November 28, 2009

I know! Let's Let The Enemy Join Us!


According to Fox News, the military is trying a new tactic in the fight on terror. The idea is to have Taliban bribed into quiting the fight and taking refuge within the coalition. And why not? These people are completely trustworthy, I'm sure this will prove successful. Successful for the Taliban that is. They will use this opportunity to implant terrorist cells within the coalition and and destroy us (Ft. Hood ring a bell?!) The wisdom on this move is lacking. These terrorists are on a mission according to their religion. To give in to the coalition, in their mind, is to give into Christianity - which is something that they cannot bring themselves to do. The only thing the Taliban understands is getting the snot bombed out of them. You can't negotiate with these people. You can't be diplomatic. I'm sure this is another one of Obama's brilliant ideas. This guy needs to be impeached!

November 27, 2009

Science Couldn't Be Wrong!

Just when the majority of the media would crucify you if you didn't accept global warming, this just in! The data supporting Global Warming has just been proven to be junk science; according to the Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/). I do not wish to rehash what the Times has already reported, but merely to make a few observations.

Firstly, let's remember something that is absolutely vital and fundamental to any science. Science follows a certain process known as the scientific method. This method is to make an observation, make hypotheses, test and repeat those tests on the hypotheses, draw a conclusion, submit conclusion for peer review, revision of theory (if necessary), further peer review, and finally, accept/reject the hypotheses. Now, without being present "millions" of years ago, how can scientist test the historic change in the Earth's climate? They weren't there to observe it, nor can they test it. But, never mind that - when a "science" has a political agenda, there is no need to follow any scientific methods. People may argue, "Well, we have these rocks here and based on the properties in the rocks and the radiometric dating, I can conclude that the earth was much cooler 2 million years ago." Sorry, all you can conclude is that it is a rock and its present properties/location. You never observed the entire life of the rock. You can speculate all you want and that's fine - but don't shove it on me as fact!

Secondly, let's talk about this business of peer review. Let me create a scenario: If I have a drunk person and he only associates with other drunks, how often will he get good advice to stop drinking? The same holds true for peer review. If you are submitting your "findings" to those who desperately want Global Warming to be real, what outcome will you get? Do you think you are getting honest academic review of your work? Think again. It is amazing that results are only accepted by these dishonest scientists are the desired results. In other words, they reject anything that would seem to disprove their theory.

Lastly, what does this ultimately mean? For years, we have had our freedoms stripped by way of Government regulations because of the abscess fear of Global Warming. Americans have been preyed upon by "political science." So, now you are being told what kind of car to drive, what time of the day to fill-up your gas tanks; what kind of light bulbs to buy; what kind of washer and drier to buy and so on. Your lives have been taken over by the life-style police in Washington. Do you think Global Warming crowd cares? Of course not. When you are fabricating information, you obviously do not care about truth anyway. So, when it is exposed as a lie, what's their next move? Ignore it and make new lies. The ring leader of this movement is Al Gore. In his new book, he has photoshoped hurricanes on a world map showing the Western Hemisphere. The picture below is of the world with the equator in red. Note which part of South America it runs through (click to enlarge):











Now, note the picture that Al Gore photoshoped below.

















See the hurricane at the bottom of the photo? It is sitting right on the equator. Hurricanes cannot happen on the equator! Because of the Coriolis Effect, rotational patterns in water and weather happen differently depending on what side of the equator you are on. This has been famed in which direction your toilet water spins here versus a toilet in Australia. Hurricanes do not form below 5º latitude. Now, the Coriolis Force at the equator is zero. Therefore, a fully developed hurricane could cross the equator and over-power the Coriolis Force, but there hasn't been one in recorded history to do so. So, since Al Gore didn't have any examples of this, he had to make it up and ignore the probabilities against such an occurrence. But, once again, why worry about science when you have an agenda to push.

I would write some more, but I need to go turn on all the lights in my house and leave my sink running.

November 25, 2009

Hey! He's Hitting Me! I'm Telling Mommy!!

