Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Britain: Sharia law is Spreading!

Sharia law is spreading as authority wanes

Islamic sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in parts of Britain, a report claims.

Sharia, derived from several sources including the Koran, is applied to varying degrees in predominantly Muslim countries but it has no binding status in Britain.

However, the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in Action produced evidence yesterday that it was being used by some Muslims as an alternative to English criminal law. Aydarus Yusuf, 29, a youth worker from Somalia, recalled a stabbing case that was decided by an unofficial Somali "court" sitting in Woolwich, south-east London.

Mr Yusuf said a group of Somali youths were arrested on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager. The victim's family told the police it would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail.

A hearing was convened and elders ordered the assailants to compensate their victim. "All their uncles and their fathers were there," said Mr Yusuf. "So they all put something towards that and apologised for the wrongdoing."

Although Scotland Yard had no information about that case yesterday, a spokesman said it was common for the police not to proceed with assault cases if the victims decided not to press charges.

To some this might seem like small potatoes, on it face, but as some people in our country, namely Supreme Court Justices and the far left, continue to look to international law for guidance instead of sticking to what I view as the best system of law in the world, it should at least perk your interest! This is something we here in America need to watch very closely...

Cross posted at Conservative News and Views

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

There is no war on Christmas we’re all just delusional!?!

“A public Christmas festival is no place for the Christmas story, the city says.”

This is just the latest attack in a growing movement to remove anything and everything Christian from the public square altogether.

“Nativity” Booted From Ill. Holiday Fair

A public Christmas festival is no place for the Christmas story, the city says. Officials have asked organizers of a downtown Christmas festival, the German Christkindlmarket, to reconsider using a movie studio as a sponsor because it is worried ads for its film "The Nativity Story" might offend non-Christians.

New Line Cinema, which said it was dropped, had planned to play a loop of the new film on televisions at the event. The decision had both the studio and a prominent Christian group shaking their heads.

"The last time I checked, the first six letters of Christmas still spell out Christ," said Paul Braoudakis, spokesman for the Barrington, Ill.-based Willow Creek Association, a group of more than 11,000 churches of various denominations. "It's tantamount to celebrating Lincoln's birthday without talking about Abraham Lincoln."

He also said that there is a nativity scene in Daley Plaza - and that some vendors at the festival sell items related to the nativity.

This is particularly stupid (imo) If ever there were a place to advertise a movie about the birth of Christ it should be at a Christmas festival…Hello... Is this thing on!

It might just be me, seeing that I’m not especially bright, but lets remember what it is were celebrating here…The reason for the season if you will...

Allowing this type of censorship will lead this country into a swirling dark hole into madness the likes I dare not fathom.

There is no right in this country to not be offended. Even if there were why is it that the only religious symbolism that seems to offend anyone is that of one particular faith? Hmm… seems to be an ulterior motive at play here!!! Of course there is...

Secular progressives in this country are so afraid of the values and meaning of being a Christian that they’ll do almost anything to stop it or stop the spread of it! They’re deathly afraid of millions of people with strong values standing up and saying enough is enough!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Monday, November 27, 2006

Weird Picture of the day: Is that president Bush in a Burqa?

h/t Drudge

On General Welfare and Wasted Votes

Larry Elder has a great article on WND called Why I'm 'wasting' my vote I don’t usually post whole articles but he completely captured my thoughts and feelings on general welfare and the Framers views on limited government!

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."

James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, said this to explain the so-called "general welfare" clause of the Constitution. Today both parties ignore the original intention of the general welfare clause. And this is precisely why I cannot vote for either party.

Madison and the Founding Fathers envisioned a limited government, along the lines of Henry David Thoreau, who said, "That government is best which governs least."

Think about it. If the general welfare clause of the Constitution allowed unlimited federal powers, why bother with Article I, Section 8, which sets forth the specific powers and duties of the federal government? The Founding Fathers left to the states all responsibilities not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

This means the Supreme Court correctly interpreted the Constitution when it initially rejected much of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's so-called "New Deal." This means the Supreme Court correctly rejected Congress's first attempt to pass an income tax, ruling that this, too, violated the Constitution.

Think about the concept of Social Security. The government, determining its citizens too irresponsible to plan for the future, takes part of a worker's paycheck. Then, when that worker retires, the government "returns" the money, but at a paltry rate of interest.

Remember when President Clinton said of the budget "surplus," "We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right. But ... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen."

In Philadelphia at the Republican National Convention, Republican candidate George W. Bush declared that the federal government should take no more than a third of one's income. A third! How about zero? Read the Constitution. The Founding Fathers allowed duties and tariffs to fund the limited obligations of the federal government.

The Soviet Union collapsed under 100 percent socialism. But, through Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs, government pays roughly 50 percent of our health-care tab. In 1965, Congress passed the Medicare Act. In the 20 years before the Act, a one-day stay in the hospital increased threefold. In the 20 years following the passage of the Medicare Act, a one-day stay in a hospital increased eightfold. Full socialism doesn't work, nor does semi-socialism. Government involvement in health care increases the prices, decreases innovation, and diminishes accessibility.

What about government welfare for the poor and the needy? Economist Thomas Sowell estimates that bureaucratic red tape and costs burn up 70 cents for every dollar intended for the poor and needy. Contrast this with organizations like the United Way and the Salvation Army, where over 85 percent of the donated dollar gets down to the intended beneficiaries.

Did the Founding Fathers envision an intrusive, heavy-handed Internal Revenue Service that collects a disproportionate percentage of taxes from "the wealthy," often the hardest-working and most innovative of Americans?

Did the Founding Fathers envision a Congress that pays farmers not to grow crops?

Did the Founding Fathers envision a government-operated Amtrak, run less efficiently than private sector rail companies?

Did the Founding Fathers envision taxpayer funding of sports stadiums and arenas?

Did the Founding Fathers envision Congress, through the use of the interstate commerce laws, deciding to pass laws mandating minimum wages, or dictating work rules from the Potomac?

Did the Founding Fathers envision a Department of Education attaching strings to federal funds earmarked for education, a function that should be local in nature?

Did the Founding Fathers envision the federal erosion of the Second Amendment, a provision providing a right to keep and bear arms?

Did the Founding Fathers envision a federal government that hires teachers and police officers, a function the Founding Fathers expected local authorities to handle?

Did the Founding Fathers envision the federal government to answer questions such as abortion or school prayer, given Thomas Jefferson's declaration of a wall separating church and state?

Richard Nixon said that, to capture the presidency, a Republican candidate runs to the right in the primaries, and then to the center in a general election. But "the center," misled by a "distribute-the-wealth" media, misunderstands Economics 101 and the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

I intend to vote for Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne. Many say I waste my vote. You've heard the argument -- vote the lesser of two evils. But at his brother Robert's funeral, Ted Kennedy quoted his late brother: "Some men see things as they are and say 'why.' I dream things that never were, and say 'why not.'"

I say "why not."

I differ from Larry in that I believe these issues can be taken up by the Republican Party and we can change from within. Showing Big Government Republicans in our party the error in their ways is paramount!

Returning the party to a conservative small government platform would speak to a significant portion of Americans who feel we’ve lost the traditional outlook on how we govern and the founding fathers original intent.

Overall, I think Larry has gotten it right!

Cross posted at The Minority Report

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Teaching Jihad

Controversial Assignment Leads To Teacher's Resignation

A Spanish teacher at Smithfield-Selma Senior High School resigned this week after handing out an assignment that some students and parents said teaches hate.

Khalid Chahhou, who was in his first year of teaching in Johnston County, gave students a worksheet in which they were to translate words and find them within a word-search puzzle.

Some students started uncovering strange words in the process.

"There were words like 'kill,' then I saw it said 'destroy America,'" Eric Herrera said.

As they read on, students found the puzzle contained a paragraph that contained the following phrases:

* "Sharon killed a lot of innocent people," a possible reference to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

* "Palestine is not a terrorist group."

* "Allah help destroy this body of evil making humanity miserable."

"It was kind of scary at first to think about, you know, your own teacher in your own school that is teaching you," Herrera said.

