DecaturConservative

New Healthcare Plan

2009-07-25T11:06:00.003-05:00

I don't know who the author is, but this sounded funny. And, it makes a point.

The Perfect Solution to Senior Health Care

While discussing the upcoming Universal Health Care Program with my sister-in-law the other day, I think we have found the solution.

I am sure you have heard the ideas that if you're a senior you need to suck it up and give up the idea that you need any health care.

A new hip? Unheard of!

We simply can't afford to take care of you anymore. You don't need any medications for your high blood pressure, diabetes, heart problems, etc. Let’s take care of the young people. After all, they will be ruling the world very soon.

So here is the solution.

When you turn 70, you get a gun and 4 bullets. You are allowed to shoot 2 senators and 2 representatives. Of course, you will be sent to prison where you will get 3 meals a day, a roof over your head and all the health care you need!!!

New teeth, great!!!

Need glasses, no problem.

New hip, knee, kidney, lung, heart? Well bring it on.

And who will be paying for all of this? The same government that just told you that you are too old for health care. And, since you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay any income tax.

I really think we have a Perfect Solution!!!

Dear President Obama....you scare me

2009-06-10T19:43:00.000-05:00

Got this in my email today. Haven't posted here in a while. Too busy.

Thought this should start some conversation.

Does that really ever happen anymore?

Dear President Obama...you scare me

ex-Governor Ryan's Newest Roommate

2008-12-09T15:52:00.009-06:00

THIS, my dear fellow Illinoisians, is what you get when you vote for a person simply "because he's a Democrat."

[To be honest, Topinka would have looked good in this suit as well...or maybe the orange jump suit. It would have gone better with her hair...]

Pro-McCain / Anti-Obama Campaign Signs

2008-10-28T13:04:00.019-05:00

Spanning the globe to bring you the many faces of conservative thought, here is my collection of Pro-McCain/Anti-Obama signs that I've collected so far:

Late Night Comedy

2008-09-12T10:18:00.006-05:00

I signed up for emails from Newsmax a long time ago. I delete 99%. They keep sending me this one that says my doctor is lying to me about cholesterol medications. I am thinking these people should find new advertisers if they wish to maintain their credibility.

Anyway, I also get the "Late Night" shows' joke list, and this weeks is good. Conan O'Brien's is my fav.

Late Night Jokes from Newsmax.com

The Tonight Show with Jay Leno

● The New York Times had an article on problems with elderly people. They said one of the worst things that could happen to an old person is breaking a hip. The second worse thing? Losing Ohio.

● Joe Biden put his foot in his mouth the other day. Out campaigning, he told a crowd that Hillary is as qualified or more qualified that he is. Plus she still has her original hair.

● Sarah Palin took a break. She went back to Alaska. Now people can go back to ignoring John McCain.

● On her first day back, she shot two campaign commercials, a moose, and a caribou.

Late Show Top Ten

Top Ten Reasons I Like Being An Actor Presented by Robert De Niro and Al Pacino

10. Sometimes when I go to the movies, the popcorn guy will give me a
free squirt of chemical butter (Al Pacino)
9. Every time I go to work, I get to ask myself, "I wonder if I'll see Harvey
Keitel naked" (Robert De Niro)
8. Well, you've got to keep honing your craft, or you could end up out
of the business and taking a job as Governor of California (Al Pacino)
7. If you do a scene where you're eating pudding, they often let you keep
the pudding (Robert De Niro)
6. I got to meet Spider-Man (Al Pacino)
5. It's the makeup. I like wearing the makeup. (Robert De Niro)
4. You get to make films for personal reasons — I made "Righteous Kill"
to let people know I'm still alive (Al Pacino)
3. You get to make films for personal reasons — I made "Righteous Kill"
to see if Al was still alive (Robert De Niro)
2. Beats my old gig as a hockey mom (Al Pacino)
1. Get to read well-crafted dialogue like, "Get the f*** out of here"
(Robert De Niro)

Late Show with David Letterman

● Over at ABC, Charles Gibson interviewed Sarah Palin, I believe her first big-time interview. He asked her, “Are you ready to be president?” She said, “Oh fer sure!”

● During the interview, she gave birth to her sixth child.

● I like Sarah Palin; she looks like the dip sample lady at Safeway.

● Matt Damon says Sarah Palin would be a disaster in the White House. I think I’ll wait until I hear what Ben Affleck has to say.

Late Night with Conan O'Brien

● Sarah Palin has been getting briefed on what she needs to know to be John McCain’s vice president. The first thing they taught her was CPR.

● An activist in Alaska is trying to get Sarah Palin to release 1,000 e-mails that she is withholding from the public. Apparently some e-mails went unanswered with the subject line, “Mom I Need to Talk With You About Birth Control.”

● They’re having trouble picking jurors in O.J. Simpson’s armed robbery trial. The judge says they want a jury of O.J.’s peers, but it’s hard to find anyone else who got away with double murder.

The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson

● A new study came out that says men have a biological clock, too. I know I do. My big hand is always playing with my little one.

● Kanye West was arrested at LAX. He smashed a paparazzi’s camera after he realized they were filming him. Then, he realized TMZ was there too filming him, so he tried to smash theirs as well. You can’t smash all the cameras. You’d be smashing the airport security cameras, the satellite cameras too. You can’t win. It’s like Wackamo.

● If Kanye wanted to really destroy the photographer’s camera, he should have checked the camera into his baggage.

HYPE

2008-07-24T03:05:00.001-05:00

The new movie "Hype: The Obama Effect" will be out in theaters soon.

I could have saved them a lot of money.

Two words: empty suit.

New JibJab Video!

2008-07-18T13:48:00.000-05:00

Send a JibJab Sendables® eCard Today!

Are You Ready For Some Footbal...I mean Campaigning?

2008-06-18T19:30:00.008-05:00

It almost seems like a Superbowl Game with two teams you really don't like, but you're forced to watch anyway. The Soros' SOCIALISTS vs. the Nevada RINOS.

I've been hanging back and watching all the circus over the past few months. The democrats couldn't produce a good or worthy candidate if they wanted to. They've already alienated Joe Lieberman, so he's out. I can't think of any other decent Dems out there. The extreme left's hold on the DNC pollutes the picture, and with the Drive-By Media also pushing the extreme left agenda, no moderate has a snowball's chance in hell.

Decatur Republican had it right (then again, so did Entertainment Earth!) In order for Obama to win this election, McCain would have to stick his head in the sand and ignore all the outrageous crap that Obama brings to the table. Unfortunately, the GOP hasn't had the "testicular fortitude" to nail Obama for the terrorist-associations, racist associations, his wife's "Whitey" statements, the nations most liberal senatorial voting record, and his outright socialist economic policies. IF the GOP pounces on this, and especially if his pacifist approach to radical terrorist groups is proven to be the most foolish thing this side of Neville Chamberlain, I don't think McCain will have much to worry about.

HOWEVER....we all have a lot to worry about when McCain gets in. Will he adopt a more conservative approach? Or will he go for illegal immigrant amnesty and the closing of our prisoner of war camps? I think Mr. McCain needs to think long and hard about WHO is going to get him in the White House and what that WHO truly stands for: conservative political policies, traditional values, and responsibility in finance as well as in management of resources.

"Entertainment Earth" calls the nomination for Obama...

2008-03-02T09:55:00.004-06:00

In my email inbox today was another ad from http://www.entertainmentearth.com, a website for toys, action-figures, etc. According to them, the Democratic Nominee is Barak Hussein Obama. I did a search on the site for "Hillary" and "Clinton" and got nothing.

Here's a screen shot from my email:

What's interesting is that they also have an Al Gore mask. Maybe they're getting an early start on Halloween? Pretty scary....

Voting Democrat = Empowering Terrorism?

2008-02-20T10:40:00.012-06:00

Yes I know it's a bold statement. And I know that it will infuriate any libs reading (does Matthew Jackson read anything but ChangeDecatur.com anymore?)

Do *ALL* Democrats believe in empowering terrorists? Of course not. The problem is that the ones in leadership do. Or at least they believe in playing political games instead of doing what's right.

First Harry Reid proclaims that they killed the Patriot Act...and there was applause. Is that something to be happy about? For Reid and his fellow extreme-left colleagues it was. Now Nancy Pelosi has refused to allow the House to vote on a crucial bill to extend the Protect America Act, the bill that had overwhelming BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, but didn't get called for a vote. Why? Because the ATLA (American Trial Lawyers) are allies of the Democrats, and the bill would have made exempted phone companies from being sued by trial lawyers when the phone company cooperated with the US government. Newt Gingrich has an excellent article on the subject which everyone should read.

Today's Democratic Party has had a history of playing politics over doing what's right for America. The Patriot Act, this Protect America Act, confirming Judges, delaying/opposing appointments made by the President, even manufacturing "crimes" in order to get political leaders out of office (Tom Delay) while some of their own members who have committed crimes still enjoy being in office (William Jefferson...and Ted Kennnedy. Sorry Matt, I had to say it.) Should Republican Senator Larry Craig have resigned? I don't know...maybe, but not if Jefferson is allowed to stay. As long as Senators who take bribes, stuff the money in their freezer, lie about it still get to keep their job, then a Senator who cruises for a gay lover in a airport restroom should keep his job(by the way, libs, is that a crime? Was any money exchanged? Shouldn't we embrace his life choices and not condemn him?...funny I don't remember hearing that on CNN or PMSNBC...)

Everyone plays politics, both parties. When the political games won't allow Nancy Pelosi to call a vote for a bill that allows for the monitoring of terrorist activity, and puts the people of the whole US at risk, then that party doesn't deserve any support. Even from the conservative democrats of Central Illinois. Obama wants change...I say lets start with the DNC. Once that's done, then we'll consider voting for Democrats. Until then, I say oppose them at every turn.

The Republican Presidential Nominee

2008-02-13T17:23:00.002-06:00

Okay, okay, I'm sure that now that the ChangeDecatur topic is off everyone's minds, it's time to move on to the national elections coming this November.

First, the Dems. What can I say. First, we've got an extreme left-wing socialist who has been in the Senate just one term and has absolutley no significant accomplishments. In fact, everything she has tried to do politically up to this point, she has failed at. HillaryCare was a miserable failure. Not even the Democrats in Congress would support it. I would love to have someone please list what experience and success this candidate has had in the past that qualifies her to be president.......I thought so. Moving on. Next, we have a junior Senator from our wonderful state of Illinois who likewise has very little experience. To date, he has the most liberal voting record of ANY current Senator. (Didn't Kerry have that designation, too?) Again, I would love to have someone please list what experience and/or success this candidate has had that qualifies him to be president. Being part of the Chicago political machine doesn't count; we're not talking about being the head of a prison gang, we're talking about the president of the U.S.

Second, the Republicans. We can argue all we want about who is the most conservative and who would best represent the values of the midwest, etc., but regardless...John McCain (barring an act of God..yes I thought that was funny, too) will be our nominee. What experience does he have? Those decades in the US Senate. He's sponsored many bills, some of which have become law (McCain-Feingold, not a popular one amongst many conservatives, but it's there.) He's been in Washington D.C. as part of the U.S. government for decades. He's tough on terrorists (I still think waterboarding is okay...it's better than blowing up buildings or cutting heads off.) He's weak on illegal immigration, but he is Pro-Life. Heck, Bob Dole said he was a good Republican. (I don't know if an endorsement by Bob Dole is a good thing or not.)

What does it mean for us conservatives? It means he's not the ideal candidate. In fact, he's not the one many would want. But, as was told to me on the job many a time, look at the alternative!!!

I would rather have John McCain, a "moderate" RINO, in the White House than the two socialist, surrender-minded, tax-increasing liberals running on the other side. Even if you look past the politics, the experience factor is far and above anything the Dems could even try to make up for either of their candidates. Who is more qualified, politics aside? John McCain.

Like the candidates or not, one must vote to do one of two things: Either vote FOR the candidate that one thinks would do the best job, or vote AGAINST the alternative which would be much worse to endure than the sub-standard candidate in one's usual party of choice.

I say, John McCain for President.

.....ooh....that will take some getting used to......

Military Prepares For Possible Hillary Presidency

2008-01-23T05:04:00.000-06:00

Unlikely as it is, if Hillary Clinton does get into the White House, there will be big changes.

Below are snapshots of our military preparing for such a contingency...

The US Army's new Schwin LFG-II mobile gun/artillery

US Coast Guard's assault slugboat...

Navy pilots' newest guided armament for their jet fighters...

Not to be outdone, the Airforce launches their own version...

The USS Pigmy, the Navy's newest "attack carrier"...

US Marine Corps BAA-Lam 106 mobile rocket launcher...

And if that presidential portrait is needed:

Al Gore's Global Warming

2008-01-03T04:13:00.001-06:00

It's all George Bush's fault.

