Wanted by the FBI

Adnan G. El Shukrijumah
Adnan G. El Shukri Jumah, Abu Arif, Ja'far Al-Tayar, Jaffar Al-Tayyar, Jafar Tayar, Jaafar Al-Tayyar

Terrorist Threats against U.S.
If you have any information,

Worthy Causes!

100% owned by Hugo Chavez

UN or US

Write your reps!

Fed up with Congress, or politicians in general? Write your Representative and - or Senator and tell them so They serve us, folks!

Click the links below to write yours. 

  • Recommended Blogs

  • Recommended Reading

Fred hits it out of the park.

Posted on December 31, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Fred’s latest video from his website Fred08.com is - in my opinion - a home run. This is a *Presidential speech* by a man ready, willing, and able to take on the job of leading this country. Maybe as a Fred supporter from the outset I’m a bit biased, but you have to catch this speech - posted here - all 16+ minutes of it.

Gather the voting members of your family around and give a listen …

Anti-War lawyer, or just a SCUMBAG

Posted on December 30, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Okay - I just heard of this story while reading the Blackfive (linked) blog. This is so unbelievably outrageous it is difficult to contain my rage. I’ll just post a snippet of what the guys at Blackfive have and let you read the rest of the story there. Maybe you’ll make it a regular stop for the “in the know” on our military.

Anti-Military Lawyer Damages Marine’s Car on Eve of Deployment

Posted By Blackfive

This ought to make your blood boil. And this Marine should receive a commendation for not kicking the living crap out of the guy…seriously.

Marine Sgt. Mike McNulty is on activation orders to Iraq (second tour). On December 1st, 2007, Mike went to visit a friend in Chicago before deploying to say goodbye. In order to get to his friend’s residence, and keep in mind that Chicago is a myriad of diagonal and one-way streets, the front entrance (right way) to the one-way street was blocked. Mike, being a Marine, overcame and adapted by driving around the block to the other end of the street and backing up all the way to his friend’s place.

While saying goodbye, at about 11am, he noticed a man leaning up against his car. Mike left his friend’s apartment and caught the man keying his car on multiple sides.

After caught in the process, the man told Mike, “you think you can do whatever you want with Department of Defense license plates and tags”. (In Illinois you can purchase veteran, Marine, or medal plates. Mike has Illinois Marine Corps license plates.) During the exchange, he made additional anti-military comments.Mike called the Chicago police and had the man arrested. A citation against the man was issued for misdemeanor criminal damage to private property.The rest of this sickening story is , at Blackfive.

Thank you, and God Bless

Posted on December 27, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

At this special time of the year, we give thanks and God’s blessings to our troops - that they complete their mission and return safely home to their loved ones. By way of saying thanks, just watch the video …

On the subject of Huckabee …

Posted on December 21, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Rush unloads on Huckabee

… via HotAir. Listen to the following audio clips of Rush’s show.

I didn’t write this - but I agree …

Posted on December 17, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

We have become a nation of women.

It wasn’t always this way, of course. There was a time when men put their signatures to a document, knowing full well that this single act would result in their execution if captured, and in the forfeiture of their property to the State. Their wives and children would be turned out by the soldiers, and their farms and businesses most probably given to someone who didn’t sign the document*

There was a time when men went to their certain death, with expressions like “You all can go to hell. I’m going to Texas.” (Davy Crockett, to the House of Representatives, before going to the Alamo.)

There was a time when men went to war, sometimes against their own families, so that other men could be free. And there was a time when men went to war because we recognized evil when we saw it, and knew that it had to be stamped out.

There was even a time when a President of the United States threatened to punch a man in the face and kick him in the balls, because the man had the temerity to say bad things about the President’s daughter’s singing.

We’re not like that anymore.

Now, little boys in grade school are suspended for playing cowboys and Indians, cops and crooks, and all the other familiar variations of “good guy vs. bad guy” that helped them learn, at an early age, what it was like to have decent men hunt you down, because you were a lawbreaker.

Now, men are taught that violence is bad-that when a thief breaks into your house, or threatens you in the street, that the proper way to deal with this is to “give him what he wants”, instead of taking a horsewhip to the rascal or shooting him dead where he stands.

Now, men’s fashion includes not a man dressed in a three-piece suit, but a tight sweater worn by a man with breasts.

Now, warning labels are indelibly etched into gun barrels, as though men have somehow forgotten that guns are dangerous things.

Now, men are given Ritalin as little boys, so that their natural aggressiveness, curiosity and restlessness can be controlled, instead of nurtured and directed.

And finally, our President, who happens to have been a qualified fighter pilot, lands on an aircraft carrier wearing a flight suit, and is immediately dismissed with words like “swaggering”, “macho” and the favorite epithet of Euro girlymen, “cowboy”. Of course he was bound to get that reaction-and most especially from the Press in Europe, because the process of male pussification Over There is almost complete.

How did we get to this?

In the first instance, what we have to understand is that America is first and foremost, a culture dominated by one figure: Mother. It wasn’t always so: there was a time when it was Father who ruled the home, worked at his job, and voted.

But in the twentieth century, women became more and more involved in the body politic, and in industry, and in the media-and mostly, this has not been a good thing. When women got the vote, it was inevitable that government was going to become more powerful, more intrusive, and more “protective” (i.e. more coddling), because women are hard-wired to treasure security more than uncertainty and danger. It was therefore inevitable that their feminine influence on politics was going to emphasize (lowercase “s”) social security.

I am aware of the fury that this statement is going to arouse, and I don’t care a fig.

What I care about is the fact that since the beginning of the twentieth century, there has been a concerted campaign to denigrate men, to reduce them to figures of fun, and to render them impotent, figuratively speaking.

I’m going to illustrate this by talking about TV, because TV is a reliable barometer of our culture.

In the 1950s, the TV Dad was seen as the lovable goof ball - perhaps the beginning of the trend-BUT he was still the one who brought home the bacon, and was the main source of discipline (think of the line: “Wait until your father gets home!”).

From that, we went to this: the Cheerios TV ad.