School administrators said they confronted Chahhou about an unidentified concern Wednesday and he resigned.

"The situation surrounding the resignation has prompted us to call the proper authorities," said Crystal Roberts, the spokeswoman for Johnston County Schools.

The Johnston County Sheriff's Office reviewed the complaint, but investigators said they don't see any reason to file criminal charges or contact other agencies.

Chahhou, who also teaches Arabic at a religious school affiliated with the Islamic Association of Cary, told WRAL in a telephone interview that students got the wrong message from the assignment.

"When I made the assignment, I was upset and angry about a story I recently saw on the news. If any message appears, it is more of a message to myself, not to my students. I never meant to hurt or upset any students or parents," he said.

My suggestion for parents sending their kids to collage is to look very closely and pay attention!!! This is a great resource:

Israeli envoy walks out of U.N. session

from UPI

Israel's ambassador walked out on the United Nations session that resulted in a strong call to Israel to end its military operations in the Gaza Strip.

The 192-member General Assembly voted Friday night 156-7, with six abstentions, in favor of the non-binding resolution in an emergency special session.

The United States, Israel and Australia voted against the document, while all the European Union members supported it after last-minute changes were made to soften the tone.

Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman conducted a news conference nearby and blasted the session as a "farce" and a "circus," Ha'aretz reported Saturday.

U.S. Ambassador John Bolton called the resolution "one-sided" and said its adoption would only "increase tension and serve the interests of those hostile to Israel and that do not accept Israel's right to exist."

Palestinian U.N. observer Riyad Mansour said Israel had committed war crimes against Palestinian civilians in its nearly five-month offensive, which Israel says is aimed at stopping militants from firing rockets into its territory.

Good for you!!!

Friday, November 17, 2006

Iraq War Veterans Tell Their Stories

New York State Veteran Oral History Program to preserve the stories of New York veterans in their own words.

On Veterans Day in 2000, Gov. George E. Pataki established the New York State Veteran Oral History Program! So far 1,304 veterans going all the way back to WWI have made their way down to a small state armory in Saratoga Springs to be interviewed and tell their stories!

This to me is an awesome way to record stories from our brave men and women for posterity! It’s also a great way to cut though the rhetoric spewed by the MSM and go right to the source for what it was really like to have been there!

The following are transcripts of a few soldiers who have returned from Iraq:

Sgt. Howard Heard, 130th Engineer Brigade, 10th Mountain Division


They had snipers there, oh yeah. I remember we invaded Falluja and we were stretched pretty thin then. Matter of fact, we had one guy just two weeks out of training at Fort Hood, Texas. He was here one week and he got killed; a sniper shot him underneath the armpit. He bled to death. I mean, we lost 3 guys out of 700. They told us we’d lose 30 before we left Fort Drum. So we lost three guys too many, but three’s not bad. ... People say, “Well what do you think?” I say, “Well, you coming back, you just don’t know how.” There’s only three ways you coming back. You can come back in a box. You can come back missing a limb. Or you can come back with everything you left with. And that’s my theory on that.


I told my guys: “Don’t slack off. You got two weeks left. Let’s keep it going.” We had one guy there, the day before he went home he got mortared at the PX. And he got killed — supposed to go home the next day. That’s why I told the guys, “See what happens? You never know.” You can’t let your hair down. You got to stay focused. Just stay focused.

Maj. David C. Feeley, Second Brigade, First Infantry Division


There were several Shiite religious parties in Samarra. We had the Badr Corps, which was the armed wing of Sciri [the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq]. We had some Al Qaeda operatives that were operating in the town. And given the proximity to the air base and the proximity to Baghdad, we had former high-ranking members of the Baath Party. On a couple of raids we executed we found drugs, large footlockers filled with Parkinson’s disease medication that was apparently being distributed as a cheap drug for people who were addicted and because it suppressed the fear response in the people making attacks on us. Small town, a lot going on.


I would not classify anything I saw in Iraq as sniper fire. I would classify a lot of it as inaccurate rifle fire. Someone who is on drugs and randomly shooting an AK-47 is not a sniper. We did capture a Russian sniper rifle at least once in our area, but as far as accurate, precision rifle fire, that was not what we typically encountered. What we typically encountered was spray and pray on the part of the Iraqis.

Maj. Gen. Joseph J. Taluto, 42nd Infantry Division, New York National Guard


At the leader level, we had wonderful relationships with the Iraqis. We worked together, we socialized together, we talked. Our units worked together. I had wonderful relationships with the governors of each province. I had good relationships with many of the tribal leaders in central Iraq, the sheiks. Our relationships down into the community, though, were inhibited by security problems, the fact that some of the people felt threatened hanging out with U.S. forces. ... Our impression was they wanted to embrace us. And they did embrace us at those levels I described, but it wasn’t like you could go down into the community and in amongst the common, ordinary, nongovernmental, nonmilitary leaders and break bread.


The people in the National Guard feel good about what they’re doing, the fact that they’re making a significant contribution. The sacrifice is great, but the morale is good. Our country is at war. We have been in a new type of war, an asymmetrical war, where it’s 360 degrees and all around you. ... We have been working and preparing for it for some time. But this is a new evolution in warfare.

First Sgt. Kevin Lyons, Third Armored Cavalry Regiment


Finally some local Iraqis went across the Syrian border, and they were buying televisions and satellite dishes. So this squadron bought one — and Fox News! It was like the greatest thing. It was the biggest event we had in two months. They hooked up the satellite dish and there was Fox News. I’m sitting there in Iraq and we’d go up to the briefing room, and if we didn’t have anything to do we’d sit there for hours at a time. At night we stayed up late just to watch Fox News.


We didn’t know how anybody was. There was Strobel, Sergeant Jake and Sergeant Williams in the vehicle. Later on that evening we found out that Strobel had been evacuated because the I.E.D. [improvised explosive device] had perforated his eardrums. And we found out at the same time that Sergeant Williams didn’t make it. I had gone through this before, but it doesn’t get easier. You just figure it does. You try and make yourself believe it does. But now I’ve got this new job. I was the first sergeant of the troop, and they said: “Hey, now we have to do this memorial ceremony. You have to read the guy’s name, and you have to do it like three times.” It was probably the toughest thing I ever done except for one other thing. ... It was rough. Unfortunately, he passed on, but he’s in a better place, and that was the only name I read the entire time over there.


Once e-mail started, it was great. I would try to make it up there every other day to e-mail my wife. Those had to be some of the best days. It just felt like you were there. You get pictures from home, you get to send pictures. You’re telling her you’re all right, but she’s like: “How do I know? I haven’t seen anything or heard from you in months.” ... Technology had to be about the greatest thing about this war.


We landed on the ground in Colorado Springs Airport, and it was awesome. Just to know that you were home. Just to know that you were safe. Just to know you made it back in one piece. And at the same time you take a second to think, “Not everybody’s back yet, and not everybody came back.” But then you get in there, and as we were walking off the plane the first thing we get is this guy, he’s a civilian, he works for one of the local companies, and he took his personal — somebody said upwards of $10,000 — and he bought Quarter Pounders, hundreds of them, and he had them right there, and he’s handing them out to everybody. He’s got a big American flag on his pickup truck, just handing out Quarter Pounders. ... Then you walk inside them doors, and they’re playing “American Soldier” by Toby Keith. Man, you get in there and there’s all these people and they’re cheering and it’s the greatest feeling in the world. And then when you’re done, they release you and there’s your wife and son. And then you know you’re home.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

The Minority Report Blog

I've set up a new blog called The Minority Report to post news and discuss the state of both houses and the effects of being in the minority!

If you'd like to be a contributor please reply to this post and I’ll be in touch..


UCLA Study: Hollywood Behind Global Warming!

"UCLA report says the movie and TV industry is a major generator of Southland pollution. An economist cautions that more rules may drive filming out of state."

Another Hollywood production: smog

Hollywood is creating a film of a different kind over Greater Los Angeles: smog, soot and greenhouse gases, according to a UCLA report due out today.