Your orange juice is getting more expensive because of George Bush!

And if your orange juice is more expensive, then you won't get your vitamin C!

The next Top Ten Headlines from MoveOn.org:

"SCURVY PLAGUES NATION BECAUSE OF GEORGE W. BUSH!"

"HURRICANES, DISEASE, AND GLOBAL WARMING-INDUCED FREEZE: THE LEGACY OF GEORGE W. BUSH"

"BUSH IGNORES ELDERLY FREEZING TO DEATH IN FLORIDA: THE NEW PLAN FOR MEDICARE REFORM?"

"HALLIBURTON STICKING IT TO THE FROZEN SOUTH--THE BUSH CONNECTION"

"GLOBAL WARMING FREEZING THE SOUTH: BIG OIL RAKING IT IN!"

"BUSH'S HATRED OF IMMIGRANT ORANGE-GROVE WORKERS SINKS TO NEW LOW"

"OBAMA WOULD HAVE WARNED THE ORANGE GROWERS YEARS AGO"

"THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW--THE ORANGE GROVE/BUSH SCANDAL"

"NATIONAL GUARD NOT AVAILABLE TO HELP ORANGE GROWERS"

"BUSH'S WEATHER MACHINE OPPRESSING SOUTHERN BLACKS & MIGRANT WORKER HISPANICS: THE GLOBAL WARMING/BIG OIL CONSPIRACY REARS ITS UGLY HEAD ONCE MORE"

Al Qaeda Christmas Messages

2007-12-29T13:03:00.001-06:00

Choices Choices

2007-12-10T21:37:00.000-06:00

Hey y'all. It's been a while.

I have been a bit busy. Most of it taking care of my 6-month-old and working, but also watching the Mrs. William J. Clinton/B. Hussein Obama battle.

So far, I haven't seen a whole lot of mudslinging (yet) from the Republicans. Then again, the MSM hasn't said much about the Republicans. It's always Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or what celebrity is endorsing which one of the above.

Well, I'm no celebrity, and I am not endorsing anyone yet for president. However, of all the Republican candidates, Romney and Huckabee seem to be the two that I would want more than the others. Guiliani would be a third...I think he'd make a good VP, or maybe Homeland Security director. He might make a good president, but I think his stance on illegal immigration stinks. But, that's me.

Here's a couple of Huckabee's ads that I've seen on YouTube. I can't disagree with anything he said.

Okay you conservatives: VPCheney, BA Moonshadow, Macon County Republican, ?Spongeblog (where are you at?)....what do you think?

Happy Thanksgiving

2007-11-20T12:55:00.001-06:00

Home Town Buffet is even easier...they cook, good food, no dishes, decent prices!

Al Gore Wins Piece Prize

2007-10-12T06:37:00.000-05:00

Al Gore's junk science movie "An Inconvenient Al" got him and some of his U.N. disciples the Nobel Piece Prize yesterday.

A real big piece of . . .well, you know.

In other news, former President William Jefferson Clinton was also given an award this past week for his lifetime contribution in promoting the sanctity of marriage with his never-ending dedication and steadfast faithfulness to his wife.

BTW...if you truly believe these people deserve these awards, I have some ocean-front property in Arizona for sale...

Dennis Miller On Harry Reid

2007-08-02T01:20:00.000-05:00

This is freakin' hilarious....

George S. Patton Speaks

2007-07-23T17:39:00.000-05:00

I double dog-dare any lib to watch this...

BA Moonshadow Strikes Gold!!!

2007-06-18T20:09:00.000-05:00

Check out new local blogger BA Moonshadow 's newest post!

Al Gore Bush-bashes because GHWB didn't do enough to stop Saddam's weapons programs and his pursuit of WMD including nukes!! And then he bashes W because suddenly Saddam didn't have WMD and wasn't a threat. Gore you are pathetic!

BA, great post! Nice to have you on board!!

I just had a flashback to "The A-Team." You don't know a guy named Murdock, do ya? :)

Busy Busy

2007-06-17T19:30:00.000-05:00

It might be a sign of age, but it just seems like the days and weeks are flying by. Actually, I think it's all because I've been far too busy. Now though I have a good reason to be busier...my wife and I are parents! (finally.) It's my first Father's Day as a father!

It's been kind of fun buying stuff for the little guy. Wal-Mart RULES. The Babies-R-Us in Springfield was nice...everything you would ever need. The Carter's Outlet store in Tuscola is also a nice place to pick up stuff cheap.

Finding baby stuff with a conservative flair in those stores is impossible (except for the occasional American flag.) After researching the net I found many options for babies with a political flavor. (Warning: There are looney left designs out there, too. Mostly Bush-bashers.) Checkout http://www.cafepress.com/ and put in your search term of choice.

Some of my finds:

(conservative Weepublican, that is)

(that's a pile of money in the thought bubble)

(If we would have had a girl...DEFINITE PURCHASE)

(And when that daughter got older...)

I just hope the Republicans come to their senses and dump this stupid amnesty kick. Otherwise, I may have to get this one:

Happy Father's Day Everyone!

Justice?

2007-05-17T11:50:00.000-05:00

Sandy Burglar finally got his. Well, sorta.

Sandy Burger's "misappropriation" of documents from the National Archives in his shorts and socks cost him his law license.

I think he should have got prison time. Or, we should impeach him.

Yeah, that's it.

Nancy Pelosi: Guilty of a felony?

2007-04-15T18:38:00.000-05:00

The "drive-by media" hasn't covered this so much, but the conservative media is screaming about it. I thought about this for a while, and I just don't get it.

We have NO diplomatic relations with Syria, therefore there are no US government officials who are allowed to speak with any Syrian government official UNLESS given specific instructions to do so by the President of the United States.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) went to Syria and spoke with Syrian officials, supposedly, in her words, "saying [to them] the same thing the president has been saying." There have been numerous pictures and media stories detailing Ms. Pelosi's trip and the Syrian officials she spoke to.
According to what I read, the Logan Act, "forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years."

Diplomatic relations with Syria were dissolved for a reason; at the very least, Syria must be categorized as a nation we do not get along with. Perhaps an adversary. Perhaps, maybe, a safe harbor for terrorists and WMDs, etc. ANYWAY...it seems to me that anyone going to a country we have no diplomatic relations with and talking with their leader should have also been sent there ONLY at the request and instruction of the President of the United States.

I am inclined to think Ms. Pelosi is in violation of the Logan Act and is therefore guilty of a felony. As such, I think she, at the very least, should step down as Speaker of the House, and in reality, should resign from the House of Representatives altogether.

Part of me wondered if perhaps Bush had sent her; however, part of me wonders if this isn't a blatant afront to the policies of the President, and this is Nancy's way of saying, "Ha. I'm going to talk to the Syrians anyway, you stooge, and there's nothing you can do about it!" They way i got it figured, if Tom DeLay had to leave simply because of trumped up charges by a Democrat political hack, then Pelosi should most definitely leave office because of her obvious felony.

Somehow, I have a feeling if the Attorney General filed charges against her, the MSM would categorize it as a political maneuver and continue their assault on the Bush administration. If I were GWB, I would have her indicted tomorrow. Whether you agree with the Pres. or not, you don't go to foreign governments without permission and undermind the US government. Kerry shouldn't have done it. Ted Kennedy shouldn't have done it. And Pelosi shouldn't have done it. I still say this borders on treason.

Quote Of The Day

2007-04-04T09:22:00.000-05:00

From the ole email bag. President Bush should put this quote up on his desk:

A quote that transcends the years.

"It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I'm readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I'll, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials - after the fact."

- - - Robert E. Lee, 1863

I guess you could insert Kos kids or left-wing millionaires in for newspaper editors. Oh well.

LR's take on the recent Ann Coulter thing--

2007-03-08T23:13:00.000-06:00

First of all, I am a fan of Ann Coulter. She gets to the meat of the matter quickly and succinctly. I like her style. It's a little more abrasive than some, but that's Ann. She's good at it.

BUT....

Calling the Breck Girl a faggot? In my opinion, a junior high choice of words. I would call John Edwards a sleazy blood-sucking lawyer who is trying to buy his way into the White House. Her choice of words is not something I would use.

What I find interesting is how the same crowd that screams for "tolerance" is IN-tolerant to someone who is different (ie, disagrees with them and, in this case, also uses Junior High name-calling.) Ann's choice was hers. If we apply the left's languarge of tolerance, then she should not be condemned. We should be 'inclusive' and 'celebrate the diversity' that is represented by all opinions and word choices, including Ann Coulter's.

What's the message in all this?

1) Ann Coulter needs to be a little less impulsive, and think how she's going to say something before she says it.

2) "Tolerance" is not being tolerant. It's tolerating an idea or message (or even embracing it,) unless the message contradicts the left; then it's a "hate crime" and that idea or message is not tolerated. Contradictory, isn't it?

DNC Now In Full Support of Hillary?

2007-03-05T11:25:00.000-06:00

As if Hillary's own website were not enough, now the DNC is asking for even more money to promote Hillary's run for the White House.

Here's a quote from the site:

It's time to help Senator Hillary Clinton get elected to the oval office. The Democratic National Committee is currently polling Americans through the Internet to determine the electability of Senator Clinton for the presidency of the United States in 2008.

If you would like to show your support for Senator Clinton and encourage her to run for President of the United States in 2008 please click the link below.

SUPPORT SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON

Can you believe this?

A Message From The President

2007-02-17T14:12:00.000-06:00

I didn't know the oval office put out some of it's announcements on YouTube.

Check this out:

Anybody Remember the movie "Red Dawn?"

2007-01-31T17:19:00.000-06:00

This movie is so memorable to me, and for several reasons.

For one thing, the movie showcased a lot of future film stars. Charlie Sheen, Patrick Swayze, Jennifer Grey. Second, I got in free! (A friend had won tickets on a radio contest. I think it was the last movie I saw at the Rodgers.) Third, the scene where the camera shows a Russian paratrooper pulling a handgun out of the hand of a dead farmer lying beside his pickup truck who had been killed by the Russian, and the camera shows the bumpersticker on the truck: "If you want my gun you'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hand!" When that scene came on in the theater, there was the loudest cheer from all over the theater.
Not quite the same, but similar in message.

In the movie, most of South/Central America had gone communist, and with the Russians invading the north, the latin american communists invaded from the south. It made for a good story. None of us at the time ever dreamed that communism would be anywhere but in Cuba in our southern hemisphere.

Well...guess what. Hugo Chavez was given the ability to rule by decree today by his loyal "legislature." I read a little from Newsmax, and have also read some from Reuters/AP. This quote from the Newsmax article made me wonder if Chavez isn't heading toward full-fledged communism:

Hundreds of Chavez supporters wearing red - the color of Venezuela's ruling party - gathered in the plaza, waving signs reading "Socialism is democracy!" as lawmakers read out the proposed bill giving the president special powers for 18 months to transform 11 broadly defined areas, including the economy, energy and defense.

First of all, I don't think Hugo is going to give any of his power back after those 18 months. He's going to consolidate power, and make it virtually impossible to go back to anything but totalitarian rule. If this happens, the only difference between Hugo's Venezuela and the latin american leaders in the film (I think they were Mexican, as I recall) is that Hugo doesn't need the Russians to support him. He's got oil revenue, all of it, at HIS disposal, now with no one to dispute his decisions.

France, Germany and the rest of the world will need to wake up. Totalitarian regimes are once again threatening the US and democracy all over the world. With the US dealing with the war on terror, I'm wondering if Hugo will start a little "expansion program" in South America. Will we have a large socialist/communist oil-rich South America to deal with like in "Red Dawn?" Probably not to that degree, but I'm a little skeptical of Hugo Chavez. I think he's going to cause trouble in the not too distant future.

What do y'all think? Is this something to ignore, something to watch, or something to worry about?

As for me, I say, 2nd Amendment all the way, pal.

Saddam Hussein Is Dead

2006-12-29T21:14:00.000-06:00

While flipping back and forth between the Illinois basketball game and FoxNews, it is now confirmed that Saddam Hussein has been executed. An evil from the world has been removed. What worse evils would have occurred if he had not been removed from power...

And now back to the Illinois game, already in progress...

Xavier looks pretty good. We're going to have to do some better passing and shooting if we're going to win this one.

Christmas Is Not...

2006-12-23T20:49:00.000-06:00

only about presents, time off work, trees and decorations.

It's about celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ.

(although, I like the presents, time off work and decorations, too!)

And the music! If you've got Winamp, there are a lot of cool 'Christmas-only' stations to choose from.

Merry Christmas Everybody!

Funny Stuff

2006-12-20T15:04:00.000-06:00

This was an ad placed in the english version of a Tehran newspaper by a Danish group (supposedly the cartoonists,) as seen on Little Green Footballs.

This is great!

Check out the first letter of each line...

