While campaigning in New Hampshire this week Presidential front runner for the Democrats revealed what most Liberals fear the most.
Their defeat by the Republicans in 2008, because of some unforeseen attack on the U.S. by terrorists.

Hillary had this to say:“It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself, ‘What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again…”

This comment was immediately attacked by some of her Democratic rivals for the White House. Why? Because they don’t want the voters of America to be reminded that when it comes to terrorism, the Republican candidates are much more willing to do whatever it takes to protect the United States.

Senator Clinton isn't the only American to worry, about the possibility of another terrorist attack here at home. Vice Admiral (Ret) John Scott Redd, the Head of the National Counter terrorism Center, was granting an interview to Newsweek magazine in which he categorically stated that “We have very strong indicators that Al Qaeda is planning to attack the West.” When pressed on where, he continued, “Well, they would like to come West, and they would like to come as far West as they can.” Obviously, “as far West as they can,” would be the United States."

For all we know Iran already has a operative nuclear weapon. One that is often called "a suitcase bomb".The Iranians march toward nuclear weapon capability has even worried the new President of France.President Nicolas Sarkozy observed that Iran’s nuclear ambitions present “catastrophic” alternatives: “an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.” Both Messer’s Bush and Sarkozy are correct — though it may shock liberal Democrats to see the French standing side by side with the United States on an issue none of their candidates for president wants to talk about.(excerpt from col. Oliver North's article)

I have written about the safest place to be in the world at this time before. But I believe it needs to be addressed again at this important time in the future of this Great Country.

The safest place is right here in the USA, because the Islamist Terrorists know the Democrats and liberal "Rinos" in Congress are doing everything they can to assist the enemy in Iraq.Why would they "rock the boat" now?

The Democrats talk daily about withdrawing our troops, partitioning Iraq, and deny that there is any progress toward winning the battle for those in Iraq who want to live in a free Iraq.

The press, visual media and a great number of liberal blog sites bombard the American people every day with negative news about Iraq. The Left has already discounted as false and misleading the report that general Petaeus will give to Congress later this month.

Why, when things are going their way here in the political and media arena would they jeopardise the Democrats efforts to retake the White House?

The answer is they won't! We are safe until the Leftist fed American populace has made the mistake of handing over the White house to the "PC", secularist, anti-religion and weak on defense Party. The Democrats! Then when we are despised by the Iraqi whom we left to be massacred by the terrorists and taken over as a satellite of Iran. WE can expect all Hell to break loose!

Posted by BILL at Friday, August 31, 2007 0 comments

The past twelve hours have been a period of intense mental strain for my sense of what as a Christian I believe is right and wrong. No I don't question my ability to discern the difference. I am disturbed, however, by the apparent misunderstanding by those who write, report, blog and in many different ways deliver their views to the American public.

The first event that alerted my sense of the "tripe" that is being fed to us by the television media was during the ESPN Monday night football game. The Show has been an award winning sports event for decades. But last night the announcers booth with Tony Kornheiser, Mike Tirico and "Jaws" Jaworski evolved into a plea to their audience to accept the apology of Michael Vick, and "let the recovery process begin".

As everyone knows by now Vick has pleaded guilty to bankrolling the dog fighting events held by him and a few of his fiends. They didn't mention that this star football player has been bankrolling this cruel and inhumane "sport" for the last seven years!

During these seven years there is no way to determine how many dogs died a violent death while Vick and his fiends watched, bet and enjoyed the spectacle.

Tony Kornheiser, paid 1.8 million dollars for his commentary on the show was the lead defender. His opinion was that since Michael Vick publicly apologised he should be allowed to return to football after he has served his sentence. A sentence delayed until December, for what reason? I would like to know. This is a man who is a close friend of James Carville, and after his first appearance on Monday Night Football(8/15/05) was given a harsh review for his performance by Paul Farhi of the Washington Post. Kornheiser publicly called the critic " a two bit weasel slug"!He likes to dish it out, but don't criticise him!