Now, for those who haven’t seen this piece of crap, I’m going to go over it, from memory, because it epitomizes everything I hate about the campaign to pussify men. The scene opens at the morning breakfast table, where the two kids are sitting with Dad at the table, while Mom prepares stuff on the kitchen counter. The dialogue goes something like this:

Little girl (note, not little boy): Daddy, why do we eat Cheerios? Dad: Because they contain fiber, and all sorts of stuff that’s good for the heart. I eat it now, because of that. LG: Did you always eat stuff that was bad for your heart, Daddy? Dad (humorously): I did, until I met your mother. Mother (not humorously): Daddy did a lot of stupid things before he met your mother.

Now, every time I see that TV ad, I have to be restrained from shooting the TV with a .45 Colt. If you want a microcosm of how men have become less than men, this is the perfect example.

What Dad should have replied to Mommy’s little dig:

Yes, Sally, that’s true: I did do a lot of stupid things before I met your mother. I even slept with your Aunt Ruth a few times, before I met your mother.

That’s what I would have said, anyway, if my wife had ever attempted to castrate me in front of the kids like that.

But that’s not what men do, of course. What this guy is going to do is smile ruefully, finish his cereal, and then go and fuck his secretary, who doesn’t try to cut his balls off on a daily basis. Then, when the affair is discovered, people are going to rally around the castrating bitch called his wife, and call him all sorts of names. He’ll lose custody of his kids, and they will be brought up by our ultimate modern-day figure of sympathy: The Single Mom.

You know what? Some women deserve to be single moms.

When I first started this website, I think my primary aim was to blow off steam at the stupidity of our society.

Because I have fairly set views on what constitutes right and wrong, I have no difficulty in calling Bill Clinton, for example, a fucking liar and hypocrite.

But most of all, I do this website because I love being a man. Amongst other things, I talk about guns, self-defense, politics, beautiful women, sports, warfare, hunting, and power tools-all the things that being a man entails. All this stuff gives me pleasure.

And it doesn’t take much to see when all the things I love are being threatened: for instance, when Tim Allen’s excellent comedy routine on being a man is reduced to a fucking sitcom called Home Improvement. The show should have been called Man Improvement, because that’s what every single plot line entailed: turning a man into a “better” person, instead of just leaving him alone to work on restoring the vintage sports car in his garage. I stopped watching the show after about four episodes.

“The Man Show” was better, at least for the first season-men leering at chicks, men fucking around with ridiculous games like “pin the bra on the boobies”, men having beer-drinking competitions, and women on trampolines. Excellent stuff, only not strong enough. I don’t watch it anymore, either, because it’s plain that the idea has been subverted by girlymen, and turned into a parody of itself.

Finally, we come to the TV show which to my mind epitomizes everything bad about what we have become: Queer Eye For The Straight Guy. Playing on the homo Bravo Channel, this piece of excrement has taken over the popular culture by storm (and so far, the only counter has been the wonderful South Park episode which took it apart for the bullcrap it is).

I’m sorry, but the premise of the show nauseates me. A bunch of homosexuals trying to “improve” ordinary men into something “better” (i.e. more acceptable to women): changing the guy’s clothes, his home decor, his music - for fuck’s sake, what kind of girlyman would allow these simpering butt-bandits to change his life around?

Yes, the men are, by and large, slobs. Big fucking deal. Last time I looked, that’s normal. Men are slobs, and that only changes when women try to civilize them by marriage. That’s the natural order of things.

You know the definition of homosexual men we used in Chicago? “Men with small dogs who own very tidy apartments.”

Real men, on the other hand, have big fucking mean-ass dogs: Rhodesian Ridgebacks, bull terriers and Rottweilers, or else working dogs like pointers or retrievers which go hunting with them and slobber all over the furniture.

Women own lapdogs.

Which is why women are trying to get dog-fighting and cock-fighting banned - they’d ban boxing too, if they could - because it’s “mean and cruel”. No crap, Shirley. Hell, I don’t like the idea of fighting dogs, either, but I don’t have a problem with men who do. Dogs and cocks fight. So do men. No wonder we have an affinity for it.

My website has become fairly popular with men, and in the beginning, this really surprised me, because I didn’t think I was doing anything special.

That’s not what I think now. I must have had well over five thousand men write to me to say stuff like “Yes! I agree! I was so angry when I read about [insert atrocity of choice], but I thought I was the only one.”

No, you’re not alone, my friends, and nor am I.

Out there, there is a huge number of men who are sick of it. We’re sick of being made figures of fun and ridicule; we’re sick of having girlymen like journalists, advertising agency execs and movie stars decide on “what is a man”; we’re sick of women treating us like children, and we’re really fucking sick of girlymen politicians who pander to women by passing an ever-increasing raft of Nanny laws and regulations (the legal equivalent of public-school Ritalin), which prevent us from hunting, racing our cars and motorcycles, smoking, flirting with women at the office, getting into fistfights over women, shooting criminals and doing all the fine things which being a man entails.

When Annika Sorenstam was allowed to play in that tournament on the men’s PGA tour, all the men should have refused to play. Vijay Singh was the only one with balls to stand up for a principle, and he was absolutely excoriated for being a “chauvinist”.  Bullcrap. He wasn’t a chauvinist, he was being a man. All the rest of the players - Woods, Mickelson, the lot-are girls by comparison. And needless to say, Vijay isn’t an American, nor a European, which is probably why he still has a pair hanging between his legs, and they’re not hanging on the wall as his wife’s trophy.

Fuck this, I’m sick of it.

I don’t see why I should put up with this bullcrap any longer-hell, I don’t see why any man should put up with this bullcrap any longer.

I don’t see why men should have become feminized, except that we allowed it to happen-and you know why we let it happen? Because it’s goddamned easier to do so. Unfortunately, we’ve allowed it to go too far, and our maleness has become too pussified for words.

At this point, I could have gone two ways: the first would be to say, “… and I don’t know if we’ll get it back. The process has become too entrenched, the cultural zeitgeist of men as girls has become part of the social fabric, and there’s not much we can do about it.”

But I’m not going to do that. To quote John Belushi (who was, incidentally, a real man and not a fucking woman): “Did we quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”

Well, I’m not going to quit. Fuck that. One of the characteristics of the non-pussified man (and this should strike fear into the hearts of women and girlymen everywhere) is that he never quits just because the odds seem overwhelming. Omaha Beach, guys.