No Respect For Human Life

2006-12-12T10:36:00.000-06:00

Read this, you'll know what I mean.

The Proud Parrot Rises Again

2006-12-07T18:44:00.000-06:00

Here's an article by the infamous Ann Coulter which I thought was particularly good. If you would like to read this article from it's original site, you can go here. Ahmadinejad having free reign in the middle east (or in Hervey City for that matter) scares the crap out of me. I am deeply concerned, as Ms. Coulter points out, that our new Congress will cut and run leaving Iraq open for invasion from it's wacky neighbors.

Incoming Congress Prepares to Launch 'Operation Surrender'

by Ann Coulter
December 6, 2006

The "bipartisan" Iraq panel has recommended that Iran and Syria can help stabilize Iraq. You know, the way Germany and Russia helped stabilize Poland in '39.

Now that Democrats have won the House, they can concentrate on losing the war. Despite all the phony conservative Democrats who got elected as gun-totin' hawks, the Democrats will uniformly vote to dismantle every aspect of the war on terrorism. They've started a runaway train and can't stop it now.

The Democratic base is at a fever pitch with visions of storm troopers listening to their phone calls and ruthlessly torturing innocent accountants at Guantanamo, where the average inmate has his own lawyer, his own prayer rug and is wondering what to do about that extra weight -- known as the "Gitmo 20" -- he's put on since being captured. They are oddly copacetic about actual storm troopers' daily harassment of actual citizens at airport security checkpoints. Liberals have no problem with government oppression as long as it's mandatory and applied equally to all Americans.

In a broadcast on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, NBC's Matt Lauer tried to nail down the Manhattan portion of his audience by aggressively questioning President Bush about the possible use of "waterboarding" against terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Lauer said ominously, "It's been reported that with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he was what they call 'waterboarded.'"

At NBC, they apparently expected most Americans to react to this fact by exclaiming: They did WHAT to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? Wait -- are you sure about that? OK, that's it. I will never vote Republican again!

President Bush refused to discuss techniques used on terrorists, saying, "We don't want the enemy to adjust." But Americans "need to know," he said, "we're using techniques within the law to protect them."

While normal people would be happy if we were using cattle prods on the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Lauer was testy about the possible use of waterboarding against him. "I don't want to let this 'within the law' issue slip," he said.

"I mean, if, in fact, there was waterboarding used with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- and for the viewers, that's basically you strap someone to a board, and you make them feel as if they're going to drown. You put them under water. If that was legal and within the law, why couldn't you do it at Guantanamo? Why'd you have to go to a secret location around the world?"

In point of fact, we strap people to wooden boards and make them feel like they're drowning all the time in this country. Mostly at theme parks like Six Flags.

Bush again said he wasn't going to talk about techniques. But Lauer's relentless grilling was getting to him. If he'd been at Gitmo, at this point Bush would have demanded a lawyer, another copy of the Koran and a couple of chocolate eclairs.

Lauer continued to pester the president, demanding to know whether these "alternative techniques you use ... if they are used, are you at all concerned that at some point, even if you get results, there's a blurring the lines of -- between ourselves and the people we're trying to protect us against?"

Hey, I forget: When did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed use aggressive interrogation techniques against a known mass murderer in an effort to thwart another 9/11-style attack on thousands of innocent civilians?

There are few better examples of how out of touch liberals are. They go right to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and expect Americans to be outraged that he may have been waterboarded.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks and is believed to have played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Bali nightclub bombings, the filmed beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, a thwarted 2002 attack on a bank tower in Los Angeles, and Operation Bojinka, a plot to blow up 11 commercial airliners simultaneously. Oh, and he took home the coveted "world's craziest terrorist" prize at al Qaeda's end-of-season office party last year.

I think waterboarding should be a reward for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: OK, you've been good, Mohammed, we're only going to waterboard you today. Let's get you out of those cold electrodes and onto a nice, warm waterboard, OK?

Now that they're our new best friends, how about we turn to Iran and Syria for help on our interrogation techniques?

2006-11-23T13:00:00.000-06:00

Happy Thanksgiving

2006-11-23T10:11:00.000-06:00

We all should be very thankful.

Cut-and-Run Democrats Waste No Time

2006-11-12T21:56:00.000-06:00

I guess the DNC colors do run.

They run from responsibility, and are staged to be directly responsible for an Iraq controlled by Islamo-fascists.

My question is, when Al Qaeda (then based out of Iraq/Iran) attacks the U.S. again, how will the Dems spin this to pin the blame on George W. Bush?

Neville Chamberlain would be proud, DNC. Neville Chamberlain would be proud.

Now What Are You Going To Do With It?

2006-11-10T09:02:00.000-06:00

BUT DO THESE?!?!

In a stunning twist, the DNC has taken over Congress; by about the same slim margin the GOP had before the election, but a majority nonetheless.

As I heard from a friend yesterday, "The democrats taking over Congress is like a dog continuously chasing cars until finally one day he catches one. One would ask, 'Now what are you going to do with it?'"

I agree. I haven't seen much except Bush-bashing from the Dems for six years. The only ideas that seem to come from the Dems are what are put out by leftists like George Soros and MoveOn.org (you know them, the ones that claimed to own the Democratic Party?.

Mainstream conservative America will not like those kind of ideas. Will the DNC step up to the plate, shed itself of Soros et al, and become the "People's Party" once again? I have serious doubts.

Obama said something yesterday akin to my sentiments, that the Democrats must perform well now that they've won a majority. I agree with MCR, we need to start praying these people live up to their responsibility. If they don't, God Help Us All.

Just a simple message...

2006-11-06T21:28:00.000-06:00

__________________________________________________

******VOTE******
__________________________________________________

Today's Quiz

2006-10-25T23:31:00.000-05:00

I think this says it all:

I know it's incumbent upon our government and others who enjoy the blessings of liberty to help those moderates succeed, because otherwise we're looking at the potential of this kind of world, a world in which radical forms of Islam compete for power, a world in which moderate governments get toppled by people willing to murder the innocent, a world in which oil reserves are controlled by radicals in order to extract blackmail from the West, a world in which Iran has a nuclear weapon. And if that were to occur, people would look back at this day and age and say, what happened to those people in 2006? How come they couldn't see the threat to a future generation of people? Defeat will only come if the United States becomes isolationists and refuses to, one, protect ourselves, and two, help those who desire to live in a modern, peaceful world. Absolutely we're winning.

Without googling, who said this?

[ ] John F. Kerry

[ ] Rush Limbaugh

[ ] Hillary Clinton

[ ] George W. Bush

[ ] Barak Obama

Air Kim

2006-10-11T09:14:00.000-05:00

I saw this ad referenced on Little Green Footballs. It is hilarious!!

Regardless of your politics,you gotta laugh at Kim Jung Mentally-Il doing a slam dunk on the rim.

Alaskan Patriots

2006-10-10T07:46:00.000-05:00

The boycott of CITGO is not just for conservative talk-shows.

It seems that Alaskans are refusing Venezuelen FREE HEATING OIL in protest of their president being called "the devil" by Hugo Chavez.

I say we join our Alaskan brothers.

BOYCOTT CITGO and any other Venezuelan state-run companies.

There are plenty of gas stations around town; we do not need to support Hugo Chavez. 7-ELEVEN recently dropped CITGO (supposedly for other reasons) so I say we drop them, too.

The "Peace" in Lebanon

2006-09-27T17:36:00.000-05:00

Anyone want to make a prediction on when war breaks out in Lebanon again?

According to a story by AP, it seems that, again, the UN shows themselves emasculated, basically allowing Hezbollah to keep their weapons.

I predict within 1 year there will be more war, and it will be obvious that Hezbollah is the aggressor AGAIN.

9/11 Five Years Later

2006-09-10T15:35:00.000-05:00

It still makes me feel sick to my stomach. Not "ready to puke" sick, but more, "just got punched in the stomach" sick.

Regardless of age, vocation, education, political persuasion, religion, or what you had for supper last night, ALL AMERICANS SHOULD REMEMBER 9/11. We should remember the horror. We should remember the courage. We should remember the unity.

Never forget.

__________________________________________

Here's the FULL TEXT of President Bush's speech from 9/11/01. Read it again. We all need to read it again.

Good evening.

Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts.

The victims were in airplanes or in their offices -- secretaries, businessmen and women, military and federal workers. Moms and dads. Friends and neighbors.

Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror.

The pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing, have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness and a quiet, unyielding anger.

These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong. A great people has been moved to defend a great nation.

Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.

America was targeted for attack because we're the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. And no one will keep that light from shining.

Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature, and we responded with the best of America, with the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could.

Immediately following the first attack, I implemented our government's emergency response plans. Our military is powerful, and it's prepared. Our emergency teams are working in New York City and Washington, D.C., to help with local rescue efforts.

Our first priority is to get help to those who have been injured and to take every precaution to protect our citizens at home and around the world from further attacks.

The functions of our government continue without interruption. Federal agencies in Washington which had to be evacuated today are reopening for essential personnel tonight and will be open for business tomorrow.

Our financial institutions remain strong, and the American economy will be open for business as well.

The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I've directed the full resources for our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

I appreciate so very much the members of Congress who have joined me in strongly condemning these attacks. And on behalf of the American people, I thank the many world leaders who have called to offer their condolences and assistance.

America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world and we stand together to win the war against terrorism.

Tonight I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened. And I pray they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us spoken through the ages in Psalm 23: "Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me."

This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time.

None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.

Thank you. Good night and God bless America.

Plamegate...The Scandal That Wasn't

2006-09-06T18:53:00.000-05:00

CBS forged documents.

WMD that were found in Iraq.

Valerie Plame outed by a state department anti-war gossip, not Karl Rove.

Yeah, a culture of corruption.

Here's Ann Coulter's latest Human Events column:

Joe Wilson: The End of an Error

by Ann Coulter
Posted Sep 06, 2006

As National Public Radio described the story behind Joe Wilson's amusingly titled book, "The Politics of Truth" (available on the $1 table in fine bookstores everywhere), in May 2004:

"Last July Wilson wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times saying that this particular intelligence regarding Iraq was false. A week later, columnist Robert Novak revealed that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative."

This is like saying: "John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan; Reagan later died." Every word of that is true, but what it implies -- that Hinckley killed Reagan -- is false.

In the exact same way, the grand White House conspiracy promoted by Wilson and the mainstream media cites chronological events to prove causation.

The media's conspiracy theory is:

1. Wilson said Bush's famed "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address -- "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" -- were a lie.

2. Wilson's wife was then revealed to be an "undercover" spy at the CIA, exposing Wilson and his family to danger.

3. Therefore, she was "outed" by the White House as retaliation against Wilson for calling Bush a liar.

Point No. 1 of liberals' conspiracy theory has been proved false since Britain's Butler Commission reviewed its government's pre-war intelligence on Iraq and concluded that "the British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium."

It was again proved false when our own Senate Intelligence Committee also concluded, in July 2004, that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Niger.

So there went the White House's motive for muddying up Wilson: Government fact-finding commissions, here and in the United Kingdom, were muddying up Wilson on their own simply by finding facts.

Point No. 2, that Wilson's wife was an undercover agent, has been proved false even to the willfully blind since Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald announced the conclusion to his pointless investigation last year, saying that Plame's employment with the CIA was not undercover, but merely "classified."

Everything is "classified" at the CIA. They have no idea when 19 terrorists are about to hijack commercial aircraft and slaughter 3,000 Americans, but the CIA is very good at play-acting James Bond spy games.

How covert was Valerie Plame at the CIA? Her top-secret code name was "Valerie Plame."

All this should have been enough to end conspiracy theories of White House skullduggery. But the nation's newsrooms simply continued asserting that someone in the Bush White House had "outed" Valerie Plame, despite the fact that revealing her employment with the CIA was not illegal.

Thus, as recently as January of this year, a New York Times editorial said the issue of the "leak" about Wilson's wife, whom the Times called "a covert CIA operative whose identity was leaked" (two strikes already), concerned "whether the White House was using this information in an attempt to silence Mrs. Wilson's husband, a critic of the Iraq invasion."

Wilson was more precise about the White House "leaker," variously naming Karl Rove, Lewis Libby and Dick Cheney as the source. He even described "a meeting in the suite of offices that the vice president occupies, chaired by either the vice president or Mr. Libby," where, Wilson said, the decision was made to destroy him.

(If the secret plan hatched in the vice president's office was to send evil spirits to enter Wilson's body and make him act like a fool, the plan worked brilliantly.)

Now it turns out, even point No. 3 of liberals' conspiracy theory was false: The original "leaker" of Plame's name to columnist Bob Novak -- not a crime -- was not in the White House at all. It was Richard Armitage, a State Department official and opponent of the Iraq war.

The information that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA had nothing to do with harming Wilson. It did not come from the White House. It did not even come from someone who supported the war in Iraq.