The report found that the film and television industry emits a whopping 140,000 tons a year of ozone and diesel particulate pollutant emissions from trucks, generators, special effects earthquakes and fires, demolition of sets with dynamite and other sources.

"Given the importance of the movie and TV industry in Southern California, we thought this was something the public should know," said Mary Nichols, head of the UCLA Institute of the Environment. Nichols, a law professor and past secretary of the California Resources Agency, said researchers found that although individual productions and studios are taking steps to minimize environmental damage, the industry's "structure and culture hamper the pace of improvements."

The report noted, for instance, that dozens of contractors with different practices work on a single set, making it tough to regulate.

Industry representatives reached late Monday said they had not seen the report, but said they were concerned about environmentally sound practices.

Maybe some of these liberal blowhards in Hollywood will take a look in their own backyard before throwing stones at ours?

Levin says troops out of Iraq as early as April!

All the debate about what to do in Iraq might turn out to be all for not!

If Senator Carl Levin has his way, we will be pulling troops out of Iraq as early as April!

Levin will become the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 13th 2007 and his top priority is a “phased redeployment,” which he said should begin in four to six months.”

Levin has high hopes and apparently expects to get what he called “a bipartisan statement from the Congress that the United States has got to change course in Iraq.” ” in the wake of the Nov. 7 election he believes this statement is “very possible” and would be “a powerful statement reflecting the election results,” Levin said. It would “have an impact on the president,”

Some other priorities Levin has on deck when Democrats run the Senate Armed Services Committee:

• Rebuild readiness in the Army and Marine Corps and address equipment shortages after three and a half years of war.

• Review progress being made in Afghanistan by U.S. and NATO forces.

• Determine whether U.S. military forces are properly sized, organized and equipped to deal with current conflicts and conflicts they’re likely to face in the future, including nontraditional warfare.

• Increase oversight “to make sure the American people are getting a proper return on their tax dollars and that the Pentagon’s activities are lawful.”

The first three are SOP (standard operating procedure) implying this wasn’t been looked at is just playing to the camera! The last is a shot across the bow to the administration, yet another door the democrats will use to limit the government, military and pentagons ability to protect the American people disguised as ”oversight”!!!

He also added this little gem! Levin said he wants to conduct a thorough review of ballistic missile defense.

He said ”The Defense Department has been spending about $10 billion a year buying and installing a missile intercept system, but so far it has not been shown to work, I think it’s a mistake to purchase all of those missiles before we know that they’re going to work,”

Scared yet? Me too! Developing and deploying this SDI technology should be top priority as I’ve written about in a piece called A Case For SDI And from what I gather Carl Levin doesn’t believe in ballistic missile defense.

At this point if the decision is going to be give up in Iraq, why wait, 4 to 6 months lets do it now! If we’re going to quit, quit!

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Pulling Out of Iraq: What the Soldiers are Saying!

Recently when asked by The Washington Post about cutting–and-running from Iraq Soldiers Said a Pullout Would Have Devastating Results

Here’s what the soldiers had to say:

Lt. Col. Mark Suich, who commands the 1st Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment just south of Baghdad said:

”Take us out of that vacuum -- and it's on the edge now -- and boom, it would become a free-for-all… It would be a raw contention for power. That would be the bloodiest piece of this war."

Capt. Jim Modlin, 26, of Oceanport, N.J., said:

he thought the situation in Iraq had improved between his deployment in 2003 and his return this year as a liaison officer to Iraqi security forces with the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, based here on FOB Sykes outside Tall Afar.

Modlin described himself as more liberal than conservative and said he had already cast his absentee ballot in Texas. He said he believed that U.S. elected officials would lead the military in the right direction, regardless of what happens Tuesday.

"Pulling out now would be as bad or worse than going forward with no changes," Modlin said. "Sectarian violence would be rampant, democracy would cease to exist, and the rule of law would be decimated. It's not 'stay the course,' and it's not 'cut and run' or other political catchphrases. There are people's lives here. There are so many different dynamics that go on here that a simple solution just isn't possible."

Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division.

“This is a worthwhile endeavor… Nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed”

Staff Sgt. Robert Wyper, 26, of Riverside, Calif., a squad leader with Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment said:

It's frustrating, because it's hard to get into the fight… The combat we have is on the enemy's terms," Wyper said. "You can shoot at the enemy, but how do you shoot at an IED?"

First Sgt. David Schumacher, 37, of Watertown, N.Y., is on his eighth deployment to a foreign battlefield since a tour in Somalia, and his third tour in Iraq said:

"The insurgents are more strategic this time, they're smarter," he said. "We're trying to anticipate their next move, and they're trying to anticipate ours. There's still a lot to do."

Capt. Chris Vitale, 29, of Washington, Pa said:

his unit's recent moves to the edge of this insurgent safe haven have made a major difference for residents. "If my unit left town, the insurgents would come back in and use it to stage attacks on Baghdad," he said. "I'm sure of it."

Capt. Mike Lingenfelter, 32, of Panhandle, Tex. Said:

U.S. troops have earned the trust of residents in Tall Afar over the past couple of years and that leaving now would send the wrong message. His Comanche Troop of the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment is working with Iraqi forces to give them control of the city.

"We'll pull their feet out from under them if we leave," Lingenfelter said.

"It's still fragile enough now that if the coalition were to leave, it would embolden the insurgents. A lot of people have put their trust and faith in us to see it to the end. It would be an extreme betrayal for us to leave."

Sgt. Jonathan Kirkendall, 23, of Falls City, Neb. Said:

he fears that many Americans think that building the country to viability will be "quick and easy," when he believes it could take many years.

Kirkendall, of the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division in Baghdad, is on his third deployment to Iraq and celebrated his 21st and 23rd birthdays here.

"If they say leave in six months, we'll leave in six months. If they say six years, it's six years," said Kirkendall, who is awaiting the birth of his first daughter, due next week.

"I'm just an average soldier, and I'll do what they tell me to do. I'm proud to be a part of it, either way it goes, but I'd like to see it through

Notice not one of them called for pulling out or redeployment or whatever the new buzz word of the week might happen to be in D.C.???

The Washington Post, not exactly a right wing rag, did a decent job in accurately reporting sentiment of our brave men and women in the field. The consensus being, along with being a good soldiers and doing what you’re told, that Pulling Out of Iraq Would Have Devastating Results!

I agree! My hope is that the rest of the country and Congress are listening...

Iran: From the News

Just a few little nuggets from the news today:

Netanyahu: It's 1938 and Iran is Germany; Ahmadinejad is preparing another Holocaust

Drawing a direct analogy between Iran and Nazi Germany, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu asserted Monday that the Iranian nuclear program posed a threat not only to Israel, but to the entire western world. There was "still time," however, to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons, he said.

"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," Netanyahu told delegates to the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly, repeating the line several times, like a chorus, during his address. "Believe him and stop him," the opposition leader said of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this."

While the Iranian president "denies the Holocaust," Netanyahu said, "he is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state

Iran plotting to groom bin Laden's successor

But intelligence officials have been most alarmed by reports from Iran that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to persuade al-Qa'eda to promote a pro-Iranian activist to a senior position within its leadership.

The Iranians want Saif al-Adel, a 46-year-old former colonel in Egypt's special forces, to be the organisation's number three.

Al-Adel was formerly bin Laden's head of security, and was named on the FBI's 22 most wanted list after September 11 for his alleged involvement in terror attacks against US targets in Somalia and Africa in the 1990s. He has been living in a Revolutionary Guard guest house in Teheran since fleeing from Afghanistan in late 2001.

Alarm over al-Qa'eda deepened yesterday with a Foreign Office warning that the group was determined to acquire the technology to carry out a nuclear attack on the West.

Iran Says Nuke Program Is Near Complete

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Iran would soon celebrate completion of its nuclear fuel program and claimed the international community was ready to accept it as a nuclear state.

Iran has been locked in a standoff with the West over its nuclear program. The United States and its European allies have been seeking a U.N. Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Tehran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.

"Initially, they (the U.S. and its allies) were very angry. The reason was clear:

They basically wanted to monopolize nuclear power in order to rule the world and impose their will on nations," Ahmadinejad told a news conference.