I want a real man as President-not Al Gore, who had to hire a consultant to show him how to be an Alpha male, and french kiss his wife on live TV to “prove” to the world that he was a man, when we all knew that real men don’t have to do that crap.

And I want the Real Man President to surround himself with other Real Men, like Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, and yes, Rice (who is more of a Real Man than those ass wipes Colin Powell and Norman Mineta).

I want our government to be more like Dad-kind, helpful, but not afraid to punish us when we fuck up, instead of helping us excuse our actions.

I want our government of real men to start rolling back the Nanny State, in all its horrible manifestations of over-protectiveness, intrusiveness and “Mommy Knows Best What’s Good For You” regulations.

I want our culture to become more male-and not the satirical kind of male, like The Man Show, or the cartoonish figures of Stallone, Van Damme or Schwartzenegger. (Note to the Hollywood execs: We absolutely fucking loathe chick movies about feelings and relationships and all that feminine jive. We want more John Wayne’s, Robert Mitchum’s, Bruce Willis’s, and Clint Eastwood’s. Never mind that it’s simplistic - we like simple, we are simple, we are men - our lives are uncomplicated, and we like it that way. “We Were Soldiers Once…” was a great movie, and you know why? Because you could have cut out all the female parts, and it still would have been a great movie, because it was about Real Men. Try cutting out all the female parts in a Woody Allen movie - you’d end up with the opening and closing credits.)

I want our literature to become more male, less female. Men shouldn’t buy “self help” books unless the subject matter is car maintenance, golf swing improvement or how to disassemble a fucking Browning BAR. We don’t improve ourselves, we improve our stuff.

And finally, I want men everywhere to going back to being Real Men. To open doors for women, to drive fast cars, to smoke cigars after a meal, to get drunk occasionally and, in the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, one of the last of the Real Men: “to ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth.”

In every sense of the word. We know what the word “is” means.

Because that’s all that being a Real Man involves. You don’t have to become a f*cking cartoon male, either: I’m not going back to stoning women for adultery like those Muslim assholes do, nor am I suggesting we support that perversion of being a Real Man, gangsta rap artists (those fucking pussys - they wouldn’t last thirty seconds against a couple of genuine tough guys that I know).

Speaking of rap music, do you want to know why more White boys buy that crap than Black boys do? You know why rape is such a problem on college campuses? Why binge drinking is a problem among college freshmen?

It’s a reaction: a reaction against being pussified. And I understand it, completely. Young males are aggressive, they do fight amongst themselves, they are destructive, and all this does happen for a purpose.

Because only the strong men propagate.

And women know it. You want to know why I know this to be true? Because powerful men still attract women. Women, even liberal women, swooned over George Bush in a naval aviator’s uniform. Donald Trump still gets access to some of the most beautiful women available, despite looking like a medieval gargoyle. Donald Rumsfeld, if he wanted to, could fuck 90% of all women over 50 if he wanted to, and a goodly portion of younger ones too.

And he won’t. Because Rummy’s been married to the same woman for fifty years, and he wouldn’t toss that away for a quickie. He’s a Real Man. No wonder the Euro’s hate and fear him.

We’d better get more like him, we’d better become more like him, because if we don’t, men will become a footnote to history.

PC stops here!

Posted on December 17, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

This letter was just too good to pass on. I have redacted only addresses of some individuals:


By Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.

Due to the thunderous applause that I received from the far-left over the “I Am Tired” letter written by one of our troops in Iraq, I thought it prudent to follow up with one last attempt to be very specific about what I have observed and actually personally encountered during my 36 years of service to this Great Country. Unlike Bob McClellan, I will not continue to whine, twist and degrade our country’s leaders on a weekly basis. Instead, this will be a one time input attempting to reach some of those who are confused by McClellan and his ilk’s unethical rantings and give some insight through my personal experience as a professional military officer over the years. These examples are but a few. In real life there were many more which space and time will not allow.

As a young fighter pilot, flying F-4s in Vietnam, I was stopped in my tracks by the decisions made by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara. I was young and naive, but even then I knew their daily interference was wrong and would not allow us to win this thing and go home. Decisions like not allowing us to strike enemy aircraft while still on the ground, keeping real targets off the target list, and allowing us to strike only rusted-out trucks made us basically a toothpick factory. However, the big one for me came the day I saw the President Lyndon Johnson on television, forcefully lying to the American people. I’ll never forget the language, “I want to assure the American people that the United States of America has never, and will never, bomb or use force inside the borders of Cambodia”. On and on he disavowed the reports that this was happening. I was amazed. Guess where I had put several F-4 loads of 750 pound general purpose bombs every day for the past five days. You guessed it, Cambodia!!! So much for Mr. Johnson. The only question in my mind was simply, “Was it just Johnson or was it the methodology of a particular political party?” I decided to delay answering that question until more experience was gained.

Years passed, and I ignored politics as much as possible, as a good military man should. Then came Jimmy Carter. Our young people don’t remember 18% interest rates and 18% inflation, but I’ll bet someone in your family does. That is one really bad thing Carter did for our country, but it is not the worst. During this period, I was an F-15 Squadron Commander, located at Langley AFB, VA. Jimmy Carter and his democratic party stopped spare parts procurement for almost every weapon system in our military, and diverted the funds to social programs. The F-15 was brand new at the time with leading edge technology designed to provide air superiority anywhere in the world on a moments notice. That was my job. I loved it, but guess what? In a two year period from 1979 to 1981, there was not one day when more that one-third of my assigned aircraft were flyable. It is amazing the lengths we went to in those days, cannibalizing parts, expending twice the time and energy to fix every little item, and still two-thirds of the birds were always broken because of no spare parts. Had this country faced a really serious military threat during that time frame, only Montana Hunters could have saved us. The military had some equipment, but it was all broken. Do you want to know the really bad part for me and the young fighter pilots working for me? Our flying sortie rate was so low that pilot proficiency dropped to dangerous levels. The accident rate tripled. That obviously was totally unacceptable, as we were losing expensive airplanes and highly trained young pilots at a rate comparable to losses seen in actual combat. All of a sudden, even a Texas Aggie like me began to see a trend.