Kornheiser is not the only "notable" coming to the defense of Vick. New York Nicks basketball star, Stepen Marbury said essentially whats wrong with dog fighting behind closed doors, they shoot deer and other animals don't they?

Boxer Roy Jones, jr. made the astounding defense based upon the fact that dogs by nature fight each other, so what's the big deal.

Football player Clinton Portis was quick to defend Vick as were author and activist Harry Edwards and ex-NFL player, Fox sport contributor and part time "rapper" Ray Buchanan. Buchanan made the news himself recently for cashing three checks in Miami with no funds to support the checks.

It is fine to say give a person a second chance, but what he did was a crime committed not once, but for seven years where gambling took place, and non-performing dogs were summarily killed.This is no ordinary crime. As you will recall serial killer Jeffrey Damler began by killing and torturing small animals before he moved on to young boys.

The second jolt to my sense of fair and unbalance/non-biased reporting occurred this morning when I read an article from Walter Williams, written for The Patriot Post. Mr. Williams is a noted and respected Libertarian, sometimes Conservative Economist and Journalist.I enjoy reading most of his articles and books, but what provoked a man of "letters" to write an article attacking Pope Benedict XVI for an alleged statement that hasn't been published yet, baffles me.

The article excoriated the Pope for allegedly including in his second Encyclical that tax avoidance by using tax shelters is wrong. The Encyclical hasn't even been published, but Mr. Williams wrote his article based upon an article written in the London Times. This is a rumor perpetuating a rumor, or at best hearsay being repeated. For good Journalism to exist the source should be valid and verifiable, not based upon rumors or leaks! Shame on you Walter Williams! Your animus to the Pope and Catholicism is showing.

Comments - Email This - Related Articles - Page History

In the "hay days" of Marxist/Leninism there was only one left. That which Lenin brought to Russia from Carl Marx in Germany, Communism. In Russia, beginning in 1917, you were a Communist party member if you were chosen to be one.If you were not a member of the Communist party. You obeyed their rules or you were sent to the Gulag or shot!

Today here in the USA we have two Lefts. The dupes of the Leftist philosophy who have bought into the Peace movement as a way to save the World, and the "hard-core" Marxist-Socialists found in every College and University, and unfortunately in the groups known for their wealth and success in every area of endeavor other than government.

Dennis Kucinich in the U.S. House of Representatives, George Soros, the Media and the mega-wealthy and the Hollywood elite represent the second Left in America. They hate everything about the way our Government is run today. Today President Bush is the "hate object", and they will stop at nothing to change our beloved Country to their "Utopian" way.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich has introduced House resolution 808, that has 60 co-sponsors. This bill if ever passed, would create a Cabinet level position of Secretary of Peace. The area of his/her responsibility would be to create an Academy of Peace with curriculum developed for primary and secondary schools that would be mandated for the teaching of the Peace Process. It would provide funding for grants to select professors and students who make this their area of study.

This sounds like a good idea. After all who wouldn't prefer Peace to War? But history tells us, if we would only listen, that the way to Peace is to be strong not weak! Carl von Clauswitz advised this over one hundred years ago. The Peace movement doesn't want this!

In the United States, the peace movement is preparing young students to become virulent haters of our nation.
The people running today’s peace studies programs give a good idea of the movement’s liberal, anti-American inclinations. The director of Purdue’s program is co editor of Marxism Today, a collection of essays extolling socialism; Brandeis’s peace studies chairman has justified suicide bombings; the program director at the University of Missouri authorized a mass e-mail urging students and faculty to boycott classes to protest the Iraq invasion…

...First and foremost, they (Peace Movement leaders) emphasize that the world’s great evil is capitalism—because it leads to imperialism, which in turn leads to war. The account of capitalism in David Barash and Charles Webel’s widely used 2002 textbook Peace and Conflict Studies leans heavily on Lenin, who “maintained that only revolution—not reform—could undo capitalism’s tendency toward imperialism and thence to war,” and on Galtung,the anointed Father of today's Peace Movement in 1959, who helpfully revised Lenin’s theories to account for America’s “indirect” imperialism. Students acquire a zero-sum picture of the world economy: if some countries and people are poor, it’s because others are rich. They’re taught that American wealth derives entirely from exploitation and that Americans, accordingly, are responsible for world poverty.