OK, I'm sure you've heard this today in the news. According to Fox News, Navy SEALS have captured a high profile terrorist and are facing criminal charges because of the way they apprehended the terrorist. Fox News reports, "Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges..." (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576646,00.html?test=latestnews) Ever since Abu Ghraib no torture torture incident, the Military seems to be frightened by what the media will report. Exactly what did these seals do that was so bad? Did they fly planes into buildings? No. Did they bomb a US Navy ship? No. Did they behead the man for the world to see? No. In the apprehension, the terrorist's lip was bloodied. That's right, folks-his lip was bloodied. So, this big strong terrorist got nothing more than a recess-playground wound and now he wants Constitutional rights. All the while, our heroes will be paraded into court to be mocked. Do you think our Commander-in-Chief will come to the rescue? Don't hold your breath. He can't defend the SEALS because he is too busy putting a band-aide on the terrorist's lip and offering him a warm place to spend the night. Now, what are the implications of this?

Firstly, once again we are granting non-US citizens Constitutional rights. The Constitution is designed to instruct how citizens of America and their Government are to interact with each other. No foreign terrorist has any protection/rights under the Constitution. Perhaps this would be more evident if those running the show would actually read the Constitution rather than worry about what focus groups are saying. Why do we keep extending these rights to people who aren't even citizens of our country? The reason is, Congress and the White House care more about what the world thinks of us than they do about standing up for America. If the world is mad at us, then we are obviously in the wrong and must change. What's the point of having a country then?! It is high time America stood up to the rest of the world and tell them that we believe in Liberty and Freedom and if they don't like it, tough. Go run your own country! The world can keep being angry, while their citizens keep immigrating here. Let's kick the UN out of this country. Let's withdraw our membership and get back to the foundational basics that our nation was founded under. When the fire of freedom ignites, no force on earth is powerful enough to put it out!

Secondly, this is a way that the terrorists can infiltrate American military morale. If our soldiers keep getting hauled off to court for protecting this country, terrorists will champion this opportunity. Not only this, soldiers will now think twice about acting out their duty. You may not realize this, but if you think twice in war, it will be the last thought you ever have. It is easy to sit in Washington and think twice - which is why we lost in Vietnam, by the way.

Libs, If you support the troops, then stand up for them. They've stood up for you and have bled and died for you so you could have the freedom to spew your drivel of a particularly inferior grade. But, once all of the soldiers are in jail, who will be left to defend your freedom of speech?

November 24, 2009

The Times Gets It, Republicans Don't


Conservative Republicans have devised a way to ensure that if the GOP is to support candidate, the candidate must meet certain criteria. This criteria is spelled out in a check list. The thought is that a candidate must hold to at least 7 positions on the checklist. I admit I haven't seen the check list yet, but if the list involves basic Conservative principles, they should have to agree to all items on the list. There is no "partial-Conservative." If you are a true Conservative, conservatism will dominate your life's actions and choices; as well as what policies you support or not. Now, the New York Times is reporting this story and they make a very interesting observation. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/us/politics/24repubs.html?_r=1&ref=us) They make the claim that the only way Republicans will take back Congress is if they move the party away from the center and towards Conservatism! It's a sad day for Congressional Republicans when the New York Times gets it and you don't. Now, if this becomes adopted within the party, will they also be in favor of having a citizenship test (check list) for immigrants who are attempting to gain citizenship? By the way, a citizenship test causes the immigrant to learn about our way of Government and our History. Through that study, you get a good idea of our culture. You also understand it isn't your job to come here and make us change to fit your ways. That's called cultural assimilation and it preserves a nation. If you think this is crazy, just ask your average German what they feel about the Turkish people "taking away their jobs."

Back to the topic at hand. The Times also reports of the RNC Chairman, Michael Steele will have a big challenge on his hands. If this check list is approved, Steele, who probably wouldn't meet even 1 of the list items, will have to rescue the "moderate" Republicans and keep them joined together with the Conservatives of the party. "I'll take Obvious Reasons the GOP is in Shambles for $200, Alex." The Republican Party is distancing themselves from Conservatism. It isn't Rush Limbaugh who is splitting the party, it is non-Conservative Republicans driving the wedge deep. And, this is extremely obvious and personified in the current RNC chairman.