Forward a few years to 1986. I am an F-16 Wing Commander at MacDillAFB, Florida, and Ronald Reagan is president. His change in attitude and policy toward the military had time to fix the spare parts problem. We were flying 26,000 flying sorties per year out of MacDill AFB, my aircraft fully mission capable rate (FMC) was above 90%, the aircraft accident rate was below 1.75 per hundred thousand flying hours, fighter pilots were flying and proficiency levels were at an all time high. The United States Air Force was ready to defend this Wonderful Country. Proof of the pudding is simple. Look what the USAF, and the military in general, accomplished in Iraq during Desert Storm. And, they did it in less than 100 hours. Yeah, at this point I was starting to realize there was a difference in mentality between Democrats and Republicans, or should I say, the Right and the Left.

Then, came everyone’s favorite—Bill Clinton. If there ever was an individual 180 degrees out of sync with the ideals and the values of the US military, it was Clinton. He was a known draft dodger, military hating, self absorbed, unspeakably shameless and immoral individual, who the Left managed to elect President of the United States of America. Clinton’s antics in the White House would have brought court martial, conviction, and Dishonorable Discharge had he been a military member. We still suffer oral sex on school buses, because the President told the world it wasn’t real sex, and some of our children believed him. It took a lot of years, but now I became certain. There is a big difference in the right and the left on all fronts, and for the first time I started feeling angry and shamed that the majority of the American people were actually willing to vote for such an individual.

Sometimes, an abstract such as the following tells the story in very simple terms: Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Nancy Pelosi, Barbra Boxer, John Kerry, Benedict Arnold, and the list goes on. America, wake up. Giving in to the likes of these people and Abraham Lincoln’s prediction of destruction from within just may come true. There is not a country in the world that can be considered a conventional military threat to the United States today. However, this country faces a new kind of threat—one that will not go away. It is a threat even more serious than WWII, because money, industry and technology will not defeat it. It is a threat of defeat from within. It is a threat of a faltering economy because of a lack of resources, or the even the simple threat of such a loss brought on by terrorism. It is a threat created by the American people trusting the inept. It is a threat created by the people wanting change, and perilously believing that the left can successfully deliver that change. Have you seen anything from the left that remotely resembles an answer to the Iraq situation? Have you seen anything more than continued Bush-Bashing? Is that an answer? If there was ever a need for a strong, well trained military, it is now. THE LEFT HAS HISTORICALLY DISMANTLED OUR MILITARY IN THE NAME OF Redistribution OF WEALTH FAVORING SOCIAL PROGRAMS. We just cannot afford to let that happen now. If we do, the entire country will be bowing to the east several times a day within the next 50 years, maybe sooner.

Now a final thought meant to upset as many as possible on the far-left. As you might guess, I don’t believe in political correctness. So, let’s look at the facts, not far-left rhetoric attempting to empower the democratic party. Initially, I was not a George Bush fan. I am not even a Republican. I normally vote Republican, because of my total despise of Communism, Socialism and the far-left in this country. I am a Conservative. However, during his watch, I feel President Bush just happened to stumble upon the leading edge of the greatest threat this country has ever faced. Mistakes have been made, because of the newness of the threat. Overall, the President has done a superb job dealing the threat, and at the same time held off the constant ranting, raving, deceitful and malicious escapades of the far-left attempting to regain political power. IF THERE WAS EVER A TIME THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO COME TOGETHER AND BACK OUR PRESIDENT, IT IS RIGHT NOW. WITHOUT CONSENSUS WE ARE EMPOWERING THE TERRORIST!!!! The far-left is totally absorbed with the power struggle and regaining control of congress. They could care less about defeating the threat. It literally disgusts me to hear the constant disagreement with everything the President tries to do, all in the name of trying to make him look bad to the voters. Unfortunately, by the time the American people really appreciate how bad the far-left really is, it may too late.

What are the real facts? On the home front this country’s economy is the strongest that it has been in my lifetime. Interest rates are as low as they were when I was in high school forty years ago. Inflation does not exist for all practical purposes. For you youngster’s, please remember the Jimmy Carter comments? The Dow is approaching 13,000. Unemployment is nonexistent. Wages are at an all time high. Home ownership is at an all time high. Taxes have been lowered to an almost acceptable level. Because of the surging economy the deficient is under control and projected to go away far ahead of schedule. The far-left is rich beyond its wildest dreams, so Mr. President when are you going to “fix” all these domestic problems? Bob and George, give me a break!!!!

On the war front this country has not been touched since 2001. I remember being part of a seminar at the USAF War College in 1983 discussing the terrorist threat. There were some good minds at that table and a lot of disagreement. However, one common thought was that the US would be hit within the next five years. Answers to the terrorist threat were just as hard to come by then as they are now. Well, it took a little longer than the projection, but the attack occurred. For an old military guy like me, the main point here is that it has not happened again. We have suckered the bad guys into entering the fight somewhere other than in our country. To hell with political correctness. The President can’t say this, but I sure can. I smile every morning when I get up and realize that one of our great cities has not been blown away. And, there is zero doubt in my mind that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, that will happen within a short period of time after our departure. I don’t care what you might think of President Bush personally. He has done the best he can with what he has, and this country is not smoking because of it. So, back off McLean and McClellan. You honestly don’t have a clue about what you are talking about. Call me, and I will tell you what I really think.

I realize there are different points of view on war, and I do not believe the meek will inherit the earth, at least not in the next few hundred years. To those like McClellan, McLean, poor Eve Kyes and Sinowa Cruz let me say, “This is a strong country!!!” It has survived the uneducated thinking of the far-left before, and I’ll just bet it will again. Regardless of who is President, the people will not tolerate mass explosions on a daily basis, as our good friends in Israel have been forced to do. To protect that position of power, even Hillary will be forced to become a true hawk. To guarantee a few more votes Ted Kennedy may be forced to begin supporting a strong military. One more attack on America might even wipe the giddy, ‘I-am-finally-somebody’ grin from Nancy Pelosi’s face, and make her realize that is not about votes and personal power. IT IS ABOUT PROTECTING THIS GREAT COUNTRY FROM ALL ENEMIES, BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC.