The rest of the world found out Armitage was Novak's source last week, something Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew from the first week of his investigation. So what was Fitzgerald investigating?

Even people who think the president should not be subject to civil suits in office do not deny that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and lied about it in a civil suit brought by Paula Jones. However irritating it is to liberals that lying about sex under oath is a crime, there was a crime that Ken Starr was investigating.

What was Fitzgerald investigating? Not only was there no underlying crime, there was not even -- as the Times put it -- "an attempt to silence Mrs. Wilson's husband" (or an attempt "to respond to people calling you a liar in the New York Times," as normal people put it).

Fitzgerald's entire investigation was nothing but a perjury trap from beginning to end for anyone who misremembered anything about who told whom what about a low-level nobody at the CIA who happened to be married to a Walter Mitty fantasist.

I'm telling my age...

2006-08-27T15:37:00.000-05:00

Do Leftists Truly Call The Shots In The DNC?

2006-08-20T20:30:00.000-05:00

As a listener of talk radio, watcher of various news programs, and reader of newspapers, I keep hearing more and more about the infighting within the Democratic Party.

Specifically, the infighting seems to be centered around CONTROL of the party.

Here's an example: A Newsmax story that outlines what movie producer Michael Moore has to say to Democrats.

What do you all think? Do the anti-Bush, anti-war, extreme-left leaning members of the Democratic party truly control it, or is this just simply an attempt at a power grab? I really don't think that the local dems would indentify with the Soros-types, unless of course that it's anti-Bush. The gun-toting dems around here (I would hope) would be FOR national security and the war on terror, not against it.

That should stir the pot.

A True Hero

2006-08-11T17:11:00.000-05:00

Sent to me by a friend:

Here is a link to a video covering a meeting between Basketball Team USA and a "special" U.S. Army veteran of the Iraqi war.

Team USA will be the basketball team representing the United States in the 2008 Olympics and is led by West Point graduate Mike Krzyzewski (pronounced "Shi - shevs - ski") who is the current Men's Head Basketball Coach at Duke University, Durham, N.C.

I think you will enjoy this, whether you are a basketball fan or not.

Click Here

Interesting Reading

2006-07-17T09:26:00.000-05:00

Unleash Israel and Win Peace

Rush Limbaugh - December 7, 2001

The only way some form of quiet will ever exist in the Middle East is if Israel is given the latitude to totally defeat its declared enemies. Only then will the terrorist attacks on Israel's civilians come to an end. Perpetual negotiations, diplomatic half measures, or land for peace deals will not bring peace to the Middle East. For those who believe this is an irresponsible notion, I use history as my guide.

Today marks the 60th anniversary of Imperial Japan's unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, in which 2,500 Americans were killed. There are lessons to be learned from our victory in that war.

In his April 16, 1945 address before a Joint Session of Congress, President Harry Truman stated: "So there can be no possible misunderstanding, both Germany and Japan can be certain, beyond any shadow of doubt, that America will continue the fight for freedom until no vestige of resistance remains. We are deeply conscious of the fact that much hard fighting is still ahead of us. Having to pay such a heavy price to make complete victory certain, America will never become a party to any plan for partial victory. To settle for merely another temporary respite would surely jeopardize the future security of the world. Our demand has been, and it remains, unconditional surrender."

On August 6, 1945, just 16-hours after the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, Truman issued a statement which said, in part: "The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold. … We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake: we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war."

Truman understood that there could be no peace without total victory. This lesson has not been lost on President George Bush. On September 20, 2001, Bush also addressed a Joint Session of Congress and announced America's policy - "the Bush Doctrine" - in responding to the atrocities of September 11. He stated: " … Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

Bush stated further: " … We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Since September 11, Bush has refused all offers by the Taliban regime to negotiate any settlement of the war - including the status of Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants in the al Qaeda terrorist network - short of outright surrender. As Bush once eloquently put it: bin Laden is "wanted, dead or alive." And for over two months, the U.S. has been systematically bombing the Taliban and al Qaeda day and night. Already, the Bush administration is planning the next phase of the war, which may involve U.S. military action in Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere.

So, in the two most recent examples of the U.S. being attacked on its own territory, America's predicate for peace has been the total annihilation of its enemies. And there is every reason to expect Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to have learned the same lesson.

Since 1948, Israel has been forced to fight 4 wars with the hostile nations surrounding her. Despite defeating her enemies on the battlefield, the international community has never permitted Israel to completely destroy any of these regimes - none of which are democracies. They've always been left largely in tact, free to start or support another war, including the current terrorist war now being waged against Israel's citizens. And between wars, Israel's enemies have convinced the world, including the U.S., that her borders and security are not only legitimate subjects of constant negotiations, but that Israel's refusal to accept most, if not all, of her enemies' demands is an obstacle to peace.

This week Hamas and other terrorist groups - which, like certain of the countries that surround Israel, seek the destruction of Israel, not co- existence or even the establishment of a Palestinian state - intensified their war against the Jewish state by unleashing 5 fanatic suicide bombers against innocent civilians, mostly children. The result: hundreds of casualties, including 26 dead. In the past 14 months, more than 230 Israelis have been killed - the proportional equivalent to the U.S. losing some 11,000 people.

In addition to Hamas, which receives support from Palestinian expatriates, wealthy Saudi Arabians, and Iran, Israel is under attack from, among others, Hizballah, which is supported by Syria and Iran, and Islamic Jihad, which is backed by Iran, Sudan and militant Islamic groups.

On December 4, in an address to his nation, Sharon stated: " … A war has been forced upon us. A war of terror. A war that claims innocent victims daily. A war of terror being conducted systematically, in an organized fashion, and with methodical direction. … We will pursue those responsible, the perpetrators of terrorism and the supporters. We will pursue them until we catch them, and they will pay a price."

Ironically, the major obstacle to Sharon implementing the Bush Doctrine has been U.S. Middle East policy. When attacked by terrorists, Israel has been urged to show "restraint," to make more negotiated concessions and even accept the creation of a hostile Palestinian state on its border. This week's carnage appears to have caused some positive change in America's rhetoric and position. The president has now pointed the finger of responsibility directly at Yassar Arafat for ending the terrorism committed by his people. But accomplishing peace requires more - much more.

Truman was right to insist that peace would only be realized after the "obliteration" of the Japanese war machine, just as Bush is right about "defeating" the Taliban, al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. It is, therefore, necessary that in the pursuit of real and lasting peace, Israel also be free to destroy its enemies - meaning the terrorists and, yes, their sponsors, who are at war with her, and that she do so before they obtain devastating weapons of mass destruction.

Happy 4th of July!

2006-07-04T15:05:00.000-05:00

Happy Independence Day, everyone! Here's a little story to go with your hotdogs, baseball games, and fireworks tonight:

Due to the popularity of the Survivor shows, Texas is planning to do its own, entitled "Survivor - Texas Style." The contestants will start in Dallas, travel to Waco, Austin, San Antonio, over to Houston and down to Brownsville. They will then proceed up to Del Rio, on to El Paso, then to Midland, Odessa, Lubbock and Amarillo. From there, they'll proceed to Abilene, Ft. Worth and finally back to Dallas.

Each will be driving a pink Volvo with a bumper sticker that reads, "I'm gay, I'm a vegetarian, I voted for Al Gore, George Strait Sucks, Hillary in 2008, and I'm here to confiscate your guns!" The first one to make it back to Dallas alive wins.

Bin Laden Wants Zarqawi's Body Released

2006-06-30T13:15:00.000-05:00

In a story from al AP, Osama Yo-Mama Bin Laden wants Zarqawi's body released so he can be buried in his native Jordan.

Jordan called him a "stain" they didn't want buried in their country.

Okay, Osama, you want his body released? COME PICK IT UP.

2006-06-28T17:33:00.000-05:00

Got this link in my email today for an advertisement for a Republican candidate for congress in North Carolina.

It sums up the culture war in one convenient video.

Here's the LINK. Enjoy!

"Bush Lied...There Were Never Any WMDs in Iraq!"

2006-06-22T19:31:00.000-05:00

YES THERE ARE!

How To Die In Three Easy Steps

2006-06-20T10:24:00.000-05:00

Step 1: Join al Qaeda
Step 2: Become al Qaeda Leader
Step 3: Advertise Your Atrocities

According to sources in the Middle East, the New Leader of al Qaeda in Iraq was responsible for personally slitting the throats of the two missing US Servicemen in Iraq.

From what I've seen, this sort of behavior begs a large 500-pound bomb or two to drop in on your safe house. This guy's days are numbered.

Word To The Wise: Do NOT Ever Do This

2006-06-13T11:55:00.000-05:00

Help Wanted

2006-06-12T21:02:00.000-05:00

In the Al-Qaida Times:

Supervisory Position: Al Qaida-Iraq

Former leader recently inherited 72 virgins and is not likely to be back. Duties include beheading, organizing (not completing) suicide bombings, and being able to shoot an AK-47 well for video cameras. Pay commensurate with experience; applicant must be Islamo-fascist, hate George W. Bush, and be willing to do whatever it takes to undermine the US-led "War On Terror." [Please, no more applicants from the State of Massachusetts. You may join our group if you wish, or continue to do our work in the US where you are at.]

Apply at OFFICIAL WEBSITE

The "M" Word

2006-06-10T17:53:00.000-05:00

I saw this on American Thinker and thought it was worthy to parrot here.

The liberal Canadian (anti-American) Press can't describe the 17 Muslim Al-Qaeda type terrorists as Muslim. They have a whole bunch of other synonyms, but never Muslim.

I would prefer Islam0-fascist myself.

Proud Parrot

______________________________________

from American Thinker:

The 17 Muslim terrorists determined to blow up as many Canadians as possible are covered by an anti-war American press that refuses to call them “Muslim” terrorists. It has been painful to watch the linguistic contortions with which the mainstream media have carefully avoided using the “M” word – “Muslim” to attach to the suspects. And nowhere has this cynical disregard for the truth been more apparent then in the front page article in the New York Times (6/4) which painstakingly, almost hilariously avoided the “M” word in numerous descriptions.

The Times referred to them all these ways, but never as “Muslims”:

“Ontario residents”

“Canadian residents”

“the group”

“mainly of South Asian descent”

“the men”

“the Canadian subjects”

“The suspects”

“good people”

“adherents of a violent ideology inspired by Al Qaeda”

“These individuals”

“None of them had any known affiliation with Al Qaeda.”“

“Some are students, some are employed, some are unemployed.”

Everything but what they really and most relevantly are: Muslims.

The painful reality most of the Press refuses to admit is that the President has been right all along— we are in a global war against Muslim extremists who want to kill anyone who isn’t Muslim. And no amount of verbal gymnastics to the contrary is going to change that simple fact.

Chris Ward 6 9 06

6-6-6

2006-06-06T17:06:00.000-05:00

I have wondered this, and I am not sure how I would get this information: how many baby boys born TODAY will be named Damien?

Okay, jokes aside, today is June 6th.

What happened 62 years ago today? "D-Day," otherwise known as the Normandy invasion, was the beginning of the liberation of Europe by Allied forces on the beaches of France. (To read about this go to this Matthew Jackson-approved Wikipedia link.)

Please note that the Allied deaths for the Normandy Invasion (6/6/44 through 8/25/44) were 53,700 (total dead, wounded, and missing about 225,700) while Nazi deaths/wounded/missing were estimated to be about 400,000.

Now, I ask you, in this war against an evil fascist regime bent on exterminating opposition and forcing their twisted philosophy on the world, was this invasion justified? I mean, Hitler wasn't hurting us. He declared war on us, yes, but only because we declared war on Japan because of 12/7/41 (which FDR supposedly coaxed Japan into doing, according to some sources. I don't believe it.)

Why get into a war in Europe? Why? Our "friends" were there, but what had Hitler done to us personally? Okay, okay, the U-boats did sink some American transport ships carrying supplies to Europe, but hey, we knew the risks going in.

Why were there no huge anti-war protests? Why wasn't there a rolling list of war-dead printed in the paper day by day? Why?

How many have given their lives in the war on terror to date? 2500 or so?

2500 in three years versus 225,700 in 10 weeks.

Who bombed civilians in WWII? (Both sides, but I believe the Germans started it first.) Who kills civilians in our present war? Definitely the terrorists: beheadings, executions, mass kidnappings/hostage taking etc. The alleged Hadifa situation aside, who goes out of their way to kill civilians and innocents in this conflict? NOT the Allies, that is obvious.

So, oh elite lefties, which side do the Allies of today resemble? THE ALLIES OF NORMANDY, that's who. You can bash the war all you want, and put up this exception or that isolated incident to "prove" how evil America is, but the end result is that we are the good guys.

The culture of Europe and the culture of the Middle East are vastly different, and the way this present war will settle out, the path that peace will take, and the time needed in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., will be different than WWII. BTW...we still have bases in Germany and Japan! Do you think we will have bases in the Middle East and/or Iraq specifically? You bet! Makes perfect sense.

