left his brothers in Vietnam. Left his crew. Came home and joined the VVAW. This organization not only protested, but aided and abetted the communist regime of North Vietnam. His actions were directly responsible for the demorilization of POWs and servicemen in combat. Need proof that he is a traitor to this country? Check out the Vietnam War Crimes Museum. He has a place of honor, right along with Hanoi Jane in their dubious museum.

I am too young to have been a victim of his heinous crime, yes it is a crime.
I am a veteran of the Army, 20 years, to include six months in the Gulf War. This man has no honor, and I wouldn't trust him to lead me out of a wet paper bag, never mind leading this country.
As to Kerry's military exploits, or lack there of, if that is all he has to offer in the way of substance, the Democrat Party is in for a rude awakening!

"I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers."
"We need a strong military and we need to lead strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win. The future doesn't belong to fear; it belongs to freedom."

What a lark! This guy is trying to tell the American people that he supports the military and we need more allies in the effort?! Give me a break! This guy has voted against most military aquisitions that were used in the Gulf War and the Global War on Terror.
He voted against the vests for our military! Yet in his speech, he even mentions this, as if he were in favor of it!

There are more examples that I will get to later, I need to settle down a bit, this guy makes me fume!

Get Tough America

 
Get Tough America

J. D. Pendry

Get on your feet America.  Stand up straight and wipe that smirk from your face.  I’m dead serious and I want to look you in the eye and tell you what the millionaire, socially conscious, politically correct politicians ain’t going to.  This is the stump speech you need, but won’t get.  Besides, the politicians don’t want you to hear it anyway.

Get off the couch.  You’re fat.  You’re lazy.  You’re looking for handouts.  You think someone owes you something.  You’re drowning in victim hood.  You need patches, drugs and counseling to quit smoking ferchrissakes!  Your heroes are shallow actors and athletes, inept politicians that couldn’t even start a lawn mower, and gazillionaires with big stupid looking hair dos.  A good Army Private could whip any of them including the juiced up professional athletes and a six-pack of you before breakfast.

You’re hooked on reality TV because you don’t have the drive and gumption to take on a challenge of your own.  You can’t fire anybody, so you watch with glee while “the Donald” does it on your TV.  Whoops, better him than me.  You’re pathetic.  You’re soft.  You hide from your neighbors behind privacy fences.  Your friends are characters in Internet chat rooms.  You don’t go to Church anymore.  You don’t respect the flag of our country.    Your kids are fat and you blame McDonalds.  Your 14-year-old daughters dress like hookers and you blame it on MTV and Britney.  They expose their belly buttons, are tattooed and wear wonder bras while your sons walk around in a mating ritual with their butts hanging out of their trousers.  They resemble a herd of baboons in mating season.  Your public schools are a disaster because the people you allow to run them are a disaster.  You’ve allowed them to become instruments of indoctrination rather than education.  When is the last time you got up off of your broad butt and visited the place where your child goes to learn each day?  All of you could give me an update on Scott Peterson, Kobie Bryant, Michael Jackson or Martha Stewart, but couldn’t tell me anything of substance about the political candidates who want to run our country.  I’m not sure you deserve America.  You sit on your butt and complain about everything, but do not take one single step toward fixing what’s broke.  Look in the mirror.   Fix that first.  Then stop whining.  Stand up and do something. 

We have people who want to lead our country telling us we need to regain respect from the international community.  Crap!  I think the international community needs to regain our respect!  I don’t care about Germany, France, Russia, China or any other country that you can think of that wishes it was America.  I think the United Nations is a bad joke played on the world for too long.  I care about Americans.  I don’t care about political parties, special interest groups or plastic politicians.  I care about soldiers, firemen, policemen, garbage men, teachers, mechanics, factory workers and the cashier at the department store – YOU and ME!

Our Congress is another bad joke played on America.  Do you think any corporation could succeed or even survive if half it’s members spent every waking minute trying to ensure that the leadership of the corporation failed – at all costs – even in a war?  You need to fire the bunch of them.  If they haven’t accomplished something wonderful by their second tour they need to go.  Running this country is a team effort.  We can’t get anything done with multiple and conflicting game plans.  If our elected leader offers a plan the obligation of the rest of the team is to make it work not fail.  Imagine how great we could be!

According to the polls that our politicians so highly value, more than 85 percent of Americans favor the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment, yet it was killed in the Senate by a vote of 50-48.  How did your senator vote and how do you suppose that could happen?  Not a clue?  Don’t you usually sit there rubbing your big head saying, “Fer the life of me, I don’t know why those politicians do such things.”  Then you get another beer, belch and switch the channel.  It’s simple, couch butt.  They do it because you let them.  You don’t vote, and they know it.  Take a look at the voting statistics for 1960 - 1996 and the statistics for the 2000 election.  They know that on any given General Election Day, more than half of you will find something better to do than decide the direction of our country.  You go nuts if someone might infringe on one of your constitutional rights, but you fail to exercise your most important one.  It’s pitiful.

You let whacked out Hollywierdos set the tone of debate and morality in this country with their immoral nonsense.  And you know what – you’ll stand in line for hours to get tickets to see them make fools of you, but won’t spend 10 minutes in line at the polls to vote.  You deserve them.  In many countries around the world, people only dream of having a voice in running their country yet you don’t go vote if it’s raining or if it interferes with your favorite episode of reality TV.   Do you remember Saddam’s last election?  He got 98 percent of the vote.  The other 2 percent of voters went into the wood chipper.

I also see you in Church a couple of times each week.  You’re always lamenting how the morals of this country are going down the toilet and how sad it is that “they” are systematically removing God from our lives.  You’re the foundation of values in this country.  You’re bound by your faith to do what’s right.  Well here’s a little insight for you my brethren.  According to Focus on the Family, more than four million of us who proclaim the Christian faith failed to vote in the last General Election.  So, whose fault is the state of our country?  I’ll ask you to pray about that.

We have thousands of young men and women putting their lives on the line daily to ensure our continued right to express our desires in the form of a vote.  Their job is much tougher than ours is.  All we have to do is go to the polls.  Are you going to let them down by not voting?  In case you’ve forgotten, there was a major issue with their ballots in the 2000 election.  Let’s not let them down.  You military leaders need to get the troops registered and their absentee ballots in the mail.  Don’t wait for the designated Second Lieutenant to get the job done.

I’m tired of unprincipled politicians that will not risk their political standing to do what’s right.  I’m tired of people who want to drag my family and me into the moral cesspool with them.  I’m tired of people who are more concerned with the seat of power than the safety of our soldiers and our country.  I’m tired of American voter apathy.  But, you know what.  I’m only one guy.  I can’t do much about this stuff alone.  I’m voting on election day.  What are you doing?

Get registered!  Go Vote!  Any questions?

Your may carry on!

 
Read Paul Schneidmill's Weekly Devotional
J.D. Pendry is author of The Three Meter Zone, Random House/Ballantine.
Click here to send you're your feedback to JD. Feedback
or
Post your BunkerTalk Feedback at NCO Team.Org NCO Talk, Forums, JDs Bunker
Subscribe to BunkerTalk When the email form appears just send it.
Copyright © JD Pendry, This article may be electronically shared, republished or reprinted if in it's entirety with original credit given.