I don't want Republicans to take back Congress. I want Conservatism to take back Congress. 2012, here I come!

November 23, 2009

Of Course, Here We Go Again

Nidal Hasan is figured to plead insane and not guilty. And, with our courts, he'll get away with it. I don't care how insane someone is, the act of murder was still committed. Secondly, if is going to claim insanity, then the Army will have some answering to do about why they continued to employ an insane person. Now, they'll say they never tested Hasan for insanity and had no reason to. Which I say, "Exactly!...because he's NOT INSANE!" He knew exactly what he was doing and as a typical Muslim terrorist, he is being a coward. So, he'll be paraded in front of our drooling media and then set free. Later, he'll blow himself up as a suicide bomber and take out hundreds of innocent people with him. Hmmmm...I take it back, he is insane.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576125,00.html

November 20, 2009

America and Muslim Terrorism: This Is Nothing New


By Chris Dumford

Muslim Terrorism Is As Old As America Itself.

It is interesting to me that our current administration has so little knowledge of American History and our Nation’s first international crisis. This is borne out by their re-defining of the War on Terror as a man-made disaster, by waffling on commitment of more troops to the Middle East, and by attempting to diplomatically deal with the Terrorists instead of militarily deal with them. America’s first international crisis involved Muslim terrorism overseas. How our early Presidential Administrations dealt with Muslim terrorism is a lesson in how to deal with Muslim terrorism in our modern world.

Following the American Revolution, the US economy, unshackled from English restrictions and heavy taxation began to grow. The result was an increased demand for foreign goods. As a result, the US produced the largest merchant fleet in the world. Much of the domestic demand for goods emanated from goods produced in the Mediterranean rim.

Following the American Revolution, the entire remaining United States Navy was paid off and there was not a single US naval vessel in commission (nor much of a standing army for that matter). The loss of British naval protection in the Mediterranean Sea as a result of the Colonies becoming independent of England resulted in Muslim terrorists exploiting American military weakness by stealing US merchant ships, confiscating the cargoes and enslaving the crews. This was not exclusive to the US. The Dutch and the English were also plagued by this practice, but they chose to simply pay ransoms to curtail the practices, and occasionally to react militarily.

By the 1790's these acts of piracy resulted in several hundred Americans becoming slaves to Tripolitanian, Moroccan and Algerian Muslims. In exchange for the prisoners, these Muslims demanded that huge ransoms be paid from the US treasury. Though the US Government followed through with the yearly ransoms, which increased in amount every year, the various Deys and Padhas often failed to release their prisoners after the ransoms were paid. The primary reason for this travesty was that the Muslims in the region believed westerners to be infidels and according to the Q’uran, they were to be plundered, enslaved or killed if they did not convert to Islam (referred to by American sailors as turning Turk). Several sailors in fact did convert to Islam in order to escape the brutal treatment and torture. Some of this torture included being bound and having the soles of the feet beaten by rods until the flesh was virtually stripped from their feet. The prisoners were often worked until they dropped dead cutting stones for various fortresses. They were starved, allowed to become disease ridden and treated to total humiliation. George Washington, wrote to Thomas Jefferson and the American Consul to Tunis William Eaton that these circumstances existed because of America being perceived by the Muslim nations as a Christian nation (i.e. having a State controlled and legislated official Church). Washington attempted to distance this notion by writing a letter to the various Beys of Tripoli, Morocco and Algeria that America was not a Christian Theocracy but rather a democratic government (in comparison to the European Governments, many of which governed over state churches and were perceived by the Muslims to be in-essence Theocracies), but this failed to convince the Muslim governments who continued to see us as infidels because we did not embrace Sharia Law.