Jimmy L. Cash, Brig. Gen., USAF, Ret.

Happy Birthday, Bill of Rights

Posted on December 14, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

via Patriot Post (linked) comes this reminder:

“To secure these rights…”

By Mark Alexander

Saturday, 15 December, is the 216th anniversary of the adoption of the , the first Ten Amendments to our , as ratified in 1791.

The Bill of Rights was inspired by three remarkable documents: John Locke’s 1689 thesis, , regarding the protection of “property” (in the Latin context, proprius, or one’s own “life, liberty and estate”); in part from the authored by George Mason in 1776 as part of that state’s Constitution; and, of course, in part from our authored by Thomas Jefferson.

proposed the Bill of Rights as amendments to our Constitution in 1789, but many of our Founders objected to listing the Bill of Rights at all, much less as “amendments.” Their rationale was that such rights might then be construed as malleable rather than unalienable, as amendable rather than “endowed by our Creator” as noted in the Constitution’s supreme guidance, the Declaration of Independence.

Alexander Hamilton argued this point in , the most comprehensive explication of our Constitution:

“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous… For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?” (Federalist No. 84)

George Mason was one of 55 who authored the U.S. Constitution, but one of 16 who refused to sign it because it did not adequately address limitations on what the central government had “no power to do.” He worked with Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams against the Constitution’s ratification for that reason.

As a result of Mason’s insistence, ten limitations were put on the Federal Government by the first session of Congress, for the reasons outlined by the :

“The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution…”

Read in context, the Bill of Rights is both an affirmation of innate individual rights (as noted by Thomas Jefferson:

“The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time…”), and a clear delineation on constraints upon the central government.

However, as Jefferson warned repeatedly, the greatest threat to such limitations on the central government was an unbridled judiciary:

“Over the Judiciary department, the Constitution [has] deprived [the people] of their control… The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will… It is a misnomer to call a government republican in which a branch of the supreme power [the judiciary] is independent of the nation… The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”

In Federalist No. 81 Alexander Hamilton wrote,

“[T]here is not a syllable in the [Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.”

That admonition notwithstanding, the federal judiciary has become “a despotic branch.”

Indeed, since the middle of the last century, judicial despots have grossly devitalized the Bill of Rights, asserting errantly that our Founders created a amendable by judicial diktat.

For example, the Leftjudiciary has “interpreted” the as placing all manner of constraint upon the exercise of religion by way of the so-called “establishment clause” and based on the phony argument. At the same time, the courts have asserted that all manner of expression constitutes “speech.”

The judiciary and legislatures have undermined the strength of the , a right of which James Madison’s appointee, Justice Joseph Story, referred to as “…the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers…”

Equally derelict is the manner in which the has been eroded by judicial interpretation.

In Federalist No. 45, Madison outlines the clear limits on central government power established in the Constitution:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

Alexander Hamilton added in Federalist No. 81

“…the plan of the [Constitutional] convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, exclusively delegated to the United States.”

There was a very bloody fought over offense to the Constitution’s assurance of States’ Rights.

All is not lost, however.

Sunday, 16 December, is the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (1773). The “radicals” from Marlborough, Massachusetts, who threw 342 chests of tea from a British East India Company ship into the Boston Harbor in protest of tyrannical rule, did so noting,

“Death is more eligible than slavery. A free-born people are not required by the religion of Christ to submit to tyranny, but may make use of such power as God has given them to recover and support their… liberties.”

Three years later, this rebellion had grown to such extent that our Founders were willing to give up their fortunes and lives, attaching their signatures to a document that declared,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Judicial and political despots, take note.

Huckabee? You’re kidding, right?

Posted on December 13, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Yeah - I’ve tried to stay out of the GOP side of the political equation as much as possible, preferring to remain relatively low keyed in my support for - ultimately - Fred Thompson.

That said, there has been a very disturbing push for this clown Huckabee - former Governor of Arkansas and ordained Baptist minister. Listen … this guy is nothing more than a smooth talking, backwoods preacher man typical of southern governors. In his short term as Governor - he gave clemency to over 600 criminals in state prison for vicious felony crimes against people. Rape, robbery, assault, etc. He gave them clemency why? Because they claimed to have found Jesus while in prison. That’s it. In the vast majority of cases where thugs were released on the public without fanfare, these criminals failed to do the one thing all parole boards look for before granting parole … an acceptance of guilt. No - they claimed to have found Jesus, and in Huck’s book that’s enough to satisfy him, as if this was a confession and absolution all in one. Fuck that. I think the following video by the mother of a victim of Huckabee’s largesse - a young woman who was raped and killed by a common thug Huckabee claimed had found redemption. In my humble opinion, Huckabee is directly responsible for the murder of this womans daughter. A pox on this nitwit and anyone stupid enough to even consider his Presidency.

A story you WON’T find on the liberal MSM

Posted on December 12, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Muslim teen killed … by father

From that wonderful “religion of peace” comes this story you won’t find anywhere in the liberal plagued MSM. Wonder why that is? This is just unbelievable. And if the politically correct pantywaist politicians and Muslim apologists in this country have their way - this is just the beginning. Why? Because these people want to see the United States under Muslim “Sharia Law”, that’s why. So all you women out there thinking seriously about voting for Hillary or Obama … think hard. Both of these nitwits are among those who defer to the religious dictates of specific religions, while refusing to state unequivocally that the United States was formed following Judeo-Christian beliefs and is in fact 90% Christian. But can we mention Christmas? Can we put Christmas trees - an innocuous icon if there ever was one - in public spaces? Can we display a Creche in a public space? Can we sing Christmas carols, or even mention Christmas in public schools? No - we cannot. Why? Because it may “offend” people of other religions. In the meantime, schools, hospitals and other public accomodations are installing foot baths so that Muslims can cleanse before their prayer sessions, and in a few noted cases rearrange beds, etc to face Mecca. Just for Muslims. Now … you tell me the din that would arise if things like this were done strictly for Christians.