6-6-6 should hopefully be remembered for the sacrifice that some 53,700 Allied men made for the preservation of peace and the eradication of Nazi terror. I would hope that all Americans would support and remember our troops today for the heroic work they do.

Oh..My..God..Again

2006-05-30T20:48:00.000-05:00

Check this out.

These people are serious.

This is what happens when liberalism gets going. One concession after another, and what is "right" gets eroded away until finally, out-and-out depravity is offered as a political party.

This is one of the reasons I'm a conservative.

Thanks

2006-05-29T11:32:00.000-05:00

This Guy Is Wack-O!

2006-05-28T08:34:00.000-05:00

You remember the Right (I mean left) Honorable Gentleman George Galloway? Implicated as receiving money in the Oil for Food Scandal? He's back in the news.

I was reading the Offbeat News on USAToday's site, and looky what I found:

Report: British legislator says killing Blair would be morally justifiable

In the story there's a picture of Galloway hugging Castro!

The left wing of the left wing of the left wing. Regardless of one's stance in politics, one country's politician calling for the assassination of a competitor is insane. Galloway should be charged with treason!

Can you imagine what would happen if Hillary said that the killing of George W. Bush would be morally justifiable? Matt Jackson would cheer, but the rest of the country would demand her resignation (and would make sure she never got into office again.)

To quote Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!"

Culture of Corruption Crowd's Crack Catastrophic

2006-05-24T19:39:00.000-05:00

Illinois' own Denny Hastert was evidently the target of another left-wing mud-slinging via ABC News. Unfortunately for the libs, the Justice Department has flat out said the story was wrong and that Representative Hastert is not under any investigation.

Swing and a miss, strike three!

Did Tom DeLay have $90,000 in his refridgerator? No, I don't think so.

Hmmmmmm.

Democrats Don't Want Voters To Show ID

2006-05-24T13:01:00.000-05:00

On the DNC website, HEEEYaaaah Dean says that laws asking voters to show I.D. are "too restrictive."

I don't know about you, but I don't want just any Tomas, Ricardo, or Habib using my name to vote for some leftist wacko. The A.N.S.W.E.R. - backed "protests" are a vote-pandering move by the far far far far far left to get more people on their side, and now Dean, who follows after some of these idiots, is attempting to clear the way for illegals to vote. (or so it seems.)

No, HEEEYaaaah, you don't have to stand on your head and gargle peanut-butter, nor do you have to recite the past 30 World Series winners in order to prove you can vote. You should show some I.D. though, for cryin' out loud!

What a GooBeR!

Proud Parrot

Today's "Wizard of Id" - How true how true

2006-05-24T12:38:00.000-05:00

Introductions

2006-05-20T19:12:00.000-05:00

Proud Parrot here.

Proudly parrotting any stories worth repeating to Central Illinois.

The truth must be told.

Proud Parrot

Oh..My..GOD..

2006-05-19T22:57:00.000-05:00

Didn't someone in our local blogs say something recently about the similarity between good old Mahmoud Dude in Iran and Uncle Adolf?

It would appear to be closer to the truth than we could have ever imagined!

Iran has passed a law saying that if you are a Jew, Christian, or whatever, you must wear a badge to identify yourself if you are a NON-MUSLIM.

Check this out. Scary scary scary.

Proud Parrot

Impeach Him!!

2006-05-19T22:40:00.000-05:00

Matt Jackson wants to impeach George W. Bush because of the NSA wiretaps.

Ok, if that's true, then we must also impeach Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

Why? Because he sponsored the legislation that got NSA wiretaps started in the first place!!

See STORY.

Proud Parrot

God Sends Ted Kennedy A Message

2006-05-14T14:42:00.000-05:00

I just read the story about Ted Kennedy's plane getting hit by lightning.

Perhaps God is trying to tell Teddy something?

I can see it now: Ted reclines back with a scotch in his hand, and says, "God, give me a sign. Am I doing a good job?"

Then:

A California Lawyer's Perspective on Iraq War

2006-05-04T21:14:00.000-05:00

The following is an email I received from a friend. I'm not sure who the author is other than what is stated below.

THIS IS WORTH THE READ

A lot of detail escapes most people regarding the war in Iraq. I
hope you will read down all the way and respond to the suggestion that this be passed on to young people in high school and college who more than likely have no idea of the long struggle for freedom and the importance of staying the course and succeeding in Iraq.

Most of us know some of these facts and figures, but few of us know most or all. This guy has put them together in an easily-understandable way. Whether you think the current Iraq war is a good or bad thing, read this with a seriously open mind and then make up your mind and make your choices. It is a bit long, but you can read it in five minutes or less. Please do and if appropriate, pass this on to others you love, respect and care for. As you will see, we have a lot riding on an educated population.

Here is an article from a Raymond S. Kraft, a California lawyer, that seems to present the "Big Picture"" objectively, and without spin. Please read it.

A California Lawyer's Perspective on Iraq War.

Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of
Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat, and had sunk more than four hundred British ships in their convoys between England and America for food and war materials.

Bushido Japan had overrun most of Asia, beginning in 1928, killing millions of civilians throughout China, and impressing millions more as slave labor.

The US was in an isolationist, pacifist, mood, and most Americans and Congress wanted nothing to do with the European war, or the Asian war.

Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan, and the following day on Germany, which had not attacked us. It was a dicey thing. We had few allies.

France was not an ally, the Vichy government of France aligned with its German occupiers. Germany was not an ally, it was an enemy, and Hitler intended to set up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe. Japan was not an ally; it was intent on owning and controlling all of Asia. Japan and Germany had long-term ideas of invading Canada and Mexico, and then the United States over the north and south borders, after they had settled control of Asia and Europe.

America's allies then were England, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, Australia, and Russia, and that was about it. There were no other countries of any size or military significance with the will and ability to contribute much or anything to the effort to defeat Hitler's Germany and Japan, and prevent the global dominance of Nazism. And we had to send millions of tons of arms, munitions, and war supplies to Russia, England, and the Canadians, Aussies, Irish, and Scots, because none of them could produce all they needed for themselves.

All of Europe, from Norway to Italy, except Russia in the east, was already under the Nazi heel.

America was not prepared for war. America had stood down most of its military after WWI and throughout the depression, at the outbreak of WWII there were army units training with broomsticks over their shoulders because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have tanks. And a big chunk of our navy had just been sunk and damaged at Pearl Harbor.

Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England that was the property of Belgium and was given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler - actually, Belgium surrendered one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day anyway just to prove they could. Britain had been holding out for two years already in the face of staggering shipping loses and the near-decimation of its air force in the Battle of Brita in, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later and turning his attention to Russia, at a time when England was on the verge of collapse in the late summer of 1940.

Russia saved America's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany.

Russia lost something like 24 million people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow, 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a million soldiers. More than a million.

Had Russia surrendered, then, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire campaign against the Brits, then America, and the Nazis would have won that war.

Had Hitler not made that mistake and invaded England in 1940 or 1941, instead, there would have been no England for the US and the Brits to use as a staging ground to prepare an assault on Nazi Europe, England would not have been able to run its North African campaign to help take a little pressure off Russia while America geared up for battle, and today Europe would very probably be run by the Nazis, the Third Reich, and, isolated and without any allies (not even the Brits), the US would very probably have had to cede Asia to the Japanese, who were basically Nazis by another name then, and the world we live in today would be very different and much worse. I say this to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things. And we are at another one.

There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless they are prevented from doing so.

France, Germany, and Russia, have been selling them weapons technology at least as recently as 2002, as have North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan, paid for with billions of dollars Saddam Hussein skimmed from the "Oil For Food" program administered by the UN with the complicity of Kofi Annan and his son.

The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs - they believe that Islam, a radically conservative (definitely not liberal!) form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world, and that all who do not bow to Allah should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated. They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel, and purge the world of Jews. This is what they say.

There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East - for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas. Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation today, but it is not yet known which will win - the Inquisition, or the Reformation.

If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, and the OPEC oil, and the US, European, and Asian economies, the techno-industrial economies, will be at the mercy of OPEC - not an OPEC dominated by the well-educated and rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis.

You want gas in your car? You want heating oil next winter? You want jobs? You want the dollar to be worth anything? You better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins.

If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, and live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away, and a moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge.

We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i.e., the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda, the Islamic terrorist movements. We have to do it somewhere. We cannot do it nowhere. And we cannot do it everywhere at once. We have created a focal point for the battle now at the time and place of our choosing, in Iraq.

Not in New York, not in London, or Paris, or Berlin, but in Iraq, where we did and are doing two very important things.

(1) We deposed Saddam Hussein. Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11 or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades. Saddam is a terrorist.

Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, who is responsible for the deaths of probably more than a million Iraqis and two million Iranians.

(2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq. We have focused the battle. We are killing bad guys there and the ones we get there we won’t have to get here, or anywhere else. We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq, which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed.

The Euros could have done this, but they didn't, and they won't. We now know that rather than opposing the rise of the Jihad, the French, Germans, and Russians were selling them arms - we have found more than a million tons of weapons and munitions in Iraq. If Iraq was not a threat to anyone, why did Saddam need a million tons of weapons?

And Iraq was paying for French, German, and Russian arms with money skimmed from the UN Oil For Food Program (supervised by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and his son) that was supposed to pay for food, medicine, and education, for Iraqi children.

World War II, the war with the German and Japanese Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928. It did not begin with Pearl Harbor. It began with the Japanese invasion of China. It was a war for fourteen years before America joined it. It officially ended in 1945 - a 17 year war - and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own again. A 27 year war.

World War II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP - adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars, WWII cost America more than 400,000 killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action.

[The Iraq war has, so far, cost the US about $160 billion, which is roughly what 9/11 cost New York. It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 1/2 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad snuffed on 9/11.] But the cost of not fighting and winning WWII would have been unimaginably greater - a world now dominated by German and Japanese Nazism.

Americans have a short attention span, now, conditioned I suppose by 60 minute TV shows and 2-hour movies in which everything comes out okay. The real world is not like that. It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly. Always has been, and probably always will be.

If we do this thing in Iraq successfully, it is probable that the Reformation will ultimately prevail. Many Muslims in the Middle East hope it will. We will be there to support it. It has begun in some countries, Libya, for instance. And Dubai. And Saudi Arabia. If we fail, the Inquisition will probably prevail, and terrorism from Islam will be with us for all the foreseeable future, because the Inquisition, or Jihad, believes they are called by Allah to kill all the Infidels, and that death in Jihad is glorious.

The bottom line here is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is. It will not go away on its own. It will not go away if we ignore it.

If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq, then we have an "England" in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East. The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates. The Iraq war is merely another battle in this ancient and never-ending war. And now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons. Unless we prevent them. Or somebody does.

The Iraq war is expensive, and uncertain, yes. But the consequences of not fighting it and winning it will be horrifically greater. We have four options –

1. We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons.

2. We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is).

3. We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East, now, in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America.

4. Or we can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and maybe most of the rest of Europe. It will be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier then.

Yes, the Jihadis say that they look forward to an Islamic America. If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today.

We can be defeatist peace-activists as anti-war types seem to be, and concede, surrender, to the Jihad, or we can do whatever it takes to win this war against them.

The history of the world is the history of civilizational clashes, cultural clashes. All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win.

Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win. The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them.

In the 20th century, it was Western democracy vs. communism, and before that Western democracy vs. Nazism, and before that Western democracy vs. German Imperialism. Western democracy won, three times, but it wasn't cheap, fun, nice, easy, or quick. Indeed, the wars against German Imperialism (WWI), Nazi Imperialism (WWII), and communist imperialism (the 40-year Cold War that included the Vietnam Battle, commonly called the Vietnam War, but itself a major battle in a larger war) covered almost the entire century.

The first major war of the 21st Century is the war between Western Judeo/Christian Civilization and Wahhabi Islam. It may last a few more years, or most of this century. It will last until the Wahhabi branch of Islam fades away, or gives up its ambitions for regional and global dominance and Jihad, or until Western Civilization gives in to the Jihad.

Senator John Kerry, in the debates and almost daily, makes 3 scary claims:

1. We went to Iraq without enough troops.

We went with the troops the US military wanted. We went with the troop levels General Tommy Franks asked for. We deposed Saddam in 30 days with light casualties, much lighter than we expected.

The real problem in Iraq is that we are trying to be nice - we are trying to fight minority of the population that is Jihadi, and trying to avoid killing the large majority that is not. We could flatten Fallujah in minutes with a flight of B52s, or seconds with one nuclear cruise missile - but we don't. We're trying to do brain surgery, not amputate the patient's head. The Jihadis amputate heads.