Washington’s solution was to commission a navy to be built. The initial authorization was for 6-frigates, three of which were to be 44-gun frigates, and three to be 36-gun frigates. These were the Constitution, Constellation, United Sates, President, Chesapeake and Congress along with several smaller ships. In addition, 6-subscription frigates were built by citizens of the US and presented to the US Navy including: Essex, Boston, New York, Adams, John Adams (a separate frigate) and Philadelphia. Several of these were laid up in an incomplete state and not completed when a financial agreement was reached with the Tripolitanian governments which included a yearly bribe to be paid out by US tax payers and delivered by the Navy. This agreement did not last long as the Muslim governments were (and are) not known to keep their word to so-called infidels. Under Adams administration, following continued terrorism and failure of the Muslim governments to keep their word the various frigates were completed and the US navy was born. (Much of this occurred due to pressure from the US populace with such cries as "Millions for Defense and not one cent for tribute...").

From 1801 to 1805, the new US navy was deployed in various squadrons bombarding Tripolitanian towns, capturing Tripolitanian ships and rescuing US and foreign (Christian) sailors who were prisoners. These actions included Stephen Decatur’s boarding and burning of the frigate Philadelphia which had grounded on a reef while captained by the rather unfortunate William Bainbridge. The frigate was captured by the Tripolitanians and Bainbridge and his crew became slaves to the Muslims. British Admiral Lord Nelson later called Decatur’s boarding, capturing and burning of the Philadelphia in plain sight of the guns of the Tripolitanian harbor fortresses, “The boldest act of the age…” In addition, another heroic action occurred when a small contingent of Marines led by Lieutenant Presley O’Bannon in concert with a rather dubious Arab army under William Eaton stormed and captured the city of Derna (Subsequently the Marine Corps Anthem contains the lines “To the shores of Tripoli...” as a tribute to O’Bannon and his Marine’s deeds).

As a result of this show of overwhelming force, the Muslims finally signed a treaty to stop stealing US ships and imprisoning US crews (without being paid ANY tribute money!).

THIS DID NOT LAST!

As America entered the War of 1812 and much of the navy was blockaded in US ports by the British navy, the Muslim governments in the Mediterranean once again began to prey on US shipping as a result of the US having no military presence in the region. Over 1,000 sailors were once again enslaved. Following the end of the War of 1812, an overwhelming US naval squadron including several new Super-frigates and the new 74-gun Ship-of-the-Line USS Independence sailed for the Mediterranean and were deployed from 1815 to 1816. Except for the capture of two ships, this fleet overawed the Muslims into surrendering by simply appearing in the various ports with guns run out and loaded without firing a shot.

There are several lessons that can be learned from the US Government's first involvement with Muslim terrorists:

1. Muslims cannot be reasoned with, nor expected to keep agreements due to their religious views of so-called Christian infidels. This was played out by both the history of the various Muslim Deys in constantly breaking agreements with the US Government and the history of William Eaton’s army in which they were continually seeking to run away, lying to the Americans, were constantly stealing from the Americans, and generally were useless as a fighting force. This is also the current trend as evidenced by Iranian President Ahmadinejad and his dubious promises made to the International Atomic Commission regarding cessation of his nuclear weapons production.

2. Claiming that America is no longer a Christian nation as Washington attempted to do and as has also our current president in a recent speech, will not change the views of the Muslims toward America as being a nation of infidels.

3. Signs of weakness are only avenues of exploitation to Muslim terrorists.

4. Since they see us as infidels, they have no respect for persons or property, nor are obligated to treat us with honor, but only see us as only inferior enemies.

5. They only understand overwhelming force and any relaxation of this force will only allow them to re-emerge and recommence their acts of terrorism. This is the current understanding of General Petraeus and his recommendation of ramping up the US military presence in Afghanistan.

6. Their hatred of America is not due to our prosperity, nor our culture, nor our involvement in the Middle East militarily, as is evidenced by the fact that in the 1790's the US had no military presence anywhere in the world (including our own territory, excluding two regiments of infantry and several companies of Militia stationed in Cincinnati), nor were we a rich nation by any means (we were in fact what would be referred to today as an emerging nation). In addition, America at that time was much more of a Christian nation than today, and our moral character was much stronger and closer to Muslim moral ideologies than that of today. Thus, our westernized concept that the rise of militant Muslimism is due to our morally declining culture, our military presence in the Middle East, or our economic prosperity as the reason for the current war is not a logical reason for the current Muslim war.