This is not a religion - religions don’t condone the murder of an adherent for not strictly following every narrow interpretation. Can you imagine the furor if a Catholic was murdered for not saying the Rosary every day?

No - Islam is not a valid religion - it’s a cult based on the principles of a false prophet, pedophile, and murderer. Do we want a culture to exist in the United States in which this is not only possible, but condoned as proper adherence to their “faith”? Murder as a form of enforcing beliefs and compliance? Murder of anyone who doesn’t believe in Islam?

So, want to cover your face with a scarf all the time, ladies? Want to be truly subservient to your husband - or ANY male? Just vote Democrat.


Because she refused to wear a hijab?

Aqsa Parvez is seen on the left without a hijab and on the right with a hijab. The teenager was allegedly killed over her over her choice not to wear traditional Muslim clothing.Aqsa Parvez is seen on the left without a hijab and on the right with a hijab. The teenager was allegedly killed over her over her choice not to wear traditional Muslim clothing. Hijab dispute behind teen’s death, friends say.

Updated Tue. Dec. 11 2007 7:06 PM ET


A Mississauga, Ont. teenager was killed in a family dispute over her choice not to wear traditional Muslim clothing, her friends say.

Aqsa Parvez, 16, was taken to hospital with life-threatening injuries on Monday after police said a man claiming to be the girl’s father called them and said he had killed his daughter. Parvez succumbed to her injuries on Monday night.

The teen, an Applewood Heights Secondary School student, often complained of her situation at home, her friends told CTV News on Tuesday.

The students said Parvez no longer wanted to wear a hijab, a shoulder-length head scarf worn by some Muslim women. They also said Parvez would often change her clothing once she got to school and then would change back before going home.

“People said her brothers and sisters followed her to see if she was wearing her headscarf or not,” one student said.

Parvez had recently been staying with a friend because of tension at home, classmates said.

“Her dad was threatening her and she was getting scared and she just didn’t want to live there anymore,” another student said.

The victim’s father has been charged with murder, while the girl’s brother has been charged with obstructing police.

Police have not commented on a possible motive and are keeping tight-lipped as to how the teen was attacked.

And in a similar vein…

Dems: Amen to Ramadan, but forget about Christmas
9 House members praise Islamic faith, won’t recognize Christian observance
Posted: December 12, 2007
8:55 p.m. Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

U.S. Rep Diana DeGette, D-Colo.
Only weeks after voting for a resolution that “recognizes the Islamic faith as one of the great religions of the world,” nine Democrats in the U.S. House refused to vote for a Christmas resolution that condemns the worldwide persecution of Christians.

Rep. Diana DeGette, (D-Colo) was on the list of those who endorsed the statement recognizing Islam, but refused to support the Christmas resolution that noted the holiday “is celebrated annually by Christians throughout the United States and around the world.”

The Christmas resolution, like the Ramadan resolution, decried the violence that targets religion around the world.

A spokesman for DeGette told WND her vote was because the Ramadan resolution, which she endorsed, was about “rejecting religious extremism and promoting of religious tolerance.”

The spokesman, Chris Aaron, however, said DeGette is a “strong supporter of separation of church and state and her view was that Congress should not favor one religion over another.

“She felt this resolution (recognizing Christmas and condemning persecution of Christians) promoted Christianity over other religions,” he told WND.

Other Democrats who supported the acknowledgment of Islam’s Ramadan but refused a similar recognition for Christianity’s Christmas included Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke of N.Y., Alcee Hastings, Fla., Barbara Lee, Fortney Stark and Lynn Woolsey, Calif., Jim McDermott, Wash., and Robert Scott, Va.

Check out the video for Tom Tancredo’s take on this disgusting display by the Democrat Party.

More Democrat Party “Nuances”

Posted on December 9, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Fascinating story, this. You have no doubt heard this latest nonsense from the patriots in the Democrat party about the CIA’s destroying notes pertaining to the interrogation of captured Al-Qaeda operatives in 2002. The dimms, of course, refer to this as “destroying evidence”, which is funny - since it was never anticipated that these two terrorists would ever stand trial in the US, and therefore the notes could not be considered evidence. Still can’t, in my opinion - but then I am neither a “lawyer”, not do I work for the Democrat party. That’s probably the difference in interpretation. But anyway …

So the Dimms lately have been making a lot of noise about all this, and torture techniques (just asking … can a form of interrogation technique used by our own military in exercises for pilots in Escape and Evasion training be considered “torture”?) … and ya know what? No complaints. Interesting, no? Of course at the time they (Democrats) were still mildly pissed off at these terrorists - unlike now - so maybe that explains things.

via the today”

Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002

In Meetings, Spy Panels’ Chiefs Did Not Protest, Officials Say

By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, December 9, 2007; Page A01

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

“The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough,” said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration’s counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Yet long before “waterboarding” entered the public discourse, the CIA gave key legislative overseers about 30 private briefings, some of which included descriptions of that technique and other harsh interrogation methods, according to interviews with multiple U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge.

With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter.

The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

Isn’t that interesting? They - the Democrats - knew all about this 5 years ago and did nothing about it and made no complaints. Now … “The President is obstructing justice!!!”

Fucking lying, traitorous, hypocritical bastard leftards.

Out of the mouths of babes …

Posted on December 8, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Well …. I just don’t know what to say about this. A friend passed it on to me, and I’m passing it on to whoever the hell visits my blog - such as it is. Just listen …

Uh … we’re at WAR, moron!

Posted on December 8, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Ya just gotta love those Dimms - they’re at it yet again. Not content to try and withhold funding from our troops in battle - now they want to turn over intelligence secrets to scumbag defense attorneys representing raghead scumbags trying to kill Americans.

That’s correct. The Dimms want the CIA to turn over information to the court and defence attorneys explaining how information that led to their arrest was obtained. In order to do this, the Dimms want the Justice Department to grant Top Secret clearances to the judge and the attorneys so they can view this SECRET information. Never mind that the Justice Department doesn’t have the authority to grant clearances - nope - doesn’t matter - just do it. Don’t vett these assholes - grant they Top Secret clearance.