2. We went to Iraq with too little planning.

This is a specious argument. It supposes that if we had just had "the right plan" the war would have been easy, cheap, quick, and clean. That is not an option. It is a guerrilla war against a determined enemy, and no such war ever has been or ever will be easy, cheap, quick, and clean. This is not TV.

3. We proved ourselves incapable of governing and providing security.

This too is a specious argument. It was never our intention to govern and provide security. It was our intention from the beginning to do just enough to enable the Iraqis to develop a representative government and their own military and police forces to provide their own security, and that is happening. The US and the Brits and other countries there have trained over 100,000 Iraqi police and military, now, and will have trained more than 200,000 by the end of next year. We are in the process of transitioning operational control for security back to Iraq.

It will take time. It will not go with no hitches. This is not TV. Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind.

The Cold war lasted from about 1947 at least until t he Berlin Wall came down in 1989. Forty-two years. Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany.

World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan. World War II resulted in the death of more than 50 million people, maybe more than 100 million people, depending on which estimates you accept.

The US has taken a little more than 2,000 KIA in Iraq. The US took more than 4,000 Killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism. In WWII the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week for four years. Most of the individual battles of WWII lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far.

But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms, or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law).

I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this. They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis. In America, absolutely, but nowhere else.

300,000 Iraqi bodies in mass graves in Iraq are not our problem. The
US population is about twelve times that of Iraq, so let's multiply 300,000 by twelve. What would you think if there were 3,600,000 American bodies in mass graves in America because of George Bush? Would you hope for another country to help liberate America?

"Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate where it's safe, in
America. Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, North Korea, in the places in the world that really need peace activism the most?

The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc., but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc. Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy.

If the Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. Everywhere the
Jihad wins, it is the death of Liberalism. And American Liberals just don't get it.

Raymond S. Kraft is a writer and lawyer living in Northern California. Please consider passing along copies of this to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful TODAY - - history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too). By being denied the facts and truth of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today. They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven.

Anyone else see a similarity here?

2006-05-02T17:27:00.000-05:00

I just read the Reuter's article title:

Iran Threatens Israel if U.S. Attacks.

Doesn't this sound eerily familiar to say, pre-2003 and coming from one Saddam Hussein?

And the threats of "pain, we'll hurt you" etc?

Some say this is all over sibling rivalry: Isaac and Ishmael.

I have a question for everyone who happens to read this:

Why does the US support Israel? I've recently spoken with a native of Palestine and got his perspective, and I've talked with other muslims who have a similar view as him. I've heard what I've always been taught with regard why we support Israel, but I was wondering what y'all think.

(Is it possible to Bush-bash on this topic? It should be interesting to see.)

She Was Just Doing A Job Americans Wouldn't Do...

2006-04-29T10:39:00.000-05:00

RIGHT?!?!

In today's paper, Herald & Review staff writer Ron Ingram has a nice story about ILLEGAL immigrants (no, they were not undocumented, or unverified guest workers...they WERE ILLEGAL as in NOT OBEYING THE LAWS OF THE LAND with regard to how they came here.)

This nice ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT had been in the US only 14 days before she was involved in crime. Shoplifting merchandise from various stores so someone else could re-sell it somewhere else. This had nothing to do with picking lettuce, or caring for small children, or cooking dinner for a local restaurant. THIS WAS CRIME. Now, this ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT was doubly ILLEGAL.

Thankfully, the Macon County Circuit Court did the right thing: they DEPORTED HER. She had the choice to stay here and be in jail for two years, or go back to Mexico. She chose deportation.

The problem I see is how the Macon County Circuit Court is going to verify she left, and verify that she hasn't come back in to this country by our OPEN BORDER to the south?
_________________________________________________

BOTTOM LINE: SOME illegals do jobs for piddly wages in the US because it's better than nothing (what they have in their own country.) SOME illegals do CRIMINAL JOBS because it's better than nothing. SOME illegals do TERRORIST jobs, because they think by blowing up people it will get them into heaven with varying numbers of virgins. SOME illegals do SPYING OR ESPIONAGE jobs because their country wants more information on the United States Government, for what ever reason.

THE BORDER NEEDS TO BE CLOSED. THOSE WHO WISH TO WORK LEGALLY CAN ENTER THROUGH LEGAL MEANS, AND THOSE WHO WISH TO DO ILLEGAL/TERRORIST/ESPONIAGE/SPYING, ETC., WILL HAVE TO TRY A LOT HARDER TO GET IN.

Disclaimer: No GOP memos, talking points, Rush Limbaugh website links, or money from big oil were used in the making of this post. Hopefully, it might even be worthy enough *GASP* for blogdecatur!...we'll see.

A NEW HOLIDAY!

2006-04-28T11:43:00.000-05:00

May 1st is now "CONSERVATIVE SHOPPING DAY!" Read the full article from Human Events Online.

Hey, this is great: I just got paid! Woo Hoo!

True Patriotism From 30 Years Ago Today

2006-04-25T21:47:00.000-05:00

I was in grade-school at the time, and to be honest, I do not remember this at all. I vaguely remember Jose Cardenal playing left field for the Cubs in the late '70s, but that's about it.

On April 25, 1976 in Dodger's Stadium, Chicago Cub center fielder (and now LA Dodgers announcer) Rick Monday "rescued" an American Flag that had been doused with lighter fluid and was going to be set on fire by some "protestors." (I have no idea what they were protesting.)

The above picture was taken by a photographer at the game. See STORY.

Veteran Dodger announcer Vin Scully was on the air when this happened. Go to the website and listen to Scully call the action.

The picture of the Dodger scoreboard that said, "Rick Monday....You Made A Great Play" was outstanding. (See the "photo gallery.)

LR's Thought For The Day: There are multiple ways of protest that Americans can utilize. Burning our flag should not be one of them. Think of something more practical rather than inflammatory (and risky....Tommy Lasorda might threaten to punch you out.)

P.S. Cubs Win!

Another Look At Illegal Immigration

2006-04-20T09:23:00.000-05:00

Another email from a friend...this guy is an author and news colomnist. Check it out!

David M. Bresnahan
April 1, 2006
NewsWithViews.com

Dear President Bush:

I'm about to plan a little trip with my family and extended family, and I would like to ask you to assist me. I'm going to walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and I need to make a few arrangements. I know you can help with this.

I plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here.
So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Vicente Fox, that I'm on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:

1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not. 3. All government forms need to be printed in English.
4. I want my kids to be taught by English-speaking teachers.
5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my kids to see the American flag flying on the top of the flag pole at their school with the Mexican flag flying lower down.
7. Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do not plan to have any car insurance, and I won't make any effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from Pres. Fox to leave me alone, please be sure that all police officers speak English. 11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, and donâ€™t enforce any labor laws or tax laws.
13. Please tell all the people in the country to be extremely nice and never say a critical word about me, or about the strain I might place on the economy.

I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all the people who come to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that Pres. Fox won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.

However, if he gives you any trouble, just invite him to go quail hunting with your V.P.

Thank you so much for your kind help.

Sincerely,

David M. Bresnahan

George Ryan: Definitely Not Nolan Ryan

2006-04-18T17:38:00.000-05:00

George Ryan has been found guilty on all counts in his recent bribery, etc., trial. I had thought he was guilty from the beginning, but in the courts, anything can happen. Fortunately, justice was served, and the courts didn't throw us a knuckle ball.

As a downstate conservative (isn't that redundant?), I am hoping that more people like Bill Mitchell step up and make a name for themselves in statewide politics. We need conservative politicians who will support conservative values while exemplifying those values in their actions at the same time.

I'm sure our liberal counterparts will pounce all over this story as another "COC" story, but as VP has put on his website, the definite of "COC" is defined by Chicago politics.

What I find curious is that none of our liberal blogger(s) have made any statements concerning Rod and his scandalous activities. Should he be brought up on charges, too? I wouldn't mind my house being powerwashed, too, but then again, I haven't contributed anything to his campaign. I guess I'm out of luck with Blago.

An Email from a friend...

2006-04-05T12:01:00.000-05:00

Take this for what it's worth. I thought it was interesting...

The TAX System Explained In Simple Terms

Sometimes politicians, journalists and others exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!" and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean?

Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help. Please read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free.

But what about the other six men - the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.

But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.

"We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.

But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have
enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

Can Someone Explain This To Me?

2006-03-31T11:47:00.000-06:00

I've seen it now for the 137th time, and it still doesn't make sense.

Another anti-war protester who makes the "No War For Oil" claim.

Can anyone explain the logic behind the claim that the war on terror is somehow related to oil?

I don't see a connection. Saddam's oil reserves are a minimal contribution to what we have used each year (and I would hope that all oil dependence continues to decline.)

Anyone with some proof? Bushbashing opinion will no-doubtedly appear, but I would like to see some concrete proof that the US gov't or any other gov't started this war simply for oil.

(Your opinion as to what you think some of these people may be thinking would also be welcome.)

GREAT COMMERCIAL!!!

2006-03-28T10:51:00.000-06:00

This was brought to my attention this morning.

I haven't seen it on TV, yet.

I don't drink beer, but I might consider buying Anheuser-Busch products after seeing this COMMERCIAL.

Anheuser-Busch also has another WEBSITE you might want to check out.

(Just remember, Cubs' baseball is brought to you by Budweiser. For all you do, this Bud's for you!)

Russia Sold Us Out for Oil

2006-03-24T21:12:00.000-06:00

I just read the article from Reuters outlining the Russians passing intelligence on to Saddam days before the coalition forces invaded in 2003.

The article goes on to say that oil from Saddam was the reason why.

Evidently the document goes on to say that Saddam originally didn't believe there would be an invasion, being "convinced the United States would not launch a ground invasion that would seriously threaten his rule, believing the Americans too squeamish about casualties, and that an internal coup was a bigger threat."

Saddam was half-right. The coup never happened.

What gets me is the left thinks W is in this war for the oil! Uh...No. France, Germany and Russia were trying to stop it for oil.

Sheesh.

I wonder if Russia was one of the "allies we should bring to our side" that John Kerry kept speaking of.

They all had a knife in our back, John.

AWK II

2006-03-21T13:17:00.000-06:00

American Deaths over the Last Three Years Put in Perspective:

• Auto Accidents: 120,000
• Falling Down: 45,000
• Poisoning: 27,000
• Drowning: 12,000
• War in Iraq: 2,300

(c) 2006 EIB Network

AWK!!!!!!!

2006-03-20T08:47:00.000-06:00

Yes, I am parrotting, and I am damn proud of it.

I have heard this read on different talk shows, and I finally found a print copy. This letter is worth reading!

So, to all you libs out there who believe the drive-by media when they say "we're losing the war, it's hopeless, we should get out now, cutting and running sounds like a good idea, where's the white flag?", then I would have you read the following open letter sent to Congressman John Murtha by an active-duty army officer:

Dear Congressman Murtha,

Although it is difficult to keep up with politics from over here, your comments on immediate withdrawal have been noted by all of us. I cannot tell you the overall sense of discouragement, sense of betrayal and the feeling that few appreciate our efforts your comments have created. 1BCT has been frequently deployed in support of the War on Terrorism and we believe it is the correct fight and we believe we are winning. We have seen a significant improvement on the ground since we began combat operations in Baghdad three months ago.

I started in the US Army in 1968 and retired in 1992, with most of my time in Special Forces or Airborne Infantry units. I came out of retirement to come to Iraq with the 1BCT and I enjoy service with these outstanding officers and men. They are better than we were and they carry the terrific burden of frequent deployments and a high operational-tempo. There are few complains as they feel the mission is extremely important to the nation's security, their families and to most Iraqis. They are dedicated to winning and I believe they are winning. It is obvious to this 'old paratrooper' that your comments have hurt their morale and will eventually impact negatively on their efforts here.

"It is not enough to fight. It is the spirit which we bring to the fight that decides the issue. It is morale that wins the victory."

"Morale is a state of mind. It is steadfastness, and courage, and hope. It is confidence and zeal and loyalty. It is élan, esprit de corps, determination."

"It is staying power, the spirit which endures in the end…the will to win."

"With it all things are possible; without it everything else, planning, preparation, and production, count for naught."
--General George C. Marshall

I sincerely believe General Marshall as deeply as I believe your statements have undermined the morale of these young soldiers. I have watched intently as your political party has attempted to use this war for political advantage and find it to be repugnant in the extreme. That your name is now inextricably linked to Senators Kennedy, Biden and Durbin-politicians who we believe do not support us-must be of great concern to your constituents.

How can you ask us to leave? Must we forget all the sacrifices, the deaths, lost limbs, lost marriages and the daily struggle to win? What do I say to my 22 year old nephew, a Staff Sergeant with the 1/75th Rangers seriously wounded in Mosul last month or his brother, a Sergeant in Germany just back from Afghanistan or my niece in ROTC, or my brother-in-law, a Lieutenant Colonel getting ready for his second deployment? Would you have me tell them that all we have done thus far is for naught? It means nothing? How about, "Don't worry; it happened to us coming out of Vietnam." Don't you remember?