7. Any belief that Muslim terrorists can be left alone and therefore will leave us alone is not reasonable as is evidenced by the US withdrawal from the Mediterranean during the War of 1812. This left a window of opportunity for the Muslims to begin terrorizing us again (see number 5 above).

8. They do not believe in peaceful coexistence but only believe that peace can be achieved when everyone is converted to Islam or destroyed. The only way the US prisoners could escape the brutal treatment of their captors was to convert to Islam. Once they "turned Turk", they then were granted full freedom, and only then.

9. Although on the surface this appears to be a Xenophobic view, history indicates that unless Western culture is willing to make a long term commitment to stamping out Muslim terrorism, and by default, protecting Western ideologies of freedom and democracy, and invest in a long term and overwhelmingly strong military response when threatened by Muslim terrorism, the end result will be a slow and complete stamping out of western culture as we know it. This is evidenced by simply looking at a world map of the 10/40 window and seeing that Western culture has largely been excluded from these areas. Christianity is illegal in almost all of the areas within this window, while Islam is permitted within almost all of the Western World. The result has been historically that Muslim dominated regions do not allow free, peaceful coexistence with Western cultural ideas, while Western regions have allowed and fostered peaceful coexistence. The end result has been that Islam has increasingly encroached upon Western culture (i.e. England and France are prime examples) while Western culture has made little impact on the 10/40 window. Notice that based on the above evidence, the Xenophobia rests square in the laps of the Muslim terrorists, not within the ideology of Western culture.

10. Last, but not least, if anyone thinks that in our enlightened age, the Muslim faith has grown out of such 18th century ideologies (and thus negates what some may see as a rather radical statement above), need only to look at the modern pattern of Muslim terrorism and listen to Muslim Clerics and their messages regarding views of Western infidels and Western culture in order to see that their actions and views have not changed in over 200 years.

Conclusion: Winston Churchill said, "those who fail to learn from History are doomed to repeat it..." Our current administration is waffling on committing troops to Afghanistan and wavering on the prosecution of the war to the fullest extent. We can win this war as proved by the 1801-1805 scenario. Muslim terrorists must be shown overwhelming force with a constant reminder that any time they entertain any evil toward the west, we will come with a vengeance that they cannot even conceive. Only then will they leave us alone and we will then see the Western ideology of peaceful coexistence in which the battlefield is the debating and exchanging of ideology, not ordinance!

What You Didn't Learn In Class: The First Thanksgiving


I will repost this every year around Thanksgiving. This originally ran in the University of Cincinnati's Student Newspaper back in 2006.

In light of the Thanksgiving holiday, I want you to think about this story. During the reign of King James I, those who did not recognize his total ecclesiastical authority were hunted down and often killed. A group of these separatists fled to Holland and eventually for America. The Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock in 1621. Deciding on a socio-economical system, the Pilgrims set up a common wealth system. Each Pilgrim was given the same amount of land and they were to take equal shares of food from the social food stock. Everyone had their common share. That year, the Pilgrims suffered through hunger and economic disaster. The next year William Bradford, the community’s mayor at age 19, had had enough of the common wealth idea and set up the good old free market. The Pilgrims were allowed to obtain the amount of land they wished, and keep or sell what it produced. Bradford said in his journal that it “made all hands industrious.” The colony flourished. Here is a small part of Bradford's journal: They began now to gather in the small harvest they had, and to fit up their houses and dwellings against winter, being all well recovered in health and strength and had all things in good plenty. For as some were thus employed in affairs abroad, others were exercising in fishing, about cod and bass and other fish, of which they took good store, of which every family had their portion. All the summer there was no want; and now began to come in store of fowl, as winter approached, of which this place did abound when they came first (but afterward decreased by degrees). And besides waterfowl there was great store of wild turkeys, of which they took many, besides venison, etc. Besides they had about a peck of meal a week to a person, or now since harvest, Indian corn to that proportion. Which made many afterwards write so largely of their plenty here to their friends in England, which were not feigned but true reports. Believe it or not, supply-side economics existed before the 1980s. What took the Pilgrims a year to learn has yet to be learned by countries hundreds of years old. What did the Pilgrims learn? They learned that Socialism destroys morale and the economy.