"Today, they have finally agreed to live with a nuclear Iran, with an Iran possessing the whole nuclear fuel cycle," he said. He did not elaborate.

IAEA Expected To Report No Progress In Iran

Iran is still less than cooperative in aiding the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its probe into Iran's nuclear programme, diplomats said in Vienna Tuesday.

The UN nuclear watchdog is expected to present a report on the issue later Tuesday or Wednesday to its 35-board member states ahead of its next meeting on November 23 and 24.

The report is expected to say that Tehran continues to defy UN Security Council demands to halt uranium enrichment. Iran continues a small-scale enrichment programme, but announced major expansion plans in the months to come.

Enriched uranium can be employed both to produce nuclear fuel or, if enriched to a higher degree, for nuclear weapons. Iran maintains it is developing a nuclear programme only for energy production purposes, while Western nations are concerned Iran could pursue nuclear weapons and are considering sanctions against Tehran.

Is it just me or do you think its time to lay the Smack Down on Tehran and quell this vile anti-Americanism for awhile?

Monday, November 13, 2006

Democrats press for troop reductions in Iraq

Democrats Push for Troop Cuts Within Months

Democratic leaders in the Senate vowed on Sunday to use their new Congressional majority to press for troop reductions in Iraq within a matter of months, stepping up pressure on the administration just as President Bush is to be interviewed by a bipartisan panel examining future strategy for the war.

The Democrats — the incoming majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan; and the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware — said a phased redeployment of troops would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before an investigation of the conduct of the war.

“We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Mr. Levin said in an appearance on the ABC News program “This Week.” In a telephone interview later, Mr. Levin added, “The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over and that they are going to have to solve their own problems.”

this is no surprise for hose who follow these people closely, we are in danger of creating a terrorist safe haven in Iraq all because some people in congress have a weak constitution when it comes to war.

Remember I told you Democrat Leadership Would Be A Disaster!

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Chinese submarine stalked USS Kitty Hawk

"The surprise encounter highlights China's continuing efforts to prepare for a future conflict with the U.S."

China sub secretly stalked U.S. fleet

Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned.

The surprise encounter highlights China's continuing efforts to prepare for a future conflict with the U.S., despite Pentagon efforts to try to boost relations with Beijing's communist-ruled military.

The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving relations between the two nations' militaries.

Disclosure of the incident comes as Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, is making his first visit to China. The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military leaders during the weeklong visit, which began over the weekend.

According to the defense officials, the Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the carrier Oct. 26.

I think "Favorite Nation" status in trading should come with a price! This blatant slap in the face should serve as a wake-up call both militarily and financially as it pertains to trade.

We have got to keep our radar on all potential targets and our eyes glued to the screen!

Iran TV broadcasts US ship spy plane footage!

Iran TV broadcasts US ship spy plane footage

Iran's Arabic language television station broadcast footage it claimed showed a US aircraft carrier cruising in Gulf waters it said was taken by an unmanned Iranian drone.

The brief minute-long film, which was shown on Al-Alam television's evening news bulletin, showed wobbly aerial footage of an aircraft carrier stacked with war planes as it sailed.

The television's anchor said the film, the property of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard, showed a vessel from "the US fleet in the Persian Gulf".

"A source in the Revolutionary Guard said the drone carried out its mission without US fighter pilots reaching it," the television said.

It said there were 10 such films taken by the drone which showed "more precise information and details about military equipment, foreign forces, and their activities in the Persian Gulf."

The station did not name the vessel nor did it say when the footage was shot.

The broadcast comes near the end of Iran's latest 10-day war games, "Great Prophet II", which military chiefs have said were aimed at showing off Iran's defensive prowess and testing new military hardware.

The war games coincided with US-led naval manoeuvres in the Gulf off Iran aimed at halting arms-trafficking, the first time such an exercise has been held in the area.

Difference is when we say were gonna wipe someone off the map we mean it...... Take heed......

Friday, November 10, 2006

CCR Seeks Foreign Venue for persecuting Rumsfeld

Charges Sought Against Rumsfeld Over Prison Abuse

A lawsuit in Germany will seek a criminal prosecution of the former Defense Secretary and other U.S. officials for their alleged role in abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo

Just days after his resignation, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is about to face more repercussions for his involvement in the troubled wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New legal documents, to be filed next week with Germany's top prosecutor, will seek a criminal investigation and prosecution of Rumsfeld, along with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, former CIA director George Tenet and other senior U.S. civilian and military officers, for their alleged roles in abuses committed at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison and at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

And so it starts...


This will be the Dems way into impeachment and everything else

"see the international community and the people want us to expose these crimes"

Give me a Break!

Happy Birthday USMC

Resolution Establishing the Continential Marines

(Philadelphia) Friday, November 10, 1775

Resolved, That two Battalions of marines be raised, consisting of one Colonel, two Lieutenant Colonels, two Majors, and other officers as usual in other regiments; and that they consist of an equal number of privates with other battalions; that particular care be taken, that no persons be appointed to office, or enlisted into said Battalions, but such as are good seamen, or so acquainted with maritime affairs as to be able to serve to advantage by sea when required; that they be enlisted and commissioned to serve for and during the present war between Great Britain and the colonies, unless dismissed by order of Congress: that they be distinguished by the names of the first and second battalions of American Marines, and that they be considered as part of the number which the continental Army before Boston is ordered to consist of.

Ordered, That a copy of the above be transmitted to the General.

Semper Fi and "Ooh-rah"...

...from this Devil Dog!!!

“Ooh-rah comes from the places in our hearts that only Marines understand. It is conceived in sweat, nurtured with drill. It is raw determination and gut-wrenching courage in the face of adversity. It is a concern for fellow Marines embodied by selfless acts of heroism. It cannot be administrated. It is not planned and put into action. It cannot be manufactured. Ooh-rah must be purchased. Ooh-rah is Marine.” - Gunnery Sgt. Glenn Holloway

The 231st Marine Corps Ball & MCL Det. 597 Memorial Fund Benefit Dinner celebration at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library - Air Force One Pavilion looks like the place to be this year! 231st Marine Corps Ball & MCL Det. 597 Memorial Fund Benefit Dinner (pdf)

Steven Foley member MWCS-48 Det "B" 1991 - Death!!!
"MWCS-48 were activated February 12, 1991, making up MWCS-48 Detachment "B" and attached to II Marine Expeditionary Force

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Iraq; What Our Enemies Are Saying

Apparently our enemies, the people who wish to kill us, got the Congress they wanted!

For those who believe that our enemy doesn’t take any interest in our elections or that they don’t care what the outcome is, should take heed to the statements coming from the mouths of these fanatical murderers and ask yourself. How long do we wait until we start taking these people at their word?

Here are just a few examples of what was said in the run-up to election day:

Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and the man who led the terrorist group's 2002 seizure of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, expressed this wish:

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat,"

"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud,"


"Bush is a sick person, an alcoholic person that has no control of what is going on around him. He calls to send more troops but will very soon get to the conviction that the violence and terror that his war machine is using in Iraq will never impose policies and political regimes in the Arab world."

Hamas'Abu Abdullah, who worried that Democrats might not keep their pre-election promises:

"I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so."
Don’t worry the plans are in the works as we speak! He also said:

a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."

"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hizbullah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation

Islamic jihad's Muhammed Saadi said:

"As Arabs and Muslims, we feel proud of this talk," he said, because it meant the violence in Iraq had "brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

Muslim extremist Web site Al-Qala provided this interpretation of Osama bin Laden’s declaration in a videotape meesage that Al-Jazeera broadcast on Oct. 29:

"It means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy. Any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy."

Sounds a lot like they understand the Red State – Blue State thing rather well, don’t you think???

Nancy Pelosi said:

"The war in Iraq is the wrong war. No matter how many times the president wants to say it, the war in Iraq is not the war on terror. The war in Afghanistan was."

According to this statement; not only is she completely blind to the threat of Islamofascism™ but she didn’t listen to Al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiriwho said in a letter to to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq:

"Victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world"
"The jihad movement is growing and rising," Now it is waging a great historic battle in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and even within the Crusader's own homes."