Make no mistake, we are winning here. It ain't easy and it may be difficult for you to see from your elevated position. But day in and day out, 24/7 we are pushing out combat patrols, taking the initiative away from the beheaders, limiting their ability to move, resupply and detaining and killing them. We are going to win here. We are going to leave this country far better off than when we started and America is going to be more secure for it. We will make the sacrifice, will you, will America?

Remember 9/11.

Dave Rockwell, US Army Paratrooper, Ret

What Is Up With Ambien?

2006-03-12T09:07:00.000-06:00

I have been watching different news programs over the past few days, and I am appalled at the lack of (pardon me VP) "logic" in what these reports have to say about the prescription drug Ambien.

Do a little googling, and you'll find that Ambien is a SLEEPING PILL. It causes you to BE SLEEPY. My wife has been prescribed this drug, and it works very well. (For her, it's kind of funny, because for about an hour before she falls asleep, she sometimes acts like she's drunk.) Not so unusual either for Sominix or Unisom or any other over-the-counter sleep aid.

Yet...

FoxNews among others are reporting the "dangers of Ambien"...

As far as I can see, it is misuse of this drug, especially in combination with alcohol, that has caused the overwhelming number of car accidents and fatalities.

I find this "blaming Ambien" for the problems in the same league as "Do not use blow-dryer in the shower" and Drinking-And-Driving. If the person using the item does not use it appropriately, then bad things can happen.

Blow-dryers aren't evil. It's the combination of the blow-dryer, electricity, water, and human stupidity that is evil.

The problem with all of this is, that the unsuspecting public will want a scapegoat, and now another pharmaceutical company will take the heat for human stupidity.

Sorry to go off on a rant, but I'm tired of people in this world NOT taking personal responsibility. I'm sure the trial lawyers are salivating over this one...

No Smoking?

2006-02-19T09:20:00.000-06:00

I originally put this on What is REALLY up with Decatur Illinois?, however I'm repeating the post here because I think it's worthy of a discussion.

In the Illinois General Assembly, House Bill 4338, a proposed amendment to the Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act, has already passed the Illinois House and is headed for the Illinois Senate. It would, in effect, ban smoking in all public places, including bars, taverns and bowling alleys. It's endorsed by several medical boards and other health-related groups.

Chicago and Springfield already have comprehensive laws banning smoking, although, I've heard the Springfield law has plenty of loopholes and is not a restrictive as the language of HB 4338. It must be controversial, otherwise Brian Byers wouldn't harp on it so much.

So, Decatur, what do you think about a comprehensive smoking ban in all public places?

DNC: out of touch, out of money, and running out of time?

2006-01-31T17:45:00.000-06:00

Photos courtesy of RushLimbaugh.com
The caption for the top picture was "sad dems."

Over the past few days, there has been talk that the DNC may ask Howard Dean to resign. Under Dean's leadership, there has been massive spending by the DNC, but very little in the way of fund-raising as compared to the Republicans. In fact, with Dean at the helm, Democrats have only about 1/6 of the funds collected by their Republican counterparts.

According to Rollcall.com, Howard Dean has spent almost all the DNC's money, and they may not have enough to properly assist candidates for this fall's election. In addition, it appears that other DNC heavy hitters have put the heat on Dean.

Now for the big question: Will the Democrats be able to mount a campaign this fall with the little they have currently that can sufficiently go up against the RNC? There are two areas where I see trouble: 1) The DNC's Bush-bashing / Alito-bashing/ chronic negativism isn't working. Bush's approval numbers are up, and have consistently been much higher than any Democrat in the House or Senate; Alito got confirmed with very little trouble; the economy is the best it's been in years (unemployement rate under 5%,) and the people of this nation are taking notice. 2) It's a little late in the game for the Democrats to be able to raise a considerable amount of cash so quick, so I don't think they're going to be able to do much. Although....with the George Soros types out there, it is entirely possible there may be a surge in funds over the next few months.

Assuming all of this is indeed true (I've only seen these two sources,) I would expect that along with increased fundraising, that the campaign strategy will turn even nastier and more confrontational that the 2004 presidential election was. If the Democrats put all their hope in the Abramoff scandal, they will be sadly disappointed when all is said and done. As more and more information comes to light that significant Democrats, including Harry Reid himself, have been involved with Abramoff and his clients, the more the Abramoff card being played by the DNC will be worthless.

It will be fun to watch.

Filibuster Folds Flat For Furious Fuming Fellows!

2006-01-30T17:24:00.000-06:00

See Crowetoons for more neat political cartoons.

It's 'fficial.

According to Reuters and FoxNews, John Kerry's/Edward Kennedy's filibuster attempt is dead; cloture has been attained, and the vote for Judge Samuel Alito is coming very soon, probably tomorrow!.

For me, I'm glad an originalist/constructionalist is going to head to the Court. We don't have to worry (as much, I hope) about judges rendering opinions based upon their own opinions, foreign law, or what is popular, but rather opinions based on what the Constitution of the United States says.

Alito Headed For Confirmation

2006-01-26T21:49:00.000-06:00

Chalk another one up for the conservatives.

With talk that Bush is "stacking the court" I wonder if most of these libs out there remember Clinton's TWO choices, and the people HE put on the court. Ginsberg, one of the biggest left-wingers that ever warmed a Supreme Court bench, and Stephen Breyer, her likewise-left-leaning counterpart. Was Clinton accused of stacking the court? No, conservatives recognized he put people on that he agreed with, and no one said a word. Now that GWB has put people on who are constructionalists/originalists, he's accused of "stacking the court." Sounds like old-fashioned whining coming from our liberal members of society.

I think Sam Alito will support the constitution of the United States, and to be perfectly honest, that's all a Supreme Court Justice should do. There should be no activism for any view other than that dervied from the Constitution of the United States. Period.

Given that, I am at a loss as to why many Democrats and liberals are against this nominee. My guess is that since liberal-Democratic appointees lean left and are activist for their cause, the liberals will assume that any judge appointed by a republican will automatically be an activist for the right. The problem with this sort of logic is, that since a conservative judge would judge by the Constitution and NOT any political agenda, they could not by that definition make any decision based upon their personal political beliefs. Unfortunately, in the mindset of most liberals, everything is doom and gloom, there are no good people, everyone is a crook or a liar or has a hidden agenda, and the only way something good will ever come out of all this mess is to have "our people" in charge so that our hidden agendas and political beliefs can be promulgated instead.

Well, when you win elections, you get to have things your way. Plain and simple. Clinton did it (although with a "bit" of opposition from Newt) and now W gets to make some choices. I'm sorry that some don't agree with that choice, but that's what happens when you win elections.

Out-of-touch Democrats Still Don't Get It

2006-01-09T21:01:00.000-06:00

...bottom photo courtesy of www.rushlimbaugh.com...

I didn't get a chance to see any of the hearings today with Justice Alito, but, boy, did I hear the excerpts! Is it me or is Ted Kennedy going senile? Does he really think people believe him when he makes stuff up like that? As a son a lifelong democrat, and a student of history, I can say without the shadow of a doubt that this Democratic Party is NOT the one that managed WWII, or produced leaders like John Kennedy or Harry Truman.

Alito's statements remind me a lot of what John Roberts said during his interviews. In articles from the Associated Press and FoxNews, Justice Alito was quoted as saying, "A judge can't have any agenda, a judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case, and a judge certainly doesn't have a client ... the judge's sole obligation is to the rule of law."

I don't know about y'all, but aren't these hearings supposed to be about if he's qualified for the position, NOT what his personal beliefs might be or how he might rule on a particular case in the future? If this is the truth, and the hearings are supposed to verify the judges ability to do his job, why in the world would Ted Kennedy say this:

"In an era when the White House is abusing power, is excusing and authorizing torture and is spying on American citizens, I find Judge Alito's support for an all-powerful executive branch to be genuinely troubling."

Uh, Ted, you might want to see your doctor, pal. We're not talking about GWB, nor are we arguing about political opinions on various topics in the news, we're talking about a judge and his ability to do his job.

I guess with Ted, that's all water under the bridge...

I can't wait to see if they'll filibuster Alito. If Democrats wish to seal their collective defeat in November in various congressional races, pull another Daschle, and it will get done.

Did Truman ever have any sons or grandsons interested politics?

Abramoff Fallout

2006-01-04T17:52:00.000-06:00

The media stories the past two days on Mr. Abramoff have been quite entertaining. Some, evidently, are painting this as a "republican" issue. Uh, I don't think so. Lobbyists are a CONGRESSIONAL issue, i.e. on both sides of the aisle.

For instance, good old Harry Reid has been implicated as having ties with Mr. Abramoff, as has Byron Dorgan and Carl Levin. Is being associated with a lobbyist a bad thing? I guess it depends on one's perspective.

I look at lobbyists as salespeople. They try to sell their cause to the senator or representative they are talking to. However, when they lavish gifts upon them, and essentially bribe these same congressmen, then there's an ethical problem. Who participates in this? People on both sides, as the above article points out. I would be interested to see who all is implicated when this is all said and done.

Happy New Year!

2006-01-02T07:36:00.000-06:00

On to 2006. What is in store? A whole lot of politics I'm sure. And at least two weeks of me writing 2005 and then scratching it out and re-writing 2006.

The above is a political cartoon my aunt in Pekin sent me. By the way, she's a dyed in the wool, donkey-wearin' democrat.

On another note, I hear that Hillary is being investigated for fraud in connection with the Hollywood fundraiser fiasco, a la David Rosen. Perhaps the race for Senate in New York will be more interesting than people thought?

The War On Christmas

2005-12-10T06:43:00.000-06:00

I've been listening to/watching Bill O'Reilly lately with this topic in the forefront. According to many, secularists/left-leaning anti-Christians? are attempting to gradually remove the Christianity from Christmas. As absurd as that sounds, it would appear to be happening at some levels now. It's "Happy Holidays," not Merry Christmas; it's a "Holiday Tree" or a "Winter Tree" not a Christmas tree; children in Texas were being taught IN PUBLIC SCHOOL alternative lyrics to "Silent Night" that had no connection whatsoever to Christmas, but instead was about winter in general.

I'm not so sure this is an organized effort led by some secret underground organization (although the ACLU does come to mind) but rather a conglomerate of individuals who think they're doing the "right thing" by being politically correct and either A) not offending anyone of an alternative faith (even though over 80% of people in the US identify themselves as Christian), or B) attempting to placate those who wish to celebrate traditionally but can't because they're in a "government institution" (i.e. a public classroom or government business.)

Regardless of motive, removing Christ from Christmas is an impossible task. The more left-leaning peoples push their way, the more the Christians see their faith threatened and will push back the other way. I am one of those people. I proudly wear a "Jesus is the Reason for the Season" pin on my shirt during this time of year. I also say Merry Christmas and not Happy Holidays.

Political correctness and the ACLU have waged a war on Christianity, but they cannot win.

So, MERRY CHRISTMAS!

...and as Tiny Tim observed, "God Bless Us, Everyone!"

P.S. The following is from O'Reilly's website from 12/8:

'Twas the Night Before Solstice

By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Dec 08, 2005
Way back in 1822 Clement Clarke Moore wrote a poem called "'Twas the Night Before Christmas," which was first published in the New York Sentinel journal. Moore, the son of the New York Bishop who had presided at George Washington's inauguration, had no idea his verse would become world famous, beloved by people everywhere.

But because there is mention of a certain "Saint Nicholas" in the poem it may, alas, have to be revised in order not to offend Americans who don't believe in saints or even Christmas for that matter. We cannot be having any exclusionary poems now, can we?

So with apologies to Clement Moore and everybody else, I humbly submit this updated poem for your consideration:

'Twas the night before Solstice, and all through the land
the ACLU was watching to keep things in hand.
The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
while forces kept Christmas out of their heads.

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my bed and heard desperate chatter.
Someone had seen my manger display,
And wailed very loudly - go away, go away.

How could I be so crass, so utterly wrong
So show the infant Jesus and sing him a song?

And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof
An ACLU lawyer, looking stern and aloof.
No manger! No caroling! he said with a snort,
And if you don't comply immediately, I'll take you to court!

He was chubby and plump, a right surly old elf,
And I laughed when I saw him in spite of myself.
He dallied no more, but went straight to his phone
Lamenting the manger, in a most pitiful moan.

But I in the spirit, said nothing unkind
Christmas is forgiveness whatever you find.
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.

Christmas will survive, the folks will demand it,
Even if secular lawyers will not understand it.
Then I heard him exclaim, as he drove out of sight,
Happy Solstice to all, and to all a good night!