Advocates of Socialism try to persuade people using terms like “equality” and “fair” and "spread the wealth." They believe that since we are all equal, there is no reason why some should be more fortunate than others are. They believe that wealth should be distributed evenly. To achieve their wealth distribution goals, citizens willfully allow the near total-control of the Government over themselves; as we see in France, Germany, and Sweden, etc. Therefore, because of this belief, freedoms are stolen from the citizens.

The only real defendable position on equality is that we are all equal under the law, the Constitution. We are not created equal in ability or talent. That’s why we are all not a Beethoven or large success stories, like Rush Limbaugh. Socialism never permits us to achieve our potential. And as for fairness, even the Bible doesn’t teach fairness. Christ, the Just, died for us, the unjust. However, what fair is is giving citizens the opportunity to apply themselves and then succeed to the limit of their ability. Is this not what we do at school? Those that are studious received good grades; and those that take refuge in poor study habits receive bad grades. People do not create fairness. Fairness exists by its own merits. Therefore, based on our actions, we are rewarded or chastised—my friends, that’s fair.

Once someone applies themselves, wealth, in most cases, will be directly proportional. Why should someone working beyond what is required be forced to subsidize those that slack off or those who have chosen a lower paying vocation? The proper distribution of wealth should be performance based. Socialists are afraid of risk, but they don’t hesitate to demand a share of the earnings, confiscated through taxes, from the risk takers. People who fall victim to the snares of Socialism usually remain enslaved by Socialism’s empty platitudes. Only those who strive to be more like the Pilgrims actually fight back and escape. If the Pilgrims had stayed with socialism, they would have likely died out. Be forewarned, if we would ever sell-out to Socialism, we would enter our second Great Depression.

November 18, 2009

Keep An Ear Out For The Ruling


From the Conservative Underground in Albuquerque, New Mexico.


VERY QUIETLY OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES SUPREME COURT.
Re released copies of President Obama's college transcript from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama Soetoro applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

November 13, 2009

Criminal Court: Threat Level Red


Five prisoners from Guantanamo have been transfered to New York to be tried in civilian court. Obama appointed Attorney General, Eric Holder, has ordered these five transfered to New York City. Holder said, "After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11th will finally face justice." IN CIVILIAN COURT?! These terrorists planned an act of war against a nation and you want to try them as common criminals? Vying for future votes I see. Guantanamo already has a war crimes court and is capable of trying these scum. But, why go through all of that trouble? After all, our media is great steward of information. Let's let this be done in the open, in common civil court. Now, rest assured that Holder said some "confidential" matters "may" have to be closed from the media. May?! Do you realize that every second of these trials will be broadcast on al jazeera and be sure terrorists will mark their targets - the people involved, the buildings. Yes, good call having this in civil court. Holder is confident that the jury will be impartial. So, we know who will be on the trial. 6 rational Americans, 3 Islamo-Facists, 2 Bush haters, and Michael Moore. That's pretty impartial all right.

Among those on trial will be the master-mind behind 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. However, even though Obama will claim justice will be sought, there is question as to whether Mohammed's confession will be accepted because, according to the Obama administration, he has been waterboarded 183 times in March of 2003. Obama says this was torture and by inference, we can conclude that he is against it. That's right! How barbaric of the United States to "torture" the master-mind behind the largest terror attack on the mainland of America in our nation's history! We should have just asked nicely and if he didn't give any information, he mustn't be an enemy. Just let him go. Only those who give information at the bribe of a lollipop should be taken seriously. This guy is the President of the United States?!

Even the wife of a slain 9/11 victim is encouraging the trial because justice is only served when it is served in court. Again, the whole world will know where Mohammed is at that point. You really want to be present at that time? Furthermore, by bringing them to civil court, they will have more Constitutional rights granted to them. These murderous cowards are not citizens, they have NO Constitutional rights. They need to stand before a firing squad and let the bullets be the jury. I cannot believe we are treating these terrorists as our own citizens. That's what Obama must think about his fellow-citizens -- we are no different.