Now I don’t know about you, but I seem to recall one of the prominent defense attorneys representing scumbags like these arabs was just disbarred and tossed in jail for violating the law too many times to count. Real upstanding people these asshats! Does anyone remotely think that anyone willingly representing murderers like these are people trustworthy enough to come anywhere near Top Secret intelligence? Okay … excuse my temporary loss of thinking … of course there are. They are called Democrats. Right - the ones who are trying their best to stop funding for our troops while at the same time telling us that they SUPPORT them. The logic of that somehow escapes me … but what do I know.

Look - this is not hard, people! The Clandestine branch of the CIA is tasked with obtaining intelligence on our enemies overseas. ANY. WAY. THEY. CAN. As far as I’m concerned, that includes via torturing these scumbags if need be. There are no rules where these people (?) are concerned - not after they decide to murder 3000 of our citizens solely because America isn’t a Muslim nation. Nope - sorry Ackmad - fuck you.

Maybe you have the stomach to read what these asshole, traitorous Dimmocrats are demanding.

Democrats want probe of tape destruction

Angry congressional Democrats demanded Friday that the Justice Department investigate why the CIA destroyed videotapes of the interrogation of two terrorism suspects.

The Senate’s No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, called on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to find out “whether CIA officials who destroyed these videotapes and withheld information about their existence from official proceedings violated the law.”

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., accused the CIA of a cover-up. “We haven’t seen anything like this since the 18 1/2-minute gap in the tapes of President Richard Nixon,” he said in a Senate floor speech.

(Editors note: Actually, Senator … if you woke up from your drunken haze long enough to actually think, you’d perhaps conclude that a better illustration for your point would be the 4 1/2 hour “gap” in your presence at a certain bridge in Chappaquidick where a young woman lay drowning in your fucking car while you tried to come up with an alibi!)

And Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters the CIA’s explanation that the tapes were destroyed to protect agents’ identities is “a pathetic excuse,” adding: “You’d have to burn every document at the CIA that has the identity of an agent on it under that theory.”

(Durbin, Kennedy, Levin. Now there’s a trio of upstanding American patriots, hey?)

Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee sent letters to CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden and Mukasey asking whether the Justice Department gave legal advice to the CIA on the destruction of the tapes, and whether it was planning an obstruction-of-justice investigation.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said Friday that President Bush did not recall being told about the tapes or their destruction. But she could not rule out White House involvement in the decision to destroy the tapes, saying she had only asked the president about it, not others.


Fuck you, NBC!

Posted on December 7, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Okay, now this has really turned my pissed off meter wayyyy beyond normal (for me) limits. I hereby pledge to never again watch NBC or buy from anyone who advertises there. This is via Breitbart.com.

NBC … fuck … I’ll just put the story here - it pisses me off too much to write. Then I’ll load the “controversial” video for the commercial.

NBC Rejects Ad From Conservative Group

Dec 7 01:54 PM US/Eastern
Associated Press Writer

NBC Denies Ad Thanking Troops

WASHINGTON (AP) - NBC has rejected a TV ad by Freedom’s Watch, a conservative group that supports administration policy in Iraq, that asks viewers to remember and thank U.S. troops during the holiday season. NBC said it declined to air the ad because it refers to the group’s Web site, which the network said was too political, not because of the ad’s message.

“Anybody in the world who would look at this ad would come away with nothing other than we should thankful for their service,” Freedom’s Watch president Brad Blakeman said.

The spot was to be part of a seven-figure campaign that includes newspaper ads and television commercials. The ads are to run on CNN and Fox News Channel and are running in various newspapers. The New York Times ran a full-page Freedom’s Watch ad Friday that said “Thank You!” and depicted a soldier reading a letter. The newspaper ad also contained the Web site address.

Alan Wurtzel, NBC’s head of standards and practices, said the network decided not to run the Freedom’s Watch ad because the group insisted that the spot contain the URL address of its Web site.

The Freedom’s Watch Web home page contains links for visitors to demonstrate their support for the troops. It also contains a welcoming message that states: “For too long, conservatives have lacked a permanent political presence to do battle with the radical special interests groups and their left-wing allies in government.”

“We have a policy that prohibits acceptance of advertising that deals with issues of public controversy,” Wurtzel said. “This particular ad, in and of itself, is fine. It thanks the troops for their action overseas. We asked them to eliminate a URL address where a person is asked to contact elected officials and told not to cut and run on the war on terror.”

NBC rejected a previous Freedom’s Watch ad that addressed funding for the troops.

“It’s a long-term policy, it goes back decades,” Wurtzel said of NBC’s stance of declining controversial issue advertising.

Bill Clinton - pathological LIAR

Posted on December 7, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

Runs in the family, does it not? Hillary + Bill = Billary. Both liars, both frauds, both Socialists, in a fraud marriage. Oh well …. Can’t convince the liberal MSM of that, though. No - that would be “attacking” them.

This is from Sweetness and Light - a new blog I just found. Linkage

Bill Clinton Now Claims He Opposed Iraq War

From the short-term memory loss sufferers at the New York Times:

Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War at Start


November 28, 2007

During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning” — a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003.

Before the invasion, Mr. Clinton did not precisely declare that he opposed the war. A week before military action began, however, he did say that he preferred to give weapons inspections more time and that an invasion was not necessary to topple Saddam Hussein.

At the same time, he also spoke supportively about the 2002 Senate resolution that authorized military action against Iraq.

Advisers to Mr. Clinton said yesterday that he did oppose the war, but that it would have been inappropriate at the time for him, a former president, to oppose — in a direct, full-throated manner — the sitting president’s military decision.

Mr. Clinton has said several times since the war began that he would not have attacked Iraq in the manner that President Bush had done. As early as June 2004, he said, “I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished the job,” referring to the weapons inspections there before the war.

At the time of those remarks, though, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York was not a presidential candidate, and Mr. Clinton was not campaigning on her behalf. Nor was she running for the nomination against a Democrat who opposed the invasion from the start — Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are in a tight race to win the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3; Mr. Clinton made his remark in Iowa yesterday, while his wife was campaigning in South Carolina.

One rival Democratic campaign circulated Mr. Clinton’s remark to reporters and, without speaking for attribution, accused him of fuzzing the historical record to make the Clintons appear more antiwar than they actually were at the time.