"The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority over as much territory as you can spread its power in Iraq . . . in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans."

Our enemy just told you the war in Iraq is part of their war!!! Congresswomen... sheesh!

Listening closely to our enemies should be the most important thing we’ve learned from history; let’s be sure to be on the right side of it!


A little boy wanted $100.00 very badly and prayed for weeks, but nothing happened

Then he decided to write God a letter requesting the $100.00.

When the postal authorities received the letter to God, USA, they decided to send it to the President.

The president was so amused that he instructed his secretary to send the little boy a $5.00 bill.

The president thought this would appear to be a lot of money to a little boy.
The little boy was delighted with the $5.00 bill and sat down to write a thank-you note to God, which read:

Dear God: Thank you very much for sending the money. However, I noticed that for some reason you sent it through

Washington, DC., and those a**holes deducted $95.00 in taxes!!!

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

November 7, 2006 Part II

The Day True Conservatism Returned to Politics

Now that I got my doom and gloom post out of the way I wanted to talk about how I really feel about the elections and their ramifications!

First of all I have to congratulate the Democratic Party on a well fought battle and point out in particular Rohm Emanuel! He succeeded where others have continually failed and should be commended for his strategy of recruiting real moderate and conservative democrats, Blue Dogs if you will. Some are calling it a dirty trick others like Thomas Sowell are saying it was the new voter fraud

Getting people to vote for moderates, in order to put extremists in power, may be the newest and biggest voter fraud.

I’ll just say it was a solid election tactic that seems to have worked brilliantly! Although the pickups didn’t reach the historical averages for a mid-term in the sixth year of a presidency - it’s a victory none the less!

I was extremely disappointed watching the returns that goes without saying, losing the house was almost a foregone conclusion but I was holding out hope that the republicans would come out force and hold. I was wrong!

When it became clear that the Senate was going to go to the Dems as well I was thoroughly disgusted and let down by my party. It was clear by the closeness of the races that this wasn’t a win for the democrats and their ideals as it was a loss for career CongressCritters™ due to their lack principle and performance!

That was a turning point for me! Realizing I could now focus on influencing (in my own small way) the way my Party will look going forward. Changing the party from the inside is a whole lot easier when you’re out of power. And mark my words change is coming soon!!!

For the longest time I’ve been shouting at the wind hoping these big government, weekly standard, companionate conservatives would listen to what I and like minded people were saying – to get back to conservative principles and stop the madness. I was obviously going about it the wrong way.

So here’s our chance rebuild the party, get back to principles, nominate strong leaders and get back to what we do best; coming up with great ideas, debating those ideas and implementing them.

Message to Democrats after the celebration you are going to have to put up or shut up! No more standing on the sidelines criticizing and banging your fist on the desk. I hope you look to your new conservative democratic friends for guidance and not let the far left bully their votes or I suspect it will be a short two years then out!

Also so many times I hear the words bipartisan cooperation this usually mean conservatives have to sacrifice one or more of their principles and you Dems sacrifice nothing I hope this is not the case. I’ll be watching...

Shadegg, Pence, Flake and others are the future with our help they will elect a republican President in 2008. - Just as long as it’s not McCain :-)

Nov. 7, 2006

The Day America Relinquished Her Sovereignty

One of the most under reported stories coming from the results of yesterday’s election is illegal immigration.

With the Democrats taking the House of Representatives and every indication also the Senate, along with the instance by this administration for comprehensive immigration reform an all-out amnesty bill will be passed.

Anywhere from 25 to 100 million illegal aliens will become legal Americans in one fail swoop and in so doing our nation will fall pry to terrorist groups, and nations who want to destroy our way of life. They may very well succeed!

I’ll explain…

The border fence is a thing of the past, it’s gone! Congress will not fund the fence or any other meaningful border security reform!

Open borders and amnesty will be a reality and will effectively secure democratic control of the Congress for the better part of the next two decades.

The Democrats will increase there party by at least 20 million people! National elections will be almost impossible to win for conservatives.

Within 5 years (most likely sooner) the U.S. will lose 3 of its major cities to nuclear attack by Al Qaeda in connection with a coalition of Islamic states Los Angeles, Chicago and New York as a direct result of our lack of immigration reform!!! The crushing economic impact and immobilizing shock will cripple the U.S. and smelling the blood in the water our enemy’s will move in to successfully occupy and conquer our country!

With subpoenas flying and the Congress bogged down with impeachment and war crimes trials the focus will shift off of our enemies giving them the opportunity to strike!

The American people being completely uniformed, misinformed and schizophrenic have let their sovereignty and security go the way of the dinosaur for what they thought would be better government and to punish republicans, But did so in such a hasty way as to not fully understand or study the logic of their decisions.

Our allies in Europe (having already succumb to an overwhelming influx and loss of identity) will have little recourse or ability to help!

The only thing still up in the air is whether or not China fights the Islamic coalition for control of America.

History will look back at the date Nov. 7, 2006 as the beginning of the end for a free America. An Islamic state or caliphate will dominate the world plunging us back in time and eliminating any chance people of the Earth have for Freedom!!!

Decisions have consequences! Moral = Be careful what you wish for!!!

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

A Democrat who gets it!

The following outstanding article written by Orson Scott Card and posted at RealClearPolitics Its a rather long but well worth the read:

The Only Issue This Election Day

There is only one issue in this election that will matter five or ten years from now, and that's the War on Terror.

And the success of the War on Terror now teeters on the fulcrum of this election.

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance.

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.


This is the victory that awaits us -- and it remains possible for two reasons only:

1. America's brilliant, brave, and well-trained military, which projects not just power but decency and compassion wherever our soldiers go, and

2. President George W. Bush, who, regardless of his critics and detractors, has steadfastly pursued the only course that holds the hope of victory without plunging us into a worldwide war with a united Islam or isolating America in a world torn by chaos.

Those are the scylla and charybdis that threaten us on either hand. If we do not win this containable war now, following the plan President Bush has set forth, we will surely end up fighting far bloodier wars for the next generation.

And the rhetoric of this election proves that we have precious few politicians in either party who have the brains, will, or courage to be taken seriously as alternatives to George W. Bush in the guidance of our nation through this dangerous, complicated world.

If we, the American people, are stupid enough to give control of either or both houses of Congress to the Democratic Party in this election, we will deserve the world we find ourselves in five years from now.

But Bush, being the wise and moderate politician that he is, may actually be able to continue his foreign policy despite the opposition of a Democratic Congress.

Not much to add here except it's nice to see someone from the other side of the Big Ditch who gets it!

If you haven't voted yet please do so everything is riding on our decisions today!!!

As I was setting this up rush limbaugh started talking about this on his show!

Friday, November 03, 2006

Wiretap Ad...

This ad should be in heavy rotation around the country from now until Tuesday!!!

Enough said!

Ca Prop 86 Subsidizing Illegal Aliens!

$1.4 billion of taxpayers’ money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families.

Make no mistake, California’s Proposition 86 is a ruthless money grab designed to subsidize or recoup monies owed to HMO’s and Hospitals by illegal aliens not a deterrent to smoking cigarettes.

It’s a known fact that California’s healthcare system is in shambles and deteriorating at an unbelievable rate. Emergency rooms continue to close and health insurance continues to rise. The number one cause of this problem that everyone here knows (but doesn’t talk about at parties) is the enormous number of illegal immigrants who by definition use our social services but rarely contribute to them.

In an attempt to (wrongly) fix this problem the Hospital corporations HMO’s and so forth came up with a great scapegoat to suck the money out of. Smokers! Everyone now hates smokers! Those evil, veil people who congregate outside the front door huddling around a concrete ashtray – you know these creatures! What better group of people to tax than smokers if you can’t get to the rich?

One major problem with that solution is they aren’t the problem the people who are here illegally sucking off the public teat are. In fact $1.4 billion of taxpayers’ money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families. $1.4 billion! It’s no doubt most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become!!!

Here is what the Official voter guide has to say about the proposition and why we should vote NO!