2005-11-24T11:43:00.000-06:00

Thank You, Veterans

2005-11-11T17:27:00.000-06:00

To all veterans, regardless of what armed conflict you participated, regardless what position you had in our military, regardless of whether it was during a time of war or not...

Thank you. Your service preserves our freedom, our way of life, and the safety and freedom of others all over the world. You are the true heroes.

Durbin: Partisan Politics at It's Best

2005-11-01T16:26:00.000-06:00

It seems the democratic leadership in the US Senate is bound and determined to undermind the Bush Whitehouse to the point it will shut down the Senate in order to do so. After losing the House, the Senate, the Presidency (twice), and soon the Supreme Court as well, democrats are eager to get something to go their way, something to "look bad" for the Republican leadership. Now, they have it, or so they think. See story

Durbin, along with other dumocrats, invoked a rarely used rule in the US Senate and have, in effect, shut down the work of the Senate. Durbin was quoted as saying, "We're serving notice on them at this moment. Be prepared for this motion every day until you face the reality." Evidently, democrats are convinced that President Bush lied to get us into a war, and they are bound and determined to get the Bush administration to admit to something, or they're going to continue to shut down the Senate.

Interestingly enough, aren't the confirmation hearings coming up for Alito in a week or two?

Filibusters take many forms, don't they? Hopefully after the next election, we'll have less of these leftist kooks to deal with. I am prepared to personally hand out flyers and put a campaign sign in my yard for Durbin's opponent, regardless of who this person is.

Speaking of the Supreme Court...

2005-10-07T23:02:00.000-05:00

With recent stories in the news about "sharp differences of opinion" on physician-assisted suicide coming from our Supreme Court, the issue has come up for discussion again.

Decatur Pride has a good recitation on the issue. Check it out.

Question: If the Grim Reaper loses his job because of this, will it still be George Bush's fault?

Justice John Roberts Sworn In!!

2005-09-29T13:10:00.000-05:00

Justice John Roberts was confirmed today as our 17th Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The sharks missed this one. They will be aiming for the next one, I'm sure.

The Sharks Are Circling

2005-09-12T19:38:00.000-05:00

As a central-Illinois yokel, when I look at a justice on any court, I would hope that *THAT* justice would be objective, and interpret the laws according to the constitution.

Fortunately, Justice John Roberts has said just that.

Here are his opening words to the judiciary committee in their entirety:
__________________________________________

"Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy and members of the committee.
Let me begin by thank Senators Lugar and Warner and Bayh for their warm and generous introductions. And let me reiterate my thanks to the president for nominating me.
I'm humbled by his confidence and, if confirmed, I will do everything I can to be worthy of the high trust he has placed in me.

Let me also thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee for ther today, friends, mentors, teachers and colleagues — many of whom are here today.
Last week one of those mentors and friends, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, was laid to rest. I talked last week with the nurses who helped care for him over the past year, and I was glad to hear from them that he was not a particularly good patient. He chafed at the limitations they tried to impose.

His dedication to duty over the past year was an inspiration to me and, I know, to many others.

I will miss him.

My personal appreciation that I owe a great debt to others reinforces my view that a certain humility should characterize the judicial role.

Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them.

The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.

But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.
Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent, shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.
And judges have to have the modesty to be open in the decisional process to the considered views of their colleagues on the bench.
Mr. Chairman, when I worked in the Department of Justice, in the office of the solicitor general, it was my job to argue cases for the United States before the Supreme court.

I always found it very moving to stand before the justices and say, "I speak for my country."

But it was after I left the department and began arguing cases against the United States that I fully appreciated the importance of the Supreme Court and our constitutional system.

Here was the United States, the most powerful entity in the world, aligned against my client. And yet, all I had to do was convince the court that I was right on the law and the government was wrong and all that power and might would recede in deference to the rule of law.

That is a remarkable thing.

It is what we mean when we say that we are a government of laws and not of men. It is that rule of law that protects the rights and liberties of all Americans. It is the envy of the world. Because without the rule of law, any rights are meaningless.
President Ronald Reagan used to speak of the Soviet constitution, and he noted that it purported to grant wonderful rights of all sorts to people. But those rights were empty promises, because that system did not have an independent judiciary to uphold the rule of law and enforce those rights. We do, because of the wisdom of our founders and the sacrifices of our heroes over the generations to make their vision a reality.

Mr. Chairman, I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes.
I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.

Senators Lugar and Bayh talked of my boyhood back home in Indiana. I think all of us retain, from the days of our youth, certain enduring images. For me those images are of the endless fields of Indiana, stretching to the horizon, punctuated only by an isolated silo or a barn. And as I grew older, those endless fields came to represent for me the limitless possibilities of our great land.

Growing up, I never imagined that I would be here, in this historic room, nominated to be the chief justice. But now that I am here, I recall those endless fields with their promise of infinite possibilities, and that memory inspires in me a very profound commitment.

If I am confirmed, I will be vigilant to protect the independence and integrity of the Supreme Court, and I will work to ensure that it upholds the rule of law and safeguards those liberties that make this land one of endless possibilities for all Americans.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, members of the committee.

I look forward to your questions."
______________________________________

Seems like a pretty fair assessment of what a justice should do, right?
Unfortunately, Sen. Kennedy and Feinstein both said, in essence, that if the justice doesn't think they way we think, we won't vote for him. Wasn't this the same Ted Kennedy, who at Justice Ginsburg's confirmation hearings, said that we SHOULD NOT be asking questions about how a justice should vote?

It just don't make sense to me. I just don't understand how a politician can say such things and look himself in the face in the morning.

A different take on Hurricane Katrina

2005-09-06T20:37:00.000-05:00

The following was emailed to me, and after I read it, I realized that I agreed with almost everything the author had to say.

Anyways, y'all draw your own conclusions. Here it is:

An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State

An Objectivist Review

by Robert Tracinski | The Intellectual Activist

September 2, 2005

Article on the Web

It has taken four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can't blame them, because it has also taken me four long days to figure out what is going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster.

If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city's infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.

Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists--myself included--did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.

But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.

The man-made disaster is not an inadequate or incompetent response by federal relief agencies, and it was not directly caused by Hurricane Katrina. This is where just about every newspaper and television channel has gotten the story wrong.

The man-made disaster we are now witnessing in New Orleans did not happen over the past four days. It happened over the past four decades. Hurricane Katrina merely exposed it to public view.

The man-made disaster is the welfare state.

For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave in an emergency--indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people: they have been saying that this is not what we expect from America. In fact, it is not even what we expect from a Third World country.

When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion. They work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously organize to keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We are an enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather than waiting around for the government to take care of us. I have seen this a hundred times, in small examples (a small town whose main traffic light had gone out, causing ordinary citizens to get out of their cars and serve as impromptu traffic cops, directing cars through the intersection) and large ones (the spontaneous response of New Yorkers to September 11).

So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?

To give you an idea of the magnitude of what is going on, here is a description from a Washington Times story:

"Storm victims are raped and beaten; fights erupt with flying fists, knives and guns; fires are breaking out; corpses litter the streets; and police and rescue helicopters are repeatedly fired on.

"The plea from Mayor C. Ray Nagin came even as National Guardsmen poured in to restore order and stop the looting, carjackings and gunfire....

"Last night, Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco said 300 Iraq-hardened Arkansas National Guard members were inside New Orleans with shoot-to-kill orders.

"'These troops are...under my orders to restore order in the streets,' she said. 'They have M-16s, and they are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and they are more than willing to do so if necessary and I expect they will.' "

The reference to Iraq is eerie. The photo that accompanies this article shows National Guard troops, with rifles and armored vests, riding on an armored vehicle through trash-strewn streets lined by a rabble of squalid, listless people, one of whom appears to be yelling at them. It looks exactly like a scene from Sadr City in Baghdad.

What explains bands of thugs using a natural disaster as an excuse for an orgy of looting, armed robbery, and rape? What causes unruly mobs to storm the very buses that have arrived to evacuate them, causing the drivers to drive away, frightened for their lives? What causes people to attack the doctors trying to treat patients at the Super Dome?

Why are people responding to natural destruction by causing further destruction? Why are they attacking the people who are trying to help them?

My wife, Sherri, figured it out first, and she figured it out on a sense-of-life level. While watching the coverage last night on Fox News Channel, she told me that she was getting a familiar feeling. She studied architecture at the Illinois Institute of Chicago, which is located in the South Side of Chicago just blocks away from the Robert Taylor Homes, one of the largest high-rise public housing projects in America. "The projects," as they were known, were infamous for uncontrollable crime and irremediable squalor. (They have since, mercifully, been demolished.)

What Sherri was getting from last night's television coverage was a whiff of the sense of life of "the projects." Then the "crawl"--the informational phrases flashed at the bottom of the screen on most news channels--gave some vital statistics to confirm this sense: 75% of the residents of New Orleans had already evacuated before the hurricane, and of the 300,000 or so who remained, a large number were from the city's public housing projects. Jack Wakeland then gave me an additional, crucial fact: early reports from CNN and Fox indicated that the city had no plan for evacuating all of the prisoners in the city's jails--so they just let many of them loose. There is no doubt a significant overlap between these two populations--that is, a large number of people in the jails used to live in the housing projects, and vice versa.

There were many decent, innocent people trapped in New Orleans when the deluge hit--but they were trapped alongside large numbers of people from two groups: criminals--and wards of the welfare state, people selected, over decades, for their lack of initiative and self-induced helplessness. The welfare wards were a mass of sheep--on whom the incompetent administration of New Orleans unleashed a pack of wolves.

All of this is related, incidentally, to the apparent incompetence of the city government, which failed to plan for a total evacuation of the city, despite the knowledge that this might be necessary. But in a city corrupted by the welfare state, the job of city officials is to ensure the flow of handouts to welfare recipients and patronage to political supporters--not to ensure a lawful, orderly evacuation in case of emergency.

No one has really reported this story, as far as I can tell. In fact, some are already actively distorting it, blaming President Bush, for example, for failing to personally ensure that the Mayor of New Orleans had drafted an adequate evacuation plan. The worst example is an execrable piece from the Toronto Globe and Mail, by a supercilious Canadian who blames the chaos on American "individualism." But the truth is precisely the opposite: the chaos was caused by a system that was the exact opposite of individualism.

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. They don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.

But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.

The welfare state--and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages--is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.
________________________________________

Bush Gets #2

2005-09-04T14:47:00.000-05:00

With the passing of William Rehnquist, President Bush now gets his second Supreme Court Justice Appointment. Our left-leaning friends who have spent the last several weeks fabricating stories about and/or trashing Justice John Roberts will now get a new target.

Oh well, they have to have something to do.

TDD, if you're still with us, any comment on John Roberts?

Freedom Of Religion?

2005-08-22T19:46:00.000-05:00

"Each according to his own conscience." Not anymore in Illinois!

With the recent US Supreme Court ruling on "Eminent Domain," personal property rights have been placed under fire. Now it's "Freedom of Religion"'s turn.

Our Governor's recent ruling on not allowing pharmacists to practice their religion and not hand out the morning-after pill (Plan B) has caused some pharmacists to take action and sue the governor!

Pharmacist Luke Vander Bleek and others have filed a lawsuit against Governor Blago for his forcing pharmacists to adopt Rod's morals on this issue. Rod, of course, has his liberal retort saying it's to "assure women their right to contraceptives." The trouble is, Plan B is a tool for chemical abortion, and that's why Vander Bleek and others are fighting this ruling by Blago and his "ruling committee."

What's next, forcing doctors to do abortions when they have a moral problem with doing such? Don't think this is too far off! Forces within NARAL and other leftist kooky people are attempting to introduce such demands upon the medical community, especially in medical schools and residency programs.

Someone has got to fully define what "Freedom of Religion" really means, and I hope our pharmacists do just that. My government does not have a right to force their version of morality upon me! (Hey, maybe the ACLU will help us here, right? Uh, well...don't think so.)

The ACLJ might!

New Ad That May Help Durbin

2005-08-04T20:23:00.000-05:00

You gotta check this out.

Grassfire has advertisements going out, and you gotta check out this one.

Perty funny.

Where In The World Is The Decatur Democrat?

2005-07-22T22:36:00.000-05:00

It has been well over a month since The Decatur Democrat posted his last post, the "Support Durbin or Support Terror" rant which sparked a large following of comments and discussion afterward. Unfortunately, this discussion and all others on the TDD website have been suspended. Many have asked, "Why?" As MJ said of TDR, "I hear crickets in here."

As the DNC flounders in their attempts to denounce the Bush administration, and now will attempt to "find something wrong" with the new SCOTUS nominee, TDD is nowhere to be found.

So, where in the world is the Decatur Democrat?

In Florida helping with the recount?

In Ohio checking the "rigged" voting machines?

Interviewing more employees of Haliburton?

Diggin up skeletons on John G. Roberts?

Maybe working on the "Hillary '08" Campaign?