..."The Peace Movement" maintains that the Western world’s profound moral culpability, arising from its history of colonialism and economic exploitation, deprives it of any right to judge non-Western countries or individuals. Further, the non-West has suffered so much from exploitation that whatever offenses it commits are legitimate attempts to recapture dignity, obtain justice, and exact revenge.

It is this mind-set that leads peace professors to accuse the U.S. of “state terrorism,” to call George W. Bush “the world’s worst terrorist,” and even to characterize those murdered in the Twin Towers as oppressors who, by working at investment banks and brokerage houses, were ultimately responsible for their own deaths.

In their distorted view, it’s America that is the wellspring of the world’s problems. In the peace studies world, America’s role as the beacon of opportunity for generations of immigrants is mocked, its defense of freedom in World War II and the cold war is reinterpreted to its discredit, and every major postwar atrocity (the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution, genocide in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan) is ignored, minimized, or—as with 9/11—blamed on the U.S. itself." preceding courtesy of Bruce Bawer of "CityJournal website.

Galtung is in fact a lifelong enemy of freedom. In 1973, he thundered that “our time’s grotesque reality” was—no, not the Gulag or the Cultural Revolution, but rather the West’s “structural fascism.” He’s called America a “killer country,” accused it of “neo-fascist state terrorism,” and gleefully prophesied that it will soon follow Britain “into the graveyard of empires.”

Though Galtung has opined that the annihilation of Washington, D.C., would be a fair punishment for America’s arrogant view of itself as “a model for everyone else,” he’s long held up certain countries as worthy of emulation—among them Stalin’s USSR, whose economy, he predicted in 1953, would soon overtake the West’s. He’s also a fan of Castro’s Cuba, which he praised in 1972 for “break[ing] free of imperialism’s iron grip.” At least you can’t accuse Galtung of hiding his prejudices. In 1973, explaining world politics in a children’s newspaper, he described the U.S. and Western Europe as “rich, Western, Christian countries” that make war to secure materials and markets: “Such an economic system is called capitalism, and when it’s spread in this way to other countries it’s called imperialism.” In 1974, he sneered at the West’s fixation on “persecuted elite personages” such as Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov. Thirty years later, he compared the U.S. to Nazi Germany for bombing Kosovo and invading Afghanistan and Iraq. For Galtung, a war that liberates is no better than one that enslaves.

Galtung’s use of the word “peace” to legitimize totalitarianism is an old Communist tradition. In August 1939, when the Nazis and Soviets signed their nonaggression pact, the same Western Stalinists who had been calling for war against Germany did an about-face and began to praise peace. (After Hitler invaded Russia, the Stalinists reversed themselves again, demanding that the West help Stalin crush the Third Reich.), and President Roosevelt obliged them.
The peace talk, in short, was really about sympathizing with Communism, not peace. And it continued after the war, when Stalin’s Western supporters whitewashed his monstrous regime and denounced anti-Communists as warmongering crypto-fascists. “Peace conferences” and “friendship committees” drew hordes of liberal dupes, who didn’t grasp that their new “friends” were not ordinary Russians but the jailers of ordinary Russians—and that the committees were about not “friendship” but deception, exploitation, and espionage. And Communism is alive and flourishing here today.

If the image of tenured professors pushing such anti capitalist nonsense on privileged suburban kids sounds like a classic case of liberals’ throwing stones at their own houses,this will shock you. America’s leading Peace institution based upon it's endowment,is the University of Notre Dame’s Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies—endowed by and named for the widow of Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald’s, the ultimate symbol of evil corporate America. It was the Kroc Institute, by the way, that in 2004 invited Islamist scholar Tariq Ramadan to join its faculty, only to see him denied a U.S. visa on the grounds that he had defended terrorism.