We all want to improve our healthcare system, but Proposition 86 is the wrong solution. Prop. 86 is an unfair tax increase supported by special interests who are amending our Constitution to benefit themselves.

Prop. 86’s proponents say it’s about encouraging people not to smoke, but it isn’t. It’s really a money grab by huge hospital corporations who will reap hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year!

• Less than 10% of the tax revenues go toward helping smokers quit or keeping kids from starting.

• The largest share—almost 40%—goes to hospitals, many of which are funding the campaign for the new tax.

• HMOs will pocket millions from Prop. 86.


• Hospitals wrote Prop. 86 to give themselves an exemption to antitrust laws, giving them legal protection to divvy up and limit many medical services, and then raise prices without worrying about competition.

• Prop. 86 puts no limits on what hospitals can bill taxpayers for emergency services for the uninsured. Why should hospitals be allowed to charge taxpayers several times what they charge insurance companies for the same treatment?


Like the state lottery, it will be nearly impossible for voters to know how the new taxes will be spent. Prop. 86 lists program after state program that gets a cut of the estimated $2.1 billion in new tax revenue.


Prop. 86 throws millions of dollars at new bureaucratic state programs without adequate legislative or governmental oversight. There are NO GUARANTEES how the money will actually be spent or assurances the money won’t be wasted.


Prop. 86 contains 38 pages of spending mandates. But experts agree that the amount of money raised by this tobacco tax will decline over time. Declining revenues and demands to fund Prop. 86’s programs will only worsen our deficit. Other important programs like education, transportation, and law enforcement might have to be cut, or taxes raised further.


Law enforcement groups oppose Prop. 86 because it will increase crime and smuggling. Stolen and smuggled cigarettes are already a big source of money for gangs and organized crime. If Prop. 86 passes, a single truckload of stolen cigarettes could be worth over $2 million to criminals.


Prop. 86 taxes smokers to pay for programs that have nothing to do with smoking, like obesity programs. Less than 10% of the tax revenues go toward helping smokers quit or keeping kids from starting.


Proposition 86 amends our Constitution and statutes. When problems and abuses are discovered, it will be nearly impossible for the Governor or the Legislature to fix them. The Constitution should not be changed for a special interest money-grab.

Hospital Funding. Nearly three-fourths of the funds in this account would be allocated to hospitals to pay their un-reimbursed costs for emergency services and to improve or expand emergency services, facilities, or equipment. Allocations would be based largely on the number of persons that hospitals treat in their emergency departments and their costs for providing health care for patients who are poor.

Private hospitals and certain public hospitals, including those licensed to the University of California (UC), would be eligible to receive funding. Hospitals licensed to other state agencies or the federal government would not be eligible for funding.

There are also some major Antitrust Immunities cleverly stuck into this proposition.

The hospital corporations that qualified Proposition 86 for the ballot stand to collect hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars every year. But that’s not all. Prop 86 includes a section buried in the initiative that could have a profound impact on the delivery of healthcare services in every community in California.
Section 1797.303 (b) (3) reads:

“To the extent that any hospital or hospitals work cooperatively in developing and implementing the plans for providing emergency services described in this Section, the people intend that such hospital or hospitals shall incur no liability under federal or state antitrust or other anti-competition laws prohibiting combinations in restraint of trade, including, without limitation, the provisions of Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.”

In short, the antitrust laws that protect consumers from illegal acts, such as collusive price fixing and other anti-consumer practices, would no longer apply to hospitals if Prop 86 passes. This immunity would extend to both criminal and civil penalties for conduct that is harmful to consumers, illegal under current law and affects the delivery of emergency care and specialty medical services.

Price fixing. Under Proposition 86 hospitals could:

• Set minimum charges for certain services, i.e., $1,000 for a broken leg or $10,000 for a heart attack. This could have harmful effects on patients without health insurance or insurance that is limited to certain amounts per hospital visit.

• Refuse certain insurance plans or place restrictions on the types of insurance they would accept, reducing the availability of insurance.

• Agree on what they will pay nurses, physician assistants, and physicians for emergency and other specialty medical services.

• Agree to become part of a system that charges uniform prices for healthcare services, eliminating competition and causing healthcare prices to rise dramatically.

That should be enough for most people to see how wrong this proposition is for Californians but wait! There’s more. How about The Effect Prop 86 would have on Smuggling? Non-smokers should care immensely about this proposition because it gives smokers a huge incentive to avoid the entire tax by buying cigarettes through friends or family out of state. And who do you think the government will be coming after to make up the resulting drop in cigarette tax collections

Cigarette smuggling generally falls into one of three categories:

1.Individual Bootlegging: Driving across state borders to purchase cigarettes and pay the lower state excise taxes there, visiting Indian reservations or military bases for tax free cigarettes, or using the Internet to purchase cigarettes without paying any state tax.

2.Organized Wholesale Domestic Smuggling: The bulk purchasing of cigarettes in low tax states and then trucking them across the United States and selling them to cigarette retailers who would sell them to customers as fully tax-paid cigarettes.

3.International Smuggling: The smuggling of cigarettes that were exported to or made in a foreign country, such as Mexico, or purchased at duty free shops and brought back across the

Who Opposes Prop 86 no surprise here! Such bastions of liberal thought as:

Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News, Oakland Tribune, Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, La Opinion, Napa Valley Register, San Mateo County Times, Tri-Valley Herald, Daily Review, The Argus, Alameda Times-Star, Fontana Herald News, San Francisco Bay Guardian, Monterey County Weekly and Paradise Post.

Don’t be fooled by this bait-an-switch tactic, advocating for the health and wellbeing of smokers only to line the pockets of the HMO and Hospital corporations that refuse to see or address the real problem. Socialized healthcare, if it can work at all, has got to be funded by everyone in the community! In fact after examining this proposition for what it really is and what has caused this lack of funds, it a shining recommendation for privatizing healthcare altogether!

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Democrats are Dangerous; Make Your Vote Count!

With only 5 days until the mid-term elections I feel it’s important to once again go over the many reasons why Democrats are dangerous and should not be aloud to lead!

While the opposition party is busy hiding its leaders and its true face to the American people the facts of there voting records and wrong headed policies are here for all to see

“Speaker-To-Be Pelosi”

GOP Victory Roadmap
Nancy Pelosi voted against every Republican tax cut. She voted for the largest tax increase in history.

Nancy Pelosi voted 19 times against eliminating the death tax.

Nancy Pelosi voted five times for raising gasoline taxes.

Nancy Pelosi is so pro-high taxes she was one of only 27 members to vote against tax relief for poor neighborhoods in the inner city (presumably including her constituents in San Francisco).

On July 31, 1996, Pelosi voted against the historic Welfare Reform Bill and later voted against its reauthorization;

On July 19, 2006, Pelosi voted against protecting the right to say “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance;

On Sept. 20, 2006, Pelosi voted against requiring that voters be identified so we could ensure only legal citizens are voting;

On July 13, 2006, Pelosi voted against requiring English on ballots;

On June 30, 2005, Pelosi refused to side with homeowners against the Kelo decision that allows cities to seize private property for profitable ventures, even though 365 members voted to stop cities from taking private property.

Pelosi has voted at least 12 times against the death penalty;

Pelosi was one of only 67 House members to vote against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA);

Pelosi has voted at least eight times against banning partial-birth abortion, at least three times against the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (Laci’s law), and scored a perfect 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America;

Pelosi voted against a bill that would “[b]ar the transportation of a minor girl across state lines to obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent, guardian or judge;”

Pelosi voted at least 31 times for using local or federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions;

On Sept. 14, 2006, Pelosi voted against building a fence on the border to protect America from terrorists;

Before 9/11, Pelosi repeatedly voted to cut intelligence (in 1993 by $500 million) and after 9/11 she has still voted to cut intelligence (in 2004 she voted to withhold 25 percent of intelligence funds);

When you ask why we were not more prepared for 9/11, remember that six months before Sept. 11, 2001, Pelosi voted to decrease proposed defense spending by $65 billion;

The next time you think about North Korean nuclear tests and North Korean efforts to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile to reach the United States, remember that in 2002, Pelosi voted for an amendment to the FY 2003 Defense authorization that would block FY 2003 funding for space-based missile defense programs;

Pelosi led a faction of 124 House Democrats who voted against final passage of the Patriot Act’s reauthorization;

Pelosi voted against the $87-billion Iraq/Afghanistan supplemental that included extra money for body armor for our soldiers;

Pelosi voted against creation of Homeland Security Department;

Pelosi was one of only 33 members to vote against prohibiting U.S. citizens and companies from conducting any financial transaction with countries that have been identified by the State Department as active sponsors of terrorism; and

In 2004, Pelosi voted against House passage of the intelligence overhaul bill, which reorganized 15 intelligence agencies under one Director of National Intelligence.