Mark my words, the decisions made over the next 3 years will set our country back, not allow us to move forward; and my even cost more American lives here at home.

Imagine That

According to this post, Army morale is down in Afghanistan but up in Iraq. Hmmm...where is the negative attention being focused now? Oh yeah, on Afghanistan. Yeah, you're right Liberals, you do support the troops. Keep up the good work!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/13/afghanistan.army.morale/index.html


November 12, 2009

Did You Check Under The Hood?






President Obama decided to give a speech in response to the Ft. Hood incident--not taking action, but give a speech. Through this speech, Obama takes occasion to bash America and not to refer to this attack as a terrorist attack. We know Nidal Hasan (shooter) was operating under the authority of his religion. Hasan was a jihadist and he performed what he set out to do. Captain Planet Obama stands up and says, "No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts." What?! The bombing of the WTC, both times; the bombing of the USS Cole, etc. have been carried out by Muslim terrorists acting under the authority of their faith. And, on Veterans Day, Obama glazes over this for one simple reason. Democrats having been promising for years that if they were in power, we would be free from the threat of terrorism. So, when terrorism happens, they have to classify it as something else and totally ignore reality. Obama can't have any terrorism happen on his watch. Terrorism only happens when evil Conservatives are running the show - that's when the terrorists are mad at us. Do you honestly think we will be safer with this guy in power? If danger struck, would you want an armed soldier by your side or mall security?! Never fear, Mall Security Obama is ready to look the other way.

But, what do we know about Nidal Hasan? We know that Hasan was an army psychiatrist. There is also strong evidence to support him being on a task force instituted by the Department of Homeland Security.(http://www.gwumc.edu/hspi/old/PTTF_
(pg. 29) So, the Department of Homeland Security was utilizing a terrorist?! I'm feeling safer by the minute! According to gawk.com, there was a post discovered by a Nidal Hasan in which this Hasan compared the suicide missions of Muslims to the "suicide" American soldiers choose by jumping on a grenade to save their fellow soldiers. He said, "Scholars have paralleled this to suicide bombers whose intention, by sacrificing their lives, is to help save Muslims by killing enemy soldiers. If one suicide bomber can kill 100 enemy soldiers because they were caught off guard that would be considered a strategic victory." Now, the AP hasn't come out and verified this is the same Nidal Hasan, but certainly the viewpoint of this Hasan was shared by the Ft. Hood Hasan; who I'm sure would consider what he did a strategic victory.
Now, do you see why it is important that we have the right to bear arms?! Who knows where the next terrorist will pop up. But, thanks to our gun laws, we'll be left, not holding the bill, but somebody part that gets blown off.

November 9, 2009

Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!

20 years after the Berlin Wall falls, there is a ceremony in Germany, in Berlin. Many world leaders have spoken. The British Prime Minister spoke; the German Chancellor spoke; the French President spoke, the Russian President spoke and the American President spoke. Wait, the American President didn't speak in person, but via pre-recorded video. Hillary Clinton spoke live in his stead. The President of America was too busy to make it to Germany to celebrate this anniversary. Perhaps he wasn't there because he can't stand this anniversary. This anniversary goes against all he stands for. The fall of the Berlin Wall marks complete tragedy for Obama's beliefs. As national health care gets closer and closer, you can bet this will be our Berlin Wall. Unfortunately, Obama and Clinton represented America, but one can't see that spot in Berlin and not feel proud. We know Reagan was there tonight, standing with the people of Germany. Reagan's Legacy will forever be stamped on the hearts of Americans, but also on the hearts of Germans.

Listen to the voice of freedom:


video

November 7, 2009

National Health Care Rears Its Ugly Head


The Hill was alight today with the debate over national health care. I'd rather soon forget this topic and sweep it away under the fact it isn't Constitutional. But, since many of our public officials do not care about what is and isn't Constitutional, I'll again address this topic.