Peace studies students also discover how to think in terms of “deep culture.” How to prevent war between, say, the U.S. and Saddam’s Iraq? Answer: examine each country’s deep culture—its key psychosocial traits, good and bad—to understand its motives. Americans, according to this bestiary, are warlike and money-obsessed; Iraqis are intensely religious and proud. Not surprisingly, the Peace Movement's summations of deep cultures skew against the West. The deep-culture approach also avoids calling tyrants or terrorists “evil”—for behind every atrocity, in this view, lies a legitimate grievance, which the peacemaker should locate so that all parties can meet at the negotiating table as moral equals.
Students learn to identify “insurgent” or “militant” groups with the populations they purport to represent. The recipes for peace that flow from such thinking seem designed not only to buttress oppression but to create more of it. For if democracies consistently followed the Peace Movements recommendations, what they’d eventually reap would be the kind of peace found today in Havana or Pyongyang.

Speaking at a memorial concert on the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, George Wolfe of Ball State University’s peace studies program suggested that we “reflect on what we as Americans may have done or not done, to invoke such extreme hatred.” The Kroc Institute’s David Cortright agrees: “We must ask ourselves . . . what the United States has done to incur such wrath.”

In short, it’s America that is the wellspring of the world’s problems. In the peace studies world, America’s role as the beacon of opportunity for generations of immigrants is mocked, its defense of freedom in World War II and the cold war is reinterpreted to its discredit, and every major postwar atrocity (the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution, genocide in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan) is ignored, minimized, or—as with 9/11—blamed on the U.S. itself.

A peace-oriented perspective condemns not only terrorist attacks but also any violent response to them.” How should democracies respond to aggression? Hold dialogue. Make concessions. Apologize. Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 capitulation to Hitler at Munich taught—or should have taught—that appeasement just puts off a final reckoning, giving an enemy time to gain strength. The foundation of the Peace Movement's success lies in forgetting this lesson. Peace studies students discover that the lesson of World War II is the evil of war itself and the need to prevent it by all possible means—which, of course, is exactly what Chamberlain thought he was doing in Munich. What they learn, in short, is the opposite of the war’s real lesson. In other words, if you want to ensure peace, worry less about freedom. Appease tyranny, accept it, embrace it—and there’ll be no more war.

That’s the Peace Movement's message in a nutshell—and students find themselves graded largely on their willingness to echo it. For while the peace professor argues that terrorist positions deserve respect at the negotiating table, he seldom tolerates alternative views in the classroom. Real education exposes students to a range of ideas and trains them to think critically about all orthodoxies. Peace studies, as a rule, rejects questioning of its own guiding ideology.

George Orwell would have understood the attraction of privileged young people to the Peace Racket. “Turn-the-other-cheek pacifism,” he observed in 1941, “only flourishes among the more prosperous classes, or among workers who have in some way escaped from their own class. The real working class . . . are never really pacifist, because their life teaches them something different. To abjure violence it is necessary to have no experience of it.” If so many young Americans have grown up insulated from the realities that Vegetius and Sun Tzu elucidated centuries ago, and are therefore easy marks for the Peace Racket, it’s thanks to the success of the very things the Peace Racket despises above all—American capitalism and American military preparedness.

What’s alarming is that these students don’t plan to spend their lives on some remote mountainside.contemplating peace, harmony, and human oneness. They want to remake our world. They plan to become politicians, diplomats, bureaucrats, journalists, lawyers, teachers, activists. They’ll bring to these positions all the mangled history and misbegotten ideology that their professors have handed down to them. Their careers will advance; the Peace Movements influence will spread as the USA becomes an effete feminist nation. And as it does, it will weaken freedom’s foundations.
Bloggers thanks to Thomas Brewton and Bruce Bower!