Of course there are the bills that would be on the front buirner:

Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act -- H.R. 3760: Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and 74 Democratic cosponsors propose a new "Department of Peace and Nonviolence" as well as "National Peace Day." Cosponsors include three would-be Democratic Chairmen: John Conyers (Judiciary), George Miller (Education and the Workforce), and Charlie Rangel (Ways and Means).

Gas Stamps -- H.R. 3712: Jim McDermott (D-WA)
and eight Democratic cosponsors want a "Gas Stamps" program similar to the Food Stamps program to subsidize the gasoline purchases of qualified individuals.

Less Jail Time for Selling Crack Cocaine - H.R. 2456: Charlie Rangel (D-NY)
and 23 Democratic cosponsors want to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for possessing, importing, and distributing crack cocaine. John Conyers, the would-be Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the bill, is a cosponsor.

Voting Rights for Criminals - H.R. 1300: John Conyers (D-MI) and 32 Democratic cosponsors, and H.R. 663: Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and 28 Democratic cosponsors would let convicted felons vote. Rep. John Conyers is the would-be Democratic Chairman of the Judiciary Committee which would consider this legislation.

Expand Medicare to Include Diapers -- H.R. 1052: Barney Frank (D-MA) supports Medicare coverage of adult diapers. Barney Frank is the would-be Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Nationalized Health Care - H.R. 4683: John Dingell (D-MI)
and 18 Democratic cosponsors want to expand Medicare to cover all Americans. John Dingell is the would-be Democratic Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee who along with cosponsors Charlie Rangel, would-be Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Henry Waxman, would-be Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, would have jurisdiction over the proposal.

Federal Regulation of Restaurant Menus -- H.R. 5563: Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
and 25 Democratic cosponsors authorize federal regulation of the contents of restaurant menus.

Taxpayer Funded Abortions & Elimination of all Restrictions on Abortion, Including Parental Notice - H.R. 5151: Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and 66 Democratic cosponsors want to overturn even minimal restrictions on abortion such as parental notice requirements. The bill would also require taxpayer funding of abortions through the various federal health care programs. John Conyers, the would-be Chairman of Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over the bill, is an original cosponsor.

Bill of Welfare Rights -- H.J. Res. 29-35: Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)
proposes a Soviet-style "Bill of Welfare Rights," enshrining the rights of full employment, public education, national healthcare, public housing, abortion, progressive taxation, and union membership. On some these measures, Rep. Jackson is joined by up to 35 Democratic cosponsors, including would-be Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers.

Some more on Nancy Pelosi’s hypocracy can be found here in Nancy Pelosi's Sour Grapes

Rep. Nancy Pelosi has her own "grapes of wrath" scenario going on. Is her opposition to enhanced border security due to the fact that the House Democratic leader personally profits from a steady supply of cheap foreign labor?

If Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives, the San Francisco Democrat will not only be the first female speaker, but also the richest. The liberal Center for Responsive Politics puts her net worth as high as $55 million.

There is no record of Pelosi's ever returning her portion of those "tax cuts for the rich" to the U.S. Treasury. Or any record, for that matter, of using her (dare we use the word?) windfall to give the workers at her Napa Valley vineyards a raise.

As Peter Schweizer notes in his best-selling expose of liberal hypocrisy, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)," part of the fortune of this defender of the working man is a Napa Valley vineyard worth $25 million that she owns with her husband. The vineyard produces expensive grapes for high-end wines. Napa grapes bring up to $4,000 a ton compared with $300 a ton for, say, San Joaquin grapes.

But Pelosi, winner of the 2003 Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers, hires only nonunion workers and sells these grapes to nonunion wineries. Schweizer places Pelosi in a chapter titled "Workers of the World Unite Somewhere Else." UFW members need not apply at the Pelosi family vineyards.

Which makes Pelosi's steadfast opposition to any attempts to enhance border security and stem the flow of illegal immigration into the U.S. all the more interesting since she seems to be among those rich employers who financially benefit from a steady supply of cheap foreign labor.

She led the opposition and voted against the Secure Fence Act of 2006 recently signed into law by President Bush to build a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexican border.

Here is what she thinks of the Global War on Terror Pelosi's war blunder

In a stunning performance on "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi proved again why she cannot be trusted to keep America safe from the threat of global terrorism and Islamic extremists.

Mrs. Pelosi demonstrated that she does not understand the global nature of the threat when she stated flatly "the war on terror is the war in Afghanistan." She may think the war is limited to Afghanistan, but where does al Qaeda believe the war is? Al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in a letter to the leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq, was clear about the location of the global jihad and the importance of victory in Iraq:

And Rich Lowry has a good piece on the pre-honeymoon Pelosi’d receiving from the MSM called Media are patsies for Pelosi

Say what you will about Pelosi, but it is a matter of record that she's far left of the center of American politics; her rating from the liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action is routinely at 100 percent. That she enforces party loyalty; her Democrats voted along party lines 88 percent of the time last year, a record for the past 50 years. That she has primarily occupied herself with blocking legislation in the House; she has tried to kill practically every Republican initiative, no matter how small. That she uses tough rhetoric; Republicans are, according to Pelosi, "corrupt," "incompetent" and running a "criminal enterprise."

This is what a “Ways and Means Chairman Rangel” would look like:

Tax rates will rise substantially in each tax bracket, some by 450 basis points;

Low-income taxpayers will see the 10-percent tax bracket disappear, and they will have to pay taxes at the 15-percent rate;

Married taxpayers will see the marriage penalty return;

Taxpayers with children will lose 50 percent of their child tax credits;

Taxes on dividends will increase beginning on Jan. 1, 2009;

Taxes on capital gains will increase, also beginning on Jan. 1, 2009; and

Federal death taxes will come back to life in 2011, after fading down to nothing in 2010.

And he has hinted to de-funding the war:

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem), who'd become chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, gave us a sneak preview of what the Dems might do: "You've got to be able to pay for the war, don't you?" You get the picture: No money -- no war.

This is what an “Intelligence Committee Chairman Hastings” would look like:

Hastings is a former federal judge who was indicted in 1981 for influence peddling, then impeached by a vote of 413-3 in the House and removed from his judgeship by subsequent conviction in the Senate on eight articles of impeachment. Hastings’ conviction was only the sixth time that the Senate has removed a judge from office in an impeachment trial. It is not clear why Pelosi would place her trust in an impeached former judge to lead the oversight of our nation’s intelligence agencies

There are many more examples but the point is clear the American people can’t afford to put these people in positions that will be detrimental to the future of this county.

It comes down to a simple choice really

1) Do you want to win in Iraq and the larger GWOT? Dems don’t!
2) Do you want to keep the Patriot act? Dems don’t!
3) Do you want us to monitor calls from terrorist coming into this country? Dems don’t!
4) Do you want to keep taxes low? Dems don’t!
5) Do you want us to interrogate terrorists? Dems don’t!
6) Do you want to give terrorist Geneva conventions rights? Dems do!

The choice is clear and although the democrats are doing their best to keep these would-be leaders and their far left views as far from Average American as possible their beliefs and plans shine though shedding light on the facts and proving how dangerous it would be to put them in power.