Mrs. Clinton voted in favor of a Senate resolution authorizing military action against Iraq in 2002. She has said she was misled by Mr. Bush, but has refused to apologize for her vote.

Mr. Clinton’s remark yesterday came in the context of opposition to Republican-backed tax cuts for wealthy Americans like himself, and how that loss of revenue affected financing for the military.

“Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers,” Mr. Clinton said.

Hey Harry! It’s “not working”?

Posted on December 7, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

For those asshats on the left who continue to babble on about the Iraqi’s not getting their act together comes this from Michael Yon - embedded journalist (in the truest sense) in country …

Christians, Muslims erect cross in Baghdad


emails: “I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John’s Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome. A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from ‘Chosen’ Company 2-12 Cavalry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John’s, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope. The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. ‘Thank you, thank you,’ the people were saying. One man said, ‘Thank you for peace.’ Another man, a Muslim, said ‘All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.’ The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers. (Videotape to follow.)”

Specter says … what?

Posted on December 6, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

You really have to piss in his Wheaties to get RINO Arlen Specter’s panties in a bunch! Via the Washington Times (linked) comes the following piece …

Specter questions Reid as leader

By S.A. Miller
December 6, 2007

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter suggested that the Democratic leadership is too busy pointing fingers and not getting bills passed. (Astrid Riecken/The Washington Times)

Sen. Arlen Specter yesterday challenged Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s ability to serve as leader, saying the Nevada Democrat sabotaged progress on long-stalled spending and tax bills by calling Republican lawmakers “puppets” for President Bush.

“I really wonder if he’s up to the job when he resorts to that kind of statement, which can only further the level of rancor and animosity with that kind of an insulting comment,” the Pennsylvania Republican said on the Senate floor.

The criticism punctuated the stalemate in the Democrat-led Congress. The end of the congressional session is fast approaching without a fix to save middle-class Americans from punishing tax increases and without 11 of the 12 annual appropriation bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.

Meanwhile, Mr. Reid is poised to call another vote linking emergency war funds to a plan for a U.S. pullout from Iraq. The same measure failed in a vote last month, as did 63 similar Iraq votes this year.

via The Patriot Post newsletter

Posted on December 6, 2007 | Filed Under In My Opinion...

… which I sincerely hope some of you will subscribe to and lend your financial support.

While I’m not feeling so great, I am copying in some great remarks from the latest issues of the newsletter. If you have the means, PLEASE visit them (linked), subscribe, and make a contribution of any size to keep them going.

Patriot Post on: Principles, Patriotism, Morals, and … stupidity of the left

“There is an ominous change taking place in American culture that could revolutionize our politics, making it more difficult to sustain our free-market system and our tradition of self-reliance, driving more people into government dependency. This change is the decline in marriage and traditional family life. Democrats sense an opportunity in this decline. It could boost their political prospects tremendously… Increasing turnout among these unmarried women could help cinch 2008 and other future elections for the Democrats… Unmarried women, it turned out, were more likely than respondents in general to want the President and Congress to pay attention to health care, the economy and jobs, and Social Security and Medicare. They were less likely to want the President and Congress to pay attention to terrorism and national security, illegal immigration, energy and gas prices, taxes and spending, and moral values… What unmarried women seem to want in greater proportion than the overall population is a government that will take care of them. As marriage and family decline in America, the political pressure will mount for government to expand. When government grows, freedom shrinks. Baby boom liberals may forever deny it, but freedom depends on the bonds of marriage.”
—Terence Jeffrey

“Toni Vernelli was one of two women recently featured in a London Daily Mail story about environmentalists who take their carbon footprint very, very seriously. So seriously, in fact, that Vernelli aborted a pregnancy and, by age 27, had herself sterilized. Baby-making, she says, is ‘selfish’ and ‘all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet.’ Because Toni and her husband, Ed, are childless and vegan, they say they can justify one long-haul airplane trip per year and still remain carbon neutral. Sarah Irving is another like-minded nature-nurturer. She and fiance Mark Hudson decided on him having a vasectomy to prevent the possibility of an inconvenient life interfering with their carbon-perfect ones. Those of us who have managed to see a pregnancy through to birth recognize the irony of these tales. If we’re not saving the planet for our kids, for whom are we saving it?… Suddenly, the unborn is of no greater importance than the contents of our recycling bin. Like Weight Watchers dieters substituting carbs for sugars, we trade off future members of the human race to neutralize insults to Earth’s balance in the present. Here’s how the mental calculation goes: Let’s see, if I abort my child, maybe I can travel first-class to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali.

Is this the slippery slope that pro-lifers prophesied? Once such utilitarian concerns edge out our humanity—and once human life is deemed to have no greater value than any other life form—how long before we begin tidying up other inconveniences?”
—Kathleen Parker

“There’s little question that the greatest generation provided their offspring, the baby boomer generation, with goods and services that their parents could not afford to give them. But tragically, the greatest generation did not instill in their children what their parents instilled in them, the values and customs that make for a civilized society. In previous generations, people were held responsible for their behavior. Today, society at large pays for irresponsible behavior… This failure to fully transmit value norms to subsequent generations represents another failing of the greatest generation. If there’s an American generation that can justifiably be called the greatest generation, it’s that generation responsible for the founding of our nation—men such as James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington and millions of their fellow countrymen. This is the generation that threw off one form of oppression and laid the foundations for unprecedented human liberty. That is not a trivial achievement, for most often in mankind’s history, one form of oppression has been replaced with another far worse, as we’ve seen in Russia, China and Africa.”
—Walter Williams

Belly laughs of the week:

“[Democrats] are the party of real national security. We are the party of real economic opportunity and a brighter future for our children.”
—House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is still trying to defeat the U.S. in Iraq

“It’s Republicans in Congress, not Democrats, blocking funding for our troops while promoting a failed strategy in Iraq. Our troops have done their jobs honorably but Iraq has failed to make the necessary political progress on the ground.”
—DNC chief Howard “The Scream” Dean with the Demos latest talking point

From the Glitterati:

“Go through the history of time. During the S