Posted by BILL at Tuesday, August 28, 2007 0

Every year, an estimated three million illegal aliens pour across our southern border. Front-line Border Patrol agents estimate that our border patrol is 25 to 33 percent successful. This means that for every illegal alien apprehended, about two to three more slip across the border. What other business allows a 33 percent success rate? Certainly not doctors, contractors or cashiers. Why do we allow our federal government to do its job only a third of the time? As a sovereign nation, we must control our borders. We must ensure that terrorists cannot and do not infiltrate the United States to plot and carry out attacks against citizens. Apologists for illegals refuse to acknowledge the connection between terrorism and our lax immigration policies, despite the fact we know the 9/11 terrorists were here illegally.

The Sept. 11 hijackers used our own laws to enter the country, but remained in the country and violated their visas by staying when they expired. Only four years has passed since Sept. 11, 2001, but did we learn no lesson? We must be able to make sure our visitors abide by our rules and if they're participating in terror activity, we should deport them. It's common sense.
Intelligence tells us there are terrorists in the U.S.striving to recreate a massive tragedy like Sept. 11, 2001. They know our border security weaknesses, and are exploiting it to enter our own country - right now. This is because, the federal government instructs their agents to minimally enforce the law.

In 2003 the agents responsible for apprehending illegals in the workforce, arrested only 445 illegals. This lax enforcement costs American tax payers at least 10 billion dollars a year in benefits to illegals. Medicaid costs 2.5 billion a year, and an estimated one billion dollars goes out of the U.S. economy back over the border.

This Country accepts one million legal aliens each year since the 1990 Immigration Reform Act. The U.S. Census estimates that in addition to these legals, 8-11 million illegals reside in the U.S.

In 1995 during testimony before a Congressional Committee the following quote was uttered: "In closing, the testimony of the chairman of the Commission on Immigration Reform, the late Barbara Jordan, said "Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."
If only it was true!

WE are told by such great prognosticators as the Washington Post that deporting all 11 million illegals would take five years and cost 1.7% of the annual federal GDP. By calculations made by people smarter than me it shows that it would cost the average family, earning the medium family income of $43,527.00, $148.00. This is little more than it would cost to change the lock on your front door!

A Country with a GDP of 12 trillion dollars annually can afford the deportation. It is the people we trusted, and elected to Congress and the White House over the past 20 years who don't want to do what Americans want them to do. Secure the borders and deport all illegals, and begin now!

The debate, actually the battle,is between "national-community Americans" -- those who continue to believe in the idea of a separate, self-governed nation -- and those who have a "post-American" vision. The post-American vision is for (1) America's workers to be "allowed" to compete directly with every worker in the world who makes the effort to move to this country and for (2) the quality of life of a local community to be determined by global forces rather than by democratic self-determination.

The words in italics are courtesy of "NUMBERSUSA">

America take a hint and wake up to the biggest scam since the state lottery was enacted by various states to milk more millions of dollars from the already overtaxed,"ordinary" citizens.
The people who took the bait for the lottery didn't realize the odds for winning the lottery were much worse than in a gambling casino which also pays large taxes to the state and federal tax gougers.
This is an example of states trying to rip off extra dollars from hard working wage earners with the "saintly" sounding false promise that most states would earmark all the monies collected to financing improvement in education.

The truth is the educational system has seen a small amount OF THE MONEY! While a much greater percentage of profits has been squandered on hiring more State government employed bureaucrats to run the program, and spending millions of dollars in new state buidings to house these employees.
President George W. Bush was elected by the ordinary citizens,for the most part,and not by special interest groups of fat cats,wealthy industries,various unions,or the biased and hateful majority of the left wing news media.
How did he overcome such secular, mega million dollar support for the far left wing Democrats?
He did it precisely as a good American candidate against Marxist thinking can do it again in 2008. Get the TRUTH out to the American voter by word of mouth, by internet,calling friends,and making them aware,once again,that their very freedom is at stake.
Marxist Democrats could care less about the individual.He or she are concerned only with absolute power for himself or herself and his/her cronies,and absolute government control of our lives.Counter their pure lying for votes with the truth to deny them their votes.God Bless America.