Our president is one of the most “far-sighted politicians” we’ve had in a long time as Mark Steyn said recently

I thought of President Bush, and I replied that, whatever my differences with him on this or that, I thought he was one of the most far-sighted politicians in Washington. That's to say, he's looking down the line to a world in which a radicalized Islam has exported its pathologies to every corner on Earth, Iran and like-minded states have applied nuclear blackmail to any parties within range, and a dozen or more nutcake basket-case jurisdictions have joined Pyongyang and Tehran as a Nukes-R-Us one-stop shop for all your terrorist needs.

In 2020, no one's going to be worrying about which congressional page Mark Foley is coming on to. Except Mark Foley, who'll be getting a bit long in the tooth by then. But if it really is, as Democrats say, "all about the future of our children," then our children will want to know why our generation saw what was happening and didn't do anything about it. They will despise us as we despise the political class of the 1930s. And the fact that we passed a great prescription drug plan will be poor consolation when the entire planet is one almighty headache.

Let’s make sure the last two years of his presidency aren’t bogged down by the far lefts ridiculous policies and impeachment proceedings!

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

The Democratic Agenda; Criticizing, Complaining and Condemning!

In the run-up to the elections we know terrorists have increased attacks in Iraq believing they will bring about a change in our leadership that will work in their favor to gain an advantage in the GWOT. But it’s important to remember that there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil for the last five years. Some like to dismiss that claim out of hand but the fact remains this administration and our allies have foiled several attacks and have taken the fight to the places where these terrorists live!

It’s to bad the Democrats have moved so far away from the sentiments expressed in this statement by Harry Truman:

"We will not yield to aggression… Appeasement of evil is not the road to peace . . . the American people have always met danger with courage and determination . . . I am confident we will do so now, and, with God's help, we shall keep our freedom . . . I was determined that we would not back out — that if we got out, someone would have to force us out. I want to make it perfectly plain that we cannot desert our friends when the going gets rough."

With no agenda, no new ideas, or no better answers the Democrats are relying on and frankly expecting so–called middle America to put them in office knowing full well their weakness on national defense. Problem is the Democratic Party has become the party of name-callers and the party of Criticizing, Complaining and Condemning with absolutely no answers, no action and no accountability for their poor decisions in the past.

I have yet to hear liberal democrats explain to the folks, the disastrous consequences of pulling out of Iraq! abandoning the premier battlefield in the GWOT and Islamic fanaticism would send Iraq into a full blown civil war and create a haven from which terrorist can launch their global jihad on the western world with vast amounts of oil money.

I suppose these compassionate liberals feel that when the going gets tough the though abandon the fight to let someone else clean up the mess.

Here’s what would happen:

1) Islamo-facists would proclaim victory over the USA
2) Terrorist recruiting would go through the roof
3) U.S. credibility would suffer severely
4) The morale of all our armed forces would tank
5) Iraq would become a terrorist launch pad
6) Attacks on U.S. major cities using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be planned
7) Though Iraq’s oil wealth the new fronts in the war would in time become the U.S., Great Britain and Europe

If you think Democrats might be better at winning the war on terror and protecting you from terrorists, let's take a look at their track record. Party Of Three C's
1. Clinton administration took no effective action against terrorists who repeatedly attacked and killed Americans

On 10 specific occasions, the Clinton White House failed to act when the CIA and military knew exactly where Osama bin Laden was and had plans to get him. It created legal barriers (the "wall") that stopped the FBI and CIA from communicating and sharing vital terrorist information.

In 1994, the administration signed a naive agreement that ex-President Jimmy Carter negotiated with North Korea. In exchange for a pledge not to develop nuclear weapons, North Korea got billions of dollars and facilities that it used to secretly develop nukes over the six remaining years of the Clinton administration.
These are the nukes they use now to threaten the U.S., Japan and South Korea and perhaps sell to al-Qaida.

2. Congressional Democrats have voted over and over against a missile defense system to protect America. They have also voted against tapping phone calls that foreign terrorists make to the U.S., against tracing terrorist money flows between foreign banks and against the Patriot Act. Most recently, 197 Democrats voted against a bill permitting the interrogation of captured terrorists.

3. Further damage to America's future was done when President Carter withdrew U.S. support for our longtime military ally, the Shah of Iran, because Carter objected to his human rights treatment of imprisoned Soviet communist spies.

As a result, the Shah's government was overthrown, and the Muslim Ayatollah Khomeini returned to Iran and declared it an Islamic nation. Carter's incompetence, in other words, gave us our greatest new threat: a religious Iranian terror regime that created and financed Hezbollah and Hamas and is determined to get nukes, wipe out Israel and control the Mideast.

4. Carter was also a consistent failure in the Cold War with the Soviet communists. After meeting him, they invaded Afghanistan. This led a 23-year-old bin Laden to raise money and recruit other Muslims to fight the anti-Soviet jihad. After the Soviets left Afghanistan, bin Laden's followers became al-Qaida.
This wouldn't have happened if the Soviets weren't emboldened to invade Afghanistan once they saw how weak Carter was. Communists ran roughshod over him, capturing seven new countries. It took a Republican, Ronald Reagan, to turn the tide and leave the Soviet Union's 70-year-old experiment with communism on the ash heap of history — all with little help from Democrats who criticized and fought almost every Reagan defense policy.

5. Democrat Lyndon Johnson took his advice on the Vietnam War from two liberal Democrats who worked for CBS News: Walter Cronkite and Bob Schieffer. They told the American people we weren't winning that war, so we should cut and run. So we quit, Congress reneged on its agreement to provide support to South Vietnam and the communists took over and slaughtered nearly 4 million innocent civilians there and in neighboring countries.

40 years under Democratic leadership has given us retreat and defeat, by talk and appeasement, by dangerously naive policies and by an inability to make key decisions and take action. It's been one loss after another on defense, and no wins.

Our "uneducated" Troops are listening

Along with our allies and our enemies! First of all our men and women in uniform are not idiots and we can dispel some of those myths right now!

Official Debunks Myths About Military Recruits
Carr likes to think of himself as a "myth buster," helping break stereotypes he said are flat-out wrong and cheat service members out of the pride they've earned and deserve.

He rattled off examples of those myths and set the record straight for each one.

Myth 1: Military recruits are less educated and have fewer work alternatives than other young Americans.

In fact, military recruits are far better educated than the general youth population, Carr said. More than 90 percent of recruits have a high school diploma, compared to about 75 percent of the U.S. youth population.

That's an important issue to the military, Carr said, because a traditional high school diploma is the single best indicator of a recruit's stick-to-it-ness and likelihood of successfully adjusting to military service. Recruits with a high school diploma have a 70 percent probability of completing a three-year enlistment versus a 50 percent chance for nongraduates.

The military has exceeded the 90-percent benchmark for recruits with high school diplomas every year since 1983, Carr noted.

Myth 2: The military tends to attract people with lower aptitudes.

Recruits actually have much higher average aptitudes than the general youth population, Carr said. In fiscal 2005, 67 percent of recruits scored above the 60th percentile on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery. The test is designed so that the average young person will score 50 percent, he explained.

But high achievement on the test isn't new, Carr said. Sixty percent of new enlistees have scored at or above the 50 percentile -- the military's benchmark for recruits -- every year since 1985.

Myth 3: The military attracts a disproportionate number of poor or underprivileged youth.

In reality, military recruits mirror the U.S. population and are solidly middle class, Carr said. He cited a recent Heritage Foundation report that shows most recruits come from middle-class families, rather than poorer or wealthier ones. Patterns in recent years reinforce this trend, showing a slight dip in recruits from lower socioeconomic groups and a slight increase from upper-class groups, Carr said.

Myth 4: A disproportionate number of recruits come from urban areas.

Inner cities are actually the most underrepresented area among new recruits, Carr said. Both suburban and rural areas are overrepresented, he said.

Myth 5: The military isn't geographically representative of America.

The southern part of the United States generates the most recruits, 41 percent, but also has the biggest youth population to draw from, 36 percent, Carr said. Twenty-four percent of recruits come from north-central regions, which have 23 percent of the youth population. The west, with 24 percent of the nation's youth, contributes 21 percent of the new enlistees. And the northeast, with 18 percent of the youth population, provides 14 percent of new recruits.

All of out leaders should be very careful what they say in public… people are listening!