I watched C-SPAN today for a good majority of the debate and quickly made some notes on the things that were said. (Since the debate was in the House today, I'll refrain from using "Rep" each time I quote someone since they are all "Reps.") When I began watching the debate, the speaker was Doris Matsui (D-CA). She closed her remarks with saying, "We come to Congress to improve people's lives." If that's the case, then not showing up to Congress would be the best improvement for us! We go to Congress to run our country under the leadership and guidance of the Constitution. Government/Congress is NOT a tool to improve people's lives. People can do that on their own. If she came to Congress to "improve people's lives" then I can only imagine her campaign was filled with personal promises of handouts to her constituents. Congress should uphold Constitutional laws that embolden the American spirit of Freedom and Liberty; and through this spirit, Americans can be the best they can be by putting forth their efforts to achieve success. I don't need the Government taking away my freedoms in an attempt to improve my life, period.

Chellie Pingree (D-MA) followed by stating the importance of national health care because under national health care, we would do away with pre-existing conditions. Now, I know I've addressed this in an earlier post, but it bears repeating. A pre-existing condition is a health condition that is deemed by the insurance company to have existed prior to their coverage and is therefore not going to be covered by the insurance. This is a way for insurance companies to keep their premiums lower. Under national health care, there would be no pre-existing conditions. Therefore, no matter what health condition a person is in, the insurance company must provide coverage. Now, the whole reason for insurance is to transfer risk. If a company is to take on very high risk, and thereby will have to pay a higher amount of claims, the company has no choice but to charge HIGHER premiums to recoup the expense cost of the claims. We're not talking a few dollars here, but hundreds and even thousands of dollars higher. What does that do? It forces the insurance companies to shut down because no one will be able to afford the premiums--which I maintain is exactly what Obama wants. He doesn't want a single private insurance company in existence. He wants the Federal Government to rule over all.

Pingree went on to say that no one should have to file a "personal bankruptcy." I agree, but whose fault is it? 99% of the time, it is my fault if I file bankruptcy. The provisions I've made in my life through school, work, etc. should pave a way that allows me to live without having to worry about bankruptcy. This is classic liberalism! "It isn't your fault. Life was just hard to you. Here, let me fix it." That's garbage! Life was hard for our Colonists and they knew they wanted Liberty or death. THERE WAS NO COMPROMISE!!

Jared Polis (D-CO) said this bill isn't a Government take-over of health care. I guess he's never read the bill. He also said that this would now provide small businesses with affordable health care for their employees. Did you notice this? Did you notice the little lie he's disguised in this statement? His underlying premise is that small businesses should be supplying their employees with health care benefits. Is it your company's responsibility to give you health care? NO! A company should have the right to decide what benefits they provide. That's why they are called benefits! Furthermore, he is assuming that small businesses that do not have health care do not have it because of cost. Perhaps they wouldn't offer it even if it was free. Again, a private business should be able to provide what it wants. And, if you don't like the benefits of that company, then work somewhere where you will like the benefits. But, I'd move now. With a 10.26% unemployment rate, jobs are filling up fast!

Gerald Connolly (D-VA) said this bill should give us a sense of common-wealth. He said that your need should be my need. Really? So, you have a need for health insurance and I don't. But yet, I'm expected to subsidise your need. Why is this one-sided? Fine, if your need is my need, then my need is your need. I have health coverage and do not need secure it. Therefore, it is now your need not to have to secure it either. Just asinine folks!

Mary Jo Kilory (D-OH) said this bill would bring America up to the standard. What standard? The European standard? The Canadian standard? The British standard? Where people from these lands are flocking to this country because our "failure of a medical system" is providing top service - a service they do not receive in their countries with their national health care! No Mary, this bill would lower America to a depth of tyranny not felt since pre-1775. Oh, I'm sorry Mary, that was when the American Revolution began at Lexington and Concord. You see, prior to that, the King of England had the colonists in the thralls of tyranny and the people rose up and fought against it.

Steve Kagen (D-WI) said that people are more important that corporate profits. Well, you don't get profits without people! If you take way people's freedoms and liberties, there won't be any profits to speak of. Businesses will shut down because of the regulations - it will be too costly to run a business. Am I saying that an individual is less important than money? No, absolutely not. However, the approach to this shouldn't be to rape Capitalism.